Antonin Scalia

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two landmark cases on marriage equality. Yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded us again why gay rights advocates, to put it mildly, aren’t counting on his vote.

Scalia is the Supreme Court’s most outspoken opponent of gay rights. He led the dissent to the two major gay rights decisions of his tenure on the Court, the decisions to strike down Texas’ criminal sodomy law and to overturn Colorado’s ban on local anti-discrimination measures. And in his spare time, he minces no words about his uncompromising opposition to gay rights. Here are seven of his most egregious anti-gay statements:

• Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder: Yesterday, Scalia asked a gay law student, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
•  …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty: In his dissent to the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, Scalia wrote, “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers.”
• Defends employment and housing discrimination: In his dissent to Lawrence, the decision that overturned Texas’ criminal sodomy law, Scalia went even further, justifying all kinds of discrimination against gays and lesbians: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.”
• Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it's justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination: In a talk at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Scalia dismissed decisions on abortion, the death penalty and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy”: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
• Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”:  In his dissent in Romer, Scalia dismissed the idea that a law banning benefits for same-sex domestic partners would be discriminatory, saying the law “would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.”
• Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”: In his Romer dissent, Scalia lashes out at the majority that has upheld gay rights: “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality is evil. “
• Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”: Lifting a talking point straight from the far right, Scalia accused the majority in Lawrence of being in the thrall of the “homosexual agenda”: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Cross-posted from PFAW Blog

Thomas Monaghan, the billionaire behind Dominos Pizza and a prolific donor to Religious Right and Republican causes, founded Ave Maria University of Florida to be one of the most conservative Catholic institutions in the country. Not only did Monaghan seek to establish a new Catholic university, but also wanted to build an entire city based around his ultraconservative ideology. Rick Santorum lauded Ave Maria’s students as God’s soldiers training for a spiritual war, and Justice Antonin Scalia even assisted the founding of the Ave Maria School of Law.

Now, another conservative Supreme Court Justice is aiding Ave Maria’s efforts. While speaking to students of Ave Maria University and Ave Maria School of Law, Thomas told students not to shy away from using their religious views in public life, defended “constitutional originalism,” and touted the stability of his marriage (which must be a very sore subject for Thomas). The Ave Herald reports:

"I was minding my own business and President Bush appointed me," he said. Now, 20 years later, he said he was surprised to look around the justices' conference table recently and realize that he was the third most senior jurist on the Supreme Court. His time on the court has given him much greater perspective, he said.

"You get more of a panoramic view."

Nonetheless, he said, "I get called an activist because I believe we should follow the constitution, not the stuff we made up about it."

He urged the students to respect the courts, even if they disagree with their decisions.

"You want to be constructive," he said. "You can feel strongly without acting emotionally and being bitter and angry."

Common themes in both appearances were the importance of faith and being guided by wanting to "just do the right thing."

"I tell my law clerks every year," Justice Thomas said, "that pragmatism is not a principle. It's giving yourself the excuse to go along to get along."

In the end, he said, people need to be able answer the question asked at the end of the movie Saving Private Ryan: Have I been a good man? Have I led a good life?

Catholics, he said, should not be afraid to live their faith openly.

"Many people choose to hide their lights under a bushel basket," he said in reference to a Gospel passage.

"Our deeds are our most effective homilies, our most effective speeches."

He advised students to seek a balance between their careers and family life, saying that his own marriage of 24 years to his wife, Virginia, who was with him at both appearances, "has been a hoot."

Keep sight of what is important, he told the students at AMU.

"Don't lose your faith, don't lose your family, don't lose your friends. Have the confidence that with God and your faith anything is possible."

• Today is the day that Antonin Scalia delivered his lecture to those attending Rep. Michelle Bachmann's Tea Party class.
• George Allen apparently thinks every has forgotten about his infamous "macaca" moment.
• After years of pressure from the Religious Right, Marriott will stop offering pornography in its hotels.
• What a surprise: members of the Bush administration regularly violated the Hatch Act.
• Mark DeMoss continues his lonely crusade to try and sell Mitt Romney to the Religious Right.
• Rick Santorum stands by his claim that it is "remarkable for a black man" like President Obama to support reproductive choice while right-wing "black genocide" likewise defend him.
• Finally, quote of the day from presidential hopeful Herman Cain: "Previous political experience got us into this mess. People are looking for a leader, not a politician."

• Was the vote that removed three Iowa Supreme Court Justices illegal?  That is what a new lawsuit is claiming.
• The Supreme Court and Re. Bachmann's office both confirm that Antonin Scalia will be teaching the first Tea Party Caucus class to members of Congress.
• It is pretty clear that Michael Steele is delusional if he thinks he has a chance of being re-elected Chair of the RNC.
• Getting fired was pretty much the best thing that ever happened to Juan Williams.
• Finally, time sure are changing at Liberty University:

• After speaking at Liberty University, Newt Gingrich met with Jim Garlow, Tom Minnery, Craig Parshall, and others.
• Mike Huckabee has apologized to Karl Rove.
• Antonin Scalia has no use for those who "reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular."
• Is there anything more terrifying than a book entitled "Why Am I Conservative?" aimed at children that contains a foreward by Bryan Fischer?
• Well, maybe the people who call into Fischer's radio program:

Concerned Women for America has produced a memo explaining that, as much as they hope President Obama will nominate a Supreme Court justice whom "all Americans can support," they don't think he will and therefore they'll be obligated to oppose that nominee ... whomever it is:

Concerned Women for America (CWA) would love for President Obama to go beyond politics — as he promised during his campaign — and nominate a Supreme Court candidate that all Americans can support. After the health care debacle, with zero bipartisan support helping to further expand the chasm between citizens, nothing would be more welcome than for the President to nominate someone who could make us all feel proud. CWA wants a judge with an excellent record of judicial restraint, a commitment to following the Constitution as written, and an awareness of the fact that they are not supposed to substitute their own personal feelings or ideology for the law.

CWA says all of the names floated as possible nominees so far are unacceptable and has even sent President Obama a letter [PDF] asking him to "put aside partisanship and choose a nominee that makes all Americans feel proud": 

At a time when the political chasm between citizens seems to be expanding at an alarming rate, such an admirable move would certainly do a lot to bring us back together and rally for the common purpose of doing what is best for America.

But CWA wants to make clear that it is not holding its breath:

However, based on President Obama’s actions thus far, and on his statements back-to-back that he wouldn’t use a litmus test but wants his nominee to support a “woman’s right to choose,” CWA isn’t hopeful that he will choose a good nominee.

“I don’t see the President picking a nominee that is good for America,” said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America. “The President has shown a keen disregard for any notion of honoring the Constitution, but we are clinging to any last hope that he may break from the mold and nominate a worthy Justice.”

All very interesting.  But I wonder what CWA was saying just a few years ago when, for instance, President Bush was considering nominees for the Supreme Court:

“The President has the historic opportunity to keep faith with the promise he has repeated numerous times, which is to name justices who are like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel. “The Democrats have shown that their filibusters and condemnations of the President’s circuit court nominees were baseless. They will threaten more of the same unless he names a clone of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example.”

The President should not yield to the left’s demands to consult with the Senate before making a nomination. The Constitution is clear that it’s his right alone to make nominations and the Supreme Court agrees.

So CWA urged President Bush to ignore any requests that he consult with anyone before making any nomination, because they were just going to oppose the nominee anyway and the president has the constitutional power to name any candidate he chooses ... and now CWA is writing to President Obama, demanding that he listen to them and put forth a nominee that they can support, threatening that if he doesn't, they will be left with no option but to oppose his choice?

Funny how that works. 

• To the list of things that the Religious Right will cite to prove that John McCain never deserved their support, we can now add to it the fact that his former campaign chief strategist has declared himself “personally supportive” of same-sex marriage rights.
• The Hill covers yesterday's Family Research Council briefing on the dangers of casual sex.
• The University of California, Berkeley is creating a Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements.
• Barney Frank explains why he thinks Justice Antonin Scalia is a homophobe: ""My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity."
• Gary Bauer sure does seem to consider himself an expert on just about everything, including drug violence in Mexico.
• The FRC Action PAC has endorsed Jim Tedisco for Congress representing the 20th district of New York.
• Rick Santorum says leaders in Iran desire an apocalypse of their own making in order to bring about the return of the religious figure known as the­ 12th Imam.
• Nope, these people are not paranoid conspiracy theorists at all:

A lawyer spearheading the effort in Washington state to bring light to the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says he was shadowed all day today by officers with the federal Department of Homeland Security, the Snohomish County sheriff's office and the Everitt city police department.

Mitt Romney continues to pick up endorsements and support from various right-wing leaders – the most recent being Paul Weyrich – and is working hard to establish himself as the candidate of choice for those who just cannot stomach the idea of supporting Rudy Giuliani.   In fact, that seems to be the primary reason Weyrich is even backing Romney: “I’m not for Giuliani. I want to try to stop him from getting the nomination.”  

But while he is slowly winning over the leaders of the right-wing establishment, the rank and file voters are still leery of, if not openly hostile to, his Mormon faith.  As Salon reported yesterday:

The Romney campaign, which has aggressively courted religious voters, is well aware of the problem. Romney has found himself, by dint of his personal faith, in the middle of a long-running competition between two rival evangelical faiths, each claiming the true word of God in the fight for converts. "It's Pepsi vs. Coke," said one Romney campaign aide, describing the differences between evangelical Protestants and Mormons. "But sometimes Pepsi and Coke have to team up to stop Starbucks from taking over the market." Starbucks, of course, represents secular America, which favors gay marriage, legal abortion and the minimization of religion in public life.

Romney, like Giuliani, appears to hope that he can win over these voters by pledging to nominate right-wing ideologues to the Supreme Court, which is just what he promised when speaking yesterday before the Nova Southeastern University Law School’s chapter of the Federalist Society: 

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, speaking in Davie, said his commitment to appointing conservative judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would help him correct the nation's direction.

To reinforce this pledge, the Romney campaign even trotted out two members of his Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts to make the case for him in the pages of The National Review:

As the addition of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Supreme Court has demonstrated, judicial appointments can be among a president’s most lasting legacies. The judges a president appoints will typically serve well beyond his term of office, interpreting our laws and Constitution for decades to follow. The next president may have the opportunity to appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court and, like any new administration, will surely face a large number of courts-of-appeal and district-court vacancies.

For that reason, it is critically important to consider what type of individual a presidential candidate would nominate to the bench. We are confident that if elected as president, Governor Romney would appoint individuals to the federal courts who respect the appropriate role of the judiciary in our democratic system.

But as rival Fred Thompson is pointing out, like many of Romney’s pledges, his record on this point doesn’t match his current rhetoric:

Of the 36 lawyers Romney nominated, 23 were registered Democrats or independents who donated to Democratic candidates or voted in Democratic primaries, according to a Boston Globe analysis that was circulated by rival Fred Thompson. Two appointees supported expanding gay rights.

As we noted earlier, such inconsistencies do not appear to be of much concern to many on the Right, because such flip-flopping only makes Romney more beholden to them – or, as Weyrich put it:

I think [Romney] is somebody who is rushing toward the movement trying to present himself as a conservative and in some ways it's more useful to have somebody like that.