NYU 2L to Scalia: Do You Sodomize Your Wife?
| electric address | 04/12/05 | | Flickering Wine Field Toilet Seat | 04/12/05 | | electric address | 04/12/05 | | pale slippery meetinghouse | 04/12/05 | | bisexual cocky gas station | 04/12/05 | | electric address | 04/12/05 | | bisexual cocky gas station | 04/12/05 | | electric address | 04/12/05 | | bisexual cocky gas station | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | trip stock car | 04/13/05 | | Henna histrionic coldplay fan range | 04/13/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | mauve hateful rehab becky | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | navy nudist keepsake machete legal warrant | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | navy nudist keepsake machete legal warrant | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Citrine property sandwich | 04/12/05 | | electric address | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | vibrant market famous landscape painting | 04/12/05 | | razzle shivering legend cuck | 04/13/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | apoplectic school cafeteria mood | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | apoplectic school cafeteria mood | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | apoplectic school cafeteria mood | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | fuchsia hall | 04/13/05 | | Amber Angry Psychic | 04/12/05 | | navy nudist keepsake machete legal warrant | 04/12/05 | | Amber Angry Psychic | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | navy nudist keepsake machete legal warrant | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Amber Angry Psychic | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | vigorous foreskin ladyboy | 04/14/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Brindle filthy love of her life | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | navy nudist keepsake machete legal warrant | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Cerebral Naked Locale | 04/12/05 | | Odious voyeur | 04/12/05 | | Wonderful gay wizard party of the first part | 12/06/06 | | razzle-dazzle insanely creepy goal in life base | 12/06/06 | | Turquoise irradiated philosopher-king lay | 04/12/05 | | pale slippery meetinghouse | 04/12/05 | | Primrose arousing indirect expression | 04/12/05 | | Flickering Wine Field Toilet Seat | 04/12/05 | | Useless house | 04/12/05 | | salmon home | 04/12/05 | | Hyperactive spectacular private investor | 04/12/05 | | stimulating cyan factory reset button trust fund | 04/12/05 | | salmon home | 04/12/05 | | Racy Office Son Of Senegal | 04/12/05 | | Exciting balding weed whacker crackhouse | 04/12/05 | | Lilac Toaster | 04/12/05 | | black domesticated sweet tailpipe | 04/12/05 | | Lilac Toaster | 04/12/05 | | mauve hateful rehab becky | 04/12/05 | | Passionate carnelian windowlicker lodge | 04/14/05 | | lascivious startled tank | 04/12/05 | | razzle shivering legend cuck | 04/13/05 | | Charcoal heady police squad step-uncle's house | 04/12/05 | | Charcoal heady police squad step-uncle's house | 04/12/05 | | Frisky Sanctuary Mediation | 04/12/05 | | buck-toothed irate ratface | 04/14/05 | | Talking Forum Gaming Laptop | 04/14/05 | | High-end twinkling uncleanness useless brakes | 09/26/05 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 12th, 2005 8:58 PM Author: electric address
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 9:08 PM Author: bisexual cocky gas station
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545411) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:11 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545952) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:14 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545986) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:20 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546027) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2005 11:07 AM Author: trip stock car 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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2549189) |
|
Date: April 13th, 2005 5:39 PM Author: Henna histrionic coldplay fan range
A
(One of his kids is a priest...)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2551604) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:24 PM Author: Odious voyeur
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546073)
|
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:21 PM Author: Odious voyeur
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546042) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:27 PM Author: Odious voyeur
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546099) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:41 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546274) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:51 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546382) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:57 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546448) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:07 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546577) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:16 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
well thats a whole other issue of federalism.
How about artificial national borders?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546712) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:46 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546337) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:51 PM Author: Odious voyeur
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546390) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:01 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546505) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:06 PM Author: Odious voyeur
"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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546563) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:08 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546594) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:12 PM Author: apoplectic school cafeteria mood
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546658) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:16 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546709) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:18 PM Author: apoplectic school cafeteria mood
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546738) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:24 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546808) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:37 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546911) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:31 PM Author: Frisky Sanctuary Mediation
>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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546859) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:37 PM Author: black domesticated sweet tailpipe
'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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546914) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:41 PM Author: Amber Angry Psychic
'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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546943) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:36 PM Author: Brindle filthy love of her life
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546200) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:35 PM Author: Brindle filthy love of her life
ahahaha - awesome.
But until I get my boob job, I'm afraid "sometit" is all there is.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546899) |
|
Date: April 12th, 2005 10:40 PM Author: Cerebral Naked Locale
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546257) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2006 10:31 PM Author: Wonderful gay wizard party of the first part Subject: WWSD?
My mantra when addressing any Constitutional question:
WWSD?
http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug/2017755
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#7157696) |
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:00 PM Author: Turquoise irradiated philosopher-king lay
i was appalled but it looks like it happens all the time
http://www.legitgov.org/front_scalia_prin.html
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545343) |
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:04 PM Author: Primrose arousing indirect expression
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 9:08 PM Author: salmon home
Welcome to five hours ago.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2545412) |
Date: April 12th, 2005 9:54 PM Author: Exciting balding weed whacker crackhouse
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: Lilac Toaster
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 10:47 PM Author: Charcoal heady police squad step-uncle's house
I guess he really wanted to know.
I wouldn't.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#2546346) |
Date: April 12th, 2005 11:01 PM Author: Charcoal heady police squad step-uncle's house 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 14th, 2005 2:00 PM Author: buck-toothed irate ratface
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: September 26th, 2005 6:20 PM Author: High-end twinkling uncleanness useless brakes
BUMP
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=164639&forum_id=2#3910096) |
|
|