Scalia on Sodomy and the Constitution

How the hell does a man who seems to believe that sodomy is some kind of new sexual behavior become a justice of the Supreme Court? God I hope this dipshit dies during a liberal presidential administration.

@Theo, Justice Scalia would tell you that the fact that the founding fathers' ownership of slaves is constitutionally irrelevant, because the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery and the Fourteenth guarantees equal protection of the laws. I disagree with him on almost everything, but I recognize that he's a smart man and therefore don't make dumb ass, specious arguments about why he's wrong.

This pig will never be a "justice". He has earned total contempt of court.

How many of the founding fathers owned slaves? With Scalia's rationality I assume he would also find slavery constitutional today.

So, essentially Scalia's argument is that because the Founding Fathers didn't see fit to explicitly reference sexuality back in the late 18th Century that therefore it should not be a subject of merit. He's a hypocrite. A solid majority of the Founding Fathers were vehemently anti-Catholic and would be furious if they knew how much money the modern U.S. government gives to the Roman Catholic Church to support "charitable" activities. They would have almost certainly seen that as unconstitutional back in their day, yet Scalia tends to rule that such things do not violate the Constitution. The notion of "Founder Intent" is inherently flawed since it presumes that we should base people's rights on the hypothetical thoughts of people more than two centuries ago. Scalia frequently slants his rulings to favor his preferred groups while opposing those he dislikes.

Scalia said there was no way to account for Sodomy when the constitution was written. Sodomy is mentioned in the Bible.. (Read the story of Sodom and Gamorra) In the old Testament no less. So, that statement clearly is not accurate.. Sodomy was indeed known thousands of years before the Constitution was drafted. Now... This post is only an observation.. It is NOT an opinion nor should it be taken as an endorsement of anything at all (Save the Bible, and I might add. NOT even that if said Bible is KJV)

Ah, but what about heterosexual sodomy? Surely the founding fathers wanted to keep that option opened.

So much for judicial objectivity! Scalia has shown his disposition of this matter, long before a suit ever even gets to the SCOTUS. As a Catholic; his is parroting the hatred spewed by his church and has always been on the right-wing of the court. Very often we look for electoral victories to further our cause. But Mayors, Governors, Congressman, Senators and even Presidents; come and go. The people who hold the REAL power in this country; who REALLY RULE, are the nine people who sit on the Supreme Court. THAT is where the conservatives have their eyes set. Supreme Court decisions will rule, long after Obama and everone else presently in government, has left the stage.

Did he really use the word "sodomy"?? I like that he talks about whether the Constitution guarantees a right to "homosexual sodomy" as if "heterosexual sodomy", on the other hand, had a specific amendment about it.

I pray that Scalia and the other four radical right wing activist Republican judges on the lifetime Supreme Court retire soon and Obama replaces them with fair-minded, competent judges who understand the US Constitution calls for government not to infringe on our lives as citizens, and demands liberty and justice for ALL. So laws like DOMA and DADT (and the old sodomy law) as well as the concept of the majority voting on the rights of the minority via ballot initiatives are clearly unconstitutional. Only a judge like Scalia with a personal/hateful anti-gay agenda could vote otherwise.