A visit by
conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin
Scalia to the University of Connecticut law
school in Hartford on Wednesday sparked
protests by gay students who set up tables--and a
same-sex kissing booth--and passed out pamphlets on
the lawn near the building where Scalia spoke. The
students said they believe some of Scalia's opinions
amount to attacks on gays, women, and other minorities.
"His visit opened a lot of conversation on this
campus," said third-year law student Colby Smith, who
was wearing an "I Kiss Boys" T-shirt. "We want to make
sure people understand what the concerns are with him
and why his views are particularly offensive."
Although Scalia did not address the protesters
in his speech, he did have some advice for those who
questioned his impartiality after he refused to recuse
himself from a case involving his hunting buddy, Vice
President Dick Cheney. "For Pete's sake, if you can't
trust your Supreme Court justice more than that, get a
life," Scalia said.
He said recusing himself from the 2004 case,
which focused on an energy task force that Cheney led,
would only have given fuel to newspaper editorial
writers and other detractors who have said he is too close
to the vice president. "I think the proudest thing I
have done on the bench is not allowed myself to be
chased off that case," Scalia said.
The case in question involved Cheney's request
to keep private the details of closed-door White House
strategy sessions that produced the Administration's
energy policy. The Administration fought a lawsuit
brought by watchdog and environmental groups that contended
that industry executives, including former Enron
chairman Ken Lay, helped shape that policy. The
Supreme Court upheld the Administration's position on a
7-2 vote.
Scalia, 70, was appointed in 1982 by President
Reagan to the U.S. court of appeals for the District
of Columbia circuit. Four years later Reagan nominated
him to the U.S. Supreme Court, filling the opening that
occurred when William Rehnquist became chief justice.
Scalia takes a very literal approach to the
Constitution, telling the audience Wednesday that he
strongly disputes the idea that the wording selected
by the Constitution's framers should be viewed in light of
society's evolving morals and political leanings. "You can't
take the position that these words are expandable in
one direction and not expandable in the other," he
said. "They obviously meant to set some standards to
control future generations." (AP)
