Today the Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Gay Marriage Case and Nation Hopes Scalia Washed His Feet This Morning

In the next few hours the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case concerning gay marriage, Hollingsworth v. Perry .  The protesters/spectators have been camping out to get in.  They had to suffer through a rare late-March snow on Monday.  Today, they’ll probably have to suffer through Justice Scalia’s attempts to be funny.  Open mouth, insert foot.

The high court has its troll.  Calling the Voting Rights Act a “racial entitlement” is just the most recent example.  Scalia’s opinions are interesting to read, but too often his humor swerves into attempts at hateful snark.   I wouldn’t be surprised to find him repeat some of the more crude slippery slope arguments against gay marriage today.  (I’ll share the interesting quotes below as they arise.)

Scalia attempts to rebut Kennedy by saying there is “considerable disagreement” about the effects of the Prop 8 ban on children of same-sex couples. Really, you could say there is “considerable disagreement” about anything. It means disagreement exists, not that those who disagree have any relationship with the facts.  This is what you hear about climate change.



Following the completion of oral arguments the consensus among analysts is that the court will punt on the issue, ruling that there is a lack of standing, and allow California’s ruling on Prop 8 to stand.   The audio will be released soon.


Scalia mentions that he is concerned that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to requirement to allow same-sex adoption.  He says, “I take no position on whether it is harmful or not,” but some people say it is.  Justice Scalia will fit right in as a commentator on Fox News; they pull that crap all the time.


Chuck Cooper, are you really that dim, or are your clients forcing you raise these poor arguments? Embarrassing.


“We decide what the law is.  We don’t prescribe the law for the future.”  What a ridiculous statement that goes to the heart of Scalia’s originalist nonsense.   Look, if you are defining the law today, in the present, by saying what it is now, that definition you chose continues on into the future.  Well, I guess you could retry the issue every day (or every hour), but that would be as silly as Scalia’s originalism.

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge