US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia proved on Monday why he is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. The Reagan appointee spoke at Princeton University where he was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with ones banning bestiality and murder. Scalia stated that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral, and stated that “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective.”
Scalia styles himself as some kind of defender of the holy Constitution without, apparently, understanding what is behind it.
Scalia has been touring the nation promoting his latest book “Reading Law”.
Scalia told freshman Duncan Hosie that “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd.’ If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” Scalia then tried to say that he is not equating sodomy with murder, but only drawing a parallel between bans on both. Scalia then deadpannedly joked “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”
Hosie said to others afterward that he was not only not persuaded by Scalia’s answer, but that he believes that Scalia’s writings tend to dehumanize gays.
Scalia has stated that interpreting laws requires a strict adherence to the words that were used and their meanings at the time that they were written. Unfortunately for Scalia, he is not doing any of that.
A large part of what Scalia misses about the Founders of the United States is that they believed in a secular society free from religious laws. In essence, the law is not suppose to be there to judge moral from immoral, but rather right from wrong. Among the founding philosophies of the United States was the writing of John Locke in which was stated that humans are guaranteed the right to pursue “life, liberty and property”.’
The Founders felt that the only way to deprive someone of their life, their liberty or their property (or the pursuit of happiness as per the Declaration of Independence) was through due process of the law. That is through either deliberate legislation or through the courts. It is not immoral to kill a person, under the law, but it is depriving a person of their life without due cause under the law.
This is why it is legal to murder people if you have a very, very narrow reason and rationale for doing so. If you murder someone who has broken into your house, then the law says that you are within your rights to do so. You may also deprive a person of their life if they are threatening the life of another or you.
The thing about homosexuality is that under this standard, there is no cause to deprive someone of their right to engage in sexual or romantic relations with someone of the same sex because engaging in such relationships does not deprive someone else of their life, their liberty, their property, or necessarily their happiness. Morality has no place in the equation set down by the Founders even though they found homosexuality to be abhorrent and broke their own philosophy in order to impose harsh penalties against anyone who engaged in homosexual activities.
The last two hundred years has not been so much an attempt to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to live up to the founding philosophy of the Founders. Scalia ignores not only the intent of the Constitution, but the founding philosophy behind it and even the exact letter of the Constitution in order to impose and justify his own personal views of society should be.
At this point, it is time for Scalia to step down because it is clear that he has no intention of adhering to the Constitution, the founding philosophy behind the Constitution, the writings and musings of any of the Founders, and the spirit of the law. He has already judged every case that will come before the Court, and that means that he cannot effectively do his job as an impartial jurist. At that point, he has failed his oath of office and failed the Constitution.