Scalia Dissent: I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy

Supreme Court.gov ^ | 26 Jun 15 | Antonin Scalia

[mojito]

He'd make more of a splash by calling the institution he is in, illegitimate

I think he did, if you read this in conjunction with the Obamacare decision yesterday. He has said that the court has grossly violated the Constitution in fundamental ways as to amount to a kind of tyranny. He can't, as a sitting justice, come right out and call for nullification, but those are the essence of his words.

[Bluewater2015]

It’s only over if the Republicans LET it be over. If we get the presidency back, we could stack the court and overnight fix all this mess.

---

We need the Senate too. And for the 5 liberal justices to come down with a severe case of MERS (just kidding). Seriously that’s a lot to hope for.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Easier way is to just get the next Republican president to nominate 5 die hard conservatives to the court and fix everything in one broad stroke

[TexasFreeper2009]

we already have the senate.

[Valentine Michael Smith]

I am a lawyer and I too truly hate my profession. For the reasons you cite and for many others. The legal system is a joke from the top to the bottom. See my tagline.

[exnavy]

Today more than ever before in our nation’s history, the tree of liberty needs the watering that only comes from the blood of patriots. May the Lord our God give wisdom and courage to the American people. Amen.

[jpsb]

South Texas is largely Latinos and always votes overwhelmingly Democratic. Texas will be blue soon since we are being overrun by illegals and refuges from Cali (Austin) which also mostly vote Democrat Party.

[Cboldt]

-- He can't, as a sitting justice, come right out and call for nullification, but those are the essence of his words. --

Calling for nullification is what I meant by saying "that" would make more of a splash. Otherwise, his rhetoric is typical of dissents, so typical that it's boilerplate by now.

[caww]

Scalia went Nuclear in his dissent.......

..."These Justices 'KNOW' that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they 'KNOW' that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry....... And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, STANDS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION."

[Mouton]

Ironic you mention nullification with the current debate on removing Jackson from the $20. Had not Jackson come down on the side of the feds in the arguments surrounding the tariffs on the early 1800’s which arguments were leading to secession as early as 1830, nullification would have taken hold. IMO, once that principle was destroyed, we no longer had a representative central government, we had a burgeoning overbearing central government which on the current trajectory by whom is a favorite to be nominated by both parties, a semi monarchy.

[JRios1968]

What I find incredibly hilarious, in light of yesterday's chicanery on Obamacare and today's ruling, is this nugget in plain sight in the dissent written by (of all people,) Roberts (emphasis mine):

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

Roberts is such a hypocrite, considering that only yesterday, he told us the Court had to try to guess what the writers of Obamacare meant to say.

[GeronL]

Scalia is 100% correct

[longtermmemmory]

In the 1910’s (20s?) the monied elites got together and decided to manipulate the two political parties so it would never really mattered which party won an election, they would be the same.

They don’t care about conservative or liberal. They only care about money and personal power. They did not care about GHWBush vs Clinton. Their money was the same.

They did not care about Obama vs Mccain, they were equally able to raid the treasury.

Today they do not care about Jeb vs Hillary. The net result to their banks is the same. Hillary “marrying” Humma makes no difference to them.

[chris37]

I agree.

The problem is that no centralized power structure can be allowed to exist, or the masterminds will attempt to dominate us via it.

[Article10]

Fruits of the 17th Amendment bearing a nasty harvest... We truly are in a democracy and it never ends well.

Restore the Republic, repeal the 17th Amendment... These Judges would never been on the Supreme Court.

[Bluewater2015]

South Texas is largely Latinos and always votes overwhelmingly Democratic. Texas will be blue soon since we are being overrun by illegals and refuges from Cali (Austin) which also mostly vote Democrat Party.

---

“Flyoverland” might then have to kick south Texas to the curb. And by that I mean either give it to DC or back to Mexico. Either way we lose the Rio Grande valley, but every form of refuge has its price, as the saying goes.

[nfldgirl]

What does that mean in layman’s terms, please?

[riri]

I think you understand. I am amazed so many Freepers think the gov’t as we understood it is still there.

[chris37]

It’s already over.

[JRios1968]

Then there's this, still from Roberts:

It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.”

Suddenly, Roberts wants to be a Constitutionalist again? After yesterday???