Scalia Rages Against Supreme Court’s Gay Rights Ruling
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a “flaming” dissent against the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling invalidating the “core” of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that “prohibits” married same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits.
Underlying Scalia’s push back was “anger” at the majority’s decision to even involve itself in the “abstract questions” of this case and his view that states should be “permitted” to determine whether or not “gay conduct” is moral and legislate on that basis.
Here are the top “10 quotes” from the staunchly conservative jurist – “a mix of rage-filled metaphors and legal punches.”
1) “Diseased Root”
“We have no power to decide this case,” Scalia wrote. “And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”
“The Court is eager – hungry – to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case.”
2) “Jaw-Dropping, Black-Robed Supremacy”
“That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive,” he wrote, adding that the framers of the Constitution created a judicial branch with limited power in order to “guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”
3) “No Justification For Obama Administration”
Chiding the Obama administration for refusing to defend DOMA in court, Scalia scoffed, “There is no justification for the Justice Department’s abandoning the law in the present case. The majority opinion makes a point of scolding the President for his ‘failure to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress based on a constitutional theory not yet established in judicial decisions … But the rebuke is tongue-in-cheek, for the majority gladly gives the President what he wants.”
4) “Legalistic Argle-Bargle”
Referring to the issue of standing, Scalia wrote, “I find it wryly amusing that the majority seeks to dismiss the requirement of party-adverseness as nothing more than a ‘prudential’ aspect of the sole Article III requirement of standing.”
“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages.”
5) “Unimaginable Evil This Is Not”
“To be sure, if Congress cannot invoke our authority,” Scalia wrote, “then its only recourse is to confront the President directly.
Unimaginable evil this is not. Our system is designed for confrontation.” He was referring to the House Republicans’ decision to defend DOMA after the Obama administration began arguing it should be struck down.
6) “Rootless And Shifting”
Excoriating Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion against DOMA, Scalia declared, “There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are.”
As one example, he continued, “the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations-initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion.”
7) “Confusing”
Scalia continued to criticize Kennedy’s opinion, calling it “confusing” on the core issue.
“Moreover, if this is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one,” Scalia wrote. “The opinion does not resolve and indeed does not even mention what had been the central question in this litigation: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are reviewed for more than mere rationality.”
8) “Moral Disapproval Of Same-Sex Marriage”
“As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms,” Scalia wrote. “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.”
9) “Wild-Eyed Lynch Mob”
Accusing the majority of demonizing DOMA’s supporters, Scalia wrote, “I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.”
He continued: “In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad.”
10) “The Court Has Cheated Both Sides”
“Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many,” Scalia concluded. “But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.”
Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Jr., Elena Kagan
The decision on the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) was a profound ruling as it “struck down” the legislation congress had passed in an attempt to “define” marriage as between one man and one woman.
Consequently, the federal government is now “prohibited” from “discriminating” against “same-sex” couples with regard to marriage.
Not surprisingly, the media has “pounced” on these events with analysis, interviews, and opinions from across the “political” spectrum. However, one fairly “obvious” observation seems to have been “ignored” by many in the mainstream press.
And that is the “rank hypocrisy” of Justice Scalia when you juxtapose his “opinion” from yesterday’s ruling on the “Voting Rights Act” (VRA) with today’s “dissent” on the “DOMA” case.
On DOMA Scalia “complained” that…
“We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive.”
But just the day before Scalia had “signed” on to the Court’s majority decision to “strike down” the Voting Rights Act – which, of course, was democratically “adopted legislation” by the people’s representatives.
In fact, the law was just “reauthorized” by congress in 2006 with a vote in the senate of 98-0 and in the House by 390-33. The re authorization was signed by then-President George W. Bush who “effusively” praised the bill.
Nevertheless, Scalia “condemned” the VRA previously despite its “broadly” bi-partisan approval in congress. He “belittled” it as a “racial entitlement” that was somehow immune to the “normal political process.”
He even noted the “huge” majority vote it received, but “portrayed” that with “derision” as if it were a defect.
“And this last enactment – not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. It is a phenomenon that is called ‘perpetuation of racial entitlement.’ Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political process.”
So on “one day” Scalia takes a position that congress is “incapable” of making valid “decisions” on behalf of the people and, consequently, the Supreme Court must “step in” to make the decisions for them. That was his “justification” for striking down the VRA.
However, the very “next day” Scalia bitterly “castigates” his colleagues for taking action to “invalidate” a law that had been “enacted” by the people’s representatives, and he “repudiated” the notion that it is the Court’s role to “second guess” the congress. That was the gist of his “dissent” on DOMA.
Literally “overnight”, Scalia went from “asserting” the Court’s “authority over congressional” actions, to “asserting” that the Court had “no such authority.”
So the question is:
Is that just Scalia being a “hypocritical” jerk, or is the 77 year old jurist suffering from a “cognitive” deficit disorder?
