April 8, 2009

"I think that Professor Althouse is being particularly tone deaf in her reading of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence..."

Lots of comments on my Chicago Tribune op-ed over at Volokh.

Many of them make me want to say: Did you read the whole column before you popped off in the comments?

Ironically, I'm getting the same response that Scalia gets and that I was defending him against.

157 comments:

dbp said...

"Ironically, I'm getting the same response that Scalia gets and that I was defending him against."

Ironically? No. Inevitably would be closer to the mark.

downtownlad said...

Your column didn't make sense.

Barney Frank is in the House, not the Senate. He will have zero say over the confirmation hearings. And why was Frank saying that Thomas was not a homophobe. Wouldn't that imply, based on your argument, that he'd be fine with a Thomas clone on the court?

No expectation setting needs to be done on the Supreme Court. Obama is President and we have a Democratic Senate, and in all liklihood he's only going to be replacing liberals (Stevens, Ginsburg). And Snowe and Collins from Maine will be fine with Obama's picks. I don't expect any Supreme Court battles, although most Republicans will vote no.

Quayle said...

Unfortunately Ann, con law professors that defend Scalia's views are inherently conflicted, because only under Scalia’s approach do con law professors have job security.

Under the ‘modern’ constitutional interpretation approach of trumping original intent with current fad and fashion, there is no need or reason to teach con law. Past decisions become meaningless, and legal reasoning becomes a sham. Con law classes become a mere study in literature and style. You may as well turn them into photography classes.

The fact is that one simply doesn’t need a con law professor to teach one that the wind is blowing left when anyone on any ‘elite’ campus can moisten their own finger and put it in the air?

Henry said...

Apparently you're not projecting enough.

Ann Althouse said...

"Barney Frank is in the House, not the Senate. He will have zero say over the confirmation hearings."

Oh, bullshit. The point is about influencing public opinion not his vote on nominations.

Lem said...

If Obama delivers nominees who've demonstrated their heart and empathy by reaching outcomes that accord with liberal political preferences, will liberals forget that we need to test the soundness of their legal reasoning? If Frank succeeds in getting people to believe that judicial opinions are the kind wishes of good hearts, we will rubber-stamp these seemingly good people.

My only critique of the column is that you seem to allow for this “demonstration of a good heart and empathy” where as I would say that if these “demonstrations” are allowed they will become the sole and only criteria by witch potential future judges are chosen.

In other words I fear that allowing for the possibility that something can be "forgotten" may in fact negate its value.

downtownlad said...

You've completely ignored my comment about Frank and Thomas.

So is Frank implying that he's ok with someone like Thomas, because Thomas is not a homophobe? I don't think so. But Frank would still prefer Thomas to Scalia, because he knows that Thomas will not pre-judge the case to automatically rule against the gay person. Scalia would. Do I have proof for that? No - but I know it in my gut, because I know a homophobe when I see one. And Scalia is a big-time homophobe.

Frank singled out Scalia, because Scalia is is a homophobe. You'd be hard pressed to find gay people who would disagree with that, although I'm sure a few do exist.

Thomas is not a homophobe. I don't think Roberts or Alito or homophobes either. In fact, I'm pretty sure Roberts is gay.

Henry said...

DTL, thanks for the circular argument. I'm enlightened.

downtownlad said...

It's not circular.

Scalia is a homophobe.

Perhaps you can find one iota of evidence that shows that he's not a homophobe.

just one.

Ann has been incapable of doing that thus far.

Henry said...

Scalia is a homophobe because he is a homophobe.

That's too circular for me.

downtownlad said...

The funny thing is that I'm pretty certain Scalia would be more offended by Ann's statement that he's not a homophobe, than he would be my statement that he is.

Scalia is a proud homophobe.

There are lots of homophobes in America. Way more than 50% of the population. Just look at all of the anti-gay referendums. Heck - the Texas anti-gay sodomy law existed because a majority of Texans favored it. Anyone wanna take a bet whether or not Scalia would side with that anti-gay majority if he were a Texas voter?

Only someone who revels in their willful ignorance would pretend that Scalia wouldn't be in the majority of the population who continually vote against gay rights.

downtownlad said...

No Henry.

I disagreed with Ann's argument that Frank was saying that Scalia is a homophobe, because he was trying to influence future Supreme Court nominations.

I said that Frank claimed Scalia was a homophobe, because - well - Scalia is a homophobe.

That's not circular.

Henry said...

True enough.

Interesting premise.

Ann Althouse said...

"You've completely ignored my comment about Frank and Thomas."

Is that a confession that you didn't read my column or that you are a terrible reader?

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann's statement that he's not a homophobe"

I made no such statement. Quote something I said that you read that way so I can show you why you are a bad reader.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm kicking dtl's ass today.

downtownlad said...

Every gay person I know who follows constitutional law closely thinks that Scalia is a homophobe. And they all think that Thomas is not.

I've had these discussions years ago. It's not even a debate, it's just accepted.

Frank was just repeating those commonly held beliefs amongst the gay community.

The jury is still out on Alito and Roberts.

I'm actually shocked that Ann thinks that gay people aren't entitled to label people "homophobes", when they speak with such derision and contempt towards gay people.

Lem said...

Downtownlad is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.

And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.


downtownlad chapter peace and love and understanding.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bearbee said...

Perhaps you can find one iota of evidence that shows that he's not a homophobe.

just one.


He has never kicked a gay person, has he?

Paul Zrimsek said...

I'm kicking dtl's ass today.

Not far enough.

Henry said...

If Frank is a disinterested judge of character, simply voicing his opinion on Scalia with no ulterior motives or greater purpose, then DTL is certainly correct to reject Althouse's analysis.

Some politicians strive for political outcomes; apparently there are others that only serve the interests of definitional clarity.

downtownlad said...

Ann - You said it was "despicable" that Frank labeled Scalia a homophobe in your blogpost last week.

I'm referring to that.

It goes right along with Barney Frank's recent, despicable assertion that Justice Scalia is a homophobe.

How can you think it's "despicable" unless you don't think Scalia is a homophobe.

I did read your column this morning, although quickly on my way to work.

Meade said...

"I'm kicking dtl's ass today."

Thanks. Please keep it up. We're counting on you. Some of us are constrained by having to get back to our regularly scheduled programs.

downtownlad said...

I'm winning right now.

Peter V. Bella said...

DTL,
You are truly an idiot, a cretin, a moron, and with a deranged conspiracy theory, hate infected brain. There is no concrete proof or evidence that Scalia is a homophobe; having an irrational hatred of homosexual people, lifestyle, or culture. None.

He disagrees with what he believes, through his legal studies and experience, is a bad legal decision and the setting of a bad legal precedent. That is not homophobia. It is his legal opinion. In layman’s terms, he is stating that community standards should prevail. Legislators are voted in by the people and they make laws according to the will of the people. If the people want to legalize certain forms of sexual behavior- it is behavior- they can let their legislature know about it have them take the appropriate action.

This has nothing to do with irrational hatred of homosexuals. It has everything to do with making a distinction between sound legal reasoning and policy versus social policy.

Like you, Barney Frank is a crass, crude, irresponsible, hatemonger. I wonder what his backlash would have been had Scalia responded in kind to his reckless comments? I wonder what would have happened if Scalia would have issued an insulting diatribe against Frank? The difference here; Scalia is a sound, prudent, reasoned jurist. He is also a sound, reasoned, prudent gentleman and an adult. Barney Frank is a reckless, irresponsible, hate filled boor. Barney Frank could learn something here; if he had a brain.

Just to set your mind at ease, the majority of people really do not care one way or another about homosexuals. Most people believe that who one sleeps with is their own damn business and wish homosexuals kept their private lives, well, private.

Henry said...

At his next public appearance, Rep. Barney Frank will let us know which Hollywood actors are homophobes.

Barney Frank has zero say over Hollywood actors. He only seeks to say what must be said.

downtownlad said...

Peter,

Yes, there's less evidence that Scalia is a homophobe than say, oh, that Peter Bella is a homophobe. But that still means that there is lots.

1) He uses the term "homosexual agenda", a true mark of a homophobe.

2) He exclusively uses the term "homosexual" instead of "gay". Another sure mark of a homophobe.

3) He compares being gay with incest and pedophelia

4) He's a practicing Catholic

Richard Fagin said...

Prof. Althouse, the responses to your op-ed shouldn't be at all surprising. You dared to criticize a darling of the Left. Even when meritorious, any such criticism is met with unflappable hostility and charges of bigotry with respect to the target of the criticsm.

After all, any criticism of the President constitutes racism. Therefore, any criticism of Barney Frank consitutes homophobia. Oh, yeah, by the way, criticizing feminists consitutes misogyny.

This crap will continue until normal people decide that they don't care one bit if the world thinks they're racist, sexist, misogynistic or homophobic. That was the essential point of my very first post in these comments about Andrea Dworkin. Call a hater a hater and damn the complaints.

Peter V. Bella said...

Every gay person I know who follows constitutional law closely thinks that Scalia is a homophobe. And they all think that Thomas is not.

That is really a subjective and self serving comment. Sort of like saying every KKK member who follows constitutional law closely thinks that the SCOTUS is comprised of ni@@#r and Jew lovers.

downtownlad said...

Peter Bella - You're an anti-gay bigot.

Guess what. Anti-gay bigots don't get to decide who is and who isn't an anti-gay bigot.

Gay people get to decide. That's it.

Lem said...

I know the professor doesn’t need help but in the famous words of Brendan Sullivan “I’m not a potted plant” ;)

DL – the SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of the government. When Frank called Scalia a homophobe it was the equivalent of calling the president a homophobe. Its just not done and Frank knows better.

Richard Fagin said...

By the way, Dick Armey called it right on Barney Frank back in 1995.

downtownlad said...

That's right Richard. Why don't you say it.

Barney FAG!

FAG FAG FAG FAG FAG!!!!!

FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT!

You can use the term all you want. But gay people are allowed to point out that you're a homophobe.

downtownlad said...

Really Lem? We can't call the President a homophobe?

Bush is the one who argued in support of the Texas anti-gay sodomy law. He still favors it.

Damn fucking right I called President Bush a homophobe.

downtownlad said...

So according to Lem, Frank can't call Scalia a homophobe. But Dick Armey can call Frank "Barney Fag".

Peter V. Bella said...

Ah, DTL,
I finally get it. The definition of homophobe is the disagreement with whatever irrational statements DTL makes.

Eli Blake said...

You know, being a 'glass is half full' rather than a 'glass is half empty' kind of liberal, I am happy about this:

Scalia is writing a dissent.

Here's to hoping that he writes many, many more dissents over the coming years!

Freeman Hunt said...

You may as well turn them into photography classes.

Hey, there's an idea. Althouse would probably be great at that too.

Every gay person I know who follows constitutional law closely...

How many of those do you know? I ask because I know a lot of gay people, none of whom I would describe as closely following constitutional law. I know only one straight person I would describe that way, and that's only because he has a degree in it.

Peter V. Bella said...

Guess what. Anti-gay bigots don't get to decide who is and who isn't an anti-gay bigot.

Gay people get to decide. That's it.


Ah, yes the old canard; irrationally falsely accuse people of bigotry- with no proof- to prove your point. Just spread enough hatred and people will see your point. Just like Barney Frank, you are a crass, crude, low sort of person. You have no redeeming values.

Lem said...

But Dick Armey can call Frank "Barney Fag".

As long as it dosent violate House rules they can call each other whatever they want.

Dick Armey is not and never was a Supreme.

For all I know Armey may have violated house rules, if he indeed did that.

downtownlad said...

Name one irrational statement.

Just one.

No - the definition of a homophobe is someone who is anti-gay.

If you use the term "faggot" in a derogatory manner - you're a homophobe.

If you use the term "homosexual agenda" in a derisive manner, as Scalia did, you're a homophobe.

If you refuse to associate with gay people, you're a homophobe.

If you vote against gay rights and gay marriage, you're a homophobe.

I'm not trying to shut down debate by using the term. There are lots and lots and lots of homophobes out there. A vast majority of the population. They're even a majority in California.

That's why gays are still bullied in school, and teachers do nothing. It's why anti-gay violence in climbing. It's why gays do not have equal rights in this country. Because there are lots and lots and lots of homophobes, and it is perfectly acceptable to be a homophobe. It's why the government fires thousands of people every year just for being gay.

I'm allowed to comment when people are homophobes. Don't want to be called one? Then don't be one.

Freder Frederson said...

Scalia is a sound, prudent, reasoned jurist. He is also a sound, reasoned, prudent gentleman and an adult.

Scalia flipped off* a reporter on the steps of a church. That is not the act of a "sound reasoned prudent gentleman and an adult". In numerous public encounters he has been rude and downright insulting to people. At best he can be described as rude, sometimes his behavior is downright bizarre. He might just be an asshole. I think he might be suffering from some kind of dementia.

As for whether Scalia is a homophobe. Considering his strict Italian Catholic upbringing, I would certainly be very surprised if he wasn't.

*The last time I claimed Scalia "flipped off" a reporter, Ann rushed to his defense and made the hyper-legal argument that he hadn't "flipped off" the reporter because he didn't raise his middle finger to her and the gesture he used was not the exact Italian equivalent of "fuck you". This of course is a distinction without a difference, as there are a number of gestures that are equally obscene from culture to culture that do not necessarily mean exactly "fuck you" (e.g. I would argue it is just as bad to say "you're an asshole", or "fuck you")

Peter V. Bella said...

This crap will continue until normal people decide that they don't care one bit if the world thinks they're racist, sexist, misogynistic or homophobic.

This is the best comment here. Of course DTL will fire a hate filled flame stating that ony homosexuals will get to decided who is normal.

downtownlad said...

Freeman - My good friend has an Ivy League law degree and he's gay. I've discussed it with him. He told me that it's a commonly held belief amongst members of Lamda Legal. I also have two other gay friends with law degrees and they have said the same.

So I've discussed it with three gay people.

rhhardin said...

A long history of not caring about group identity has deprived homophobe of the clout it apparently needs as an accusation.

``You're a not-care-ist!''

downtownlad said...

I gave plenty of proof Peter.

You're just choosing to ignore it.

And you're an anti-gay bigot too. Fuck knows why you're shocked by that.

You vote against gay rights, yet you somehow think that you're still pro-gay? Do tell.

Bissage said...

The people who don’t get where Professor Althouse is coming from on this Frank/Scalia ferfuffle are a big part of why I think representative democracy works.

That is, it both aggregates and diffuses unreasoning self-interest.

Brilliant!

downtownlad said...

Can't wait until Friday, when I celebrate the death of that charlatan known as Jesus Christ, the son of that slut Mary.

But don't dare call me anti-Christian! How dare you!!!

Peter V. Bella said...

As for whether Scalia is a homophobe. Considering his strict Italian Catholic upbringing, I would certainly be very surprised if he wasn't.

Freder,
Maybe you should look up the definition of homophobe. It is an irrational hatred… If one practices a religion and lives by a certain moral code that does not even come close to implying an irrational hatred. It just means that as a follower of the faith he will not practice homosexuality; in effect, participate in homosexual conduct. It has nothing to do with his personal or professional opinions of it.

On the other hand, you and DTL, through your comments, have displayed an irrational hatred towards Catholicism.

EnigmatiCore said...

"No - but I know it in my gut, because I know a homophobe when I see one."

Having been called a homophobe by you in the past, I know your assertion here is inaccurate.

downtownlad said...

I hate Catholicism.

But don't you dare fucking call my hatred "irrational".

Catholicism is an extremely anti-gay religion. They do not let gays become priests (even if they're celibate). They do not let gays accept communion. They say that gay people are "intrinsically evil".

As a gay person, there's plenty of "rationality" around my hatred of Catholicism.

downtownlad said...

I'm sure I had my reasons Enigmaticbore.

Lem said...

The justified fear of dtl’s feverish fervor is the eloquent point that was implied in the professor’s column, but sadly it’s totally missed if not red.

Peter V. Bella said...

DTL lied…
No - the definition of a homophobe is someone who is anti-gay.

I'm allowed to comment when people are homophobes. Don't want to be called one? Then don't be one.

Maybe you better get yourself a dictionary. Maybe you better get an education. Maybe you should get some professional help for your irrational hatred. If you do not want to be called a hater and taken seriously, than make rational, sane statements; instead of diatribes that sound like they come from some deranged loner getting ready to shave their head and climb up a tower with a rifle.

You just do not get it? The whole world is laughing at you!

Hoosier Daddy said...

I hate Catholicism. Catholicism is an extremely anti-gay religion. They do not let gays become priests (even if they're celibate). They do not let gays accept communion. They say that gay people are "intrinsically evil".

DTL did you used to be Catholic? Want to be a priest? If not why do you care? Do you hate Islam too? Cause they take it a few steps further and hang gay people. Or stone them to death.

Or do you simply think that the way Islam treats gay folks is just a part of their rich cultural fabric that needs to be understood, if not celebrated.

I only ask because all I ever see you do is berate Catholics over thier gay stance. Just wanted to know if you give Muslims equal hatred for thier views toward gays.

Peter V. Bella said...

As a gay person, there's plenty of "rationality" around my hatred of Catholicism.

A mental health professional would say that there is no such thing as rational hatred. Rational people do not have such extreme ideations.

mcg said...

Guess what. Anti-Catholic bigots don't get to decide who is and who isn't an anti-Catholic bigot.

former law student said...

Oh, bullshit. The point is about influencing public opinion not his vote on nominations.

This is the first time I've ever considered Barney Frank as a leader of public opinion. What are the distinguishing characteristics of the fraction of the population that in the Frankian thrall?

mcg said...

Is Althouse caught in the Frankian vortex?

downtownlad said...

Islam does not have a Pope who tells them what to think.

Some Muslims are very pro-gay. Just as some Christians are very pro-gay.

I have zero qualms calling anti-gay Muslims bigots. And yes, I hate those branches of Islam.

The Catholic Church is by definition anti-gay, so I hate the Catholic Church. But I have no qualms with cafeteria Catholics, who choose to ignore the anti-gay teachings of the Catholic Church (although the Church would say that they aren't true Catholics)

But I'm not going to paint people with a broad brush. It really depends on what branch of Christianity or Islam they practice.

Although I will call all people who practice a religion stupid and silly - the same as I do with those who believe in astrology.

TMink said...

"I'm kicking dtl's ass today."

About

Fracking

Time.

Trey

mcg said...

I'd love to be a witness to an argument between DTL and John Heard.

downtownlad said...

mcg - When did I deny being an anti-Catholic bigot?

I'm a PROUD anti-Catholic bigot.

Just wish the anti-gay bigots, like Peter Bella and Scalia, weren't so afraid to come out of the closet as anti-gay bigots.

Freder Frederson said...

On the other hand, you and DTL, through your comments, have displayed an irrational hatred towards Catholicism.

Actually, you know next to nothing about my opinion of Catholicism. I have no hatred of Catholicism, although I do strongly disagree with its dogma on sexuality. And because of its stance on sexuality, many of its adherents, especially those from traditional backgrounds, develop unhealthy and often bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals and others with non-traditional sexualities. Antonin Scalia was raised in a very traditional Italian Catholic household where he would have been taught, if it was mentioned at all, contrary to modern Catholic teaching, that homosexuality was a disgusting and aberrant sin that was probably the work of the devil and completely beyond the realm of God's plan.

TMink said...

"He's a practicing Catholic"

And we all know that there are not now, nor have there ever been any gays in the Catholic Church.

Now where did my eyes roll too after I typed that?

Trey

TMink said...

"If you use the term "faggot" in a derogatory manner - you're a homophobe."

Hmm, you called me Twink as an attempted insult.

Mirror mirror you gayphobic fluff.

Trey

Cabbage said...

"You know how I know you're gay? You're wearing a Federalist Society Ascot."

"You know how I know you're gay? You can't understand my f'ing point."

"You know how I know you're gay? Your Mom dressed you up in a Little Lord Fauntleroy outfit for Obama's inaguration."

"You know how I know you're gay? You're gonna correct someone's grammar in the comments section of a blog."

"You know how I know you're gay? You just get all Special Olympics whenever you don't like my arguments."

"You know how I know you're gay? Your name is Lawrence"

mcg said...

DTL: bigot == irrational. By denying the latter you deny the former. But by your own standard, you don't get to decide if you're a bigot or not.

downtownlad said...

Acually - I kicked Ann's ass, which is why she's silent.

Ann denied saying that Scalia was not a homophobe, yet just last week she said "It goes right along with Barney Frank's recent, despicable assertion that Justice Scalia is a homophobe." If that's not denying that Scalia is a homophobe, then why is it "despicable"?

I expect a Clintonesque response from her.

Smilin' Jack said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Ann's statement that he's not a homophobe"

I made no such statement. Quote something I said that you read that way so I can show you why you are a bad reader...I'm kicking dtl's ass today.


downtownlad said...
Ann - You said it was "despicable" that Frank labeled Scalia a homophobe in your blogpost last week. I'm referring to that.


Hee...looks like the ball's in your court, Ann.

downtownlad said...

Twink IS an insult you moron.

Even twinks deny being twinks.

mcg said...

It isn't wise to confuse silence with defeat on a blog. Otherwise I could just wait till you go to sleep or run an errand or something, and announce you've lost the argument. 'Twill be interesting to see how she picks up where she left off.

Peter V. Bella said...

...that homosexuality was a disgusting and aberrant sin that was probably the work of the devil and completely beyond the realm of God's plan.
Freder,
According to Jewish tenets and Jewish law, homosexuality- congress with people of the same sex- is an abomination before G-d.

Are practicing Jews homophobes? According to Islam, homosexuals shall be put to death? Are we to infer that those who practice Islam are homophobes? Are we to have an irrational hatred towards them?

Would you dare?

Lem said...

Dtl you are being out-gunned and out-matched.

I think you need a surge.

Would you support a surge?

downtownlad said...

mcg - Whatever. I don't mind being called an anti-Catholic bigot, although I will argue my hatred is rational.

But if someone is going to vote against gay-rights, like Peter Bella, why the hell do they object to being called anti-gay? Do they really think they are being pro-gay?

Honestly - I don't get it.

Don't ever call me pro-Catholic. THAT would be an insult.

mcg said...

Oh I don't argue with calling someone "anti-gay" in such a context. It is what it is. People who kill unborn babies or support such actions are anti-life, too. They don't like it said that way, but if the shoe fits...

downtownlad said...

Actually Peter - Catholicism calls for the execution of gays.

Reformed Judaism fully embraces gay people, including gay marriage.

Most branches of Conservative Judaism fully embraces gay people, including gay marriage.

That's the vast majority of Jews in this country, so no, I would not call Jewish people anti-gay.

They are very pro-gay.

Even many Orthodox Jews will vote fully in favor of gay rights. 80% of Jews favor gay marriage.

Peter V. Bella said...

The fact that a leader of the House insulted a justice of the Supreme Court should cause some real concern.

If one does not agree with an opinion, one argues legal reasoning. One does not throw insulting bombs. Barney Frank was wrong. He owes Scalia, the Supreme Court, and the American people an apology.

There was alot of talk during the last administration about accountability and who holds the Executive Branch accountable? Who holds the legislature accountable? Barney Frank is indicative that we have a legislature that is out of control and should be reined in.

Freeman Hunt said...

They do not let gays accept communion. They say that gay people are "intrinsically evil".

Not this stuff again. Neither statement is true.

downtownlad said...

mcg - I prefer anti-abortion and pro-abortion. It is more accurate.

By your definition, you could say that all non-vegetarians are "anti-life". Yes, technically that's true.

Personally, I think it's more sinful to put your dog to sleep than it is to have an abortion in the first 8 weeks. But that's my opinion, and I realize people can have others.

Just as people can have the opinion that gay sex is sinful and should be outlawed. But have the guts to admit you're anti-gay if that's the case.

downtownlad said...

Both statements are true.

downtownlad said...

Try wearing a rainbow sash to Church and see if you can get communion . . .

downtownlad said...

I have to go to bed.

No hot gay sex tonight though.

former law student said...

Antonin Scalia was raised in a very traditional Italian Catholic household ... that homosexuality was a disgusting and aberrant sin that was probably the work of the devil and completely beyond the realm of God's plan.

And suggesting that an acquaintance should go and sodomize someone is a very traditional Italian insult.

Peter V. Bella said...

DTL,
You are a fucking liar. You do not know how I would vote for anything. You do not know what I believe. You just ASSUME based upon your irrational hatred of anyone who does not agree with you. Barney Frank insulted a member of the Supreme Court without any factual basis; based upon a purely legal opinion. Barney Frank acted like a typical bully and demonstrated that he is not fit to hold pubic office. If he had an opinion, he should have stated it in a rational, intellectual, and logical manner. Like you, he is irrational, a moron, and illogical.

If you are going to make comments, then you better back them up with facts and evidence; not the irrational rambling diatribes of the mentally disturbed. Since you do not know me personally, you have no facts, no evidence, and are practicing the worst form of McCarthyism; you have no shame, no decency, and no honesty.

As to your vast ignorance of theology;
Modern Catholicism calls for the execution of no one! The Catholic Church, as an institution, is anti-death penalty for everything. The Vatican has issued statements to that effect.

In the Jewish law, homosexuality is still an abomination before G-d. The law has not changed. Maybe you should read the Torah.
Moslems still execute homosexuals.

rocketeer67 said...

Actually Peter - Catholicism calls for the execution of gays.

Geez. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the first item on the agenda at CCD.

By the way, DTL? Insane people don't get to decide who's called insane. Sane people do.

And you are insane.

rocketeer67 said...

Actually Peter - Catholicism calls for the execution of gays.

By the way, just wanted to let you know you shouldn't believe everything the Martians transmit to your fillings.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

I love the new standard of the insulted being able to determine who the insulter is.

As a loyal member of the Southern Congress of the PBR (Professional Brotherhood of Rednecks), I hereby declare DTL and Freder Redneckphobes, based on the fact that I have a feelin' my gut both of them hate me and all I stand for.

Hell, I'll add Barney Frank to the list, too!

Which reminds me; has anybody ever seen DTL and Barney together?

They may be the same person: Both are Gay, both live in foreign Countries (yeah, I consider DC a foreign land), and both seem to have whacked out opinions.

rhhardin said...

Faggot means bassoon to me.

I wonder what high school orchestras use in their scores today.

Bissage said...

If that's not denying that Scalia is a homophobe, then why is it "despicable"?

If I might take crack at it:

Because the charge of homophobia is very serious and Representative Frank was, in effect, acting as a prosecutor misrepresenting the evidence during summation to the jury.

Is that “despicable?”

Some defense counsel get more heated than others when it comes to their opponents' intellectual dishonesty, but I've heard "despicable" and stronger words used when moving for a mistrial on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct.

That said, I've never heard defense counsel use strong words and at the same time represent their personal belief as to their client’s innocence.

That would be unethical.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Islam does not have a Pope who tells them what to think.

I'll hand it to you DTL, you know how to twist yourself in a pretzel when you need to. Ok show me one imam who thinks gays are just fine and dandy.

Some Muslims are very pro-gay. Just as some Christians are very pro-gay.I have zero qualms calling anti-gay Muslims bigots. And yes, I hate those branches of Islam.

I'm sorry DTL I fell of my chair in a fit of uncontrollable laughter. Can you...sorry, tearing up here...show me those branches of Islam that are pro-gay. Hell, show me a Muslim that has openly come out as pro-gay. Assuming of course he/she hasn't been beheaded for blasphemy.

Lem said...

Dtl misses the irony of his self imposed predicament. In that (if he prevails) he is in fact replacing the constitution with the feeble flawed men he wants gone.

Peter V. Bella said...

Actually HD, there is a sect of Islam that is um, more progressive. They use nerf rocks to stone gays. :)

Foo_Bar said...

Ann, in your Tribune piece you write:


You may think it's cruel of Scalia to deprive us of soothing words, but don't be tricked about why he writes like that. Scalia is adhering to the most basic legal proposition that judges must decide cases according to the law and leave the rest to the processes of democracy.


If Scalia believe so strongly in this principle, why has he repeatedly endorsed the idea that federal judges be given a stamp with which to declare laws "stupid, but constitional". (Obviously, he's being tongue-in-cheek about the actual stamp, but he's clearly endorsing the idea that judges ought to be able to say that a law is bad but constitutional, rather than merely ruling on constitionality and remaining silent on the merits).

Even if you continue contend that he doesn't believe it's his place to comment on the merits of a law in his actual opinion, that doesn't explain why he hasn't indicated any distaste for the anti-sodomy law in his public appearances outside the court.Here is what he had to say about the flag-burning case:


"Now in my social views, which I don't apply from the bench, I'm a fairly conservative fella, to tell you the truth," Scalia said. "And I don't like people who burn the American flag, and if I were king, I would put them in jail. But I'm not king, and I'm bound by the First Amendment, and my understanding of it is that it gives you the right to criticize."


If he considers it proper to make that strong a statement about his personal opinions in the flag-burning case, why can't he make an analogous statement in the Texas sodomy case? What's stopping him from saying something like "if I were king, I certainly wouldn't arrest people for consensual gay sex in private, but the law that criminalized that behavior was nonetheless constitutional, so I was forced to uphold it despite my distaste for it".

If you put the absence of any such statement, even in his public appearances, side-by-side with his statement of his personal views of flag-burners, then I don't think it's such a crazy inference to suspect, at least, that he has a problem with homosexuality.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm kicking dtl's ass today.

C'mon Althouse that's nothting to brag about. My 11 year old daughter could do that.

Physically as well.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Actually HD, there is a sect of Islam that is um, more progressive. They use nerf rocks to stone gays. :)

If it were only true.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Antonin Scalia was raised in a very traditional Italian Catholic household where he would have been taught, if it was mentioned at all, contrary to modern Catholic teaching, that homosexuality was a disgusting and aberrant sin that was probably the work of the devil and completely beyond the realm of God's plan.

Damn good thing he wasn't raised Muslim eh Freder? Otherwise he'd be calling for them to be hanged.

Along with the Jews.

Lem said...

BTW - Dtl’s ardent, passionate, genuine, and fervent defense of his (flawed) opinions are an eloquent argument for keeping cameras out of the SCOTUS.

Lem said...

Forget eloquent, it's actually the best argument.

TMink said...

"Twink IS an insult you moron."

Only to homophobic assholes like you.

Why would I be insulted to be called gay? It is no insult.

Well, not to healthy people.

Trey

TMink said...

"They do not let gays become priests (even if they're celibate)."

You are out of your tiny little mind. No gay priests? Right.

We are not homophobic here, we hate you. It is personal.

Trey

former law student said...

"They do not let gays become priests (even if they're celibate)."

This is actually true, from November 2005 onwards. From the Washington Post:

As soon as [the six-page instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education, the Vatican department in charge of seminaries], was released in Rome, many U.S. dioceses posted statements on their Web sites, and many bishops held news conferences.

The document says that "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.' "

It adds that men can become priests if their "homosexual tendencies . . . were only the expression of a transitory problem -- for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded." But those whose homosexuality is deep-seated "find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women," the official English translation says.

Lem said...

All this whining and carrying on when the answer is right in front of them.

As the SCOTUS is presently constituted there is a paradigm left by O’Connor everybody seems comfortable with.

Undo Burden.

If you can show how all the anti gay laws are an undo burden I think you have a receptive audience at the SCOTUS.

traditionalguy said...

This war between the three sexes may never be over. What is ironic is that DTL does not admit is that Gay acceptance has already been won. Now he and B. Frank want to re-start the fight while their enemy is on the run from Homophobe accusations to see how much more territory they can claim by right of conquest. I do not believe that Marriage of two men or two women is the goal, other than as an opportune issue to re-start the fight. Gays seem now to be seeking a chance to be awarded a favored status like the Blacks and the Women were awarded after their winning of equal acceptance. That would be a big time social value to them, like an award of Tenure is to a Law School Professor. But just chosing the Gay sexual experience is too easy. There are not enough voters in that category. But good try DTL, you are fighting the good fight for Gays. I will advise you that if you feel compelled to direct your next battle against Christians with strong faith, who already do accept you, you may end by losing your next war. The Christians do still have more votes than any Newsweek story on them wants to admit.

Meade said...

The Associated Press quoted a defence official as saying: "The crew is back in control of the ship.
"It's reported that one pirate is on board under crew control - the other three were trying to flee."


USA! USA! USA!

Quayle said...

DTL, face the facts: the gay and left's past 10 years of scathing derision and public mocking of non-supporters have peeled off as many ‘religious’ people as you are likely to ever get.

After these seething assaults, those that remain committed to a world view wherein gender is innate and god designated heterosexual marriage as the optimal relationship for humans, are not likely to be won over now. They don’t care what you call them or say about them. Your viciousness and threatening have completely lost any marginal effectiveness.

In other words, the "gay rights" movement has reached its high water mark in winning converts.

And it can only go down from here as the Islamic nations merge into the once-western, now-global collective conversation about rights.’

So to recap where we are: you lost by popular vote in California (of all places!), won by anti-democratic means in Iowa (temporarily, my guess is), and face a certain crushing loss in the 1 billion populated Islamic nations.

You’re barking pretty loud at the small group of us here on Althouse. I’m guessing you don’t have much more left in you to increase your bark at the billion or so Muslims coming on line.

In light of the rising influence of the Islamic nations on these and other such cultural issues, perhaps you might feel that you should have supported George Bush more in his illegal wars and immoral torture.

Foo_Bar said...

Here is another example of Scalia expressing personal distaste for an outcome which his interpretation of the Constitution compels him to vote for:


He got his compensatory damages, a couple of hundred dollars — the difference between a car with a better paint job and a worse paint job — plus $2 million against BMW for punitive damages for being a bad actor, which is absurd of course, so it must be unconstitutional. BMW appealed to my Court, and my Court said, “Yes, it’s unconstitutional.” In violation of, I assume, the Excessive Damages Clause of the Bill of Rights.


If he can say that the awarding of $2 million in that BMW case is absurd, yet constitutional, why can't he say the same thing about the law in Lawrence v. Texas?

madawaskan said...

dtl-

Barney Frank is Chairman of the House Finance Committee...

You can't see that he might have a little how shall we say it?

Influence?

The United States House Committee on Financial Services (or House Banking Committee) oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries. The Committee also oversees the work of the Federal Reserve, the United States Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and other financial services regulators. It is chaired by Barney Frank (D-MA) and the ranking Republican is Spencer Bachus (R-AL).

lawprof2 said...

This from Ann's column: "You may think it's cruel of Scalia to deprive us of soothing words, but don't be tricked about why he writes like that. Scalia is adhering to the most basic legal proposition that judges must decide cases according to the law and leave the rest to the processes of democracy."

What a load of crap. For someone who becomes incensed and writes 1,000 word "rebuttals" when anyone says something negative about you, you have a hard time understanding the reading of Scalia's dissents as a whole. For example, in Romer v. Evans he takes great pains to put quotations around "orientation" whenever referencing "sexual orientation." He is obviously belittling--in completely unecessary fashion-- gays and lesbians. He goes on to describe that gays are actually seeking "special rights" against discrimination. Such "special rights," of course, were basic protections against discrimination. But it sounds better if you call it special rights.

In Lawrence, Scalia is similarly pleasing, discussing "the homosexual agenda," comparing consensual adult sex with bestiality and incest, and claiming that 203 prosecutions for sodomy in 115 years clearly demonstrates that "homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right deeply rooted in the Nation's history..." Are you kidding me? He looks utterly foolish using such skimpy "evidence" that it is no wonder people accuse him of bigotry.

Scalia may or may not be bigoted. In fact, he has in the past written what could be perceived as supportive decisions (see, Oncale v. Sundowner in which he wrote, ironically, "that inquiry requires careful consideration of teh social context in which particular behavior occurs...")

I think he is probably bigoted, and I think both reading his decisions, and having seen his responses in public presentations to questions involving gay and lesbian issues he evinces utter disdain and disgust. On the other hand, he is certainly going to have ample opportunity in the near future to show how committed he is to "federalism" when he throws out DOMA. Right?

Then there is always that nasty problem of the courts intervening to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just ignore that separation of powers and check and balances thing our founders supported. But what the heck, just because the majority of white folk in some states still believe in miscegenation
doesn't mean a court should ever step in.

lawprof2 said...

"If you can show how all the anti gay laws are an undo burden I think you have a receptive audience at the SCOTUS."

Aside from the "undo" burden of dealing with pure bigotry, how's this: if I die while my daughter is a minor, she does not get the social security protections your daughter gets, even though I rpobably paid more into the system than you did.

Or this: I pay income taxes on the health insurance coverage for my partner and daughter. That means I literally pay thousands more in taxes every year than the guy working right next to me who earns the same amount and who also gest massive tax breaks for filing as married.

Or try this one: if two 18 year old heteros, let's call them "Brittany" and "Kevin" get married after a one-night stand,and one of them has any one of hundreds of different kinds of pension or retirement plans, the other is immediately and permanently vested. If two life partners, together 60 years, are in the same position but for marriage, the survivor gets no pension and the money is lost.

Or this: an acquiantance of mine was in a horrible car crash when he and his life partner (of more than 20 years) were hit by a drunk driver. His life partner was literally dying in the ICU, and the hospital staff refused entry to hold his hand and say goodbye. He died alone. The wife of the GD drunk got to comfort that S.O.B.

Want me to continue?

Meade said...

"Want me to continue?"

Sure. But why not use your real name?

Althouse does.

Blue@9 said...

DTL:
Perhaps you can find one iota of evidence that shows that he's not a homophobe.

How do you prove a negative?

You can't. It's up to the person making the claim to prove it.

And seriously, cherry-picking a few statements in scattered opinions for language that hints at homophobia is not proof. Pointing to his religion is not proof. Pointing to the opinions of a handful of gay friends is not proof. If this is proof, DTL and Barney Frank have bigger problems because both Obama and Biden are homophobes too.

Buford Gooch said...

dtl can't seem to get that there is another category besides pro-gay and anti-gay. There is "Don't-Give-A-Shit-gay"

rocketeer67 said...

Want me to continue?

Well, yes - at least until you hit on something that indicates an "undue burden" you didn't conciously choose, all apparently while being in the position to intimately know and understand the law.

Buford Gooch said...

Foo_Bar said...

Here is another example of Scalia expressing personal distaste for an outcome which his interpretation of the Constitution compels him to vote for

Perhaps you misunderstood. That was an opinion stated outside of formal court opinions and dissents. Please find one in an opinion.

madawaskan said...

lawprof 2-

OMG!

Scalia's a homophobe because he uses quotation marks in a derisive fashion-

Burn him!

madawaskan said...

Is that all you got?

Seriously?

Jeebus let me try to read the rest of it...

madawaskan said...

Scalia may or may not be bigoted. In fact, he has in the past written what could be perceived as supportive decisions (see, Oncale v. Sundowner in which he wrote, ironically, "that inquiry requires careful consideration of teh social context in which particular behavior occurs...")

I think he is probably bigoted,


OK I quit.

You are tackling yourself.

Who am I to stop you?

Foo_Bar said...

Perhaps you misunderstood. That was an opinion stated outside of formal court opinions and dissents. Please find one in an opinion.

I concede the narrow point that Professor Althouse makes, i.e., that Scalia's Lawrence V. Texas dissent in and of itself and read in isolation is not a basis for inferring that Scalia approves of the criminalization of gay sex.

I nonetheless contend that if we look at:

1) Scalia's willingness to discuss, in public forums, other cases (like flag burning and the BMW lawsuit) where his interpretation of the Constitution forced him to rule against his personal preferences

and

2) The absence (to the best of my knowledge) of any analogous public remarks indicating distaste for the anti-sodomy law in Lawrence vs. Texas

... then it seems like there's a decent chance that Scalia has problems with homosexuality and maybe had some actual sympathy for that Texas law. It's not a sure thing, but it seems fairly likely.

Peter V. Bella said...

Aside from the "undo" burden of dealing with pure bigotry, how's this: if I die while my daughter is a minor, she does not get the social security protections your daughter gets, even though I rpobably paid more into the system than you did.

I think you are mistaken.

Meade said...

Gay rights and homophobia have nothing to do with it. Those are Barney Frank's (and downtownlad's) red herrings.

Read Althouse's op-ed piece again. It teaches a basic high school Civics lesson - one, apparently, that would behoove even many lawprofs2 to try and learn.

Frank is revealing himself to be a rascal and a fraud.

The true democrat is Scalia.

Scalia wants the democratic political process to occur - the one that goes: of the people, by the people, for the people.

Frank, as a member of the Legislature, wants Supreme Court justices to do our work for us.

That, of course, would also mean doing Barney Frank's work for Barney Frank.

Michael said...

Frankly (heh!), I would be far more interested in Prof. Althouse's opinion of Balkin's comments on her piece than on what I've read in the comments here. It seems to me that Balkin is spot on, and Althouse (whether she means to or not) comes off as an apologist for bigotry.

The argument really seems to be about an issue that has yet to be settled: whether human sexual orientation is an innate (not necessarily genetic, or not necessarily specifically genetic) trait or whether it isn't. If the former, there's no problem labeling people like Scalia homophobes. If human sexual orientation is innate, then allowing the state to single out any class of people by sexual orientation for unequal treatment is all the evidence one needs for bigotry, just as singling out racial or ethnic classes or discriminating by gender is evidence of bigotry. If it is not innate, then the state can encourage or discourage behavior as it sees fit.

Frank clearly believes it is innate; Scalia, probably not. Prof. Althouse? I don't know. Can you enlighten us? When did you choose your sexual orientation? Do you decide every morning, when you wake up? Or is it more a weekly or monthly thing? Or maybe you've planned, say, 2011 as the year you go lesbian?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Twink IS an insult you moron.

Even twinks deny being twinks


Not in World of Warcraft. I am the proud owner of a level 29 twinked out hunter. /wink

Arguing with DTL is like trying to discuss string theory with a 4 year old.

former law student said...

I fear Meade's usefulness as a commenter here has come to an end. If he supports his sweetheart's position, he can be dismissed as a sycophant. If he opposes it, the commentariat will deduce that there is a rift in the Malthousian household. Poling his dinghy between the Scylla of sycophancy and the Charybdis of contempt will be very tedious after a while.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

Want me to continue?

Lawprof2. Those examples are all FEDERAL issues,with the exception of the Hospital which is a reflection of individual policy on the part of the institution. They have nothing to do with the case in question. The court revoking a legally enacted law regarding marriage. This is exactly why in California people voted for Prop 8. They are sick of judges overturning their votes and arbitrarily repealing laws that have been legally enacted.

Are they fair examples of the problems of gays....sure. However, they are not fixable at the State level. Find another soapbox.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Aside from the "undo" burden of dealing with pure bigotry, how's this: if I die while my daughter is a minor, she does not get the social security protections your daughter gets, even though I rpobably paid more into the system than you did.

"I think you are mistaken."

I Lawprof2 is correct if we assume:

That the child is not his/her biological child and they do not in reside in a State where same sex couples can legally adopt. In that case the IRS views the relationship between the adult and the child the same as if they were strangers and not related and there is no inheritable SS benefit.

madawaskan said...

The World According to Barney Frank

Gawd, that would really suck.

Trooper York said...

"Poling his dinghy between the Scylla of sycophancy and the Charybdis of contempt will be very tedious after a while."

Dude he has to pole his dinghy, cause they can only get together on weekends. Give the man a break.

Trooper York said...

I mean we have all heard of phone sex, but do you call it when are twittering sexy talk back and forth.

Twitterlation?

former law student said...

Dude he has to pole his dinghy, cause they can only get together on weekends.

I was thinking it would make sense for them to meet half way, but there don't seem to be a lot of romantic spots in Indiana.

But then I remembered -- The Professor and her comment man could spend a weekend in the middle of French Lick.

Peter V. Bella said...

I mean we have all heard of phone sex, but do you call it when are twittering sexy talk back and forth.

Twitterlation?


Twitterllatio? Twitterlingus?

Twatter whatever?

David said...

Downtownlad says:

Scalia is a homophobe.

Perhaps you can find one iota of evidence that shows that he's not a homophobe.

just one.


I'll give you a few.

I knew Scalia back in the day when he was a professor at Virginia law. He was a charming, charismatic and very demanding professor, and a decent and humane person in private life. He would skewer you for sloppy thinking, but I never heard him disparage any group of any kind.

Scalia was barely older than many of the students. He socialized with students and had some student friends who most people assumed (don't ask, don't tell was a societal norm then) were homosexual. His interaction with all people was respectful and decent as can be. I never saw him conflate personal worth with someone's ideas or beliefs.

In short, both in his general approach and in his relations with (possibly) homosexual students, he was genial and respectful. I saw nothing phobic in his relationship with anyone. He was too self confident to be phobic.

I also note that Scalia has famously cordial personal relations with the liberal Justices, most notably Justice Ginsburg. I don't think she would maintain a cordial friendship with a homophobe.

Trooper York said...

Well wherever Meadhouse goes it is always French Lick.

That's why passing cars are always full of commenters shouting that they should get a room.

I thought everybody knew that.

Peter V. Bella said...

Twink IS an insult you moron.

Dateline San Francisco:

Mayor Newsome has issued an executive order that would ban Twinkies from the city until the name is changed. The mayor feels that Twinkies is a negative reference to the “gay” community. He is preparing another, similar order for Ding Dongs, as they reflect badly upon the mentally challenged and handicapped. He also fears a backlash from the Special Olympics. There is another executive order in the works to ban Oreos as they demean biracial people.

Police will be ordered to scour the shelves of markets and stores and confiscate, by all necessary force, all packages labeled Twinkies. Offending store owners will be jailed until they comply. Manufacturers have been notified and they have also been advised of the legal ramifications if they do not change their packaging to reflect the community standards of the City of San Francisco.


http:www.cityofstupidity.gov/executiveorders

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

Wait....

I thought Meade was Irish....

He's French?

Trooper York said...

No he is Irish. But he likes that French Lick. So to speak.

But then who doesn't?

madawaskan said...

He's cunning I tell ya...

Last photo he took a picture of Ann's China doll footwear...

madawaskan said...

What's up with that?

From the ankles down it's tragic.

madawaskan said...

Oh I get it-

It's compensation for the infamous Irish short comings.

madawaskan said...

Better known as-

"the troubles".

brbyars said...

I read your whole column. I also re-read the opinions at issue, as well as Barney Frank's statement. It's true I was a little agitated but I don't know if I ever "pop off." It would be interesting to see you respond substantively.

Here is a repost of my comment:

Professor Althouse doesn't read Scalia's opinions in Romer or Lawrence very carefully. In Romer, for instance, he wrote (in the first paragraph) that the Colorado amendment was a "modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws."

Scalia's sentence assumes that (1) the amendment barring gay people from petitioning the branches of government for rights is "modest," (2) that Coloradans seem tolerant (which, frankly looks like a bizarre aside--is it because they're so nice?), (3) that only heterosexual sex is permitted by traditional sexual mores (the Court's opinion in Lawrence will later determine that although anti-sodomy laws themselves may be traditional, actual sodomy either between gay or straight people itself also formed a part of American tradition and culture that was tolerated in spite of those laws), (4) that gay people are "politically powerful," and (5) that the law is an appropriate way to preserve sexual mores.

This sentence in itself powerfully undermines Prof. Althouse's conclusion that Scalia carefully foregoes making independent judgments about the politics and value systems implicated by a case. Scalia presents all of these facts as self-evident, and self-explanatory. Surely someone as smart as him would understand that he predicates his opinion on particular view of the nature of homosexuality and its place in society? In this area of law, at least, he seems unwilling to take seriously any claims that would interfere with his settled beliefs. That approximates bigotry.

lawprof2 said...

Meade,
While your "defense" of your internet love is charming, it is not really on point. And I hope you recognize that you--who will marry after knowing Ms. Althouse personally for a few months-- will instantly gain legal rights and recognition that others who have supported each other through thik and thin over decades are not "fit" to receive. My money is going into your pocket. Good for you.

Scalia has to be read in context with his many public comments, his written comments, and his actions. So yes, quotation marks in isolation mean very little. Except you asked for evidence of bigotry. That is one piece. In his public presentations, his demeanor flat-out changes when the topic switches from other controversial issues to issues around gays and lesbians. His references to "the gay agenda" and his outrageous stretch to find assinine statistics to support his positions (dare I say, activist positions?) all cause many people to believe that he is a bigot. I have yet to see him reference "the heterosexual agenda" despite the fact that many cases could be so contrued. In fact, I think the so-called defense of marriage (by restricting marriage?) group is a "right wing heterosexual agenda." Thankfully, it is a dying-literally-group and in 10 years-or less- you will be as embarrassed to say you stood up for this bigotry as the folks who stood up for prior forms. (google Elwin Hope Wilson for one example)

Palladian said...

"Thankfully, it is a dying-literally-group and in 10 years-or less- you will be as embarrassed to say you stood up for this bigotry as the folks who stood up for prior forms. (google Elwin Hope Wilson for one example)"

Does being all noble and correct and righteous make you have a hard-on? Just a little bit, maybe? Does "stickin' it to the Man" and "fightin' the good fight" make your dick just a little bit stiff? I think it does.

Are you a homo, Law Professor No. 2? Because I am which allows me the absolute moral authority to say who can join the Homosexual Agenda and who can't. If you're not a homo, then I suggest you and your noble little stiffy fuck right off and find another cause. What about something like whales? Global warming? Darfur?

Meade said...

lawprof2 said...

While your "defense" of your internet love is charming, it is not really on point.

Your sneer aside, what you mean, don't you, is that it's not really on your point?

I hope you realize that your "point" misses the op-ed's point altogether.

My money is going into your pocket. Good for you.

Feel free to email me with an accounting of how much of your money is unfairly going into my pocket. I'll be happy to write you a check for the amount.

I'll also be happy to work with you through the democratic political process to change any laws that deny you your equal rights as an American citizen.

But what I won't do, because it's illiberal and undemocratic, is help you and Rep. Frank and others install judges and justices who invent rights that are not in the Constitution.

Peter V. Bella said...

What about something like whales? Global warming? Darfur?

Palladian,
Sexual congress with whales is probably illegal, is an abomination before God, and would not be permitted even by DTL.

The people of Darfur are disease ridden and unwashed, so him having sex with them would be unappealing, plus, the UN Troops assigned there already had first dibs.

As to Global warming, it is the equivalent of pounding sand, which he has been doing all day.

pst314 said...

"He compares being gay with incest and pedophelia"

I read Scalia's disssenting opinion, and he "compares" (also bestiality) only in order to make a point that for the purposes in question the law is incapable of distinguishing one from another, and therefore that if one is constitutionally protected then by implication all are. You imply that it is a gratuitous comparison when it is not.

pst314 said...

"Ann denied saying that Scalia was not a homophobe, yet just last week she said 'It goes right along with Barney Frank's recent, despicable assertion that Justice Scalia is a homophobe'."

I think the point that Ann Althouse was making is that Barney Frank misrepresented Scalia's legal arguments in order to portray them as not legal but simply expressions of personal disapproval and therefore inexcusible in a justice.

downtownlad said...

When did I ever say that Obama and Biden weren't homophobes.

They are against gay marriage.

Of course they are homophobes. By definition.

downtownlad said...

I have Muslim friends who hang out in gay bars with me (they are straight). They are not homophobic.

But of course Althouse's commenters get off on slandering every Muslim as being anti-gay. That's bullshit. Only 95% of Muslims are anti-gay.

Michael said...

pst314: "I think the point that Ann Althouse was making is that Barney Frank misrepresented Scalia's legal arguments in order to portray them as not legal but simply expressions of personal disapproval"

Again, this is where I think Althouse is wrong. To say this is to deny, as Balkin points out in the commentary I linked to above, that the authors of Pace v. Alabama and Bradwell v. Illinois were not sexist and racist. Perhaps you (or Prof. Althouse) are prepared to argue that they weren't fundamentally sexist or racist decisions, grounded as they were on the premise that the state has the right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender because the majority thinks that's okay? If so, I'd love to hear that one; and if not, I'd love to hear in what respects Scalia's similar legal arguments that the state has the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation differs from those.

As Balkin writes:

"Justice Bradley didn't think he was a sexist when he wrote Bradwell v. Illinois. Justice Field didn't think he was a racist when he wrote Pace v. Alabama. Both believed they were defending the rights of majorities in particular states. But these opinions, and the reasoning in them, are today viewed as almost paradigmatically racist and sexist.

"In a world in which Americans think that gays are protected by the Constitution, the claim that they have no constitutional rights that straights are bound to respect must increasingly look homophobic."

pst314 said...

"In a world in which Americans think that gays are protected by the Constitution, the claim that they have no constitutional rights that straights are bound to respect must increasingly look homophobic."

Oh good grief. When did Scalia ever write that gays "have no constitutional rights that straights are bound to respect"?

Michael said...

In his dissents in Rohmer and Lawrence, obviously. The majority held that gays and lesbians were entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment; Scalia dissented.

Rohmer reads, for instance:

"We must conclude that Amendment 2
classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause."

To dissent from that view is to assert that the state can "deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws," which is what Scalia did. Scalia's homophobia is so intense and extreme that he is prepared to circumvent the Constitution to deny them basic Constitutional rights.

Now that I answered your question, do me the courtesy of answering mine: If Pace and Bradwell are fundamentally racist and sexist, then how are Scalia's dissents not fundamentally homophobic? If those rulings are not, please explain your basis for concluding that they are not.

pst314 said...

"In his dissents in Rohmer and Lawrence, obviously."

No such thing, you silly person. "No rights" would mean that it would be legal for someone who disliked gays to defraud them, to rob them, to assault them on the street.

Michael said...

You're avoiding the question, so obviously you don't have an answer. I'm left to conclude that Balkin is correct, and there is simply no getting around the fact that Scalia's dissents are homophobic in character. Certainly, nothing in Prof. Althouse's piece convincingly argues otherwise, since she doesn't even address the prior rulings Balkin refers to.