Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’re probably aware that the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, a landmark case that just brought marriage equality to the entire United States. Of course, not everyone is thrilled about that. Conservative Christians are predictably freaking out, and “Justice” Antonin Scalia is among them.
Scalia is completely unhinged. All you really need to know is that he thinks it’s a-okay to execute innocent people. He also thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. Moving on though.
Scalia’s latest hissy fit dissent in today’s decision demonstrates yet again how wildly out of touch he really is.
“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.”
Well congrats, but guess what? It is of “immense personal importance” to LGBT people, who are directly affected by the ruling. Their rights are at stake. It would be nice if all the justices cared about that.
But far more troubling is Scalia’s talk about “who it is that rules me”. Um… as a Supreme Court judge, isn’t the Constitution supposed to “rule”? Hint: the answer is yes. But Scalia just brushes that aside, and brazenly declares that he doesn’t use the Constitution as the basis for his decisions.
He goes on to freak out about the Supreme Court doing exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do: rule on the Constitutionality of cases brought before it. I don’t quite understand why conservatives so often lose it when courts do exactly what they’re supposed to do.
Another quote from Justice Loony Toons:
“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.
Exactly which part is unreasonable? Let’s see:
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach
That’s exactly what the Constitution is for.
a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons
Um, yeah, specific rights of human beings are outlined in the Constitution.
within a lawful realm
Again, that’s exactly what the Constitution does. It defines legal rights. What’s so outrageous here?
to define and express their identity
What more fundamental right could there be than to simply be who you are?
I see absolutely nothing pretentious or egotistic. It was simply a statement of what the Constitution does. But Scalia has shown he doesn’t care about the Constitution when it’s inconvenient for him. He shows again and again that he really doesn’t get it (or doesn’t care) at a fundamental level.
A Couple of Heretics 