Tom Toles for December 13, 2012

Abortion right people have no feelings killing the unborn, so hence, people that support abortion have no morals.There’s a difference between advocating the right to have an abortion and advocating women have them. I advocate gay marriage. That doesn’t mean I advocate every single guy past the age of consent going down to the bath house.

I’ve felt this way about mayonnaise for years. And here I thought I’d never agree with Mr. Scalia on anything…..

We don’ t" allow" judges to raise issues in their confirmation hearings that they may have to rule on later. No other SCOTUS judge I know of has ever consistently spouted off on issues like Scalia has. I think he’s gone round the bend. He’s a disgrace to the court and the profession.

Blech!! And I thought Santorum was nasty. Scalia murders logic and besmirches the SCOTUS. If ever there was a justice that should be impeached…

He’s the embodiment of judicial activism.

One of the big problems with Scalia’s “reductio” logic is that, up until 45 years ago, the same reasoning applied to institutionalized racism. We made moral decisions in law back then, and it’s an on-going process.

Maybe he will leave the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, and we can replace him with a real judge.

“Abortion right people have no feelings killing the unborn, so hence, people that support abortion have no morals.”-While I hope your comment is satire, I suspect it is not. Either way, it’s an excellent example of Reductio ad absurdum.

Scalia said, “"It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,’" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?””

I think Scalia has misunderstood the point of a reductio ad absurdum. That kind of argument begins by assuming a position which could be true and then shows that it has absurd consequences and therefore can’t be true. For example, you can prove that the square root of 2 is irrational by first assuming that it’s rational and then showing that if it is rational you can argue to a contradiction (I don’t have the space for the whole proof, but you can look it up, it’s not that difficult.) Scalia’s argument doesn’t have that structure. He can have all the moral feelings he wants against homosexuality, he just can’t use his moral feelings as the basis for a legal decision. He can have moral feelings against women who don’t cover their heads in public, but he can’t use those feelings as the basis for a legal decision. (In fact, one could probably use a reductio to show that he’s wrong.) I’m not impressed.

Yep, that’s immoral too, ya idiot. I KNOW what it was refering to!

At least Scalia hasn’t taken a duck-hunting bribe from Dick Cheney recently…….

The number of deaths from childbirth is SO small that it doesn’t reflect the reasons why women say they’re having abortions! The deaths 10 per 100,000 in the 70’s, and they’ve only risen to 13 per 100,000 today because of over obesity and overdone c-sections:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/t/more-us-women-dying-childbirth/

Yet MILLIONS of babies are killed before childbirth every year for the argument sake of the health of the mother! BS! It’s ONLY for convienient sake!

Maybe we should outlaw driving, household product poisons, ladders and the such! THEY cause more deaths per 100,000 than childbirth!:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

I know you and others will still be blind to these raw facts and data, because after all….you just HAVE to support a woman’s choice to kill her unborn!

It’s an embarrassment what the Supreme Court has become under the likes of Scalia and Thomas. Thank goodness Obama will be able to fill any vacancies over the next four years. Maybe we can bring more honor back to the court. If the two I mentioned would retire it would be a real blessing for the country.

Wow you are truely are a moron, you dont even know what issue is being talked about

“Tell me, Antonin, do you eat pesto?”“When I have it, Chief Justice.” “And do you eat mayonnaise?”“No, Chief Justice.”“Do you consider the eating of pesto to be ‘moral’, and the eating of mayonnaise to be ‘immoral’?”“No, Chief Justice.”“Of course not! It is all a matter of taste, isn’t it?”“Yes, Chief Justice.”“And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.”“It could be argued so, Chief Justice.”“My robe, Antonin. My taste includes both pesto and mayonnaise…”

Why is it that the “minimal government” people always want to be"maximum government" when it comes to personal behaviour? Clinton said it best: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The rich will always have the ability to have an abortion. But we are talking about homosexuality. Just because some have the"oogies" when approaching the subject does not give them the right to judge/condemn/pass discriminatory laws. Our framers said “All men are created equal”. Abortion was not outlawed until the late 1800s. Originalists think our founding documents are static for all time.

That question is moot when it involves the life of a new human being from the actions of the mother either by her own choice of action, or if by unfortunately not by her choice but is nonetheless no fault of the baby’s.

I’ve yet to see proof of that you are what you claim.