Scalia was involved in three major cases on same sex issues. In all three he not only found against same sex rights, he needed to author an opinion.

In Lawrence, he called same sex intimate acts "deviate" and found no fundamental right to engage in them. He said that if we allow same sex intimate acts, we must allow bestiality and adult incest. Who, but a homophobe, would think that those things were comparable?

In Obergefell, in finding no right to same sex marriage, he asked: "whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality were freedoms?" Well, almost everyone. He then went on a rant that was entirely unbecoming of a serious judge. His trademarked nastiness was on full display. He said the majority lacked "sober analysis" and engaged in "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." The majority is a "threat to American democracy." The majority was "pretentious" and "egotistic." They committed "silly extravagances" and "showy profundities" and were "profoundly incoherent."

Playing the Nazi card, he said that same sex rights were a "Kulturkampf" and that recognizing such rights was a "judicial Putsch". Yes, he said that in a Supreme Court decision.

In Romer, he rejected the right of cities to pass laws banning discrimination against homosexuals. He repeatedly called that "preferential treatment." He found that "obviously" there was a rational basis for discriminating against gays. He was fine with the idea that homosexuality was "morally wrong and socially harmful." He likened it to "reprehensible" conduct and analogized to "murder, polygamy and cruelty to animals." He worried about "full social acceptance of homosexuality" and that gays "possess political power much greater than their numbers."

Finally, what's most striking is what's missing from these decisions, namely, even the slightest acknowledgment that we are talking about some of the most fundamental aspects of peoples' lives. Instead, his opinions are full of snark and insults of the sort that, pre-Scalia, were essentially unknown in Supreme Court decisions. Alas, his legacy is a massive increase in the coarsening of discourse.

DAAAMN. How does windy like them apples?!?

So are all the justices that concurred with him homophobes as well?

Which amendment is the right to privacy found? (Hint it's a penumbra and that gauzy "right" is the foundation for abortion so any additional cases decided upon it further solidifies it.)

If you've read his opinions you'd see he is pretty consistent in his finding no right to lots of things, mainly things people wanted created out of thin air. I think there is a distinction to being hostile to gay rights and being a homophobe.

Celebrated a tad early?

You’re confusing his wife with Thomas’ wife.

Maureen Scalia largely stayed out of public life.
https://www.romper.com/...kes-her-privacy-5579

So show me what you found in your 5 minute google search. Not an argument, just curious what I missed.

FWIW, I strongly disagreed with Scalia’s philosophy and also thought that he, at times, didn’t consistently follow it and allowed his politics to influence his jurisprudence. But I’m not going to throw out gratuitous attacks simply because I disagreed with some of his decisions.

Yes. She opposed abortion and at least in 2014 sat on the board of an organization that, in part, opposed abortion, but also never was a party or an amicus before SCOTUS on the issue.

If that’s your standard for a conflict of interest, then I suspect there are very few of any qualified people who can sit on the Court without consistently having to recuse themselves. I mean, if having a political opinion on an issue or being married to someone who does, is disqualifying, then who could serve.

Also, please cite the SCOTUS cases where abortion was an issue between 2014 and 2016 that you think Scalia should have recused himself.

Ya dude, you went to law school but work in finance. You should probably stop arguing the law with actual lawyers.

I'm not arguing the law. Do you think Scalia was a homophobe? Do you think possibly he didn't believe in a right to privacy because it wasn't enumerated? Do you think possibly he would attempt to undermine the right at every opportunity to bolster the chance of Roe being overturned?

See Ike, supra.

So that's arguing the law or is that just him trying to paint Scalia as a homophobe?

Any reason you didn't answer my questions?

I refer You to Ike because he already answered your questions more eloquently than I will spend the time to do and I agree and adopt his positions.

1. Don’t know about other justices’ homophobia. The common denominator is that these were Scalia’s words. As for why a few other justices joined in some of his opinions, I don’t know. SCt politics are complex and Scalia was a power.

2. Not sure what this has to do with Roe. And, what’s with the snarky “hint”? I can read a court case. I didn’t cut and paste my email. I re-read all those cases and wrote it myself.

3. It makes no difference whether some judge could write a decision saying in non-homophobic terms that these are not constitutional rights. Scalia didn’t do that. He used overtly anti- gay language and arguments, he drew offensive analogies, and the sheer nastiness of his attacks on the majority were way outside the realm of respectful, rational discourse of the sort one expects from a supposedly great justice.

Just trying to understand what you are saying. Is it your opinion that we only have those rights that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.