And I’ve apologized for it. I’ve already said I’m more than willing to consider alternatives.
(For what it’s worth, when I use the term it isn’t as heavily weighted as it has been interpreted here. So this really is nothing more than a miscommunication.)
It’s a statement of my own beliefs, and is a sentiment that has been expressed by everyone from a pope (I’m trying to find the precise quote and attribution) to Steven Jay Gould (who expressed it as “Non-overlapping magisteria”), plus a great many between those poles.
You’re certainly welcome to disagree.
The scientific method is a faith-based system. Read Rene Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy or the Hindu Chandayoga Upanishad.
The only thing you can know in an intellectual system that refuses all faith is ergo cogito sum. All your senses and memories are completely demonstrably manipulable - you could easily be a lizard immersed in a Matrix tank somewhere, with electrodes in your brain, and only faith tells you otherwise.
That being said I choose to have faith in the scientific method and think Scalia’s a dangerous nutball.
Agreed, and agreed. I just don’t think the point quoted is what brands him as a dangerous nutball – his legislative history does that.
Well the legislative record is certainly sufficient. Especially his failure to recuse himself when he admits he doesn’t understand an issue, or when he’s ruling on an issue that directly affects his (also complete nutball religious fanatic) son.
Damn, philosophy burn…
Both of these comments have to do with the question of whether the 14th Amendment prohibits government discrimination against homosexuals. If you read the opinion, you’ll find that Scalia is interpreting law as he usually does: by reading the text of the law in question, in this case the 14th Amendment (written in 1868). Under his jurisprudence, we find the meaning of the law according to the words that are used in the law, as understood at the time they were written. He is consistent in this approach, and there’s nothing inherently Catholic or religious in his method.
Scalia’s argument (which was joined by two other Justices) is essentially that, when the 14th Amendment was written, the text would not be construed as extending protection to homosexuals. Because the 14th Amendment did not extend this protection at that time, it still does not: we don’t get to re-write the constitution whenever we see fit. If you would like to protect the LGBT community against discrimination, the appropriate way to do this is by passing a law to do so or amending the constitution. In his opinion, it is not the job of the unelected court to suddenly find new meaning, and new rights, in the constitution.
I don’t agree with Scalia’s Textualism, but he applies it widely and his opinion is consistent with his jurisprudence.
Different types of faith, but yeah, can’t argue that.
Those who believe science and religion are in conflict misunderstand one or the other.
Really?
https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/bachmann-obama-backs-al-qaeda
Look - if you’re one of those who finds the Bible as just some stuff people wrote down and not necessarily inspired by or the word of any deity, that’s fine. If you think it’s delusional to believe in the Abrahamic god because of what was written down in some book, I guess that’s fine, Dawkins has sold a ton of books based on the premise. Their delusion doesn’t make them bat shit insane or unfit for such things as being Supreme Court Justice (I am positive Scalia is not the first judge to believe in the devil).
Like I said, and I wasn’t referring directly to you, if you have a belief in a nebulous creator, with out any acknowledgement of the Bible or other texts, then your assertions about the devil have merit.
But for the billons of people who DO acknowledge the texts, their belief in the devil has just as much merit. One can walk away with different concepts of the devil - a metaphorical presence of evil in the world, or a supernatural being (a former angel). Both views allow for this concept to influence behavior on earth and are based on scripture. If you have acknowledged the god of the Bible, then you have to also acknowledge such things as the devil, the holy spirit, and original sin. Of course you can find sects that refute those things, you can find sects that mix mysticism and eastern philosophies into their religion. But a majority of people accept these concepts in one form or another.
Again, if you don’t value the Bible any more than you would Jim’s scrawlings on unicorns that’s fine. But then that tells me that for a majority of people who believe in a “higher power”, you find them bat shit insane and delusional. People who believe in god and the devil are often the same. Belief in a supernatural devil isn’t for some fringe sects and cults - it’s a main line belief of Catholicism, which is over 17% of the population (and they aren’t the only one). If you do accept peoples belief in god due to the Bible etc, then you will have to accept their belief in the devil, as it is written out in the same book. But hey - if there is one culture you can get away with disrespecting and making exaggerated, bogus claims, it’s old white male Christians.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The law in Texas under review in Lawrence vs Texas:
App. to Pet. for Cert. 127a, 139a. The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” The statute defines “[d]eviate sexual intercourse” as follows:
“(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
“(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.” §21.01(1).
The law in Texas specifically targeted homosexual practice of anal sex, not all anal sex. So the law was not providing equal protection as specified in the 14th Amendment. It was prejudicial toward a specific group. The constitutional amendment made an overall statement about equal protection, therefore it is unnecessary to name each and every group.
Interesting stuff; thanks.
Scalia was using it in the context of neologisms: he was saying that the reason you don’t find references to “Originalism” or “Textualism” in the past is because these terms are neologisms, just like “long/land lines” are. In Scalia’s mind, Originalism and Textualism were the default modes of legal analysis until fairly recently, and we never needed a word for them until we departed from this style of reasoning. Similarly, we didn’t need to invent the term “land line” until cell phones became prevalent.
Also, I don’t see Scalia using “long line” in the opinion you reference.
I didn’t see anything irrational in his dissent. He wasn’t alone in his dissent, is almost half of the court illogical? Having a different ruling or interpretation of law that you doesn’t necessarily make one illogical. There are often two competing views where both are using logic to come to their conclusions.
123 actually cites a lot of cases that don’t have to do with homosexuality at all.
It also included plenty of arguments that Scalia is inconsistent in how he interprets the law. His opinions are not consistent with his jurisprudence as is demonstrated by his opposition to ACA and the Voting Rights Act despite his comments on the DOMA ruling. His jurisprudence is very much driven by his political biases.
If you want to respond again please try responding to the actual arguments being made.
It’s irrational because he believes that Brown vs. the Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia were decided correctly despite the fact that they contradict nearly a century of interpretation of the 14th amendment. The very same century of interpretation that led him to dissent in the cited cases. His interpretation of the law is demonstrably inconsistent and seems to be based on his personal politics rather than any particular interpretive principle.
Just consider that my “senses report” lots of things to me that are demonstrably false but via the scientific method I’m able to arrive at the belief that my senses are unreliable. Ask yourself how is the intrinsic unreliability of my senses actually different in kind from a Matrix-style situation where my senses are “being fooled”. In other words, I don’t have to assume my senses are reliable for the scientific method to work – my senses aren’t reliable and the scientific method is how I figured that out in the first place.
Unless you assume up-front that the Matrix can’t be discovered from within, one’s best method of finding out that one is in the Matrix is application of the scientific method. SM is a means of testing assumptions, not an assumption in itself.
If you want to argue the point further I’ll make a new post for that discussion.
So the 14th Amendment now protects every conceivable class of individuals? Does it now protect against discrimination on the basis or wealth? Of type of vehicle owned? Of school district one resides in? Of choice between monogamy and polyamory?
Sorry, but when I put The Devil and Antonin Scalia into my browser I see the post above yours (and I don’t see numbers next to any posts).
If your argument is that Scalia’s Textualism frequently conceals opinions that are ideological in basis, then I agree with you. And if you’re saying he has made decisions that are inconsistent, then I also agree with you. The problem is that all of the other justices also make decisions based on ideology or policy, though they tend to do so more honestly. If you want to invalidate justices based on internal inconsistency or policy-based decision making, then I’m guessing Breyer and Kennedy would have to be given the boot even quicker than Scalia. What I don’t agree with is that Scalia is doing something different from other justices in a way that can only be explained by his religious beliefs.
I may look into the specifics you give a little later, but right now I have to run.
No—because wealth, possessions, location and marital status are not “immutable traits” like race and sex are. The decisions you make in life can change how much money you make, what kind of car you drive, what school district you live in or whether you choose to have a monogamous or polygamous lifestyle. Your race, sex, or sexual orientation? Not so much.
