d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Dissenting Opinions Of Aca, Gay Marriage
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 14,370
Joined: Feb 3 2007
Gold: 0.00
Jun 26 2015 11:52am
Justice Scalia's remarks are hilarious and borderline insane at times.

About the ACA, he said in his 21-page dissent, "[The decision] rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," and "You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it."

About gay marriage, "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say."

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."


Member
Posts: 32,208
Joined: Nov 27 2010
Gold: 159.02
Jun 26 2015 11:53am
"(Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)"
Member
Posts: 14,370
Joined: Feb 3 2007
Gold: 0.00
Jun 26 2015 11:56am
Quote (Devil_kin @ Jun 26 2015 01:53pm)
"(Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)"




Scalia has spoken.

This post was edited by CoheedAndCambria on Jun 26 2015 11:57am
Member
Posts: 34,426
Joined: Apr 13 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jun 26 2015 12:11pm
Can he put his head back in the aforementioned bag?
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Jun 26 2015 12:11pm
this guy must have a very boring marriage

bet it's missionary all the time
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Apr 5 2015
Gold: 345.00
Jun 26 2015 04:42pm
Quote (CoheedAndCambria @ Jun 26 2015 12:56pm)


He needs to trim his nose hair, uni-brow, and get some dental work done FFS lol
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jun 26 2015 04:54pm
His comments on the ruling actually contradict his stated opinion on the ruling. The guy's legal philosophy can only be described as schizophrenic.

Also, it is funny hearing about how bad his marriage is in a legal opinion lol.

But then he writes something poetic and powerful like:

Quote
The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of unelected, life-tenured judges — leading a Volk who will be 'tested by following' and whose 'very belief in themselves' is mystically bound up in their 'understanding' of a Court that 'speakbefore all others for their constitutional ideals' — with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.


He is a legal mastermind and I just look at his stuff in awe, but the trouble with fantastic writing and opinions is that you hit some in left field from time to time.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 26 2015 05:02pm
Member
Posts: 45,817
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,186.49
Jun 26 2015 05:52pm
I'm with Scalia on this, insofar as I agree with his maxim. The government has no place dictating marriage as a social construct in the first place, there should be no prohibitions against any marriage of any kind. Marriage laws abridge this freedom. Any rights of joint taxes and inheritence and hospital visitations should be, ahem, divorced from the concept of an official declaration of monogamous intimacy. Those same financial and social arrangements and rights can still exist, separate from marriage.
Member
Posts: 90,563
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Jun 26 2015 05:56pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 26 2015 05:52pm)
I'm with Scalia on this, insofar as I agree with his maxim. The government has no place dictating marriage as a social construct in the first place, there should be no prohibitions against any marriage of any kind. Marriage laws abridge this freedom. Any rights of joint taxes and inheritence and hospital visitations should be, ahem, divorced from the concept of an official declaration of monogamous intimacy. Those same financial and social arrangements and rights can still exist, separate from marriage.


yes yes the more wedding rings there are the more my gold is worth, preach brother preach
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Jun 26 2015 08:02pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 26 2015 03:52pm)
I'm with Scalia on this, insofar as I agree with his maxim. The government has no place dictating marriage as a social construct in the first place, there should be no prohibitions against any marriage of any kind. Marriage laws abridge this freedom. Any rights of joint taxes and inheritence and hospital visitations should be, ahem, divorced from the concept of an official declaration of monogamous intimacy. Those same financial and social arrangements and rights can still exist, separate from marriage.


I'm glad that we had the gay marriage debate. It genuinely opened up my mind to accepting polygamy and other obscure relationships. I think we'll eventually come to the conclusion that the government does not need to be involved in marriage. It will take decades for the rest of society to figure that out though.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll