SCOTUS cases make for strange bedfellows

[Charles Kozierok]

I just heard Rush Limbaugh spend ten minutes praising Sonia Sotomayor for her questions directed at Ted Olson with regard to whether any limits could be placed on marriage if gay marriage was rules constitutional.

You don't hear that every day...

Limbaugh isn't too bright, and he's as much of a propagandist as any of the conservative talk show hosts, but I will say this -- at least he'll give someone on the opposite side credit once in a while. In this regard he is far better than someone like Sean Hannity, a mindlessly partisan hack who spends every show doing nothing but bashing Obama and other Democrats.

 

[ivwshane]

I just heard Rush Limbaugh spend ten minutes praising Sonia Sotomayor for her questions directed at Ted Olson with regard to whether any limits could be placed on marriage if gay marriage was rules constitutional.

You don't hear that every day...

Limbaugh isn't too bright, and he's as much of a propagandist as any of the conservative talk show hosts, but I will say this -- at least he'll give someone on the opposite side credit once in a while. In this regard he is far better than someone like Sean Hannity, a mindlessly partisan hack who spends every show doing nothing but bashing Obama and other Democrats.

He only gave her credit because it helps justify the conservative talking point, "let gays marry and you will have to let people marry pigs".

Or more realistically you will have to let sisters marry brothers or daughters marry fathers. And quite honestly they should be able to so long as they are of legal age. Let society place the stigmatizations on certain behavior not government.

 

[Fern]

He only gave her credit because it helps justify the conservative talking point, "let gays marry and you will have to let people marry pigs".

Or more realistically you will have to let sisters marry brothers or daughters marry fathers. And quite honestly they should be able to so long as they are of legal age. Let society place the stigmatizations on certain behavior not government.

Yeah, that's what I expect. He'll praise if, and when it helps his POV.

Knowing she supports gay marriage, I'm a little surprised she asked that question unless she expected Olsen to 'hit it out of the park'. Of course, that question was bound to be asked by someone. The "boundaries' question arises in many SCOTUS cases.)

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well sure. I have no illusions that Limbaugh suddenly likes Justice Sotomayor. But he did at least give her some credit, which is more than I can say for a lot of people in the media (heck, more than I can say for some of the people in this forum.)

One mistake a lot of people make, though, is reading too much into the questions as an indicator of how the justice is going to side. People like Limbaugh see a "liberal justice" probing the other side and think it's good news for them, but not necessarily.

 

[werepossum]

Well sure. I have no illusions that Limbaugh suddenly likes Justice Sotomayor. But he did at least give her some credit, which is more than I can say for a lot of people in the media (heck, more than I can say for some of the people in this forum.)

One mistake a lot of people make, though, is reading too much into the questions as an indicator of how the justice is going to side. People like Limbaugh see a "liberal justice" probing the other side and think it's good news for them, but not necessarily.

Scalia is famous for that behavior; I think it makes for a good justice. Even if one has a position in mind, the arguments for that position are just as important as those against. There are a few examples of justices actively helping "her side" - Kagan springs to mind - but in general I don't think any justice's questions necessarily indicate his or her voting tendency.

 

[zinfamous]

These are the words of Scalia in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v Texas in 2003:

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "when sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "the liberty protected by the Constitution"?

So, basically, he would have trouble in disallowing gay marriage without overturning the decision in Lawrence v Texas. I suppose he is not one to hold precedent above "originalism," but he has already gone on record as finding little or no justification for not affording the rights of gay couples to marry.

I am interested to see where he stands in June.

 

[Fern]

These are the words of Scalia in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v Texas in 2003:

So, basically, he would have trouble in disallowing gay marriage without overturning the decision in Lawrence v Texas. I suppose he is not one to hold precedent above "originalism," but he has already gone on record as finding little or no justification for not affording the rights of gay couples to marry.

I am interested to see where he stands in June.

I'm not sure I follow you. But if you're saying that if the reason gay marriage is outlawed is based (soley) upon the premise of societies disapproval of gay sex, I must agree with you. It's hard to justify such a restriction if the underlying conduct has been found legal by the court previously.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

I'm not sure I follow you. But if you're saying that if the reason gay marriage is outlawed is based (soley) upon the premise of societies disapproval of gay sex, I must agree with you. It's hard to justify such a restriction if the underlying conduct has been found legal by the court previously.

Fern

well, that was, indeed, the essential ruling in Lawrence v Texas. Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, argued that establishing a legal precedent that equates homosexual love with straight love, and defends it in the same manner, will tend to remove any further justification to deny all equal rights to homosexual couples.

...he's right, of course. But he was a dissenter--he could maintain that he never agreed with the the original ruling and continues to think that there is some legal reason to moralize and legislate how people choose to love each other; but such an argument from him would seem to compromise his judicial ethics, based on his earlier argument.

Interestingly, Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in L v Texas, mentioned that this ruling is not a determination of the legality of homosexual marriage and should not be interpreted as such. The quote from Scalia that I posted above, is a direct response to that statement by Kennedy, predicted the natural, and expected march towards equal rights.