Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scalia: Gays Have No Constitutional Rights

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:34 PM
Original message
Scalia: Gays Have No Constitutional Rights
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/03/032906scalia.htm

A tape of a speech given earlier this month by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has drawn the ire of LGBT civil rights activists who worry the landmark high court ruling on sodomy could be revisited.

Scalia rarely speaks to the media and seldom allows the press into speeches he gives but a recording of a March 8 address at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland was obtained by CNN.

In one portion of the speech to law students at the university Scalia brings up the issue of homosexuality.

"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."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. More proof this guy just aint right
ALL citizens have the same damned rights, it says so right in the constitution.

Why he's so obsessed with what other people he doesn't even know do with their own bodies is beyond me.

He needs to retire. He's become an embarrassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Let's hope he retires AFTER we've got the White House!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. CJ Taney: Blacks have no rights which the white man is bound to respect
And Taney was incomparably a greater figure than Scalia, even with Dred Scott. Scalia is in the press for blowing smoke way, way too often lately. Time to step down and make millions ranting for a bogus think tank, Antonin. You are an embarrassment to the Court and the nation. Shut up and step down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Is there a 'constitutional right' to heterosexual conduct?
If so, then please post said text.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinbgoode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. hahaha...I love that. . .
and you are right. Actually, I see nothing in the state or federal constitution which establishes any right to sexuality at all. None. Zilch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
38. marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution. I have looked.
therefore we can make our own laws on the subject. Which leaves ol Scalia out in the cold with no say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. And Blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote
I guess none of us have constitutional rights either, because they didn't think it through 200 years ago. Ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. oh boy
He's technically right when he calls it "conduct", however by his logic refusing to bear children is also not protected by the constitution.

Being asexual is not protected by the constitution.

Define "conduct" scalia. Do you mean butt diddling or autoerotic manipulation as well? Do two people masturbating together qualify as homosexual conduct or is it just two people masturbating together? If masturbation isn't sex, and sex is only the act of procreation, then technically gays don't HAVE sex. They have shared pleasure, physical intimacy whatever.

Scalie needs to be ejected. Someone hand me the eject button and crank up the rubber band.

What a freak, what a shame on the supreme court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. "formally" he is right, but that shows exactly why....
the US needs a new constitution and the role of the Supreme Court must be reconsidered. It's impossible to live with a 200 years old construction and have it "translated" by bigots. It can give ANY kind of results. Reminds of fundies reading the Bible.

The US must go from a "judiciocracy" to a secular democracy with a constitution that EXPLICITELY represents modern values....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Who knows if any of the Framers had a special friend???
We don't know, that kind of business wasn't put on the Town Crier's top ten list, generally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. no.
The Constitution works. And one of the main reason it works is due to intangibles: the fairth that people have invested in it for over 200 years and the patina of decision after decision that expands rights for Americans. That's potent stuff, not easily replaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bliss_eternal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. I'd like to respectfully disagree--
I'm not saying I believe the Constitution should be re-written. I haven't really considered that possibility, and would like to mull over that before commenting.

What I disagree with however is that it (the Constitution) works. It was written by wealhty white males, and gives little to no consideration to women, children, people of color, the impoverished, the middle class, glbt peoples, etc. primarily because at that time, the only people considered to have any rights were those with the money and power to pay for them.

Sadly this continues to be the norm in this country.

I believe it works when someone is open to interpreting it with such considerations in mind. When you have a guy that wants to interpret it literally, because he longs for the good old days when people of color were slaves and women were property, then we have trouble.

I feel the problem lies with both the Constitution and those interpreting it. Ideally we should have people on the Supreme Court that are representative of our country--women, men, people of color, glbt, atheist and open to diverse religious beliefs.

When you've got a bunch of old, bigoted, white farts and a token, self-hating black man you're bound to get shitty statements like this.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. i disagree
the constitution can be molded to justify whatever viewpoint you hold (whether left/centrist/right)... in a way that it renders the documents itself invalid...

so yes i see gay rights in the constitution but scalia doesnt

i see the right to bear pepperspray someone else sees the right to bear ak47's

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Two hundred thirty years of tradition unhampered by progress
It is very unlikely they will peacefully allow such a change. It may creak a bit, but the love of the document is such that I very much doubt it will be altered in any substantial manner in my lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #12
28. the ''love'' of the document -- or any ''document'' may
very well be the problem.

that particular educated class may very well near fetishize the constitution. in the way that fundies have created and ''idol'' out of the bible.

that can't work.

continuously overlaying a thing without fundamentally occasionally looking at the roots and changing is -- i think -- a problem.

i also think the bible needs to be revisted , edited and altered and new chapters put in -- but that's just me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
25. but "modern values" change
What's needed is a Constitution that does its best not to enshrine the particular prejudices of the day, but rather can adapt as society changes, providing for a government that upholds certain basic rights without being bound to a particular era of history.

Until these "strict constructionist" idiots came along, that seemed to be working pretty well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. What a stupid fuck!!!
Nobody thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that there would be cars, highways, a need for rules of the road and friken driver's licenses either!!! And black folk were PROPERTY!

Quick everyone, into your goddamn homespun garb!! Turn out the lights, turn off the heat, bury the TV and radio, start chopping firewood, and throw away those car keys...it's back to 1776 with ALL a' ya!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbackjon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. He needs to be impeached
He is a disgrace to America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. So much for not being an activist judge. Even though Clarence Thomas
has his nose well up Bush's ass and is a total yes man for the right, you know Scalia is just dying to say, "niggers should NOT be allowed to be on the high court."

Hmmm, maybe that'll come out in his book some day.

What a dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. Mmm-hm.

Scalia, go and look at the history of homosexuality OUTSIDE your country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
long_green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
15. If he kicks off when there is a Democrat in the White House...
I am so throwing a party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
33. BWAHAHAHA...Some of us will be doing that if it happens even before
there's a Democrat in the White House.

Oh, I should really, really be ashamed of myself for saying something so outrageously mean!!!

If I keep this up, the next thing you know, I'm only going to encourage Ann Coulter to advocate someone on the court be poisoned. :sarcasm: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Zoloft Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. Separated at birth
Judge Saclia is sounding more and more like "Uncle Junior" Soprano every day. Next thing ya know, he'll be shootin' those damn liberals on the bench with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northofdenali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
18. Let's see - gays, non-christians, illegally imprisioned "terrorists"
ummm, pro-choice advocates, fair elections........

It's not just these groups. According to THIS asshole, no one has rights unless you're white, Christian, and male. Oh, and over 50.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
20. Is this even "true"?
***Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state.***

I don't remember homosexuality being mentioned in the Constitution! Did I miss something?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
31. That's the point
It WAS a crime in each of those states - as a state law.

Now, he's trying to assert that the SC has the right to rule on gay rights on the national level. Namely, to restrict those rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. For 200 years?
I mean, really, when was the anti-gay stuff ADDED to those state constitutions? Was it all states? (Or just the backward ones?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. Hey Fat Tony...
F U C K Y O U!!!!!!!!!!!!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. First of all
Lawrence still has 5 votes, even after O'Connor's departure. Kennedy is part of the majority and even wrote the decision.

Secondly, I'm not so sure Roberts would vote to overturn Lawrence. I think if it gets revisited, it might just be 6-3 yet again.

Thirdly, it would take years and years for a "sodomy" law to work its way through the system. We may very well have a Dem president in '08 who undoubtedly would swing the USSC back to the middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
24. More on Scalia's pontificating and arrogant *dump* in Switzerland . . .
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 01:42 AM by TaleWgnDg
Scalia's one-hour lecture entitled "Does the U.S. legal system work?" given at his alma mater, the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, March 8, 2006, was followed by a Q&A session w/ the attending audience from which Scalia's off-the-wall, arrogant, and pontificating quotations were derived, as well as a subsequent so-called "short" interview.

The sole place where the entire video/audio recording is available is: http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv (MSFT .wmv video format, bafweb.com, Scalia at Fribourg University, video of the entire "Does the U.S. legal system work?" lecture, a follow-up Q&A, and a short interview, May 8, 2006; this is a lengthly download). Are there any other websites?


Here's a sampling from the recording (ascertained from various sources):

"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."
- Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, during Q&A following a lecture entitled "Does the U.S. legal system work?" given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, when queried by a member of the audience, March 8, 2006.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid28436.asp

"Foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American constitution. . . (and that) nobody has ever thought otherwise!"
- Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Q&A following a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, when queried about the constitutional rights of Guantanamo detainees, March 8, 2006.

"If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son. And I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."
- Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Q&A following a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, cutting-off a questioner and getting into his own personal life when queried as a justice about Guantanamo detainees receiving a civil court trial instead of facing military tribunals, March 8, 2006.

"I am astounded at the, the, the, I would say, hypocritical reaction in Europe, as though the Europeans always gave trials to people that they capture on the battlefield. I mean, give me a break!"
- Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Q&A following a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, bluntly chastising Europeans about their supposed reactions to Guantanamo detainees, March 8, 2006.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It's a crazy idea to me!"
- Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, cutting-off a questioner during a Q&A subsequent to a lecture entitled “Does the U.S. legal system work?” given at his alma mater at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, March 8, 2006.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/scalia-remarks-spark-furor-as-high.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/26/supreme_court_justice_said_to_slam_detainee_rights/
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/03/justice_scalia.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1143466740820
http://www.unifr.ch/main/news/detailD.php?nid=bi69wt46om (University of Fribourg, Switzerland, in German)

http://www.bafweb.com/60308scalia.wmv (MSFT .wmv video format, bafweb.com, Scalia at Fribourg University, video of the entire "Does the U.S. legal system work?" lecture, a follow-up Q&A, and a short interview, May 8, 2006; this is a lengthly download)

"Scalia Remarks Draw Criticism Before Guantanamo Case," All Things Considered, Monday, March 27, 2006, RealAudio(R) 4:09 minutes, Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, NPR news
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=27-mar-2006&segNum=11&NPRMediaPref=RM&getUnderwriting=1
(snippets from Scalia's Q&A following his lecture at Fribourg University)

bio at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/judge_scalia.html
bio at: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/scalia.html



For another recent Scalia "bad boy" saga, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2195687&mesg_id=2195687 . . . wherein Scalia allegedly gives the Sicilian hand-under-the-chin FU gesture:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
26. Does it say anywhere in the constitution that Constitutional Rights
are for heteros only?

Well then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shenmue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
27. Wow? So they're not American citizens?
This guy's an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
29. Well then Fat Tony, if they have no constitutional rights, then I guess
it's ok if they aren't required to pay taxes anymore. Why does nobody ever point this out, infringe upon AMERICAN citizens' civil rights, and you don't get to also take their money to pay for the policies that will exploit and deny them their rights. What a compromised, bigoted, disgraceful excuse for a Supreme Court justice. Recuse yourself permanently Fascist Poster boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
30. hmm. freedom of assembly? rights retained by the people?
1st amendment?
5th amendment?
9th amendment?
14th amendment?

but then, scalia's brand of constitutional interpretation is to put forth his bigotted view first, then assert that the constitution and/or the founders back him up (whether that's b.s. or not).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
32. You know what blows me away about these guys?
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 11:09 AM by Marr
Over and over they make two conflicting arguments:

1. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that you have a right, then you do not have that right. You have no right to privacy, for instance. Implied rights don't exist.

2. If the Constitution does not explicitly state that the President *cannot* do a thing, then he can do that thing. Everything not forbid in the Constitution is an implied power.

It's like they're arguing for feudalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I agree. They must have stopped reading before Amendments IX & X.
Seems pretty clear to me:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
36. Of course the really ironic thing is that if he had his way...
he'd send people like us to prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Mmmmm Hmmmm....or the gas chamber
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. I just think the idea of sending someone to prison
for the crime of gay sex is kind of... yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
39. And a "faccia di culo" to you, Scalia.
Ya little peckerwood fascist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC