Dissent In Justice Scalia

Opposed to contrary beliefs, I “hate the sin, but not the sinner.” I will not condone it. I will not vote for it. I will not hate them, and I will not be a bully. I recognize that we live in a nation full of Christians and not a Christian nation which separates the church from the state, but my Christian faith does not agree with the practices of homosexuallity. On top of that, if gay marriage is not a “big deal” then why did people force the Supreme Court embedded gay marriage in the Constitution? With everyone arguing about the Supreme Court decision and that “Same-sex marriage is [now] a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment”, an easy response is to attack the opponent by arguing that what happens under the roof of someone’s home is not the business of the government. My bigger question, however, is if the marital status of two people is not the business of the national government, then why did the Supreme Court have to hear and review to the court case to please the people? Shouldn’t the judiciary branch of the government focus on imposing more important policies for the betterment of the American nation instead of personal

The 14th Amendment is more towards supporting Kenndey's view than Scalia. The amendment states, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which should not go against gay marriage, but defend it. It claims the law cannot simply take away rights or presume any kind of misjudgement of a person.

Scalia says that we are in a "culture war" between the homosexual activists and those who wish to criminalize homosexual behavior. The government says laws like Bowers discriminate against homosexuals and should not be in effect, therefore, according to Scalia, they are taking sides in this "culture war." The court tells Americans that it is wrong to discriminate, but most states uphold laws that "mandate" and uphold such behavior (discharging persons in the military who engage in homosexual activity and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.) Scalia says that "many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as schoolmasters for their children's schools, or as boarders in their home." He thinks that the majority of Americans are against homosexuality and the court does not realize it. I agree with Scalia when he points out that there are laws that invite discrimination against homosexuals, but I feel that the government is taking a step in the right direction by overturning Lawrence v. Texas. Our laws may not be consistent yet, but I believe, in time,

Although Scalia does not hold the majority opinion of the court, he does bring up a valid argument, in which there is a law already that bans discrimination for the general public, which includes homosexuals. This notion is valid because it shows why homosexuals do not need a separate law that states there can be no discrimination of homosexuals. However, this brings up the question as to whether or not there is need for an amendment that states there can be no laws that ban the discrimination of homosexuals, where the only group that is specifically affected is the homosexual community. This then, is a flaw in his argument, because if there is a law that bans discrimination in general, then there is no need to create more laws that specifically say there can be no discrimination of

When the sun rose this morning, most any conservation about Supreme Court vacancies would have centered around President Obama replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – the eldest of the court’s nine justices and a two-time cancer survivor who will turn 83 next month.

Representation is a substantive issue that is constantly being questioned in the judicial system. As our society continues to advance and adapt to new methods to better serve its citizens, new issues has roused to the surface. As a result, individuals have brought their case to court challenging how the court interprets the law.

For Scalia, everything the Supreme Court debated about had clear issue. When talking about religion and freedom of speech he believed, “speech by and about religion received precisely the same protection under the First Amendment as any other kind of speech.” (Tobin 113) when talking about whether minors should be executed such as in the Stanford vs Kentucky case, Scalia wrote that states could execute 16 year olds and seventeen year olds.

The gay couples who have fought long and hard to be able to have the right to marry were obviously be happy with the opinion. However those who are especially religious and who have fought against this will be angry and possibly even resist the decision reached claiming that the Supreme Court has no authority over them. Due to this more people who are avidly religious are likely to band together and claim that they can go against this with all their might claiming god on their side. This will create great friction between gay people and religious people, Even though there is already great friction between these 2

This year Western Conservative Summit drew five Republican candidates and one likely candidate. Sen. Rick Santorum led the stage on Friday and it continued on Saturday with Gov. Mike Huckabee, Carly Florina, Gov. Rick Perry, Ben Carson and Gov. Scott Walker.

In this famous quote, Justice Stevens accurately describes the Constitution as “a mysterious document.” Just a few pages of parchment long, the United States Constitution dictates the function and operation of a vast system of governance, and is filled with phrases and clauses that can be interpreted and manipulated countless ways. However, the idea that “the Constitution is so vague that no one really knows what it permits and what is prohibits” is an even more accurate description of the chief problem of the document. This reformulation of Justice Stevens’ quote accurately portrays the core dilemma of Constitutional decision making. While judicial opinions are largely based off of the personal opinions of the justices, this drawback is an inevitable part of the Court’s role.

This particular case was another impact our Chief Justice has had on our Country. Though, Roberts did not win this case in the end but had strong opinions towards the issue. Today, same sex marriage is legal in all fifty States. According to Roberts, he believed if same sex was acceptable then why not agree on polygamy (Macedo, Stephen). This particular marriage is having multiple wives or husbands at the same time. Roberts was very strong with his argument and stated polygamy would be less of a stretch than same sex marriage, declaring, “From the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world (Macedo). If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one” (Macedo). After the passing of the same sex marriage law, Roberts brought up the Constitution and wanted all to stop thinking it was the reason for the decision because it had nothing to do with it. Roberts believed the Constitution knows nothing about fairness. Same sex marriage was made legal in the United States on June 26, 2015 (Macedo). The United States Supreme Court ruled this law in Obergefell v. Hodges

Ethical, articulate, forceful, cynical, irreverent and sometimes scathing aptly describes Antonin Scalia. Esteemed to be the only son of S. Eugene and Catherine Scalia, born in Trenton, New Jersey and raised in Queens, New York, Antonin Scalia is the first American of Italian heritage to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

only protected the rights of US citizenship not state citizenship. Miller thought that the first line of the Amendment made a distinction between US citizenship and state citizenship, therefore it only applied to US citizens not state citizens. This viewpoint treats the states as their own country with their own citizenship not as provinces within a country and could only strengthen state rights and help the states do as they please. From this viewpoint of the constitution suddenly laws passed in a state that conflicted with the constitution wouldn't because the Thirteenth Amendment only applied to US citizens not state citizens .

Chief Justice Warren introduced psychological studies in his argument. One example that Chief Justice Warren used in his argument was that the black children started to feel racially inferior to the white children because their public education was not equal to one another. Therefore, this would have a bad effect on the black children because it affected how they were represented to the community. Moreover, Chief Justice explained that not only are the blacks and whites not equal because of their race but also it affected the blacks education. According to Chief, Justice blacks don't have the type of educators that whites have; therefore, they will not be as intelligent as the white kids. Ultimately, our nation feels that for students to have

The Supreme Court justices had a discussion in the video about the use of foreign law in helping determine the outcome of judiciary cases. Justice Scalia spoke about with almost distain because he doesn’t think that foreign law should have any effect on what the Supreme Court decides is right or wrong for the American people. He thinks that the American people should have a say, but saw no point to looking at other countries for judiciary backing. Justice Stevens, however seemed to think that it serves the interest of the courts to look to foreign law for comparative purposes and so we can adapt to modern times. These two perspectives on foreign law seemed to come from a bigger disagreement between originalist and nonorginalist views. Justices