June 26, 201313 yr http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Scalia's dissent would be fitting in the Voting Rights Act ruling from yesterday, where he had no issue striking down "democratically adopted legislation." "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."
June 26, 201313 yr If this were any issue besides gay marriage, Scalia would consider a law like DOMA to be MASSIVE Congressional overreach into an area over which it should have no power or discretion. I love his writing because he clearly cares about the things he rules on and is one of the most intelligent legal minds in this country today... I really wish he'd put that mind of his to better use.
June 26, 201313 yr http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Scalia's dissent would be fitting in the Voting Rights Act ruling from yesterday, where he had no issue striking down "democratically adopted legislation." "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." A 180 from a couple of days ago?
June 26, 201313 yr Good ruling. This law was perfect example of Federal over reach. This is a state issue.
June 26, 201313 yr Scalia is intelligent, no doubt, which is why his intellectual dishonesty when you compare the rulings of the past two days sticks in my craw. Yesterday, a law reauthorized in 2007 is too antiquarian for 2013 and SCOUTS has the authority to send it back to the Congress that reauthorized it unanimously in the Senate and with only 33 votes against in the House-- but today, he's willing to over-turn Marbury v Madison to stop the gays from getting married, supposedly in deference to the legislative process. Well, at least he isn't Thomas.
June 26, 201313 yr Scalia is intelligent, no doubt, which is why his intellectual dishonesty when you compare the rulings of the past two days sticks in my craw. Yesterday, a law reauthorized in 2007 is too antiquarian for 2013 and SCOUTS has the authority to send it back to the Congress that reauthorized it unanimously in the Senate and with only 33 votes against in the House-- but today, he's willing to over-turn Marbury v Madison to stop the gays from getting married, supposedly in deference to the legislative process. Well, at least he isn't Thomas. He does have that going for him.
June 26, 201313 yr How have the justices voted on the two issues? Anyone other than Scallia being inconsistent?
June 26, 201313 yr Author How have the justices voted on the two issues? Anyone other than Scallia being inconsistent? I think Scalia's inconsistencies extend beyond these few votes in that he's been a loud proponent of his judicial philosophy of "strict interpretation" and his acolytes rail against "activism," yet they are all too eager to ignore those when it's politically in their interests. Kennedy swung from the conservatives to the liberals between the major two decisions these last days.
June 26, 201313 yr I think Scalia's inconsistencies extend beyond these few votes in that he's been a loud proponent of his judicial philosophy of "strict interpretation" and his acolytes rail against "activism," yet they are all too eager to ignore those when it's politically in their interests. Kennedy swung from the conservatives to the liberals between the major two decisions these last days. I have a tough time understanding who is being consistent with these issues. Is a yes vote in each situation consistent or is a yes in one consistent with a no in the other? These things are like reading an insurance policy to me, very confusing.
June 26, 201313 yr Author I have a tough time understanding who is being consistent with these issues. Is a yes vote in each situation consistent or is a yes in one consistent with a no in the other? These things are like reading an insurance policy to me, very confusing. I don't think there is a lot inherently similar between the two cases to make votes for one or the other consistent or inconsistent depending on the particular reasoning. It's Scalia's explicit reasoning here that makes his vote yesterday appear hypocritical. At least to me.
June 26, 201313 yr I have a tough time understanding who is being consistent with these issues. Is a yes vote in each situation consistent or is a yes in one consistent with a no in the other? These things are like reading an insurance policy to me, very confusing. Well, they're not really voting yes or no. They're voting either to uphold the lower court's ruling or reverse it. In either case, the consistency of those votes can only be measured against the broader context of how a judge interprets the constitution or believes the court system should function. As an originalist, Scalia typically believes that the constitution must be interpreted in light of the specific words of the document itself and with the intent of the framers in mind. That's what makes his position on DOMA so confusing for many people. Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress gets to regulate marriage? On any other issue, that would drive him up a wall. It's absolutely what he rails against in his writings on all sorts of things from 2nd Amendment firearms regulations to non-specified due process rights he finds nowhere in the text of the 14th Amendment. I hope that helped a little.
June 26, 201313 yr Basically the court returned the decision back to the states..Some states will allow gay marriage, some won't.. Same as it has been...
June 26, 201313 yr Basically the court returned the decision back to the states..Some states will allow gay marriage, some won't.. Same as it has been... Good. Let the states decide gay marriage and marijuana legalization.
June 26, 201313 yr Basically the court returned the decision back to the states..Some states will allow gay marriage, some won't.. Same as it has been... I don't think that's the case. If it was Prop 8 would have been upheld. SCOTUS only said there was no standing for the SC or the Appeals court to rule on it. My guess is you'll still have Prop 8 people fighting the battle. While it's being fought gay couples in CA can wed.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.