DISQUS

AMERICAblog: Scalia says he'd likely have dissented in Brown v. Board, would have voted to keep schools desegregated

  • RitornaVincitor · 2 months ago
    No surprise at all about Scalia. Six years ago he joined Clarence Thomas and Rehnquist in voting to uphold the Texas anti-sodomy law. The law made oral sex between any consenting adults illegal, but was applied in Texas only to gay people. A phony burglary report was phoned to the police who then broke into a long-time gay couple's home and found them engaged in "illegal" sex. Scalia and the other two would have sent the couple to prison. The majority ruling struck down all anti-sodomy laws that existed at the time in 13 states. The penalty in Utah for sodomy was 6 months in jail. In Mississippi, North Carolina and Oklahoma the penalty was ten years in prison. In Idaho it was 5 years to life. Scalia was so incensed by the ruling of the majority to strike down the law that he denounced his fellow Justices from the bench and issued a scathing rebuke. He said that nothing would now be able to stop gay marriage. Scalia and Thomas are no less than disasters in black robes, and the world will be a better place when both ultimately die of constipation. And I'm sure both of them are happy with their decision to intrude in the Florida elections of 2000 and make Bush president, despite the total disaster he turned out to be. Yet Republicans regularly charge Democrats of seeking "activist judges".
  • Judas Peckerwood · 2 months ago
    I think you mean he would have voted to keep schools segregated, not desegregated (they weren't).
  • Turq · 2 months ago
    That he should say this at a time when there is a black family living in the White House is surely no accident.

    Scalia is, to my mind, the personification of evil. What the hell is he doing on the Supreme Court?
  • Butch1 · 2 months ago
    Very good point.
  • Gregory Lyons · 2 months ago
    And what of the other Opus Dei justices? I'm sure ol' Clarence would follow this white man, whatever!
  • ndtovent · 2 months ago
    you mean 'Uncle Thomas?' That Clarence?
  • Gregory Lyons · 2 months ago
    Yup. That ol' Clarence. Opus Dei justice of the USA.
  • ndtovent · 2 months ago
    Why am I not surprised? Unfortunately, this is not enough to get him thrown off the scotus (I sooo wish it was).
  • Bryan J. Blumberg · 2 months ago
    Fix your headline. Scalia would have voted to keep schools segregated.
  • jim1134 · 2 months ago
    that's what it says
  • jackofallthumbs · 2 months ago
    I agree with BJB. The headline's busted.
  • Marc · 2 months ago
    sorry jim1134, you are wrong.

    It reads "Scalia says he'd likely have dissented in Brown v. Board, would have voted to keep schools desegregated"

    I assume you know that segregated and desegregated have very different meanings.
  • Butch1 · 2 months ago
    Scalia is not fit to remain on the bench. He is too opinionated and too influenced by his catholic upbringing to be objective. He has assured himself that no one is going to remove him from his position which is why he is so arrogant in his responses. Perhaps, there could be a way to remove him if one could prove that there must be something organically wrong with his brain or that he has proven more than once that he is bigoted and homophobic and not an indifferent justice in determining the outcome of cases that are put before him. ( just a thought )
  • tbhull · 2 months ago
    The real question is what position Scalia would take today in a case squarely relying on Brown. Would Scalia hold that Brown should be overruled to rectify what this fuck perceives as a wrongly decided case?
  • Marc · 2 months ago
    John, FIX YOUR POST HEADLINE! It's the most important element in a post. You need to get it correct, ASAP!

    Do you really want people to Tweet or Digg that "Scalia says he'd ... have voted to keep schools DEsegregated"?
  • Slim Cognito · 2 months ago
    I despise the guy as much as anyone here but I've had a theory on this scumbag for years. I think he's slipping into dementia. He's always been mean and hateful but the stuff coming out of his mouth now, considering he is a SC justice, is un-freakin-believable. As someone who works with geriatric patients, we've had trouble with some (mostly) men becoming meaner and even violent as the dementia progresses. Let me do my best Dr. Frist impersonation here and say it. He acts like he has early-onset Alzheimer's.
  • RitornaVincitor · 2 months ago
    If true, he would join a long line of conservatives who developed dementia. My theory is that it is the result of failing to utilize the imagination.
  • postdamnit · 2 months ago
    That asshole Reagan anyone.
  • jimfromthefoothills · 2 months ago
    We actually have enough evidence to impeach him because of the Cheney case.
  • RitornaVincitor · 2 months ago
    Let's hope Cheney takes Scalia hunting.
  • caphillprof · 2 months ago
    Scalia conveniently ignores the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The Framers never intended for such a man to sit on the Supreme Court.
  • sonofloud · 2 months ago
    If these judges love to follow the will of the people so much, instead of following the constitution, why do we even have judges?
    Why not put everything up to a vote? Isn't that what their argument boils down to, the majority is always right?
  • postdamnit · 2 months ago
    This excuse for a Supreme Court judge should have been thrown off the court years ago, along with Thomas who is useless and should never have been appointed in the first place.

    The problem with Scalia and his ilk is that he makes decisions based upon his Catholic faith and what the Pope dictates. He is a hateful individual and when he goes the court will be better off for it.

    I am a fervent believer in term limits for SC judges with a limit of 12 years. That is 3 Presidential terms.
  • benb · 2 months ago
    "The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

    My impression is that all the controversial SCOTUS decisions went against the desires of the current society.
  • BeccaM · 2 months ago
    I think these are the logical ends of Republican Party philosophies: They want segregation, homosexuality re-criminalized, certain fundamentalist religions promoted while others are actively repressed (or made illegal), and rampantly ruthless unregulated capitalism where corporations and rich people have power in direct proportion to their wealth.

    Scalia is saying exactly what they all want, what they'd do if they had a 60 seat majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and a sufficiently authoritarian figure again in the White House.
  • postdamnit · 2 months ago
    Did we not just go down that road with the Bush disaster? Maybe the dummies in the country are already nostalgic for that corrupt regime. It would appear so when you listen to the morons attempting to squash any forward movement.

    As it has been said, the citizens deserve the type of government that they get.