The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
NYU 2L to Scalia: Do You Sodomize Your Wife?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 12th, 2005 8:58 PM Author: Bearded pale headpube So we had a Q & A with Scalia today, and someone asked the Justice whether he sodomizes his wife. Very classy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545330) |
 |
Date: April 12th, 2005 8:59 PM Author: greedy disturbing tattoo You go to NYU? What year are you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545335) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:00 PM Author: Bearded pale headpube 2L (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545351) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:02 PM Author: Medicated Church see below
http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164493&mc=172&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:00 PM Author: Geriatric incel you're kidding, right? If not, I have to applaud someone for having the cojones to ask that question. it's actually not a bad one, given his dissents in Romer and Lawrence. What happened after the question? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545349) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:03 PM Author: Bearded pale headpube Cojones? How about the disrespect for the justice, their classmates, their law school, their dean who's sitting right next to him, etc? It's possible to ask a question about the privacy interests at stake in Lawrence without being offensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545375) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:08 PM Author: Geriatric incel I agree completely. All I meant is that it takes "something" to be able to ask what is an inappropriate means of getting at privacy/liberty interests to a justice, knowing full well that you'll face incredible social opprobrium as a result. Sorry if the blasé "cojones" put you off... maybe I should have said it takes a complete moron?
anyway, what was the fallout? |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:11 PM Author: Bearded pale headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545435) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:35 PM Author: Geriatric incel So, any idea what Revesz is going to do? I'm curious if he'll address it on Friday at the admits day (I'll be attending). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545634) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:00 PM Author: chocolate stage Given his stance on the issue, I think it was an acceptable question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545352) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:09 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre Do you even know what his stance is? Liberals need to figure out that Scalia doesn't base his opinions on a desired result. His opinion in Lawrence was not an attack on gays. It was an attack on the judiciary's practice of telling the majority (i.e. the legislature) that it cant legislate in an area where there is no constitutional prohibition against legislating. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545417) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:14 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space well said (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545464) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:11 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad The language he used reeked of homophobia. The opinion contained BOTH a critique of the majority's placing a restriction on the legislature that he viewed as untextual AND scathing insults about the motivation underlying that action.
If Scalia believed that sodomy laws and bans on gay marriage are horrifying examples of state-sponsored discimination -- but Constitutional -- he would have voted the same way, but it would have been a very different opinion. I'm sorry, you just don't refer to the "homosexual agenda" and recite the litany of horrors it's trying to visit on the nation if you believe that gay relationships are valuable and deserve respect. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:14 PM Author: violent azn there is a lot of gray area between believing sodomy laws are a horrifying example of discrimination, and being a horrible homophobic bigot.
He tried to explain his comment today by saying that he believed the court should not be caught up in the homosexual rights movement when dealing with an issue that is not protected by the constitution (in his view) and is still a matter of great conflict in this country and its legislators. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:16 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad Yep, and he's not anywhere in the gray area. He expressed a great deal of contempt for the whole concept of gay rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546000) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:18 PM Author: chocolate stage I remember that he was pretty nuts in Romer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546011) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:20 PM Author: violent azn i dont see contempt so much as acknowledgment that there are no such things as rights that have not been granted by a sovereign, and this sovereign has not granted gays any special rights.
He stated clearly today that he would support gay rights protections passed by the legislature. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:23 PM Author: chocolate stage You sound like you want to rim Scalia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546052) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:28 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre And you're just pissed because he wont rewrite the Constitution to fit your version of what is right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546117) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:32 PM Author: chocolate stage Nope. The guy is a rightwing nutjob on the issues, just like Jebus Bush. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546140) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:36 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre Scalia thinks that the SCOTUS should not involve itself in political issues. Radical. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546211) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2005 11:07 AM Author: Electric school Subject: here's the problem... Scalia and his supporters always defend his holdings (or dissents) that attack reading unenumerated rights into the Constitution. The problem is that Scalia is a textualist (or originalist, whatever terminology you want to use) in a society that is constantly changing and demanding of laws that can evolve as well. Frankly, I thnk he's a bit lazy in this regard.
So, yes, he argues that he's all for gay rights, but that since the Constitution does not say that the fed.gov. can regulate such rights, such decisions must be left to the states. But since the evolution of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, in which the court recognized that several states will discriminate...uh...indiscriminately, we can't simply fall back on what is or is not in the clear text of the Constitution. The textualist ship, as it were, has sailed.
The term "liberty," and the underlying concept of "privacy," necessarily need to be malleable. He doesn't believe this to be the case, which I really believe is a proxy for his anti-gay stance. It's a way for him to espouse conservative, religious views against homosexuality without taking too much heat.
He should not have been asked whether or not he sodomizes his wife. Rather, he should have been asked how he'd feel about Lawrence if one of his kids was gay.
|
|
Date: April 13th, 2005 5:39 PM Author: garnet spot A
(One of his kids is a priest...) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:24 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre You read too much into that. While it is true that he wasnt exactly as supportive as he could have been, he certainly wasnt advocating against any legislative recognition of gay rights.
|
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:21 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre What difference does it make what his personal opinion is? His dissent tore the majority opinion apart. You can criticize him as a person for his personal beliefs, but as a judge, he did a far better job with that case than any of the judges who sided with the majority. People need to separate the LAW and PERSONAL OPINION.
As far as the homosexual agenda issue, i believe that his point is that the minority cannot use the judiciary to legislate. If the minority doesn't like the fact that they have been singled out, well, too bad. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:24 PM Author: chocolate stage You need to read the opinion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546072) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:27 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre He could have said nothing negative about gays or the agenda, etc, and you would still be here bashing him as a judge. Who cares about the reasoning, the outcome wasnt what i wanted!!!!
This type of thinking is identical to the way conservatives have taken to bashing the judiciary over the Schavio case. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:29 PM Author: chocolate stage Please re-read Hanna's comment. Maybe that'll help you out, sport. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546125) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:31 PM Author: lemon magical cruise ship double fault Yet another substantive response... amazing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546134) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:38 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre Yeah, his persuasiveness is impressive. I wonder how this goes over when he gets called on in class? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546233) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:32 PM Author: mahogany striped hyena gas station To be fair, Scalia doesn't like/hates gays. But his reasoning in the above cases was completely defensible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546143) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:33 PM Author: chocolate stage The guy claims that there's a country consensus on executing juveniles. He's delusional apart from the fag issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546170) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:36 PM Author: mahogany striped hyena gas station I won't talk about "apart from the fag issue" right now. But his reasoning, even if it came from a delusional mind, was defensible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546207) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:36 PM Author: violent azn no he said there is a consensus in the states inwhich juveniles were executed, as is demonstrated by the legislative process which allowed execution of juveniles. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546208) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:38 PM Author: chocolate stage Have you EVER studied the Eighth Amendment? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546235) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:41 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre Have you ever studied anything? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546267) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:42 PM Author: chocolate stage 8A death penalty/cruel punishment issues focus on a "national consensus" not a consensus within a single state. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546279) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:41 PM Author: violent azn yes, just a month ago.
evolving standards of decency.
the disagreement is whose standards we should count. the majority felt the court could impose its own standards, scalia felt that the legislatures best represent the standards of the states.
neither view is radical or indefensible. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:44 PM Author: chocolate stage Scalia didn't want the majority to consider non-DP states when determining a consensus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546310) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:51 PM Author: violent azn yes, but its not mandated that evolving standards of decency involve a national or international consensus.
its not dishonest to think that state legislatures are the best to know the standards of their community, whether or not you agree. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:54 PM Author: chocolate stage Do you honestly think the 8A is a "state" issue? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546419) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:57 PM Author: violent azn when looking towards definitions of cruel and usual, I dont see why not.
Like I said, it can go either way, but neither choice is ridiculous. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:05 PM Author: chocolate stage Wouldn't looking at the entire nation paint a clearer picture of the issue? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546552) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:07 PM Author: violent azn clearer issue of what? which is the community standards of the US, of the world, or of Alabama?
there is no clear scale for community standard, and so its left up to the interpretation. Federalists prefer to let the states interpret more than the federal gov. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:10 PM Author: chocolate stage The magnitude of the death penalty and its implications (i.e. ending a U.S. citizen's life) is an issue that goes beyond artificial state borders. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546625) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:16 PM Author: violent azn well thats a whole other issue of federalism.
How about artificial national borders? |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:17 PM Author: chocolate stage Are lands beyond those borders governed by the federal constitution? A single ban on cruel/unusual punishment applies to all states. Examining the nation as a whole in making the uniform cruel/unusual determination is incredibly reasonable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546735) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:48 PM Author: Bearded pale headpube No offense, but you seem completely ignorant of Scalia's reasoning in Roper. The whole point is that he rejects the "evolving standards of decency framework." The rest was just surplusage. He would read the Eighth Amendment to cover punishments recognized as cruel and unusual at the time of the ratification of the Eighth Amendment. He thinks the whole Trop V. Dulles standard is terrible. You're welcome to disagree witrh him (i do), but at least try to understand what his argument it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2547004) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:32 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre Like I said, you care only about his result. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546149) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:46 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad Well, I care for a few reasons.
A. Because I believe that homophobes are the moral equivalent of racists, and I care that someone in a great position of power over me has morals I don't respect.
B. Because I doubly care about that when the someone in power is the darling of the supposed moralists in the country.
C. Because I don't buy this bullshit about how textualists ignore results for a second, and I'm waiting for him and his acolytes to come to a "textualist" position opposed to what I perceive to be his political position. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:51 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre A. So maybe we should let you call all the shots, screw the constitution and democracy, Empress Hanna!!!
B. So someone is bad because you dissagree with people who support him. This is horrible logic coming from a smart person.
C. So you think Scalia likes flag burning? He in fact said he thought it was disgusting, but yet he voted that the 1st Amendment protected it. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:54 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space hamdi may also have been opposed to his political position (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546412) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:02 PM Author: Yellow marvelous idiot and apprendi/blakely/booker as well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546514) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2005 1:05 AM Author: Galvanic weed whacker I suspect it wasn't. He's no fan of Executive power grabs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2547741) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:01 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad A. 'Scuse me -- do you want to point out where I said he should be impeached because he disagrees with me? I guess only empresses are allowed to have opinions about public figures and whether they are worthy of respect.
B. No, the problem here is not my disagreement with said "moralists," it's their hypocrisy.
C. I don't think he really cares about flag burning on any deep level, because it isn't against his religion. He cares about abortion and homosexuality. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:06 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre "I'm waiting for him and his acolytes to come to a "textualist" position opposed to what I perceive to be his political position."
So now you claim it is his religious beliefs, not his political position that dicate his results? |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:08 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad I don't think that he believes that laws against flag burning are a good idea. I do think he believes laws against abortion and gay rights are a good idea.
A position against flag-burning laws is not the same as support for flag-burners. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:09 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre dp? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546613) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:11 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad Double post -- I'm having tech issues. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546639) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:13 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre You are right, but I think Scalia is probably the one judge on the Court right now that would go against the desired result... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546675) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:17 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad Actually, I'd agree with you if it weren't for Bush v. Gore. But his back was to the wall on that one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546732) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:23 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre I havent read this opinion yet, and I am kinda scared to... This might make me lose a lot of respect for him. Oh well, there is always Thomas!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546795) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:13 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space he pretty much said today that he thinks laws against flag burning would be a good idea (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546668) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:12 PM Author: exciting salmon rehab haunted graveyard He explicitly said that he doesn't care if gays want to pursue their rights through political avenues, yet you're willfully misinterpreting his statements about the homosexual agenda.
You use the term "homosexual agenda" as if there isn't one. There is, and that's fine. And, it's mainly being pursued through the courts, which isn't fine if you have Scalia's construction of the Cons't. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:16 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad It's a term used _exclusively_ in a negative -- usually contemptuous -- light, by people who are opposed to gay rights.
It's kind of like calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion." Everybody knows exactly what you mean, and where you stand on the issue, when you use that term.
Surely you aren't suggesting that Scalia is ignorant of the implications of the language he chooses. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:18 PM Author: exciting salmon rehab haunted graveyard You're giving it that connotation b/c you hate the people who even recognize that such a thing exists.
What Scalia said about gay rights is clearly true. The legal community has some evolving standards about what's fair with respect to gays and those views aren't held by the American people. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:24 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad I'M giving it that connotation?
I control the language use of 300 million other Americans?
If you can find me some examples where the term "homosexual agenda" is used by gay-rights organizations or gay-friendly writers to describe the movement they're involved in in a non-ironic way, I'll concede that the connotation isn't clear. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:28 PM Author: exciting salmon rehab haunted graveyard It's funny that you claim that 300 million Americans use it that way and then challenge me to find its use among some tiny subset of people who are seriously out of line with the majority of Americans. You're so out of touch. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546836) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:37 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad OK, I'll broaden the challenge. Find its non-ironic use to describe the gay rights movement by anyone friendly to the agy rights movement. Or are you going to argue that people who support gay rights are a tiny subset out of step with America?
Do you agree with me that "pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" are loaded terms, used to signify opposition to the movement being described? |
|
Date: April 13th, 2005 5:46 PM Author: mind-boggling knife This isn't even a true statement. Most of the "agenda" is being pursued in state legislatures not in courts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2551659) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:48 PM Author: Nighttime plum athletic conference its like Scalia thinks that homosexuals are some fictional group of people who dont exist ... in his Romer dissent he draws a comparison to, what is it, "polygamously-oriented" people (or something else made-up) in order to explain why he doesn't think gays deserve EP scrutiny. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546352) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:57 PM Author: mahogany striped hyena gas station The majority and Scalia agreed insofar that both thought minimum rationality would suffice for gays. The majority wasn't honest in apply that standard though, and in reality, used some kind of heightened scrutiny without owning up to it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546436) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:01 PM Author: Nighttime plum athletic conference youre right. but my point was that he made his policy prefs obvious by introducing his own moral perspective with his discussion of homosexual "choice." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546492) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:04 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space he talked about choice in the context of conduct, not having homosexual desires (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546546) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:13 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad Right. It's fine to be gay as long as you never do anything about it. It's kind of like saying, I don't hate Jews, I don't think there's anything wrong with being Jewish -- it's that whole praying in Hebrew thing that I view as despicable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546674) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:20 PM Author: mahogany striped hyena gas station I think it's abundantly clear that Scalia doesn't like gays. But I think his stance is that he would uphold advances in gay rights that are properly obtained. He thinks these advances should not come from making gays a suspect or almost-suspect class. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546764) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:21 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space that's not exactly fair to the view that homosexual conduct is immoral. a person may be a kleptomaniac, but the law doesn't condemn him until he actually steals. you have the view that there is nothing immoral about homosexual conduct. i share that view. but there are many people, maybe a majority, in this country who do view it as immoral. the majority is allowed to express its views of immorality through the law unless it infringes on rights specifically protected by the constitution. privacy is not such a right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546780) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:31 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad >the majority is allowed to express its views of immorality through the law unless it infringes on rights specifically protected by the constitution.
Sure. And I'm allowed to call them out as the moral equals of segregationists.
>privacy is not such a right.
You are of course entitled to disagree with forty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, but your making this kind of pronouncement in the same post where you point out that I'm not being fair to the opposite viewpoint is pretty ironic. Especially since in this case, the opposite viewpoint is the law of the land. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:37 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space 'Sure. And I'm allowed to call them out as the moral equals of segregationists.' This is exactly scalia's point- these issues should be resolved by democratic debate and process 'You are of course entitled to disagree with forty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, but your making this kind of pronouncement in the same post where you point out that I'm not being fair to the opposite viewpoint is pretty ironic. Especially since in this case, the opposite viewpoint is the law of the land.' I think its more about 30 years. but fair enough, there certainly is precedent supporting a right to privacy. an originalist like scalia would say that since the right isn't in the text, it doesn't exist. of course, if we go with an evolving constitution notion of interpretation, it will only exist as long as there are five justices who think it exists. social conservatives will certainly be doing their darnest to make sure there five justices who say it doesn't. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:41 PM Author: Nighttime plum athletic conference 'I think its more about 30 years. but fair enough, there certainly is precedent supporting a right to privacy. an originalist like scalia would say that since the right isn't in the text, it doesn't exist.'
Griswold was 1965, 40 years ago.
hasn't Scalia in the past ruled in favor of some rights not explicit in the constitution? the right to refuse medical treatment (Cruzan) comes to mind. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:59 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space are you suggesting that polygamously-oriented people are some "fictional group of people who dont exist"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546475) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2005 1:48 PM Author: Primrose theater stage organic girlfriend I hope you're not suggesting that referring to the "homosexual agenda" is per se homophobic. The word agenda simply means "A list or program of things to be done or considered." It is entirely understandable to refer to the Democratic agenda, the Republican agenda, the Christian agenda, or the homosexual agenda. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2557323) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:36 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid "Liberals need to figure out that Scalia doesn't base his opinions on a desired result."
Fuck yes he does. They all do. Did the Legal Realist revolution miss you?
What you aren't comprehending is that Scalia's "desired result" was not an attack on gays, but a refutation of privacy protection. And in doing so, he ignores the Constitution. Whether Scalia likes it or not, Roe is law. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:39 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space yes, Roe is law, but it isn't the Constitution itself. there is a difference between stare decisis on constitutional issues and the text of the constitution itself (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546250) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:42 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546278) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:48 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid I think "pwn3d" is more appropriate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546357) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:51 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space you're admitting you were "pwn3d"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546381) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:52 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid i'm practicing to be a trophy wife. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546396) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:55 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space ahh yes, now i remember why i liked you again. i still haven't gotten that fax of your picture though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546424) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:03 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid http://tinypic.com/4g6jrc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546529) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:06 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space aren't you taken? kent or something? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546571) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:08 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid ken has no penis, so he doesn't mind if i fuck around. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546600) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:14 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space you're wonderful (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546679) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:16 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid that's what ken says, too! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546707) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:23 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space i'm sorry, but if we're going to be together it has to be exclusive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546802) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:28 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid I think I should wait for the results of my lawyers' due diligence before having the "exclusive" conversation with you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546839) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:32 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space i'm sorry, but i can't have "sometit," only the wholetit- perhaps i need to invoke the unilateral termination clause of our letter of intent to pursue a merger (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546871) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:35 PM Author: bistre hilarious hominid ahahaha - awesome.
But until I get my boob job, I'm afraid "sometit" is all there is. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:40 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space that's ok, i like medium sized boobs. off to bed for me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546942) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:07 PM Author: mahogany striped hyena gas station You're a doll. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546588) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:52 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre WTF? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546398) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:57 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546447) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:40 PM Author: violent azn Saying that not believing in a right to privacy is ignoring the constitution is very tenuous.
maybe its disagreeing with the most recent (and narrowly decided) precedent, but its hardly a well settled fact in our country that there is a constitutional right to privacy. and as an originalist, Scalia is within reason to not find one. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:44 PM Author: Aggressive Mauve Cuck Theatre I dont recall the majority relying on Roe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546315) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2006 10:31 PM Author: fragrant vermilion associate indian lodge Subject: WWSD? My mantra when addressing any Constitutional question: WWSD? http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug/2017755 |
|
Date: December 6th, 2006 10:33 PM Author: irradiated partner public bath don't bump in the middle of an old thread retard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#7157717) |
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:00 PM Author: Obsidian Field Masturbator i was appalled but it looks like it happens all the time
http://www.legitgov.org/front_scalia_prin.html |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:02 PM Author: Medicated Church join the long-ass discussion: http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164493&mc=172&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:04 PM Author: pea-brained lettuce Can someone reveal the name? Obviously it will come out sooner or later; I don't see a reason for non-disclosure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545380) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:06 PM Author: greedy disturbing tattoo Someone outed the guy already, apparantly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545399) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:16 PM Author: Multi-colored indigo newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545484) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:08 PM Author: red station cuckold Welcome to five hours ago. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545412) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:10 PM Author: alcoholic fanboi "Welcome to [some time ago]" is the gayest, most annoying reply possible to a thread posted in good faith. Fag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545429) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:11 PM Author: Dark Well-lubricated Plaza Welcome to two minutes ago (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545436) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:11 PM Author: red station cuckold Hey, if you hold yourself out as a breaking news outlet, you've got to be on the ball with this stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545438) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:12 PM Author: aphrodisiac orchid windowlicker dilemma Yes, and "fag" is a much more mature response. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545440) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:54 PM Author: indecent library faggot firefighter Sounds like the gay kid PWN3D Scalia. Hahaha. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545792) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:32 PM Author: Pink titillating brethren SO what happened after he asked? Did everyone's jaw drop? WHat did Scalia say? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546147) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:37 PM Author: fantasy-prone buff sneaky criminal space there was an audible gasp, scalia said nothing, barkow told the guy to sit down, and he asked the same thing about 5 more times (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546216) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:46 PM Author: Pink titillating brethren I just read Earl's post. Wow. What a useless ass dumpster. Doing things like that make people hate and disrespect gays even more. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546333) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:01 PM Author: lemon magical cruise ship double fault Sad, but true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546508) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2005 2:12 PM Author: boyish very tactful brunch Why do you say things like this, Arrow? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2557432) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:12 PM Author: Cream Feces Hitler makes me hate white people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546651) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2005 1:12 AM Author: Galvanic weed whacker He certainly wasn't speaking for all of us. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2547821) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:47 PM Author: dun halford useless brakes I guess he really wanted to know.
I wouldn't. |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:01 PM Author: dun halford useless brakes Subject: It could have been worse... The guy could have brought up "santorum". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546503) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:19 PM Author: sienna soul-stirring range chad Eh, that wouldn't have much punch addressing Scalia. I'm sure Santorum's been asked about santorum. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546753) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2005 2:00 PM Author: gold cowardly temple deer antler Hanna - where you go to school? Not to sound like an idiot, but you're brilliant? you interested in litigation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2557378) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2005 2:19 PM Author: bateful becky wagecucks she doesn't. she has HLS on her diploma and works (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2557473) |
|
Date: September 26th, 2005 6:20 PM Author: sexy step-uncle's house generalized bond BUMP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#3910096) |