Scalia Speak
Posted by Michelle Moquin on December 12th, 2012
Good morning!
Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay
PRINCETON, N.J. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay.
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
Scalia has been giving speeches around the country to promote his new book, “Reading Law,” and his lecture at Princeton comes just days after the court agreed to take on two cases that challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Some in the audience who had come to hear Scalia speak about his book applauded but more of those who attended the lecture clapped at freshman Duncan Hosie’s question.
“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,’” Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.
Then he deadpanned: “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”
Hosie said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia’s answer. He said he believes Scalia’s writings tend to “dehumanize” gays.
As Scalia often does in public speaking, he cracked wise, taking aim mostly at those who view the Constitution as a “living document” that changes with the times.
“It isn’t a living document,” Scalia said. “It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.”
He said that people who see the Constitution as changing often argue they are taking the more flexible approach. But their true goal is to set policy permanently, he said.
“My Constitution is a very flexible one,” he said. “There’s nothing in there about abortion. It’s up to the citizens. … The same with the death penalty.”
Scalia said that interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.
********
Readers: I’m sick of Scalia speak. What’s your opinion? Oh…I can’t seem to post the video so if you’re interested, please click on the title to watch.
Janet, Jayson: I realize I am quite late in my reply to you both, but do know that my good thoughts were being sent your way, and wishing you and yours well.
Hazel: Unfortunately your story is not unique. In most cases, if men didn’t do the horrific things they do to women, women wouldn’t have to resort to lashing back in such ways as you two did. Sometimes and eye for an eye is your only choice. I HOPE you two are happy now that you’re back together.
Scott: Howie, is his own person, making his own decisions. I enjoy seeing Howie here just as much as all the others. He’ll show up when he feels like it.
wow. Cece: You certainly broached a subject that many were interested in responding to. I found it interesting reading the opposing views, not unlike the opinions of so many other controversial subjects.
It is so interesting how many topics get broached here that enlighten me to so many worldly happenings.
Robert, RT: Your “If I may change the subject for a moment” statement made me smile. It feels kind of like that needs to be said when the topic is on a roll, doesn’t it? Anyway, nice to see you here again. Once again, you get to juice of the matter, and point out very clearly what’s going on here.
Mike, TM: I am happy that Obama fined HSBC, and yes it is another feather in his cap. I also agree with Alycedale that more needs to happen to these criminals. Huge fines are not enough to fear. They get busted for the crime, they need to do the time.
Ruth, SM: Hi there. I went to your link and I was surprised at what I saw. I cannot imagine someone doing that and thinking that it was not only OK but funny. It is not only racist but it this kind of thing that is non-supporting and degrades women in general. If women are doing this to each other, what does that say to men? What signs does it send that if women can degrade each other, and get away with it, what can I do? It’s just not good all around.
Cherika: Again, the things I learn here are shocking. Talk about degrading. This woman Saartjie Baartman was a beauty because of her uniqueness. What a horrible life to live displayed as a freak instead of honoring her beauty. And to think of how her parts were displayed is just disgusting. Thank you for sharing.
George, WN: You’re too much – it’s hard to take you seriously – wish I didn’t have to but I know your words are not a joke. But…Just like some white women who will be kicking and screaming to their freedom because of this black man, you would rather see this country go to shit in the proverbial hand-basket, because of this black man, than see a black man succeed like no other president has before him…for the good of all. Sounds to me like you’re still sore because your ex is getting the big one. Grow up and get over it. Unfortunately there are plenty of women out there who would love your company…small penis and all.
Anonymous: Ditto to what Irene said.
That is the end folks. Your turn. Blog me.
Happy Hanukkah!
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
December 12th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
=================================
“States can ban what they believe to be immoral”? How is than different from Sharia law practiced by a lot of muslim countries? It isn’t unless the person answering you is an idiotic like this fat slob.
So I guess we can go back to days when each state passed their own moral laws that restricted things like women riding bicycles and taking more than one bath a month. The things that come out of this idiotic’s mouth would be funny accept he is one of the nine that decides how we live our lives.
But as is often stated on this blog the most of the white world just eats up what this idiotic says. Why? Because other white boys told them he was a genius when it comes to the law. Duh? If this is a genius to most white folks then an average person would have to be brain dead, simply dead.
If god doesn’t take this ignorant piece of shit off the planet before the end of Obama’s term, we are doomed as a nation.
Ruth,SM
December 12th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Here is my enlightenment for all you minorities, whiners, deviants and gimmie, gimmies. You yell about your rights now I’m going to yell about mine. I will have to support you lazy, shiftless, no good worthless slugs becuse this government makes me, But I will no longer take your crap without telling you what you are and it is not my choice to pay you for bereeing what you are.
December 12th, 2012 at 10:48 am
The question is not whether gays have the right to their lifestyle … the question is whether those who don’t accept it have the right to reject it. What gay freaks do in privacy is their own business, but when they see fit to put themselves on exhibit, they should expect backlash.
December 12th, 2012 at 10:49 am
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.” – 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
December 12th, 2012 at 10:51 am
He is not the one writing the law. He applies the constitution to it. Sometime I agree with him sometimes I don’t. He is correct that legislative bodies decide laws not the court.
December 12th, 2012 at 10:52 am
Some people seem to forget that the job of a justice is to interpret and apply the law as it is written. They don’t make laws, they just interpret them.
My guess is that any good justice has had to make rulings against their own personal wishes and judgement simply because their job is to rule based on law, and not their own desires.
December 12th, 2012 at 10:54 am
How far are you willing to take this? Do you let people marry their pets? Do you let people marry inanimate objects? There is always going to be someone that insists that their rights are being trampled. When you dilute the definition of marriage to include same sex couples or inter racial couples or polygamy or polyandry you weaken the institution of marriage.
December 12th, 2012 at 10:57 am
I agree with Scalia. A state should be able to pass moral laws. My bible says inter racial unions are sinful. I don’t think my state should allow it. If people want to sin in the eyes of the Lord let them do it in california.
When I see interracial couples, I want to get my Ak and send them to answer to their maker. The white race in America will not last if this continues.
December 12th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Whitney, it shouldn’t be true but it is. Legislature passes a law,then a suit can be brought up and then it may go to a lower court. If the person thinks that the lower court wasn’t right he can take it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may or may not even look at it. If they even look at it they may not even put it on the docket!!!
December 12th, 2012 at 11:03 am
I agree with you Ruth,SM. “legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral’”
The constitution was designed to protect individuals from Government abuses.
The guy would be a joke if he weren’t so dangerous.
December 12th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
GOOD AFTERNOON TO EVERYONE!
With 20 days left, companies and individuals are scrambling to do what they can to avoid the impending tax hikes scheduled for Jan. 1, 2013. And why not? Rates are scheduled to go back to Clinton-era numbers, while some, such as the Capital Gains tax rate, are slated to go even higher according to the Budget Control Act of 2011.
In France, some of that nation’s wealthiest are packing up and heading out, especially since they are now looking up at an effective tax rate of 75 percent under President Hollande’s socialist regime. Famous actor Gerard Depardieu has already moved to Belgium – where the maximum tax rate is 50 percent.
In spite of the growing movement to tax – or “eat” if you’re of the Occupy Wall Street ilk – the rich, Republicans in Congress continue to seek out a reasonable compromise on the fiscal cliff with the White House. The message needs to be sent out again and again: tax increases on the people of this country will do little or nothing to resolve our debt crisis. The real and lasting solution must be found in entitlement reform and spending reductions.
Lots of news and analysis below, including our daily fiscal cliff update.
Stay calm and carry on,
– Adam Tragone, Managing Editor
December 13th, 2012 at 7:38 am
Fill Your Plate with High-Volume Foods
Are you trying to lose a few pounds?
If so, you’re probably confused by the many diets that promise to make your fat magically disappear if you follow their advice.
For instance, do I want to subsist solely on cabbage soup? No thanks!
There’s a more reasonable nugget of dieting wisdom out there that is reinforced in the latest book by Barbara Rolls, PhD, a professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, and Mindy Hermann, RD. It’s called The Ultimate Volumetrics Diet (HarperCollins), and it touts a very simple idea that’ll help you lose weight without feeling hungry all the time.
How does it work? I called Dr. Rolls, who shared her secrets with me…
DON’T DIET HUNGRY
The trick is stunningly simple actually. When you eat foods that have fewer calories per bite, your portion size grows but your overall calorie count doesn’t, Dr. Rolls said. The result? You feel full—not deprived—on fewer calories, so you’re more likely lose weight. That’s why she’s a big fan of “high-volume” foods. She shared three practical tips on how you can add more volume to your diet…
1. SNEAK IN VEGGIES
Don’t you love macaroni and cheese? It’s so scrumptious, but unfortunately, it’s also usually devilishly fatty and caloric. Well, I have good news for you. There’s a way to get all the goodness with fewer calories and more nutrition.
In her lab, Dr. Rolls found that people who ate macaroni and cheese containing 28% puréed squash and cauliflower consumed the same total volume of food and were equally satisfied as those who ate regular mac and cheese, but here’s the kicker—they took in 182 fewer calories.
A purée may not sound very appealing, but let me assure you, it is!
With this one simple change, you can simultaneously eat more nutrient-rich veggies—and cut calories—without sacrificing taste.
You can add puréed carrots and spinach to spaghetti sauce…boil cauliflower along with potatoes before mashing them…tuck veggie purées into virtually any soup, stew, chili or casserole.
Before you purée, cook the vegetable so it’s soft. The easiest way to do that, said Dr. Rolls, is to microwave fresh or frozen veggies in a bowl with a bit of water until they’re soft. Then purée them in a blender.
For recipes on what to purée, check out the Facebook page that is dedicated to the book: http://www.facebook.com/VolumetricsDiet.
2. EAT “AIRY” FOODS
Adding air is another easy way to pump up the volume of food without adding calories. In another study, Dr. Rolls gave one group of people crunchy Cheetos and another group puffed Cheetos. Those who snacked on the airier, puffed variety took in 73% more food, in terms of volume—but 21% fewer calories. So snack on “volumized” foods such as popcorn, rice cakes and whipped yogurts, and enjoy a bowl of puffed cereal for breakfast.
I was concerned about this last point, because puffed carbs tend to have a higher glycemic index than less processed, unpuffed carbs—so I asked Dr. Rolls whether it would be more healthful for people, especially those with diabetes, to avoid puffed carbs to help keep their blood sugar under control.
But Dr. Rolls said that the glycemic differences between puffed and unpuffed carbs are not very great, and that it’s much more convenient to eat puffed carbs, so she stands by her advice.
3. DON’T SKIP THE APPETIZER
Many of my friends forgo appetizers if they eat out while they’re dieting—big mistake! To eat less of your entrée, start your meal with a big green salad or a bowl of broth- or tomato-based soup (the creamier ones aren’t worth it, because they’re usually very fattening).
This jump-starts the process of filling you up. In Dr. Rolls’s research, people who began their lunches with a three-cup, 100-calorie salad ate 12% fewer calories, total, at lunch, and still felt satisfied. And those who started with a large bowl of soup consumed up to 20% fewer calories overall.
Sources: Barbara Rolls, PhD, professor of nutritional sciences, chair in nutrition, head of the Laboratory for the Study of Human Ingestive Behavior, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Dr. Rolls is coauthor with Mindy Hermann, RD, of The Volumetrics Weight-Control Plan, The Volumetrics Eating Plan and The Ultimate Volumetrics Diet (all HarperCollins), which was named one of the 2012 Best Weight-Loss Diets, Best Diets for Healthy Eating and Easiest Diets to Follow by US News & World Report. Learn more about the Volumetrics eating plan at http://www.facebook.com/VolumetricsDiet.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:26 am
While much of the discussion around the fiscal showdown has rightly focused on the top tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, there are a lot of other very important tax issues to sort. Notably, many expanded tax credits for low-wage workers and other important tax credits, such as the American Opportunity tax credit, will disappear at the end of the year if they are not extended.
The Senate has already passed a bill extending these important tax credits as well as the current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses, but Republicans are holding those tax cuts hostage in order to get more tax breaks for the wealthy.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:37 am
Now that Michigan’s Governor has signed into law the big lie his” Right to Work” ruse, I think that beats out Politico’s naming Lie Of The Year: Mitt Romney’s Jeeps In China Ad.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:44 am
Michelle, most of my republican friends are still reeling about from my assuring them Obama would win by a landslide and with coattails because you said so.
For months after I said it after a meeting in which a lot of us remained to discuss politics, they went around sneering while uttering “Michelle Who?” Now they avoid my wry smile when I say, I guess you know who Michelle is now.
Thanks
The win was Great.
You giving me Brag Swagger, PRICELESS!
Steven
December 13th, 2012 at 8:46 am
No need to guess which way Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will vote on the gay marriage issues. Strict interpretation of the Constitution goes out the window when it comes to upholding the conservative agenda.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:47 am
Judges are human and must evolve in their opinions and thinking processes but age plays a big factor especially when they are seniors. What Scalia says is what he believes, end of story.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:47 am
Scalia’s remarks are prejudicial, and show that he has a mindset unlikely to consider justice for this case. He should recuse himself based on his previous writings alone. This is a LEGAL issue not a personal choice issue.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:49 am
Scalia is entitled to his opinion, but he should not let the personal view cloud his reasoning in a high court ruling.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:49 am
Conservative (il)logic is just too hard to follow. At any rate this man is far too opinionated to be a judge. Judges should look at laws, not at personal “moral” gut feelings.
There is no indication that he will do so. God willing, he’ll be replaced by the end of our President’s term.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:51 am
“Allow same sex marriage and all it’s legalities can be applied to Bisexuals marrying one of each sex at the same time.”
Who really cares if they did as long as the gov’t only allowed one joint filing of tax returns and one marriage deduction? I mean, if 3 people each mutually want to share rights to do things like visit in the hospital or have a private contract (which is all marraige is) that would give any two of them the right to decide on the third’s health care if hospitalized, then who freekin cares? The only thing you should be worried about is the fairness of the financial end of it.
December 13th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Regardless of which side of ANY issue you come down on, our justice system relies on judges (including Supreme Court justices!) to be enter into a case with an open mind.
Scalia sounds like he has made a decision before even hearing arguments. This is equivalent to a jury deciding a defendant is guilty before opening arguments or any evidence is presented. This is not healthy for our justice system or the faith we need to be able to have in it.