Say no more

scaliaScalia on DOMA (passed by Congress almost 20 years ago ago by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House):

We have no power to decide this case,” Scalia wrote. “And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.

Scalia on Affirmative Action (law was extended by Congress in 2006 for 25 more years by a vote of  98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House):

Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes… It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress

And jkust for the heck of it, here’s somerthig else he wrote:

DOMA is motivated by ‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages

Some Constitutional rigor there, eh?

10 responses to “Say no more

  1. He is such an ass. And a complete hypocrite. The man’s interpretation of the Constitution depends entirely upon his personal prejudices.


  2. Prepare to be shocked….Fuck him! Doesn’t have the power?!?! That IS the sole basis of their power – to tear down those democratically enacted laws that are illegal by the highest the highest law in the land.


  3. That’s what’s so dammed convenient about Scalia’s originalism, or as he calls it now, “textualism”: if it’s in the Constitution, SCOTUS can rule on it; if it’s not, it can’t. Since homosexuality isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, SCOTUS is powerless to say or do anything at all about any laws that may reference it. Same thing with abortion. Conversely, race is referenced in the Constitution, so the Court can or must, do something with cases based on it. For Scalia, who hates the very idea of change, textualism is the perfect judicial philosophy.


  4. Did he just change things on his OWN?

    And this guys got a job for LIFE ….
    (The US Taxpayer paying him?)
    Telling people how they should lead their lives?
    The man IS getting over…….


  5. Scalia’s rantings aside, I’m fine with the lifetime appointment.. Once they are appointed to the Court, they no longer have to advocate or lobby for the position. They may be ideological but they are apart from actual politics – a plus in my mind.

    There’s something very lopsided about this court though. It’s comprised of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Five of the Justices are from New York City, one from each borough. They are a pretty narrow slice of a very big country and hardly representative.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s