Comments (29) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Jase99 said, almost 4 years ago

   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.
2. 

   I Play One On TV said, almost 4 years ago

   I’ve felt this way about mayonnaise for years. And here I thought I’d never agree with Mr. Scalia on anything…..
3. 

   edinbaltimore said, almost 4 years ago

   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.
4. 

   AlexanderTheGoodEnough said, almost 4 years ago

   Blech!! And I thought Santorum was nasty. Scalia murders logic and besmirches the SCOTUS. If ever there was a justice that should be impeached…
5. 

   Chillbilly said, almost 4 years ago

   He’s the embodiment of judicial activism.
6. 

   meetinthemiddle said, almost 4 years ago

   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.
7. 

   ninety_nine_percent said, almost 4 years ago

   Maybe he will leave the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, and we can replace him with a real judge.
8. 

   CasualBrowser said, almost 4 years ago

   “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.
9. 

   The Wolf In Your Midst said, almost 4 years ago

   I knew Scalia had lost touch with reality when he lauded the exploits of a FICTIONAL CHARACTER (Jack Bauer) in defending the use of torture.
   Then again, “24” IS a Fox show….
10. 

    mikefive said, almost 4 years ago

    I think we sometimes forget that one function of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not the law’s morality. Morality is shifting sand from one generation to another and sometimes shifts back and forth within the same generation. Laws should not be based solely on current morality because of the fluid nature of morality nor should supreme court rulings be based on a moral point that may be short lived.
    ♦
    Legislators often seem to jump on the morality of the moment and pass laws that appeal to a specific segment of their constituency when it is foreknown that said law is unconstitutional. Said legislators have probably weighed the difference between votes gained by introducing or voting for the law and votes lost for the same reason. The morality of the majority or merit or constitutionality of the law is of secondary consideration. (and may speak volumes about the morality of those legislators)
    ♦
    Having said this, I appeal to those on the left and the right to forgo their support for activist jurists and to support those jurists that will put aside their personal tenets and rule on laws as to a law’s constitutionality.
11. 

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago

    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.
12. 

    PianoGuy24 said, almost 4 years ago

    Yep, that’s immoral too, ya idiot. I KNOW what it was refering to!
13. 

    PianoGuy24 said, almost 4 years ago

    @Chillbilly

    You don’t seem to mind judicial activism when it supports YOUR views!
14. 

    PianoGuy24 said, almost 4 years ago

    @CasualBrowser

    What? You’re advocating murduring the unborn by way of abortion and I’M the absurd one??? It’s official…the world has turned inside out and on it’s ear!
15. 

    Godfreydaniel said, almost 4 years ago

    At least Scalia hasn’t taken a duck-hunting bribe from Dick Cheney recently…….
16. Load the rest of the comments (14).