writing in the dissent for the supreme court ruling that struck down doma
intensely got a little bit fights to get a problem with certain aspects of what
happened here and so we're gonna
with spotlight a couple this quotes and breaking down and see if there's any
intellectual merit to what he's saying
so the first comet from scalia is we had no power to decide this case and even if
we did we have no power and the constitution to invalidate
invalidate
is democratically adopted legislation
the court's errors on both points bring forth from the same disease route
uh... in exalted conception of the role of the institution in america
the court is eager
hungry to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case
uh... and tied in with this is another comment they made he said
uh... it's drugs jaw dropping it is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the
people's representatives in congress in the executive the framers of the
constitution created judicial branch with limited power
in order to guard their right to self rule against the black roads the
premises at today's majority finds so attractive
and so what antonin scalia saying there and this would seem to
uh... to too
befitting with his uh... his judicial philosophy
is that discipline course was every week powerful supposed to be throwing its
weight around for instance eight you can even accept lately saying there that he
doesn't believe the marberry versus badass and should have should happen or
the
the interpretation of the court's power coming out of marburg first medicine
should happen
and so it would seem that he's totally against judicial activism there
look we'd like to elect times point oh how parker scene in the political
figures that we cover
and so maybe if we were to go back years perhaps even decades we could find
examples of intense scalia engaging to judicial activism
or maybe we can go back about twenty four hours
when he struck down part of the voting rights act voting in the majority to
eliminate protections for minority voting in america
uh... that is nothing but the case of judicial activism there
and so we don't even if we don't have to have to go back to the weekend of fine
example of it
uh... another case of judicial activism maintenance fully engaged in
i suppose you remember a little case called bush v gore
him active there
in and out the storm consequences i would say for the country in thirteen
years later
very strong consequences
let's move on to his next comment incidence filia says
as i've said the real rationality is opinion whatever disappearing trail of
its legalistic are gold bar goal one chooses to follow
is the dollar is motivated by bearer desire harm couples in same sex
marriages
and so uh... what's interesting there
is that he has a problem with the fact that we are
i suppose creating a straw man version of what the opposition to same-sex
marriages
as if it's a very simple thing
but is in the end of a very simple thing and they will occasionally throw up
concern for the children or something like that those studies inevitably get
destroyed
the uh... the the children same-sex couples to at least as well in some
cases better than couples brought up
in opposite sex on marriages
and so when you get rid of all that stuff i think that it is about is simple
an argument as i can be
and you don't need to take
you know i i'm encyclopedia linked tracked
to explain what the up the people with opposition to same-sex marriage thank
you need to do something as long as they are harry potter now or something
i think they can be really struck down a just three letters
he wwww
they have a moral opposition or a biological opposition to the sex
underlying some of these marriages they don't like it
okay n for one thing scilly have air now he wants to make it seem as if there's
these deep philosophical reasons that their pose the same sex marriage but if
you are watching the news his other comments outside of this uh... minority
opinion he was talking non-stop about homosexual sodomy
decided this inside of me that he wasn't so concerned about states rights when he
was giving his opinion today
we'll see about the physical aspects of of what was going on here and so i had a
problem that
not moving onto his next comment
uh... i find it rightly amusing that the majority seeks to dismiss the
requirement of party at vs
as nothing more than a prudential aspect of the soul article three requirements
of standing
uh... uh... going on as i've observed before
the constitution does not for bid the government to enforce traditional moral
and sexual norms
however even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same sex marriage
or indeed same sex acts
there are many perfectly valid indeed downright boring justifying rationales
for this legislation
there's this sense ought to be the and of this case
um... now i'd love that city says there that there's nothing in the constitution
what so ever that says that the government can enforce its view of
traditional morality
or sexual behavior and what i like about that is if there's nothing in the
constitution that stops the traditional morality from being in force there's
apparently nothing stopping an evolving or progressive morality from being
enforced and so if you can protect the way the people viewed homosexuals a
hundred and seventy five years ago i don't see why you can't protect uh...
the view that we have homosexuals today it's a little bit more progressive than
they had back when they're wearing the white wings and had wooden teeth
and so i love that he did a little bit of uh... ammunition car side there
perhaps without intending it
already talked about the other rationales legislation
and he
killed probably cite something about
domestic abuse are bringing up children the educational effects of something
like that but we saw when prop eight was being argued when the the the appeal
that would eventually lead to the banning of prop eight was appealed
the scientists simply not on their side he says
some warmer joyce in today's decision and some of the spare it
that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many but the court
is cheated both sides robbing the winners and i miss victory and the
losers of the peace that comes from a fair if the
we owed both of them better i dissent
iraq's up nicely there at the end and i suppose in some
so legalistic sense some philosophic sense yes the winners and losers in this
case had been robbed of something and perhaps a bit the case of the argued in
the ruling have been argued in a slightly different way it would be
satisfying in some philosophical or a legal sense
and now i i suppose for the winners in this case they're just going to have to
take at least some solace some consolation from the fact
that although they don't have the philosophical uh... underpinning that
they wanted
they can now after years of or decades of conflict finally marry the person
that they're in love with