Supreme Court justice has meltdown over same-sex marriage ruling

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

"I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he offers. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-s-x marriage displayed American democracy at its best."

"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law," he opines. "Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."

Scalia even offered what may the first legal cite of a hippie.

"'The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'" he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

HuffPost went to look for the first hippie we could find, per Scalia's instructions. A 61-year-old man from Alexandria outside the White House, protesting nuclear weapons, said he had come to this very park in the 1970s for pot smoke-ins, but added that there really haven't been hippies around since the Grateful Dead stopped touring. He was nonetheless willing to offer a judgment on Scalia's assertion that marriage abridges rather than expands intimacy. "I've known it to have both reactions," he ruled. "Scalia is a big knucklehead."

In Scalia's dissent, he also bemoaned the tone of the majority opinion.

"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

"And to allow the policy question of same-s-x marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," he writes. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch."

Each of the four opponents of the ruling wrote their own dissent but Scalia, opposing for every reason anybody could come up with, joined the three he didn't write.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/antonin-scalia-dissent_n_7671110.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[Nino 12]

seething harder than a katy fan on the night of the grammys 

 

 

[Ziva 193]

Freedom and love won over hatred and discrimination today. If you can't stand the look of it, look the other way.

 

 

[Luc 4,776]

Poor heteros-xuals. Gays can get married, that is so going to ruin the world  

 

nice birthday present tbh  

[Red 99,108]

Just a normal day, bird are flying, dogs are barking, potatoes are potatoing and homophobes are being homophobes...

[GagaMyBlood95 9,915]

What? That doesn't make any sense, like this is freedom. Sit down and enjoy the ride.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

YASS DOWN WITH SOCIETY!!!

 

 

[RAMROD 117,044]

 This dude serious?

Hope he is alright in few days.

 

 

 

nice birthday present tbh  

Happy Birthday!

Have a rainbowy ones!

 

[Ziva 193]

Poor heteros-xuals. Gays can get married, that is so going to ruin the world  

 

nice birthday present tbh  

A nice birthday present indeed!
Happy Birthday

 

[Minaj 607]

Today is too good of a day to be caught up in people like that. Celebrate!  

[Gagamel 3,410]

Some facebook news page from my country posted an article about this and literally every single comment out of 50 of them was negative and called americans idiots

I need to move outta here

[MahoganySnitch 67]

"And to allow the policy question of same-s-x marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation"

This is troubling because all 9 justices voted to end segregation in Brown vs. BOE, which definitely did not go well with many Southerners. Following this logic, those 9 should not have voted because they were a "Select, unrepresentatuve panel of nine" and that the issue should have been left to voters. 

[rpggal 332]

Wow, for a supreme court justice he doesn't really seem to understand the way our government works. Every precedent he said was just set by this case has been established since the FIRST LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASE EVER. Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, which allows the supreme court a CHECK over the legislature to override laws that are unconstitutional. The will of the people (represented by the legislature) has NEVER been the end-all-be-all of American democracy, the supreme court ALWAYS gets the last say. This is ****ing business as usual. If your law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter how many ****ers voted for it, it gets thrown out. And who determines whether or not it's unconstitutional? Those 9 robed judges. Since forever. Scalia didn't seem to have a problem with all his judicial authority whenever he wrote the majority opinion on conservative issues, but now that he doesn't get his way his fellow judges have too much power? Bull****. It's true that judges aren't elected, but they're appointed BY elected officials (the president), that's THEIR check. Maybe there should be more. But to suggest that they don't have authority over the legislative branch when judicial review was established FROM THE FIRST is absurd.

[HANZ 4,380]

**** off

[Vernier 3,786]

I already knew it'd be Scalia even before entering the thread