Marco Rubio: We Need More Scalias

More Marriage Sadz From Justice Scalia

MSNBC reports:

On Monday morning, the last day of this Supreme Court term, there were no rainbow flags or same-sex marriage protesters left on the marble plaza before the the nation’s highest court. But inside the court room, Scalia wanted to talk about Friday’s 5-4 decision making same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States, despite the fact that there were three other opinions to issue. In an extraordinary reading from the bench in a death penalty case in which he was actually in the majority, Scalia managed to dissent on gay marriage for a second time. “Last Friday, this court took away from the people the right to decide on same-sex marriage on the basis of their own policy preferences,” he said, taking a shot at Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer for suggesting in their written dissent to the case being announced that the death penalty is unconstitutional. It was, in other words, a dissent to a dissent.

The above-linked report notes that oral dissents "considered extraordinary."

Matt Baume: Debunking The Dissents

Matt Baume Recaps SCOTUS Arguments

Probably the best forecast you'll see.

What Would You Say To Justice Scalia?

Yesterday Think Progress reporter Igor Volsky asked demonstrators at the Supreme Court what they would say if stuck in an elevator with Justice Antonin Scalia.

Barney Frank On SCOTUS Ruling: I Can't Wait To See The Look On Scalia's Face

The Week reports:

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is pretty bullish on the Supreme Court recognizing a national right to same-sex marriage, he told Seth Meyers on Tuesday's Late Night, though he said he hadn't read much about the oral arguments that took place earlier in the day. He's excited, Frank added, because he has a husband, and because "I cannot wait to see Justice Scalia's reaction. I'm speculating that like Rumpelstiltskin he will stamp his foot and go up in a puff of smoke." Meyers laughed, "That would be something to see."

Scalia Backs Robert Oscar Lopez

Antonin Scalia Lauds RBG For TIME

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had two distinguished legal careers, either one of which would alone entitle her to be one of TIME’s 100. When she was a law professor at Rutgers and later Columbia, she became the leading (and very successful) litigator on behalf of women’s rights—the Thurgood Marshall of that cause, so to speak. President Carter appointed her to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980, and President Clinton to a seat on the Supreme Court in 1993. Having had the good fortune to serve beside her on both courts, I can attest that her opinions are always thoroughly considered, always carefully crafted and almost always correct (which is to say we sometimes disagree). That much is apparent for all to see. What only her colleagues know is that her suggestions improve the opinions the rest of us write, and that she is a source of collegiality and good judgment in all our work." - Antonin Scalia, writing for TIME.

Antonin Scalia: Don't Paint Me As Anti-Gay

"The issue of gay rights, on abortion, on many of the issues in which Ruth’s opinions and mine differ does not pertain to the substance. It doesn’t pertain to whether gay people ought to have those rights or whether there ought to be a constitutional right or a right to an abortion. That isn’t the issue. The issue is who decides. That’s all. I don’t have any public views on any of those things. The point is who decides? Should these decisions be made by the Supreme Court without any text in the Constitution or any history in the Constitution to support imposing on the whole country or is it a matter left to the people? But don’t paint me as anti-gay or anti-abortion or anything else. All I’m doing on the Supreme Court is opining about who should decide." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking last night at the George Washington University event where Ruth Bader Ginsburg made her "not 100% sober" comment.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has voted against constitutional protections for gays and lesbians at every opportunity, foresaw this moment more than a decade ago, when the court reversed its own precedent and banned state anti-sodomy laws.

In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote that the Constitution protects “adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” The opinion said it was not deciding the question of same-sex marriage, but Mr. Scalia begged to differ. If states may not use laws to express moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, he wrote in dissent, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?”

Precisely.

The 12 years since 2003 have seen enormous social change on this issue. Before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in November 2003, no state permitted such marriages. Today, 36 states do, along with the District of Columbia — representing more than 70 percent of all Americans. A solid and growing majority now believes in marriage equality; among those 18 to 29, support is at nearly 80 percent.

For same-sex couples and their families, friends and communities, this moment has been a long time coming. The justices have the power and the responsibility to give meaning to the promises embedded in the Constitution, and end the exclusion and inequality of gays and lesbians in America.

BREAKING: Supreme Court DENIES Stay Demand On South Carolina Marriage

BOOM! And that's THAT!

UPDATE: From the local NBC affiliate:

The United States Supreme Court has stepped in and decided to not issue an emergency stay in the ongoing political drama surrounding same-sex marriage in South Carolina. In a brief statement, the court straight denied the stay, but Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas said they would hear it. Thursday's ruling means same-sex marriage applications will be accepted beginning at noon. Last week's ruling was decided by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel, who ruled the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional late last week. After the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue an emergency stay on Gergel's ruling on Tuesday, Attorney General Alan Wilson said he would appeal to the high court. 

Headline Of The Day

Chris Geidner reports at Buzzfeed:

In a statement published Thursday and joined by Scalia, Thomas complained that, while the court has generally heard cases when federal or state laws have been found to be unconstitutional by lower courts, the justices “have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months” — specifically pointing to the various marriage cases that the justices have declined to hear. [snip]

Thomas went on to explain, writing that the Supreme Court has “recognized a strong presumption in favor of” hearing appeals when federal statutes have been held unconstitutional. “States deserve no less consideration. … Indeed, we often review decisions striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts,” Thomas wrote, noting, among other cases, the court’s decision to hear the appeal of California’s Proposition 8 marriage ban — an appeal that the court ended up dismissing in 2013 on the technical grounds of standing.

Then, turning to the Supreme Court’s current term, Thomas noted, “But for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months” — citing the court’s decision to deny the marriage case appeal requests out of Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wisconsin at the start of the term and the stay requests denied since in marriage cases pending in Idaho and Alaska.

Hit the link for much more and a copy of the statement.

SCOTUSblog On Kansas

Lyle Denniston writes at SCOTUSblog:

The Court has issued a series of orders in same-sex marriage cases over the past eleven months, but the Kansas order marked the first time that members of the Court had recorded dissents. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas noted only that they would have granted the delay sought by the Kansas attorney general. Kansas officials had attempted to show that their case was different from others that the Supreme Court had chosen to leave undisturbed, arguing that the federal judge’s order was an invalid attempt to second-guess a Kansas Supreme Court order delaying the issuance of same-sex marriages. The federal judge had rejected that claim, but it may have been the one that drew the implied support of Justices Scalia and Thomas. The state still has an appeal pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but that has little promise, because that appeals court has struck down bans in two other states in its region — Oklahoma and Utah. The Supreme Court refused to review those Tenth Circuit rulings on October 6. The Kansas ban is almost identical to those in other states.

Scalia: Marriage Cases Coming "Soon"

Via the Wall Street Journal:

A coy Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia fielded questions about marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage and defended the role of religion in public life during a visit to Colorado on Wednesday. After giving a speech against the concept of an evolving Constitution, Justice Scalia at the University of Colorado was asked by a high school student about Colorado becoming the first state to allow recreational-pot sales, according to the Associated Press. The justice was also asked when we’ll find out if the high court will take up the question of whether state same-sex marriage bans are constitutional. “I know when, but I’m not going to tell you,” he reportedly replied, getting a big laugh from the audience. “Soon! Soon!” he added.

During his response to the marijuana question, Scalia noted that federal laws trump state laws. Dare we hope that he keeps that in mind when it comes to marriage? Naw.

Quote Of The Day - Antonin Scalia

"I don’t know either. And, frankly, I don’t care. Maybe the world is spinning toward a wider acceptance of homosexual rights, and here’s Scalia, standing athwart it. At least standing athwart it as a constitutional entitlement. But I have never been custodian of my legacy. When I’m dead and gone, I’ll either be sublimely happy or terribly unhappy." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, when asked by New York Magazine how the current gay rights battles will be regarded in fifty years.  In the interview Scalia also reveals that he no longer reads the "shrilly liberal" Washington Post and gets most of his news from "talk radio guys."

Quote Of The Day - Antonin Scalia

"I haven't expressed my view about gay marriage. The issue in the DOMA case was not whether the Constitution requires states to allow gay marriage. That was not the question at all. The question is whether Congress can define marriage in all of the statues that Congress enacted to mean only marriage between a man and a woman. I'm waiting for the second shoe to drop." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, saying that he expects to find the issue before the Court again.

Antonin Scalia: The Courts Should Not Invent New Minorities With Special Rights

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blathered his usual crapola before a room packed with wingnuts in Montana yesterday.

“It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Scalia said to the audience at a Federalist Society event in Bozeman, Mt., presumably talking about the Court’s recent rulings on marriage equality. When the Court ruled against the Defense of Marriage Act, which had prohibited married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, in which made a similar argument. Scalia also noted during Monday’s address to the Federalist Society that while changes were made to the Constitution to give greater civil rights to minorities and voting rights to women, that the court shouldn’t operate that way today, according to the AP’s account.

Priest Son Of Justice Antonin Scalia: Homosexuality Does Not Actually Exist

"In this regard we must note the unfortunate title The Homosexual Person (and therefore also the unfortunate title of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document). In short, we should not predicate 'homosexual' of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.  The chronology of the books helps us to see the development in this area of language. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon.

"Thus in his last book, Father Harvey ceased using the term 'homosexual' or 'homosexual person.' His thought and ministry brought him to realize that it is better to speak of someone with 'same-sex attractions.' Although lacking brevity and ease of speech, this phrase has the virtue of precision. It acknowledges both the person/attraction distinction and the complexity of the condition – not fairly summarized as an 'orientation.'" - Father Paul Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a review of three books written by the founder of Courage, the Catholic "ex-gay" group for which the younger Scalia works.

Rimshot!

Justice Antonin Scalia: Courts Shouldn't Rule On "Moral Issues" Like Gay Marriage

Speaking before a group of North Carolina lawyers, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday restated his opinion that "moral issues" like homosexuality and same-sex marriage should be left up to a public vote.

In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage. Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.” As such, he said, it’s a community’s job to decide what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts’.

While justices are not permitted to comment on pending cases, the Charlotte Observer notes that Scalia "frequently listed homosexuality" among the issues that should not be ruled upon by judges. (Tipped by JMG reader Jim)