p****u
发帖数: 2596 | | s*****a
发帖数: 94 | | p***i
发帖数: 2119 | 3 Wrong interpretation. He will definitely vote to sustain Prop 8 if he
thought the appealers had standing. This is just a procedural disagreement
between the justices.
【在 p****u 的大作中提到】
: DOMA case也没有发表意见反对SSM。
| D**S
发帖数: 24887 | 4 Please read more before making a conclusion. | D**S
发帖数: 24887 | 5 Please read more before making a conclusion. | p****u
发帖数: 2596 | 6 这老头还是有进步的。
１０年前的意见，他说伤害和看不起gay是不违宪法的。
现在的意见说，不能assume doma 伤害和看不起gay嘛
【在 p***i 的大作中提到】
: Wrong interpretation. He will definitely vote to sustain Prop 8 if he
: thought the appealers had standing. This is just a procedural disagreement
: between the justices.
| D**S
发帖数: 24887 | 7 那你再看看下面的报道,恐怕就不会相信这老头子有什么"进步"了.
(话说回来,你要是心底喜欢保守派,似乎也找错对象了,你应该感谢Ted Olsen这样的真
正的保守派,Scalia其实无非就是穿着法官黑袍的高级bigot罢了).
鉴于你的首贴factually wrong,你应该考虑删掉,免得在这里露怯.
Scalia Rages Against Supreme Court’s Gay Rights Ruling
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/scalia-doma-dissent.
Sahil Kapur June 26, 2013, 12:38 PM 7805
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a flaming dissent against the Supreme Court’s
5-4 ruling Wednesday invalidating the core of the Defense of Marriage Act,
the law that prohibits married same-sex couples from receiving federal
benefits.
Underlying Scalia’s pushback was anger at the majority’s decision to even
involve itself in the “abstract questions” of this case and his view that
states should be permitted to determine whether or not gay conduct is moral
and legislate on that basis.
Here are the top 10 quotes from the staunchly conservative jurist — a mix
of rage-filled metaphors and legal punches.
1) ‘Diseased Root’
“We have no power to decide this case,” Scalia wrote. “And even if we did
, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically
adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from
the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this
institution in America.”
“The Court is eager — hungry — to tell everyone its view of the legal
question at the heart of this case.”
2) ‘Jaw-Dropping,’ ‘Black-Robed Supremacy’
“That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the
people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive,” he wrote, adding
that the framers of the Constitution created a judicial branch with limited
power in order to “guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed
supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”
3) ‘No Justification’ For Obama Administration
Chiding the Obama administration for refusing to defend DOMA in court,
Scalia scoffed, “There is no justification for the Justice Department’s
abandoning the law in the present case. The majority opinion makes a point
of scolding the President for his ‘failure to defend the constitutionality
of an Act of Congress based on a constitutional theory not yet established
in judicial decisions … But the rebuke is tongue-in-cheek, for the majority
gladly gives the President what he wants.”
4) ‘Legalistic Argle-Bargle’
Referring to the issue of standing, Scalia wrote, “I find it wryly amusing
that the majority seeks to dismiss the requirement of party-adverseness as
nothing more than a ‘prudential’ aspect of the sole Article III
requirement of standing.”
“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever
disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is
that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex
marriages.”
5) ‘Unimaginable Evil This Is Not’
“To be sure, if Congress cannot invoke our authority,” Scalia wrote, “
then its only recourse is to confront the President directly. Unimaginable
evil this is not. Our system is designed for confrontation.” He was
referring to the House Republicans’ decision to defend DOMA after the Obama
administration began arguing it should be struck down.
6) ‘Rootless And Shifting’
Excoriating Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion against DOMA, Scalia
declared, “There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits
holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are.”
As one example, he continued, “the opinion starts with seven full pages
about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—
initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a
federalism opinion.”
7) ‘Confusing’
Scalia continued to criticize Kennedy’s opinion, calling it “confusing”
on the core issue.
“Moreover, if this is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a
confusing one,” Scalia wrote. “The opinion does not resolve and indeed
does not even mention what had been the central question in this litigation:
whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, laws restricting marriage to a
man and a woman are reviewed for more than mere rationality.”
8) ‘Moral Disapproval Of Same-Sex Marriage’
“As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government
to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms,” Scalia wrote. “However,
even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or
indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid — indeed, downright
boring — justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought
to be the end of this case.”
9) ‘Wild-Eyed Lynch Mob’
Accusing the majority of demonizing DOMA’s supporters, Scalia wrote, “I
imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the
Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one
first describes their views as they see them.”
He continued: “In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white:
Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It
is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters,
especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves
more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad.”
10) ‘The Court Has Cheated Both Sides’
“Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that
is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many,” Scalia
concluded. “But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an
honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.
We owed both of them better. I dissent.”
【在 p****u 的大作中提到】
: 这老头还是有进步的。
: １０年前的意见，他说伤害和看不起gay是不违宪法的。
: 现在的意见说，不能assume doma 伤害和看不起gay嘛
| a******c
发帖数: 291 | 8 My Weibo posts on the two verdicts:
-准确地说,应是推翻了DOMA第三条款(即剥夺同性配偶的联邦权利),未推翻第二条款(即
一州可拒绝承认外州缔结的同性婚姻) 。目前支持和反对同婚处于五五波,高院推翻第
二条款将近似＂革命＂,有违各州高度分治的立国之本,可能引发巨大的社会动荡。待日
后绝大多数民众支持同婚后,国会或高院再一捶定音表支持。
-虽然美国同志人群对两项判决都表示欢呼，但看了一下各大媒体，普遍更关注DOMA被
推翻，因为法庭辩论确实涉及到传统、道义、尊重和人权等议题。而第8提案碰壁，纯
属技术原因，反对该判决的少数派法官中的Sotomayor和Kennedy可能被误认为反对同志
权益，但他俩在DOMA判决中则旗帜鲜明支持同志。
-法律规定只有政府机构才能就宪法官司提出上诉,但第8提案的上诉者是民间机构,因此
被判没有资格。做出该判决的多数派中有些法官如Scalia其实反对同性婚姻,而反对该
判决的少数派中如Sotomayor和Kennedy则普遍被视为支持同志权益,因此第8提案碰壁高
院,是出于技术原因,不能由此说明法官对同性婚姻的态度。
-还有大法官Scalia向来被同志人群视为“死敌”，但这次在有关第8提案的投票中，却
属于多数派，即认为上诉者（即反对同性婚姻方）没有资格。别误以为Scalia头脑开窍
，改变了原先反对同志权益的立场，他的投票纯属出于技术原因，而且在DOMA判决中再
次显露反同立场。
-美国高院的判决虽具有里程碑式意义,但未在全美承认同性婚姻,同婚仍需要一个个州
逐步争取。这番进展看似缓慢,但此机制有两个作用:1)维持法律的相对稳定,减低社会
动荡;2)让社会争辩来使真理显露,各州逐步争取同婚类似于科学中的重复实验,积累足
够的结果后才有信心保证理论之正确。见http://t.cn/zHDIdEd | p*******f
发帖数: 230 | 9 他投not standing是害怕程序上合法，然后判起来判成unconstitutional
这样连带其他红州一起违宪掉，就更恐怖了！
于是他决定放弃正面抗争。
我个人觉得Sotomayor投standing的原因是她想正面表决unconstitutional ， 不过那
样对红州而言太残忍了
Anyway，我相信这位墨太太
相比之下thomas也想正面抗争，但他显然意识不到如果抗争他败概率大于胜
他就不像Scalia那样阴险有城府
【在 p****u 的大作中提到】
: DOMA case也没有发表意见反对SSM。
| p*******f
发帖数: 230 | 10 他投not standing是害怕程序上合法，然后判起来判成unconstitutional
这样连带其他红州一起违宪掉，就更恐怖了！
于是他决定放弃正面抗争。
我个人觉得Sotomayor投standing的原因是她想正面表决unconstitutional ， 不过那
样对红州而言太残忍了
Anyway，我相信这位墨太太
相比之下thomas也想正面抗争，但他显然意识不到如果抗争他败概率大于胜
他就不像Scalia那样阴险有城府
【在 p****u 的大作中提到】
: DOMA case也没有发表意见反对SSM。
| t*******e
发帖数: 2113 | 11 他的反對意見簡直看不下去，耐著性子讀了十幾頁，實在受不了他叨叨。
說什么尊重國會立法咯，法官不是用來推翻現行法律咯，民主程序萬歲咯。
TMD，昨天5-4推翻 Voters Right Act 的時候怎么不提這一茬？
敢情你想推翻的時候法官萬歲，不想推翻的時候民主萬歲？
夾帶私貨也不帶這么玩兒的。
算了！改天無聊再學習他老人家的大作。
s
【在 D**S 的大作中提到】
: 那你再看看下面的报道,恐怕就不会相信这老头子有什么"进步"了.
: (话说回来,你要是心底喜欢保守派,似乎也找错对象了,你应该感谢Ted Olsen这样的真
: 正的保守派,Scalia其实无非就是穿着法官黑袍的高级bigot罢了).
: 鉴于你的首贴factually wrong,你应该考虑删掉,免得在这里露怯.
: Scalia Rages Against Supreme Court’s Gay Rights Ruling
: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/scalia-doma-dissent.
: Sahil Kapur June 26, 2013, 12:38 PM 7805
: Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a flaming dissent against the Supreme Court’s
: 5-4 ruling Wednesday invalidating the core of the Defense of Marriage Act,
: the law that prohibits married same-sex couples from receiving federal
| D**S
发帖数: 24887 | 12 我也耐着性子读了,觉得不能忍受.
对于LGBT,他是bigot,好像不是什么秘密了吧.
至于在Prop 8上,也不能叫"站在我们一边".
楼主实在总是弄不清个亲疏.
【在 t*******e 的大作中提到】
: 他的反對意見簡直看不下去，耐著性子讀了十幾頁，實在受不了他叨叨。
: 說什么尊重國會立法咯，法官不是用來推翻現行法律咯，民主程序萬歲咯。
: TMD，昨天5-4推翻 Voters Right Act 的時候怎么不提這一茬？
: 敢情你想推翻的時候法官萬歲，不想推翻的時候民主萬歲？
: 夾帶私貨也不帶這么玩兒的。
: 算了！改天無聊再學習他老人家的大作。
:
: s
| t*******e
发帖数: 2113 | 13 他是廁所的石頭。
另外幾個保守派，不說也罷。
Roberts和Thomas稍微好點兒，
Alito也是個倨傲的家伙。
【在 D**S 的大作中提到】
: 我也耐着性子读了,觉得不能忍受.
: 对于LGBT,他是bigot,好像不是什么秘密了吧.
: 至于在Prop 8上,也不能叫"站在我们一边".
: 楼主实在总是弄不清个亲疏.
| p**********d
发帖数: 7918 | 14 這個分析太靠譜了。Sotomayor（甚至Kennedy）投反對票的原因很可能是想判這個法案
違憲，這樣其他州的歧視法律也會兵敗如山倒了。
【在 p*******f 的大作中提到】
: 他投not standing是害怕程序上合法，然后判起来判成unconstitutional
: 这样连带其他红州一起违宪掉，就更恐怖了！
: 于是他决定放弃正面抗争。
: 我个人觉得Sotomayor投standing的原因是她想正面表决unconstitutional ， 不过那
: 样对红州而言太残忍了
: Anyway，我相信这位墨太太
: 相比之下thomas也想正面抗争，但他显然意识不到如果抗争他败概率大于胜
: 他就不像Scalia那样阴险有城府
|
|
