And now, for a special comment. What, just because Keith Olbermann left hard news you thought I’d given up on these? It is now time for Justice Antonin Scalia to step down. Today, the justice threw a temper tantrum not only unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice, but unbefitting an adult of his age.
Justice Scalia has, for years, claimed to be a strict Constructionalist. That is, Scalia claims to believe in the Constitution as it is written and as it was written more than two hundred years ago, and he showed today that he does not believe in it one bit.
A true believer in the original meaning of the US Constitution would have looked at the Defense of Marriage Act and said without hesitation that it is unconstitutional. Not only does it violate several amendments and clauses, but it violates the very idea of federalism.
Scalia does not care about the original meaning of the Constitution. He just cares about whether or not the Court agrees with his Conservative- no- reactionary view of the world.
So why is DOMA unconstitutional? To begin with, the Federal Government overreached its powers in defining what is or is not marriage. Until that date, under the Tenth Amendment and other clauses of the Constitution, marriage had always been the purview of the states. The Federal Government was forced, even if the people in the government disagreed, to accept interracial marriages because some states, like Vermont, did not bar interracial marriages.
Secondly, DOMA is unconstitutional because it allows the Federal Government and the various states to ignore the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. This clause means that a contract entered into in one state must be recognized in another and by the Federal Government.
Scalia, sounding more like a three year old who had his toy taken away than a Supreme Court Justice said in his ‘dissent’ that “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
If the anti-gay groups would debate this issue not on their lies, but upon facts, then they would not so easily be seen as vile villains. Many of us do not care whether or not someone is anti-gay or homophobic. There are still racists out there. You can say whatever you want so long as you are willing to take the consequences of your actions. What Scalia is decrying is the loss of his special ‘privilege’- that of being an unaccountable bigot.
Scalia continued to whine accusing the majority of “declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency … In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.”
He goes on “To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.” The only person demeaning the institution of the Supreme Court is Scalia himself by acting in a manner that makes tantrumy toddlers look mature.
“When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with ‘whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.’ Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it ‘demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,’ ante, at 23 — with an accompanying citation of Lawrence.
“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here — when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”
Lawrence had nothing to do with the case today other than the fact that it paved the way. By now, Scalia should know that any assurances one set of lawyers makes is worth less than the ink it took to print them off. While Lawrence may have paved the way for this ruling- exactly ten years to the day later- Scalia should have known better. In fact, Scalia should know better at this point.
Justice Antonin Scalia is not about the Constitution. He is about his personal morality being dictated upon others. Not long ago, Scalia whined about the moral cases coming before the Supreme Court. A true believer in the Constitution would take a look at them not as issues of morality, but of legality, and then weigh them by the standards of the Founding Fathers.
They would ask themselves- does this law prevent people from taking away the life, liberty, property or happiness of another without due process or does this law take away the constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty, property and happiness?
And then rule appropriately.
By making a toddler look mature, Scalia showed that it is time for him to step down from the bench because he is a stain upon it. He is a man who may claim to love the Constitution, but in the end, he is an embarrassment to the Court.