One Person's Opinion

A compendium of random thoughts regarding politics, society, feminism, sex, law, and anything else on my mind. POST YOUR COMMENTS BY CLICKING ON THE TIME INDICATOR BELOW THE POST YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON. RSS FEED AVAILABLE AT

Andrew Sullivan
Attorney Shopping Links
Bag and Baggage
Ernie the Attorney
Eve Tushnet
Gail Davis
How Appealing
Lehrer NewsHour
National Law Journal
National Review
New Republic
Talking Points Memo
Virginia Postrel
Volokh Conspiracy
War Liberal
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, March 27, 2003
This is important information. Scalia purports to stand as the most prominent exponent of a theory of constitutional interpretation (actually, a spin regarding a form of constitutional interpretation that isn't actually all that qualitatively different from the methods of interpretation used by others, but that's beside the point) that says that only the text of the Constitution, and the original meaning ascribed to the document by its framers, matters. Those of us who know that this is bogus (and who, on occasion, get great joy from pointing out that it is bogus), often argue that people like Scalia have chosen to endorse a form of constitutional interpretation that fits their noxious political beliefs, and then seek to escape criticism of their Neanderthalic beliefs by saying that they were compelled to reach the unjust legal conclusions they have reached because they are obligated to follow their judicial philosophy. Now, with Scalia, we have a smoking gun. Check out what Scalia said at oral argument yesterday.

From the L.A. Times:

"At one point, Rehnquist asked if a state could prefer heterosexuals over a homosexual to teach kindergarten.

"Before the attorney could answer, Scalia asserted that disapproval of homosexuality would justify such a decision by the state. Otherwise, he said, children 'could be induced to follow the path of homosexuality.'"

E.J. Graff and Dahlia Lithwick also report that Scalia made this statement.

In other words, Scalia believes that a state's enacting criminal laws for the purpose of preventing people from becoming homosexuals is a legitimate interest, and he further believes the old canard that homosexuals "recruit" kids to become gay. This is not legal reasoning, or original intent, or anything else other than pure bigotry. The man thinks gays are a scourge. He thinks that it is the state's business to eliminate homosexuality. And he thinks that if the state does not do so, the gays will come to get our children. A person who thinks these things should not hold high office, on the Supreme Court or anywhere else.

Comments: Post a Comment