Surprise! Antonin Scalia, Bigot

FEB 11

Surprise! Antonin Scalia, Bigot

posted by Steve Wild on February 11, 2009 6:59 PM as Politics

Originally posted on dailyspeech.net on March 31, 2006

It's bad enough when a member of the highest court in the land, Antonin Scalia, takes a repulsive attutude toward his critics in front of a church (using a vulgar finger gesture), indicating his self-righteous arrogance, but this man who plays a critical role in impartially reviewing cases of constitutional law continues to publicly display his bias.

Mr. Scalia was scathing in his minority opinion of the 2003 Lawrence v. Texasdecision that ensured the privacy rights ofall Americans in their sexual lives. So it should not be a surprising that he continues to hold a strong bias against gay people as demonstrated in a recent discussion at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland.

He said, "Question comes up: Is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

Putting aside the debate on whether this is solely a matter of conduct or a right to live a life based on who you are, as opposed to a moral behavior choice, Scalia's response is not so "easy" as he arrogantly suggests.

If we follow Scalia's logic, then Mr. Scalia should have enthusiastically supported Dred Scott v. Sanford, a case in "March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories." After all, slavery was the "law of the land" for two hundred years and it was "absolutely clear" the framers of the Bill of Rights never intended such rights for African Americans. This issue only took a civil war to resolve!

Likewise, Mr. Scalia would have favored the ruling in Minor v Happersett, in 1875 decision where "The U.S. Supreme Court declares that despite the privileges and immunities clause, a state can prohibit a woman from voting. The court declares women as “persons,” but holds that they constitute a “special category of _nonvoting_ citizens.” ". After all, in 1777, "All states pass laws which take away women's right to vote.", so it was the law of the land for nearly 100 years.

In the same vein, Mr. Scalia would have been thrilled with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, "the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South.". After all, trying to imply those African Americans actually deserved equality under the law was carrying the intent of the 14th amendment a bit too far, don't you think?

Then there was that damn Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, where that stinking liberal Warren Court undoubtedly started little Antonin on the road to bigotry, a case that"invalidated racial segregation in schools and led to the unraveling of de jure segregation in all areas of public life. In the unanimous decision" ... "the Court invalidated the Plessy ruling, declaring “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal' has no place” and contending that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” ". Damn that Warren Court!!

But that liberal Warren Court would not give up as demonstratedin 1965, in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision regarding birth control where it concluded "Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void."

And once again the Warren Court in the 1967 Miranda v. Arizona decision, where they clearly abused the meaning of the due process clause of that pesky 14th Amendment, a Court " ruling that criminal suspects must be warned of their rights before they are questioned by police. These rights are: the right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state. The police must also warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against them in court.". Damn! This country is really going down hill when criminal "suspects" have more rights then the police who protect us. Damn pinko Court anyway! Thank God, Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Court!

That Warren Court continued to destroy our beloved country when they had the audacity to use that damn 14th Amendment again (can we repeal that amendment already?) in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision where they dared to interfere with state's rights by saying the state cannot practice racial discrimination in their marital laws:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

And we will not even go to the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the succeeding equally liberal Burger Court. That is when our civilization really ended.

No, we can be so glad we have a Neanderthal like Antonin Scalia on the Court, a man who would like to see cases that would give him an opportunity to overturn Brown v. Board of Education , Griswold v. Connecticut , Miranda v. Arizona ,Loving v. Virginia, and of course Roe v. Wade. He would be delighted to reinstate Plessy v. Ferguson and if it was not for pesky Constitutional amendments that clearly go against the original intent of the framers of the Constitution,he would love to reinstate Minor v Happersett and even Dred Scott v. Sanford except a civil war settled that issue!

Yes, folks, according to Mr. Scalia, the US Constitution is a frozen document representing 18th century life, and we should interpret the various amendments to the Constitution in light of 18th century America. Surely our Constitution is not a living breathing document. How dare those "liberal" justices apply modern circumstances and understandings of life and societal evolution in their decisions!

I mean if homosexual conduct was criminalized for 200 years, then of course homosexuals have no rights! Never mind that the vast majority of states decriminalized homosexual behavior prior to Lawrence v. Texas. That's irrelevant.

Haters of activist jurists and lovers of "strict constructionist" jurists like their hero Antonin Scalia, long for the days of 18th century America where blacks were "animals", women were "property" and homosexuals were in prison (or dead). After all, this was the "law of the land" for hundreds of years!

comments (3)

1 - 1 of 1

RSS