So I'm "doing my homework" (I quote it because technically I'm still working on it) and I find this statement in my Constitutional Law book. I'll put it out there for those to think about
( Read more... )
I had pretty much the same response. I mean, the dude's Segal-Cover score is zero. But if Scalia is anything, it's loyal to the Constitution, and if this jives with his philosophy of original meaning, then all the better for the 10% of society discussed in his opinion.
Although, now that I'm reading the full context of the Scalia quotation (from his dissent in Lawrence), he seems to be arguing that if the state doesn't have enough moral interest in consenting adults' sexual conduct to prohibit sodomy, then we might as well allow the homos to marry and let society go all the way to the dogs.
Well, (I'm not sure if you're asking me or not but I'm going to give my answer and it can then be dismissed if you wish) the original case "Lawrence" was about how some police officers walked in to find two men engaged in sex. They arrested, and convicted, the guys because they were in violation of a Texas statute. The original case was determining if the statute was constitutional under the 14th Amendment. Anyways, Scalia was discussing the importance of finding statues constitutional and the Supreme Court not "taking sides in a culture war". He said that BOTH sides should take their concerns not to the court but instead to the legislature. And with the Supreme Court holding as it did (Texas staute unconstitutional) the place for the court has been jeopardized. So, from what I pulled from the case, he didn't put his opinion out there but instead just said that the majority was all wrong (just like normal) in the process used for analysing the case.
That's fair enough for an opinion, I guess. There was an episode of West Wing where (I don't know if you ever watched it, so I'ma explain it anyway) a Supreme Court candidate, very right wing, was against gay marriage on principle but against a national amendment because it violated states' rights.
Whatever works. Man, there are times I'm kinda jealous of you all who get to study Con Law.
Comments 12
Wow. Will wonders never cease.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Why does he think the state should have a moral interest in consenting adults' sexual conduct, or does he not say?
Reply
So, from what I pulled from the case, he didn't put his opinion out there but instead just said that the majority was all wrong (just like normal) in the process used for analysing the case.
Reply
Whatever works. Man, there are times I'm kinda jealous of you all who get to study Con Law.
Reply
Leave a comment