Cherrypicking

Which is worse: a demogogue or an idiot?

Antonin Scalia, from 365gay.com:

"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

Wrong question. The question is, does the state have any right to interfere in personal relationships between adults?

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

He's just pissed because the Court didn't take his side. He's also a bald-faced liar.

What looks to be a good discussion of Lawrence vs Texas; here is Scalia's dissent. It's a pathetic example of ideologically driven "argument," as one might glean from the fact that the second paragraph begins "Most of the rest of today's opinion has no relevance to its actual holding. . . ." Translation: "I have a forum for my neotheocon screeds, and I'm going to use it." What follows is a carefully edited history of Bowers, which was widely decried as a terrifically bad decision at the time (except, of course, by the theocons); in fact, I believe it was Justice Stevens who is reputed to have said immediately after the opinion was rendered that he wished he had voted differently.

It's quite obvious to anyone who cares to look at the evidence that Scalia is pushing a social agenda and he's not going to let something like the Constitution stand in his way. His dissent in Lawrence is bad enough. His dissent in Edwards vs Aguillard is a joke. (He also ignores the decisions in Epperson and McLean.

Can you impeach a justice for incompetence?