Skip to main content

People are having trouble understanding Justice Scalia's rants in the gay marriage cases today. What they fail to appreciate is that Scalia can only be properly understood as a humorist. His opinions are intended for entertainment purposes only.

For example, you might wonder how Scalia can exalt the "democratically adopted" DOMA statute that the Court partially struck down in the Windsor case (to his chagrin), when he joined the majority opinion in the Voting Rights opinion issued only yesterday, in which the Court showed no respect whatsoever for the considered judgment of a democratically elected Congress. This makes no sense, until you realize that Scalia was just having a little joke at Congress's expense.

Then there is this hilarious quote from the DOMA case: “However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid — indeed, downright boring — justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case.”

First, notice the sly little dig at his colleagues, who ten years ago affirmed that people actually have a constitutional right to engage in what Scalia amusingly calls "same-sex sex." OK, Scalia is saying, "you guys think those private consensual activities are constitutionally protected, but give me a break. We're talking about sodomy here." What Scalia likes to call "traditional moral disapproval" must still carry a lot of weight.

Even more hilarious is the way Scalia introduces the idea of those things that we traditionally morally disapprove of: Let's set that "traditional moral disapproval" aside, Scalia says. As if we could ever even think about doing that! Are you kidding me? Does anyone think Scalia is setting aside "traditional moral disapproval" for one second? What a knee slapper!

Finally, we get to the part about the many valid--indeed downright boring--rationales for this legislation, which leads Scalia into a lengthy discussion into such problems as the thorny choice of law issues that might confront a gay couple married in New York who decide to move to Alabama. As if Scalia actually cares about this hypothetical couple's problems! What's funny is to imagine Scalia's secret glee at the thought of the newly-married same-sex couple from New York introducing themselves to their new Alabama neighbors. And the idea that DOMA was intended to help people in that situation, and we should uphold it for that purpose!

Again, the whole thing is even funnier when you remember that only yesterday, Scalia joined the opinion striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in spite of Congress's expressed concerns in that legislation for dealing with real problems: namely the real problem of states enacting changes in their voting procedures to disenfranchise minority voters, of which we have seen a major upsurge in the last couple of years. We don't need to worry about those little problems, Scalia is telling us. We have to throw out the whole pre-clearance framework of the Voting Rights Act because we don't think Congress did a good enough job. The Voting Rights Act? That's only the most respected and effective statute from the Civil Rights movement, one that has stood the test of time since 1965 and been repeatedly extended by overwhelming bi-partisan majorities in Congress. We need to gut that statute! On the other hand, there's DOMA, which was only enacted in the 1990's and has been of dubious constitutional validity since Day 1. Now there's a statute we need to respect!

You've got to hand it to Antonin Scalia. Maybe he's not quite up to the level of Mark Twain, but he has a way with satire, that's for sure.

Read more: http://www.hopeandchange.net/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "It's hard, so let's not do it!" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, Nowhere Man
    Finally, we get to the part about the many valid--indeed downright boring--rationales for this legislation, which leads Scalia into a lengthy discussion into such problems as the thorny choice of law issues that might confront a gay couple married in New York who decide to move to Alabama.

    "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

    by rfall on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:15:51 PM PDT

  •  He reminds me of Don Rickles in a gown . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, Riff

    The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

    by indycam on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:39:40 PM PDT

  •  If they ever bring Scalia's unauthorized biography (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SlightKC, Zack from the SFV

    to the big screen, I hope they get a cantankerous Danny DeVito to play him. Now THAT would be hilarious!

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:25:26 PM PDT

  •  You have an odd sense of humor my friend (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV

    Or maybe mine is blunted where that bas+ard is concerned.
    Though I guess laughing at him is a better path than raging.
    But rolling back the Civil Rights Era is going to take some getting over.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:45:10 PM PDT

  •  in a tortured mind every thought looks straight (0+ / 0-)

    A bent and garbled man incapable of perceiving his own inconsistent thought drivel is funny if you don't mind wiping the ensuing  drool off the Constitution until it's smeared and illegible ink must be presented to the Oracle at Delphi for deciphering. What would be exceedingly amusing is if Scalia was allowed to wear a white robe to set himself apart from the black robed cabal he eagerly joined yesterday to undo the democracy he said shouldn't be undone today. Sad funny is different really funny. Eternal damnation for Anton simply entails having every single one of his SCOTUS opinions read by laconic Clarence Thomas as every single innocent victim of Bush V Gore laughs in jest at his pleas for a fair hearing with his savior.

    As surely as there is a god in heaven, I am an atheist.

    by Gemut on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:48:56 PM PDT

  •  in a tortured mind every thought looks straight (0+ / 0-)

    A bent and garbled man incapable of perceiving his own inconsistent thought drivel is funny if you don't mind wiping the ensuing  drool off the Constitution until it's smeared and illegible ink must be presented to the Oracle at Delphi for deciphering. What would be exceedingly amusing is if Scalia was allowed to wear a white robe to set himself apart from the black robed cabal he eagerly joined yesterday to undo the democracy he said shouldn't be undone today. Sad funny is different than really funny. Eternal damnation for Anton simply entails having every single one of his SCOTUS opinions read by laconic Clarence Thomas as every single innocent victim of Bush V Gore laughs in jest at his pleas for a fair hearing with his savior.

    As surely as there is a god in heaven, I am an atheist.

    by Gemut on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:54:16 PM PDT

  •  His DOMA dissent could've been copy-pasted (0+ / 0-)

    with a few wording changes as a dissent against himself in Bush v Gore.  What a clown.  We should have a Star Trek like rule at the SCOTUS to declare incompetent and remove Justices who are notoriously "emotionally compromised".  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site