Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

SUPREME COURT

Scalia Defends Equating Bans on Sodomy and Murder

His legal writings have come under attack by some as anti-gay, offensive

Next>

by Lisa Fine

Staff Writer t

Image: AP

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was on the receiving end of a tough cross-examination Monday when a gay student asked him after a lecture at Princeton University why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder in his legal writings.

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,'" said Scalia, the Associated Press reports. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

Scalia said he was comparing the laws because legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral. This defense of his legal writings comes just days after the Supreme Court announced it would hear two cases challenging state and federal laws that strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman, the AP story said.

Freshman Duncan Hosie, of San Francisco, who asked the question that was met with applause from the lecture audience, told the AP that he was not persuaded by Scalia's answer, saying the writings "dehumanize" gay people.

Via the Associated Press

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Do you find Scalia's arguments offensive?

Comments (view in Forum)

  • o
    thejimbo
    !
    I feel that the SCOTUS has degraded itself to being a pensioners' club with occasional cases that need hearing that leave the country at a standstill.
  • o
    Sonny
    !
    This guy is someone who should have never been appointed to the position of "judge" in any jurisdiction. And to make him a Supreme Ct. Justice...is a blatant insult to American Citizens. He not only brings a long list of prejudicial baggage to the court...but he doesn't even try to hide it...He is a "caveman" in a black robe...and should be impeached!
  • rkinsawjoe
    !
    @Sonny While you may be insulted by his prejudicial baggage ,he was nominated for his seat by Ronald Reagan specifically because of his conservative perspective and was easily confirmed by the senate to hold the lifetime appointment. Being a "caveman" and holding outdated opinions hardly meets the requirements for impeachment which has only happened once in the courts history and still didn't result in the justice's removal from the bench. As Scalia himself has rightly said,the forum for change on issues like gay rights is the legislature where the nations laws are created and not the SCOTUS where said laws are interpreted and enforced.
  • o
    Sonny
    !
    @rkinsawjoe I know the history of how he came to be a US Supreme Ct Justice. But I would respectfully disagree with you on one issue. And that is ---we need judges and justices to be "impartial". Now most judges probably do have some "bias" one way or the other on all cases that come before them. That's why the don't comment about certain issues that may (or are) to come before them. And some even have the honor to resuce them selves is they are so slanted in one direction or the other. The difference here is that this guy doesn't even try to "appear impartial:...And that alone IS enough to at least consider his possible removal from the court. How would you like it, that if you had to appear in court for some reason---And the judge you got had just been on tv the day before, condemning and degrading all people who had cases just like yours...Do you think you would get a fair hearing from such a judge?
  • rkinsawjoe
    !
    @Sonny I hear ya cousin,I really do. And having been an enthusiastic sodomite myself for some 35+ years, I hate to see anyone equate it with murder or the other unsavory practices Scalia puts it on par with. And as woodtick correctly points out,Scalia doesn't concern himself with my activities yet feels justified in criminalizing the same behaviour when practiced by our homosexual brothers and sisters.It just ain't right. But I'm afraid your incorrect on the impartiality of judges. It isn't any bias or personal belief on the larger issues but rather a conflict of interest,some tangible connection to either a plaintiff or a specific case that causes judges to recuse themselves. And even then it is more an act of guarding the courts decision against a possible reversal than one of personal honor.As to appearing before a hostile judge...with the SCOTUS I'd find solace in the fact that there are 5 other justices to hopefully balance the impartiality of the 1. Also, with,a judge who has been open and vocal about such bias's, a legal strategy might be developed with an eye towards appeal. In any case Scalias outdated views are certainly not enough to trigger an impeachment which would still not remove him from the bench. Sadly,he's there until he decides to leave or dies. Better to resign yourself to that fact and tilt at some other windmill.
  • View all 10 replies >
  • jhsrvs
    !
    @TheJimmy people in america don't realize how close we are to an islamic state.we are losing our freedom piece by piece and we are very close to socialism now ,then islam .if you don't believe me look at europe now loaded with muslums and it was capitolisum ,now it they are all under socialisum they will soon be under islam
  • View all 9 replies >
  • jessejaymes
    !
    This is what I mean when I keep talking about the never ending "gay agenda". Sodomy is not exclusive to gays. It is not anyone's business providing both parties involved are of legal age and consent. For a Supreme Court Justice to weigh in on Sodomy as a "gay issue" is simply not acceptable. This man needs to be removed from the bench.
  • u
    Cheenoguy
    !
    I think you mean the "anti-gay agenda".
    I do agree about his removal. In fact, I think the lifetime appointment of judges needs to change. Make it a 20 year appointment at most.
  • Real4WheelDrv
    !
    Heck all you need to do is spend five minutes on the internet to know it isn't a gay only thing. Look at the porn industry. T'isn't just the boys cruising the Hershey Highway.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • View all 47 replies >
  • Real4WheelDrv
    !
    No, but then again I also don't care what people base their choices on. If A God exists, and if said God finds homosexuality evil, enough that that sin outweighs any good a person may have done with their life, we won't know till we're dead anyway. Regardless, he'd have an aneurism trying to moralize some of what my bride to be and I do behind closed doors...and I suspect many of the most pious people are the same way we are.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    If we cannot have moral feelings against an American President packing the Supreme Court with any available judge who supports his extreme views, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?
  • Zazziness
    !
    That's funny. I thought judges in the Supreme Court were supposed to understand our Constitution. Murder is not illegal because it is immoral or unethical.(Though it is.) It is illegal because it causes harm to others. Attempts to legislating "morality" are ridiculous unless you are living in a theocracy.
  • Thegrif
    !
    I seen Scalia on TV some years ago in a interview with 60 Minutes. In it he said he believed that the constitution says exactly what it means, and unlike all the other Justices he believed it was not really a document that needs to be interpreted or amended. He was saying it is the law of the land, period.
    I tell you this to give you a little more insight into Justice Scalia.
    Personally, I liked is position on the constitution. I believe there is to much amending and moving of the boundaries, and a lot less conforming. I look around our country today and I do not see a better America.
    Just my opinion.
  • Zazziness
    !
    @Thegrif It needs to be interpreted because our Founders had no idea what the nation governed by it would be like right now. Remember Jefferson thought we would be a nation of plantation-owning farmers. A pretty far cry from our current reality.
  • Thegrif
    !
    @Zazziness i hear, or read what you are saying. I do however agree with Scalia, it says what it says, no interpretation needed, now I say that knowing that before I sign my name in blood to that, I got read it again myself, its been a while, a long while.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    I understand all too well what he's saying, but IMO he should stick to pontificating about what is legal, not what is moral. The law isn't about morality, it is about an action being legal or not based upon whether or not that action is harmful to others. Leave morality to your church and religion; Scalia's job is interpreting the constitution, not the Christian bible.
  • PNWest
    !
    I find Scalia offensive. Scalia is an example of why it is a bad idea to elect a republican Presidents. They tend to put scumbags like Scalia on the Supreme Court. By Scalia's line of reasoning slavery would still be constitutional.
  • DerivePI
    !
    Is it the court's job to remake the laws to fit their own wants and desires? What happens when a group of people, appointed for life, have the power to remake laws as they see fit? What becomes the purpose of the House and Senate?
  • PNWest
    !
    @DerivePI The supreme court is defined in Article III of the constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/artic...

    It's main job is to act as final interpreter of state and federal law. They cannot "remake" laws to fit their own wants and desires although there is very little recourse other than impeachment when they do as they did in the 2000 Presidential election.

    It should be clear to anyone that the constitution needs to be a living document as it was written in the 1700's and could not have taken into considerations the changes that have taken place and will take place.
  • DerivePI
    !
    @PNWest - What I was getting at is that prior to the 13th amendment, it would be Scalia's job to uphold the right of the slaveholder against the slave, even though I'm sure Scalia is very much against slavery. The people who consider the constitution "living" would argue that even without the amendment, Scalia could reinterpret (ie misinterpret) the constitution to outlaw slavery prior to the amendment. The ability for the constitution to address and adjust to new issues is provided for under the amendment process which has been fulfilled 27 times. The clear purpose of this convoluted system is to cut the power our government holds over us (it can arrest and execute us) into small pieces. Any attempt to overstep those boundaries concentrates power. And "concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty."
  • PNWest
    !
    @DerivePI It would have been wrong to uphold the right of the slaveholder against the slave even before the 13th amendment passed. Scalia would have voted with the slaveholder. It says a lot about his character.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @DerivePI what happens is they ignore the constitutional process, which has the House decide contested elections, stop the counting of ballot, and pick an imbecile to be president. That is what happens.
  • u
    RobertJHarsh
    !
    Scalia's answer was directing what is immoral at others. Let's face it, some people will always think sodomy is immoral. Are they wrong for thinking that? No. People make their own values and judgments based on their life experiences and just because someone thinks being gay is immoral does not mean their belief is wrong. Now I support gay marriage, getting rid of DOMA, etc. I do because my values are different. One could just as easily say my values and beliefs are wrong for supporting gay marriage. The real issue that student did not hear what he wanted to hear from Scalia.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @RobertJHarsh lets see how many we can Remember, I Dont count barney frank as he admitted it.(D) Packwood; (r) Larry "i'm not gay" craige; (r) foley? Not sure of name, congressman florida; (d) weiner (on some like weiner and packwood the names kinda tip one off)...
  • u
    mtkopf
    !
    "Why can't the state accede to the publics wishes." Quote from Scalia

    A recent poll has shown that 48% of Americans support same sex marriage and 45% oppose it. Therefore Justice Scalia I will be looking forward to reading your opinion in support of gay marriage.
  • martydotcom
    !
    Law dictionary Sodomy is the act of oral or anal intercourse between humans. All those guilty post your guilt
    Scailia should retreat. to an order of cloistered Monks and get his outdated Catholic upbringing out of our lives
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    martydotcom
    !
    @mtkopf I had suggested that part of the job description to be a member of Congress was subjecting the voter to an act of sodomy
  • View all 6 replies >
  • Bobolinsky
    !
    You forgot to include this part from the HuffPo article.

    "Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both."

    "Then he deadpanned: "I'm surprised you aren't persuaded."

    And no mention of what Scalia spent most of his time talking about?

    "As Scalia often does in public speaking, he cracked wise, taking aim mostly at those who view the Constitution as a "living document" that changes with the times."

    "It isn't a living document," Scalia said. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."

    "He said that people who see the Constitution as changing often argue they are taking the more flexible approach. But their true goal is to set policy permanently, he said."

    "My Constitution is a very flexible one," he said. "There's nothing in there about abortion. It's up to the citizens.... The same with the death penalty."

    "Scalia said that interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written."
  • truthsayer
    !
    @Bobolinsky You right I've listen to him speak several times and have heard him say almost verbatim your quotes of him. He thinks only about the text of the law.
  • DerivePI
    !
    I agree with comparing it to a law against beastiality (which is probably covered under most sodomy interpretations) but not murder. Of course what most liberal posters don't understand is that Scalia's job isn't to agree or disagree with the law but whether the law can stand against the constitution. For instance, if congress passed a law making New York style pizzas illegal, Scalia would disagree with the law (he loves NYS pizza) but agree that the law stands up to the constitution (pending its involvement with interstate trade or etc..) and is therefore a legal law.
  • DerivePI
    !
    @woodtick57 - The problem you are identifying is a problem with our legislatures and not the courts. If our legislatures do not use specific language to outlaw specific behavior, then it is not up to the courts to fill in the blanks.
  • u
    IMAQT
    !
    "Scalia said he was comparing the laws because legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral. "

    We head down a slippery slope when we give politicians the power to determine what is and is not immoral. What is immoral to me, may not be to you and vice versa.
  • u
    kramresim1
    !
    Scalia is simply a bigot and should remove himself from hearing the marriage equality cases, since his public statements clearly indicate he cannot be impartial in these matters, and has already made a decision before hearing the arguements.
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    I found the question offensive and disrespectful. I also found the response by the questioner offensive. You don't need to agree with answers to questions you ask.

    Scalia's point is reasoned, even though the PC police might not approve.
  • acchokiefan
    !
    As a lawyer, Scalia is an idiot. It isn't about fairness. This guy has the legal mind of Glenn Beck. He needs to be removed. Thes something wrong with him. And yes, he is already known in the legal world as an embarrassment.
  • WMCOL
    !
    Scalia is shrewd. Notice the student did not ask Scalia about morals. Scalia introdued morals as a way to get in his strawman argument about "reduction to the absurd". He went away from the law and the students question while trying to make it seem he was talking law. He diverted attention from the law to morals and tried to make it seem the student and audience were without understanding.
  • R Load more comments...