New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Scalia's Head Explodes All Over DOMA

Minotaur

Governor
In a rambling logic Scalia showed his colors in the striking down of DOMA (Description Of Marriage Act created in 1996.) He seems to find that a relatively new description of marriage being overturned, where the Federal Government stuck it's nose right into the rights of couples with DOMA, signals his need for the Supreme Court to get the heck out of deciding the constitutionality of, well, Constitutional abuse cases - things like Affirmative Action can be decided constitutionally. This is a limited outrage as he has no problem making Constitutional decisions any other time. So he is stuck with his words that finds merit in half the population being unhappy about rights given to the other half because of their "personal belief about "Those other people's rights." And one wonders where he got that idea that a way to apply Freedom and Equality was to keep those who oppose it happy. Here then is his words followed by the Andy Borowitz humorous take on his rant:

Scalia Passionate Plea:

“But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change, it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”

Andy Borowitz Response:

Scalia Arrested Trying to Burn Down Supreme Court
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a shocking end to an illustrious legal career, police arrested Justice Antonin Scalia today as he attempted to set the Supreme Court building ablaze.
Justice Scalia, who had seemed calm and composed during the announcement of two major rulings this morning, was spotted by police minutes later outside the building, carrying a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene.
After police nabbed Justice Scalia and placed him in handcuffs, the Juror appeared “at peace and resigned to his fate,” a police spokesman said.

“He went quietly,” the spokesman said. “He just muttered something like, ‘I don’t want to live in a world like this.’ ”
Back at the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia’s colleagues said they hoped he would get the help he needed, except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ng-to-burn-down-supreme-court.html#entry-more
 
Last edited:
Yes, Scalia went on a rampage about homosexual sodomy and I was wondering what his thoughts are on heterosexual sodomy? Does he feel the same was about the two?

Also, the Teapublican lawmakers have claimed they'll overturn this USSC ruling and some even saying they will ignore it altogether so I'm wondering does that mean those of us who are concerned about voter disenfranchisement and discrimination can and should ignore the USSC ruling of section 4 of the VRA?
 
Yes, Scalia went on a rampage about homosexual sodomy and I was wondering what his thoughts are on heterosexual sodomy? Does he feel the same was about the two?

He's a old Catholic man. Means the only kind of sex he approves of is real fast missionary position with his wife. Real fast so she doesn't enjoy it and make baby Jesus cry with her lustfulness.
 
Min,

I agree with the USSC ruling on DOMA, and 1965 voting rights act...

As for DOMA, well I believe same sex couples should have the same rights as hetrosexual couples, and DOMA prevented that...

As for Scalia, well him and Thomas can now come out of the Log Cabin and finally admit about their down low life along with Lindsey and his husband John...
 
Yes, Scalia went on a rampage about homosexual sodomy and I was wondering what his thoughts are on heterosexual sodomy? Does he feel the same was about the two?

Also, the Teapublican lawmakers have claimed they'll overturn this USSC ruling and some even saying they will ignore it altogether so I'm wondering does that mean those of us who are concerned about voter disenfranchisement and discrimination can and should ignore the USSC ruling of section 4 of the VRA?

The VRA is an older right with roots so maybe Congress can ignore the USSC ruling on that longer. Maybe that should be an Amendment: You can only ignore USSC rulings for as many years as they existed.

I am almost certain he feels sodomy be vedy vedy bad so maybe he can ask republicans not to do the big naughty. ;)
 
Back
Top