Reader comments · US Supreme Court Justice says the court should not rule on ‘moral’ issues like equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US Supreme Court Justice says the court should not rule on ‘moral’ issues like equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Scalia has always been grotesquely unethical as a judge in that he pretty frequently takes public stances on issues, and even cases, before they even reach the Court, or before the rulings are issued. For all that he argues for a proper judiciary, he makes it quite open that he is not an impartial judge and that his personal opinions inform his rulings as much as the law does. However, this little outburst, customary though it may be, could possibly be a positive sign, because it may mean that the other Justices ruled in a manner he disapproved of and thus he is proactively indicating his displeasure.

    1. Was thinking exactly the same – hopefully this indicates a decision he was not happy with

    2. Devin Gray 22 Jun 2013, 6:48pm

      I also view this as an encouraging sign- he usually feels the need to express his personal opinion if he isn’t in the majority and doesn’t write the dissent. However, doing this before the opinion has been released is a grotesque ethical violation. If he had any sense of the “morality” of which he speaks, he would resign.

    3. Midnighter 22 Jun 2013, 8:24pm

      Yep you nailed it Daniel.

      The guy is a tool. He has no business presiding over this case and should have recused himself from the start as many said at the outset. He’s bombastic and not terribly bright and as has been said above he’s an embarrassment to the US judicial system.

  2. Revolting man that he is, he needs to remember that “we the people” means ALL of the people, not the ones that he personally approves of (you can see his contempt for LGBT people in his other rulings in the past).

    Scalia is a contemptible swine of a man who has no business wearing the robe of Supreme Justice, and history will remember him as a bloviating idealogue with a highly mutable grasp of the Constitution and the liberties that it grants to all people.

    1. Thank you, well said

  3. Laws have been made about moral issues, therefore it is his job to rule on them. If he doesn’t want to do that then he should retire and let someone else do the job.

    1. The irony being that Scalia himself has said many times that moral and social considerations *should* be a factor in evaluating law. It is not uncommon for him to cite cultural, religious and social mores as part of the reasoning in his judgments. So, for him to turn around and argue that the Court has no business ruling on moral issues is a complete reversal of his own position as he usually has no problem with making such judgments. Hopefully, the reason he is reversing his stance here is because the rest of the Court did not vote his way in these cases.

  4. Scalia is an embarrassment to the US Supreme Court.

  5. Julian Morrison 22 Jun 2013, 6:52pm

    If he’s saying that, it means his faction is losing. He’d be quite happy to rule on moral issues if he expected to win. Good news, then?

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jun 2013, 6:58pm

    He’s also a paid up member of Opus Dei. Has a son who happens to be a catholic priest involved with the ex-gay ministries. Enough said?

  7. Marriage has nothing to do with science and the central point of courts is addressing issues of morality enshrined in law. This is thinly veiled and cowardly homophobia.

    1. I missed it: where exactly is this veil that you talk of?

  8. “I am questioning the propriety, the sanity of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society by unelected judges.”

    Who would he prefer? The Pope.

    1. He would prefer the people through their elected representatives.

      1. Read de Toqueville and understand the concept of “tyranny of the masses”, bonehead. And let’s not forget, if left to the voters, interracial marriage would still be illegal because the masses tend to be biased (and often idiots, just like you).

        1. De Toqueville would have found the idea of same-sex marriage bizarre. He believed homosexuality should be punishable by death! By modern standards, his idea of the good state is very close to a theocracy.

          “Bias” is in the eye of the beholder. That is precisely what is at issue here. The “bias” of nine unelected judges shouldn’t be privileged over the “bias” of elected legislators, who at least are accountable to the people, and whose decisions, unlike those of the Supreme Court, can be overturned by the people.

          1. “We the people” means ALL of the people, numbnuts, there are no bloody disclaimers involved regarding which people are covered and which are not.

            There is no bias here, just the wording of the Constitution – that thing that so many Americans claim to worship but, through behaviour such as yours (and Scalia’s) they might as well wipe their backsides on.

      2. But Proposition 8 represented an interesting example of abuse of a plebiscite. Essentially, it was a popular vote on the civil rights of a group of people. Now, the obvious problem with that is that it implies that *ANY* group could be legally disenfranchised with a simple majority. For example, if you could get 51% of the population of California to vote to ban the Republican Party or the Mormon Church from the state, would that really be constitutional, even though the majority voted for it?

        This is exactly WHY we have a judiciary. The Founding Fathers foresaw that some people might attempt to abuse democracy to disenfranchise minority groups via majority vote.

  9. friday jones 22 Jun 2013, 7:49pm

    Sure, the SCOTS shouldn’t decide on matters of “morality,” such as Miscegenation laws and interracial marriage laws. Whoops, I forgot, racial minorities are no longer considered less morally “pure” than Caucasians, but for some reason homosexuals are still considered less morally “pure” than heterosexuals, so that explains Scalia’s odd equivocation of DOMA/Prop8 with “morality.”

    What an a-hole.

  10. michaelandfred 22 Jun 2013, 7:51pm

    You know, because it’s not fact if he doesn’t believe it. Because what we should not trust is the word of scientists, doctors or psychologists, or history….we should listen to some people who’s particular faith disagrees with facts.

    By the way, there is NO provable basis to religion yet the court rules on this all the time. And, this is the second time we’ve hear jitters from arch conservatives, could this mean a bigger surprise than expected is coming?

  11. Then, as a supreme court justice, please refrain from airing your opinions about it publicly. None of the others ever said anything yeh or ney about this equal rights issue as you have, dude.

  12. ah, abortion then?

  13. Very predictable comments on this thread.

    Scalia is right. Decisions about moral issues should be made by elected legislatures, not unelected members of the judiciary.

    If the court decides against gay marriage next week, is that decision going to be “correct” because nine very wealthy lawyers said so?

    1. That There Other David 22 Jun 2013, 9:11pm

      Equal rights are not a moral issue. They are a constitutional one. Hence why the courts are involved.

      Same-sex marriage will not suddenly become legal if the SCOTUS strikes down Prop 8. The legislatures will still need to vote on it state-by-state. Depending on the ruling those states might also need to remove their own constitutional bans before the legislatures can do so.

    2. “We the people” means ALL of the people you drooling simple-minded cretin of a man. This has nothing to do with “morality” and everything to do with equal rights and equitable treatment under the law of the land.

      Dumb beasts like you are why names like Dumfukistan are being coined for the US – unfair for many, but apt for you.

    3. Are your “contributions” any less predictable?

  14. GemineyeSF 22 Jun 2013, 8:53pm

    “Rather, I am questioning the propriety, the sanity of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society by unelected judges.”
    a) you didn’t seem to have an issue with making a value-laden decision extending rights and privileges to non-breathing corporate entities
    b) the herring of unelected judges is redick! This jerk typically talks about the how we have gotten away from the Constitution and yet the Constitution established a system where by elected officials (representing the will of the people) nominate and vet justices. It IS your job, jackass…and if you don’t have the stones or the brains to do it any more, get off the damn bench!

  15. Robert Heikkkila 22 Jun 2013, 9:54pm


  16. scott larsen 23 Jun 2013, 2:04am

    Duh! Never thought he would vote in favor of repeal. He just wants some press coverage and to throw a bone to anti-gay conservatives before the court rules Monday in favour of repeal. If it doesn’t, the Oliver Twist line comes to mind: ‘If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble,… ‘the law is a ass—a idiot.’

  17. The US court is deeply flawed that it’s allowed itself to be so politically polarized. I’m glad that in Canada, justices follow the law not their own personal beliefs.

  18. Sorry, but I thought the Supremes were all about equality, justice and being one nation under God. Where does this guy come from if he believes that morality has no place in law? Any law case is about right and wrong… oh, wait, gays are real citizens in your view are they Scalia? You’re an utter disgrace to the office to which you were appointed by an elected representative of the people!

  19. Only in America. Can’t you yanks corral all these loons into a remote state like Alaska, then ring-fence them so that the rest of America can get on with intelligent life.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.