Intro: "The Supreme Court justice tosses judicial restraint - or any sort of restraint - out the window when he weighs in on sodomy, abortion, immigrants, and other controversial topics."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Scalia On Sodomy, Abortion and Immigrants
07 October 12
he Supreme Court's rulings, often in complex, difficult cases, have historically redefined racial and gender rights. So it's more than a little disconcerting to hear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dub decisions on the most debated issues of the century as "easy." Scalia is known to be the ruling court's most extreme right-wing "literalist" or "textualist," meaning he casts his vote in accordance to a bare-bones definition of the Constitution. On Monday he aired his views on a number of hot-button topics, from homosexuality to abortion.
Here's a look at some of the quotes that have secured his notoriety as the most outspoken justice sitting on the nation's most powerful court.
"Easy"
Justice Scalia made his views abundantly clear earlier this week at a Washington, D.C., book signing hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. "The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion," he said. "Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state."
"Vaffanculo"
Scalia didn't appreciate a reporter from the Boston Herald asking him in 2006 how he responds to critics who say his religion impairs his fairness in rulings. "To my critics, I say, 'Vaffanculo,'" Scalia reportedly said, flicking his right hand from under his chin. In Italian, this not-so subtle phrase means "f--k off" and the accompanying hand flick is equally rude. "You're not going to print that are you?" he apparently asked in an interaction that occurred, it's worth noting, inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross at Sunday mass.
"Unwanted Immigrants"
When President Obama passed the DREAM Act, allowing young immigrants to obtain legal citizenship, Arizona created its own immigration law, contradicting some of the newly minted federal mandates. The state law was struck down by the Supreme Court—a decision with which Scalia did not agree, going so far as to suggest that the state should secede. "If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State," he wrote. But he also used 19th-century restrictions on freed slaves as backup for his decision, saying that, back in the day, "State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration."
"60 hours in a bakery"
You might say sodomy is one of Scalia's "easiest" decisions. Justice Scalia dissented on the case that outlawed anti-sodomy laws in Texas, and compared the act to a very strange, and mostly offensive, array of things. "[The Texas anti-sodomy statute] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty," he wrote in his support of the state's laws. "So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery." But he didn't stop there, saying, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity," along with any other law "based on moral choices," are now "called into question" by the court's decision.
"Hand-held rocket launchers"
Justice Scalia sat down with Fox News's Chris Wallace to discuss the recent massacre in Aurora, Colo. An ardent proponent of the right to bear arms, Scalia upheld the right of Americans to arm themselves with anything that can be "hand-carried," which apparently could go way past what the Founding Fathers could have ever imagined. "It doesn't apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided," he said.
"Troposphere, whatever"
Scalia is known for his unbridled outspokenness, which he occasionally shows off even in the nation's highest courtroom. In 2006, the Supreme Court heard a case involving global warming. When discussing the pollutants in the environment, Scalia mistakenly referred to the troposphere as the stratosphere and was corrected by the plaintiff's representation. Snapping back, he made clear his views on the matter: "Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth."
"A cross, a star of David and a Muslim half moon"
In oral arguments over erecting a cross in honor of all of America's war dead, Justice Scalia offered a comeback to those who thought the cross only represented Christianity. "What would you have them erect?" Scalia asked. "A cross–some conglomerate of a cross, a star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon [sic] and star?" The lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union got some laughs from the audience with his response to the fumbling solution offered by the justice. "Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."
"Display their genitals"
Justice Scalia might want to keep some ideas to himself lest anyone think it wise to take him up on it. Arguing that barring fully nude dancers in Indiana doesn't violate freedom of expression, Scalia let his imagination run wild. "The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Sodomy laws, which were still in force in 14 states in 2003, were nullified by Supreme Court action in which, as noted, Justice Scalia dissented. Odd that he still regards it as an issue. His comments on homosexuality make it obvious that his understanding of the basis of American law ("everything that is not forbidden is permitted") is somewhat awry.
As to hand-held rocket launchers....I suppose they could make for an interesting Fourth Of July. Justice Scalia is apparently unaware that cannons are not only legal, but completely unrestricted by the government provided they are muzzle loaded black powder cannons. Modern versions can also be purchased with the right paperwork.
Years ago I sparred with a very bright guy in my union who was always on the wrong side of issues. I described him at the time as being "...like Scalia. He can always find a good reason for doing the wrong thing."
His P.R. guy dismissed that gesture as being open to various interpretations , including innocuous ones. I had no idea it had been accompanied by the verbal comment that left little doubt what he meant. (It's flipping the downturned hand from under the chin out toward the person being insulted.) The gesture is more obscene than just "f**k off."
This has been the Right Wing's Holy Grail for over half-a- century . . . ever since Abington v. Schempp; Brown v, Board & Roe v. Wade.
And NEVER forget that Romney's official " Judicial Advisor" is Robert Bork! Yes, THAT Robert Bork!,
Do we need any other readon to re-elect Obama?
Scalia has provided an indecent amount of entertainment on the periphery of his responsibilitie s as a judge, and shown that not only is the government at large crumbling, so is the supreme court.
Ideally there should be total objectivity and dignity in the court, not to mention no POLITICS. Alas, never was and never will be.
This guy is delusional, he lives in his own little world and thinks of himself as the all mighty.
It's time for the old farts: to go and I say this lovingly because I am an old fart.
Especially in his public interviews and speeches, he unfailingly comes across as a severely disturbed person.
What a disaster he's on the Supreme Court.
If Romney wins and the Republicans take over Congress they will: pass the Ryan budget destroying Medicare as we know it and probably will crash Social Security as well, will decrease regulation on the petroleum and financial industries, leading to more catastrophe, add another two conservative judges on the Supreme Court and then repeal Roe v Wade and countless other beneficial rulings for the working class, will repeal health care so that people could still be denied insurance when they get sick and the people with pre existing conditions will be out of luck, will continue to lower taxes for the rich and create larger deficits, will reduce funding for food stamps, for clean energy, for science, for global warming, for Pell Grants, will try to destroy unions, and will probably come up with some excuse to go to war. The list of destructive Republican policies goes on a long time but I can guarantee that they favor the very wealthiest. Their platform is now,” Donate to my campaign and I will make you wealthier.” Their Idology is the “Ideology of Greed”.
Some of you hate Obama but anything he has done will pale in comparison to what the Republicans will do.
"I know, honey. He wants MILLIONS of PEOPLE LIKE US DEAD. We have to WAKE UP!"
We should just rename the Supreme Court as the Law firm for the 1%.
Scalia is rather hard to figure out until you discover that we is just nuts. The others are just corrupt like Roberts and Alito with Thomas just wanting to change his color with no success. It has taken us a long time to get to here and the Democrats still look like the deer in the headlights. If they don't stop looking for votes and began to take a stand, we might just as well turn the country over to the Koch boys and quit fooling around.
Of all the justices on the SCOTUS, Scalia is the Biggest POS !!!
www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2722-global-warming-skeptic-turnaround.html
Where DID you get that nonsense about the Arctic Ice in the face of the recent reports of more than anticipated record melting and possible no summer ice at all by 2020? Do you have the same information channels as Il Duce Scalia and Fox?
[quote name="MidwestTo m"]When you look at Scalia, you get what you see.
I certainly GET what I SEE and HEAR, which is that Scalia resembles nobody more than Roland Freisler, Hitler's ruthless "Hanging Judge" who not only swiftly passed sentences that were foregone conclusions, mostly immediate death by Guillotine or life, but who bullied and abused the prisoner before him, often screaming and whose views were dictated by fanatically and without deviation, upholding and enforcing the Fuhrer's views and death-centered regime.
In the case of the subject injustice, his views are outdated, reactionary, heavily biased and in spite of his rude and smug response to the reporter's question, upholding the secretive, elite and exclusive Catholic club Opus Dei. His main bookend Thomas is just as bad and even more of hypocrite and criminal who, with his handlers, pretty much did a Freisler act on Anita Hill.
That's what I see.
That's good, is it?
I do not respect the opinions of Scalia, but neither do I respect the opinions of bigots.
This is a pretty egregious factual error for a journalist to make.
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Citizens United ignores this part completely.
Hmmmm.
If Scalia is such a bare bones 'literalist' and perhaps proud of it, maybe he would also be proud enough one day to explain where and/or how, when he looks at the bare bones Constitution, he sees the equation:
Big Business + Global Corporations + Global Shareholders + (Money x Infinity) = (Speech x Infinity) x US Election Process
............... ....?.......... ..........
Great Work! But you may want to give some small applause to that Italian papist who discovered it. That other papist, Vespucci who's name it bears. The bicameral form of government, the design of the capitol building, the roman alphabet, the Latin that comprises 60% of the English language. Marconi's radio, Meucci's telephone, the splitting of the atom. I could go on and on and on, for we have innovated and excelled in every form of human endeavor but let me leave you with this final thought first annunciated by the Italian patriot Giuseppe Mazzini in 1851,but borrowed by Lincoln 10 years later: "That a government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth" And we are forever part of the American people. Get used to it.
"Allegedly discovered" it!
Remember the Vikings (my ancestors) much earlier? And they left it as they found it. They might have a a few confrontations with the "Indians" -you might credit Chrissie C' with that ill-advised title while you are at it, but there was no evidence of plunder, forced Christianizatio n (they weren't), attempted genocide and wanton murder, or rape of the lands coast-to-coast.
O'aye, and you forgot the contributions to the national story of Capone and the many tentacled Mob, whom Scalia closely resembles in his judicial, arrogant thuggishness from on high, along with my aforementioned similarity to Roland Freisler. Proud of that lot are ya?
Scalia is all about ABOLISHING the seemingly failed "Government or and by the people----"; Citizens United is the living proof of THAT.
Get used to it!
Sour grapes -never (I'm from S.E. Scotland, thus connected to the Vikings) -and Where did you get that "Hate" thing.
Who is "Boss Tweed"? Your English is a bit dodgy mate, so you might quit using inference, metaphor and presumption in the name of clarity. Reactionaries have a tendency to run on assumptions and declaim rather than discuss, whilst being the masters of hate and fear-mongering, Quod erat demonstratum (as you are in a Latin-Italianat e mode of breast-beating) the present state of the nation reflected by Ducé Scalia.
And as for "Nothing came of it" -so you think genocide, murder, rape of the lands was salutary?
Italians came long afterwards, lending their own layers of burgeoning distrust and divisiveness which characterized all the arrivals at Ellis Island from the Irish, Croatians, and so many others landing in the same dish of human salad.
Anyhoo, I'm not sure I see the point of all this and how it relates even peripherally to the subject, so 'nuff from me.
My goodness, that sure sounds a lot like Mitt's quote about the 47%. How many American citizens have Scandinavian blood running through their veins, do you think?
Those found (declared?) guilty were hanged with piano wire. Left to die slowly twisting.
But, let's not give Benito Scalia ideas.
With his comments, Scalia certainly violates Canon One, but why isn't he challenged more and in Congress?
I think Bernie Sanders is the only person in Congress with a spine.
Nixon got rid of his arch-enemy, Earl Warren, within months of his taking office.
If Obama had a spine, he would get rid of Scalia and his illegimate son, Clarence thomas.
RSS feed for comments to this post