Live Breaking News & Updates on Justice Scalia Didn T
Stay updated with breaking news from Justice scalia didn t. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Recently recognized a full flown right in the second amendment as a personal right. the court does recognize rights. they come to a tipping point and this is a classic trajectory. one of the strange things about this. many of the justices kept on referring to this as a new issue. always a bit chilling. that s how scalia portrayed it. not a real issue. harvey milk wasn t born yesterday this is a longstanding movement for equality and scalia has deep problems with many privacy rulings. he was against the decision in morris, so he was against the decriminalization of home sexuality. so he s really citing cases back in the 19th century. how can he have his cake and eat it too? this is new, there is no judicial precedent, but i have a ....
Unconstitutional? it was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control. i see. when did that happen? there is no specific date and time. how am i supposed to know how to decide a case when you can t give me a date when the constitution changed? this seems to be a bit of a brilliant sort of scalia judicialujitsu, he is trying to undermine the argument the constitutionality of gay marriage, as no one ever questioned that. i thought it was an unconvincing effort of hamlin on the potomac. angst filled, what am i, who am i, where am i moment. justice scalia didn t have that problem in heller where they ....
Is no good reason for excluding gay couples from the freedom to marry. in the excerpts you plays in the court. justice kagan and others asked questions, and the attorneys on the anti gay side were unable to come up with a good reason and that s exactly what court after court and now state after state have found. eric, that s a great point that evan brings up, is that those who are in support of proposition 8 and against marriage equality have found themselves painted into the weird corner where they have to make the case where gay people getting married is somehow harmful to the institution of marriage or heterosexual couples which seems to be a losing prescription, it not? i agree with evan and find the argument that this is about something new. this is not about something new. equal justice under law has been the founding principle of the united states for a long time, and the evolution of american law, because our constitution is a growing document, which everyone but justice sc ....
Privacy rulings. he was against the decision in morris, so he was against the decriminalization of home sexuality. so he s really citing cases back in the 19th century. how can he have his cake and eat it too? this is new, there is no judicial precedent, but i have a point of view, but i won t explain that or make station based on that because it s too soon. the circles or levels of deception seem to be pretty profound. it s not very convincing. he has a history of going boldly into unchartered territories when he felt that was the direction they needed to go. and no one was surprised about scalia, though i thought he played his role fairly well, but i didn t find it convincing. more unnerving was the general thrust of the justices that they didn t want to go down the highway. they want an exit. and frankly, looking for a cheat. a way to get out of this. ....
Fundamental questions in their mind, even kennedy. kennedy said the trend toward equality may reach a magnificent end or go over a cliff. that s a chill statement it gave insight that even kennedy isn t too clear. scalia seems to have had more of an antigay rights agenda on decision making on the court. i want to play a little exchange between him and ted olson, talking about whether or not gay marriage has been deemed unconstitutional. let s take a listen to that. when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying? they did not assign a date to it, justice scalia. as you know, what the court decided was the case that came before. i m not talking about the california supreme court. i m talking about your argument. you say it s now constitutional. yes. was it always unconstitutional? it was constitutional when ....