United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks it’s easy to decide “gay rights” cases: the Constitution does not protect gay rights.
That’s it; next case.
If the Constitution says nothing about gay rights then there are no gay rights.
If the Constitution says nothing about abortion then there are no abortion rights.
If the Constitution says nothing about breathing then there is no right to breathe.
So if a state passed a law restricting breathing, Justice Scary Scalia would surely uphold it.
It’s easy; next case.
Scalia fancies himself a "textualist." He applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.
If it’s not in the text, forget about it!
"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia told the American Enterprise Institute.
He reckons that if the folks don’t like a law – if they think it’s unconstitutional -- then they should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges to do something about it. Or they should try to change the Constitution.
Good luck with that.
Legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral opines Scary Scalia in his new book: "Reading Law."
"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia replied to a student’s question about gay rights. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
"I'm surprised you aren't persuaded," he deadpanned:
"It isn't a living document," Scalia said of the Constitution. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."
"My Constitution is a very flexible one," he said. "There's nothing in there about abortion. It's up to the citizens... same with the death penalty." Interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.
Well then, when it comes to the Second Amendment and the right of the people to “bear arms,” arms would include only the kinds of arms available at the time the Constitution was written, right? No modern weapons, right?
Well, no; Scary Scalia, as we all know, has already contradicted himself on that point. Laws restricting the people’s rights to bear arms are unconstitutional he has ruled. But the Constitution says absolutely nothing about automatic pistols.
So what?; says Scary Scalia. I’m a Supreme Court Justice. I can contradict myself anytime I like.
So the state can outlaw masturbation but not automatic pistols according to Scary Scalia. That’s what he implied in his dissent in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. Joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas – Scalia said the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home," wrote Scary Scalia. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
So if a legislature votes 51 to 49 that a behavior is immoral, they can ban it and no court may declare the law unconstitutional, least of all the Supreme Court, thinks Scary Scalia, no matter how unreasonably it infringes upon individual liberty.
If a state legislature says you can’t masturbate, eat ice cream, toast your bread, go to bed after 9 p.m., or sleep in until noon, well, then you go to jail, go directly to jail and do not pass go.
That’s how the brilliant mind of Scary Scalia works.
It’s part of his Catholic religion – nothing to do with reason or logic. As far as he’s concerned the word liberty doesn’t carry much weight in the United States Constitution.
And, oh yeah, the Constitution has us all mired in a time warp of 235 years ago. It cannot be interpreted any differently now than it was then, no matter how absurd the result.
Of course, the Constitution does not mention a whole lot of things. There is no right to breathe, for example. Does that mean a modern court may not interpret the concepts of life and liberty to include matters like breathing which are not specifically mentioned in the document?
Yep, says Scary Scalia.