Skip to comments.
Text of Justice Scalia's Dissenting Opinion [to paraphrase, "epitaph for Christian civilization"]
SCOTUS ^
| Justice Scalia
Posted on 06/26/2003 6:15:35 PM PDT by Polycarp
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-425 next last
1
posted on
06/26/2003 6:15:35 PM PDT
by
Polycarp
To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; ...
Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization.
2
posted on
06/26/2003 6:17:16 PM PDT
by
Polycarp
(Free Republic: Where Apatheism meets "Conservatism.")
To: Polycarp
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. I join JUSTICE SCALIAs dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a mem-ber of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valu-able law enforcement resources.
3
posted on
06/26/2003 6:22:06 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Polycarp
To: sinkspur
So? It is irrelevant whether he is for or against the state law.
5
posted on
06/26/2003 6:26:06 PM PDT
by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
To: RAT Patrol
It is irrelevant whether he is for or against the state law. Clarence Thomas is against it; he thinks it's "silly."
6
posted on
06/26/2003 6:27:26 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: sinkspur
Excuse me. He is a member of the dissenters, sink. What he thinks of the law is irrelevant to his decision. That's what he is saying. IOW, it should be overturned in Texas, but it's not a constitutional matter.
7
posted on
06/26/2003 6:30:24 PM PDT
by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
To: Polycarp
Todays opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists di-rected at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homo-sexual conduct.Exactly. A majority of the SCOTUS, acting as a superlegislature of unelected, life-tenured lawmakers from overwhelminngly liberal backgrounds has decreed, "We prefer the progressive way the liberal California Assembly has dealt with this issue. As liberals, we find it most satsifying andf acceptable. Therefore we now pass a law requiring the other 49 state legislatures to do it like California has done it."
"And thanks for asking! On behalf of our revered mentor Antonio Gramsci we would like to assure you we are more than pleased to ignore the 10th Amendment so that we may do your progressive social engineering for you."
To: sinkspur
Interesting that you pluck Thomas' words from the larger context of Scalia's dissenting opinion. I knew someone would, though for completeness I posted Thomas' remarks anyhow.
You probably saw Thomas' line already posted here today, and since it bolsters your own well known opinion, you pointed it out.
Thats OK, but did you bother to read Scalia's opinion here? How about highlighting something important.
9
posted on
06/26/2003 6:34:20 PM PDT
by
Polycarp
(Free Republic: Where Apatheism meets "Conservatism.")
To: RAT Patrol
I found it interesting that Thomas felt a need to express his personal opinion of the law.
I guessed that the law would be overturned, but I thought it would be on the grounds that O'Connor found, which is equal protection, since this law singled out homosexual sodomy.
10
posted on
06/26/2003 6:34:34 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: sinkspur
I guessed that the law would be overturned, but I thought it would be on the grounds that O'Connor found, which is equal protection, since this law singled out homosexual sodomy. Yeah. It was illegal for anyone to engage in homosexual sodomy.
Of course, you, and the rest of the libs, are confused about the difference between what you are, versus what you do.
To: sinkspur
This is a buttinski SCOTUS enforcing a liberal social engineering experiment on all the states that have different point of view from, say, California and Massachussets. Why do you support liberal social engineering experiments foisted on the rest of us by unelected life-tenured justices? Have you no respect for federalism, for the 10th Amendment?
To: Polycarp
Across the nation, Homos are celebrating.
EEEEEWWWWWWW!!!!!
13
posted on
06/26/2003 6:38:35 PM PDT
by
mfreddy
To: sinkspur
Your way would have been much better. As it stands now, gay marriage via the courts is just a matter of time unless we get a Constitutional Marriage Amendment.
14
posted on
06/26/2003 6:38:49 PM PDT
by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
.
15
posted on
06/26/2003 6:42:09 PM PDT
by
firewalk
To: Polycarp
Thats OK, but did you bother to read Scalia's opinion here? I did.
How about highlighting something important.
OK.
Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that crimi-nalize private, consensual homosexual acts.
16
posted on
06/26/2003 6:42:22 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Kevin Curry
Why do you support liberal social engineering experiments foisted on the rest of us by unelected life-tenured justices? The law was not enforced. Had the Houston police done what every other law enforcement department in Texas has done for the last 30 years, this case would not have made it to the Supreme Court.
17
posted on
06/26/2003 6:45:00 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Polycarp
Bump
To: EternalVigilance
Of course, you, and the rest of the libs, are confused about the difference between what you are, versus what you do. You're confused, because I am not confused about either.
19
posted on
06/26/2003 6:46:14 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Polycarp
Scalia's dissent is absolutely devastating, an epitaph for Christian civilization. Too much. Enough of the drama queen hysteria over this decision.
The fact is most sodomy laws have been removed from the books or struck down by the courts in most states FOR YEARS now.
The great majority of Americans oppose any laws that have sex police attempting to prohibit acts of adultery, homosexuality etc between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.
Even most Christians who believe such acts are immoral do not support formation of the sort of fundamentalist Muslim-like state that stones gays and shoots women in the head in soccer stadiums for acts of unfaithfulness.
Truthfully, your obsession with what homosexuals are doing is not shared by most Christians... let alone the general public.
Furthermore, most are disgusted with the double standards of those who want to enforce sodomy laws against gays, but not heterosexuals. People can see through the hypocrisy.
20
posted on
06/26/2003 6:48:51 PM PDT
by
Jorge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-425 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson