Thread Unworthy 1L fears, inquiries, and rants welcome here Forum

[snowpeach06]

Scalia just compared homosexuals to murders in the Romer dissent. I swear, in 50 years people are going to look at everything he's written like we now look at Plessy. It's just discriminatory. He needs to retire - he just continually does things that genuinely horrify me. And I find myself like, seething when I'm done reading stuff that he's written.

I won't let this get too far (as in this will be my last argumentative post, because this topic just makes me angry, and I would go on forever), but, the point is illegitimate in context. It's like saying 'well, we don't like black people, so, they can't marry white people, so, since we disprove, lets just make it illegal.' And if the majority wants to discriminate, what the hell, we should just violate the Constitution.

I think you need to go back and read the cases again if this is really how you're reading them. There are a lot of things I disagree with Scalia about (including this issue), but I would never put words in his mouth. The guy is pretty damn smart, and I think you should take what he is saying seriously when you are reading his opinions, even if you disagree.

What i read was "Gay = morally reprehensible. Thus it is ok for us moral folk to disdain them." I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He's smart, obviously, but, no matter how hard I try, I almost always have some sort of reaction to what he writes. Usually, I have to stop reading for a while, because I'm just too angry.

[YourCaptain]

What i read was "Gay = morally reprehensible. Thus it is ok for us moral folk to disdain them." I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He's smart, obviously, but, no matter how hard I try, I almost always have some sort of reaction to what he writes. Usually, I have to stop reading for a while, because I'm just too angry.

Eh, nope.

I actually just read that case just because of what you said here; he never said "Us moral folk;" he was implying that criminalization of acts like murder do not stem from some sort of higher law but stem rather from a societal evaluation and disdain for it. He then analogized that this was a judgment of the majority of Coloradoans (sp?) that they held it in disfavor to the extent that they did not wish for its protection. Trying to say that Scalia said it's analogous to murder or that it's morally reprehensible (as a general statement) is a gross misinterpretation of the dissent.

[romothesavior]

What i read was "Gay = morally reprehensible. Thus it is ok for us moral folk to disdain them." I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He's smart, obviously, but, no matter how hard I try, I almost always have some sort of reaction to what he writes. Usually, I have to stop reading for a while, because I'm just too angry.

Eh, nope.

I actually just read that case just because of what you said here; he never said "Us moral folk;" he was implying that criminalization of acts like murder do not stem from some sort of higher law but stem rather from a societal evaluation and disdain for it. He then analogized that this was a judgment of the majority of Coloradoans (sp?) that they held it in disfavor to the extent that they did not wish for its protection. Trying to say that Scalia said it's analogous to murder or that it's morally reprehensible (as a general statement) is a gross misinterpretation of the dissent.

Essentially this. At no point does he say that gay = morally reprehensible (although I do not doubt he feels this way personally). His core argument is that if a majority in a state feels that homosexuality is morally reprehensible, then they can pass a law like the one that Colorado passed because homosexuals are not entitled to any special protection (sexual orientation is not the same as race).

I agree with Captain here. Vigorously disagree with the dissent if you want, but your interpretation is just way off, and it is dishonest to say he analogizes murder and homosexuality.

[Wholigan]

I jumped into the last round here on Lawrence explaining why the majority opinion made sense, but I can't agree with snowpeach's characterizations of Scalia's reasoning. I was recently writing a practice exam problem and the Lawrence opinion is really tough to square with Glucksberg, which holds that liberties which are not deeply rooted in the history of the country cannot be a protected liberty interest. If you buy this I think you would have still had to invalidate the law based on O'Connor's reasoning in her concurrence, but that would have been an unfortunately weak victory for equality.

[Moxie]

What i read was "Gay = morally reprehensible. Thus it is ok for us moral folk to disdain them." I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He's smart, obviously, but, no matter how hard I try, I almost always have some sort of reaction to what he writes. Usually, I have to stop reading for a while, because I'm just too angry.

Eh, nope.

I actually just read that case just because of what you said here; he never said "Us moral folk;" he was implying that criminalization of acts like murder do not stem from some sort of higher law but stem rather from a societal evaluation and disdain for it. He then analogized that this was a judgment of the majority of Coloradoans (sp?) that they held it in disfavor to the extent that they did not wish for its protection. Trying to say that Scalia said it's analogous to murder or that it's morally reprehensible (as a general statement) is a gross misinterpretation of the dissent.

Damn, beat me to it. Nice post.

To a more on-topic point, I made some progress in outlining today. It's amazing how much I managed to accomplish despite nice weather all this afternoon, although now I'm kind of bitter I wasn't able to enjoy it. At least in winter I never felt bad about being inside.

[keg411]

Just got invited to interview for a pretty exclusive program we have at my school. I don't know how many got interviews last year, but they told us 80 applied at they took 16. Pretty happy about this .

[dakatz]

Just got invited to interview for a pretty exclusive program we have at my school. I don't know how many got interviews last year, but they told us 80 applied at they took 16. Pretty happy about this .

That's great! What kind of program?

[keg411]

Just got invited to interview for a pretty exclusive program we have at my school. I don't know how many got interviews last year, but they told us 80 applied at they took 16. Pretty happy about this .

That's great! What kind of program?

It's a combination class/pro-bono project/clinic that involves teaching an elective ConLaw class at local high schools. It has a fancy name, though, that makes it sound impressive .

[mythosopher]

What i read was "Gay = morally reprehensible. Thus it is ok for us moral folk to disdain them." I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He's smart, obviously, but, no matter how hard I try, I almost always have some sort of reaction to what he writes. Usually, I have to stop reading for a while, because I'm just too angry.

Eh, nope.

I actually just read that case just because of what you said here; he never said "Us moral folk;" he was implying that criminalization of acts like murder do not stem from some sort of higher law but stem rather from a societal evaluation and disdain for it. He then analogized that this was a judgment of the majority of Coloradoans (sp?) that they held it in disfavor to the extent that they did not wish for its protection. Trying to say that Scalia said it's analogous to murder or that it's morally reprehensible (as a general statement) is a gross misinterpretation of the dissent.

Essentially this. At no point does he say that gay = morally reprehensible (although I do not doubt he feels this way personally). His core argument is that if a majority in a state feels that homosexuality is morally reprehensible, then they can pass a law like the one that Colorado passed because homosexuals are not entitled to any special protection (sexual orientation is not the same as race).

I agree with Captain here. Vigorously disagree with the dissent if you want, but your interpretation is just way off, and it is dishonest to say he analogizes murder and homosexuality.

Right, he says that the majority of society finds homosexuality to be morally reprehensible. But, and this is really where his argument fails miserably, the GLBT class should be considered a protected class, or at least one that requires strict scrutiny. The majority cannot impose such a law because it infringes upon certain spheres of protected liberties, those established in precedence, e.g., Romer. THE END.

[Grizz]

Right, he says that the majority of society finds homosexuality to be morally reprehensible. But, and this is really where his argument fails miserably, the GLBT class should be considered a protected class, or at least one that requires strict scrutiny. The majority cannot impose such a law because it infringes upon certain spheres of protected liberties, those established in precedence, e.g., Romer. THE END.

lol

[romothesavior]

Right, he says that the majority of society finds homosexuality to be morally reprehensible. But, and this is really where his argument fails miserably, the GLBT class should be considered a protected class, or at least one that requires strict scrutiny. The majority cannot impose such a law because it infringes upon certain spheres of protected liberties, those established in precedence, e.g., Romer. THE END.

As someone who is a huge advocate of GLBT issues and is an active supporter of OUTlaw at my school, I can only say that I hope the lawyers arguing this point can make it more convincingly than you. This is nothing more than a piss poor conclusory statement of what you personally think the law should be.

And even though I think homosexuality should be afforded greater protection (more specifically, the right to choose who to marry, which is already recognized, should be extended to homosexuals), I wouldn't write off Scalia so quickly. You need to be able to distinguish why discriminating against homosexuals is constitutionally impermissible as opposed to discriminating based on a whole host of other characteristics, which we do regularly.

[mythosopher]

Right, he says that the majority of society finds homosexuality to be morally reprehensible. But, and this is really where his argument fails miserably, the GLBT class should be considered a protected class, or at least one that requires strict scrutiny. The majority cannot impose such a law because it infringes upon certain spheres of protected liberties, those established in precedence, e.g., Romer. THE END.

As someone who is a huge advocate of GLBT issues and is an active supporter of OUTlaw at my school, I can only say that I hope the lawyers arguing this point can make it more convincingly than you. This is nothing more than a piss poor conclusory statement of what you personally think the law should be.

And even though I think homosexuality should be afforded greater protection (more specifically, the right to choose who to marry, which is already recognized, should be extended to homosexuals), I wouldn't write off Scalia so quickly. You need to be able to distinguish why discriminating against homosexuals is constitutionally impermissible as opposed to discriminating based on a whole host of other characteristics, which we do regularly.

I wasn't about to write an entire brief on the history of GLBT discrimination. Sorry, I'll be sure to do that next time.
EDIT: Also, you've got your burden of proof backwards. The State has to prove why the discrimination is permissible, not the other way around.

[Grizz]

I wasn't about to write an entire brief on the history of GLBT discrimination. Sorry, I'll be sure to do that next time.
EDIT: Also, you've got your burden of proof backwards. The State has to prove why the discrimination is permissible, not the other way around.

You don't have to write a history of GLBT discrimination, which I wouldn't read anyway, but not posting worthless, unreasoned horse shit would be nice.

[kalvano]

I haven't had to read Romer yet, but I looked at the dissent and it seems like Scalia is mainly bitchslapping the Court for overturning a law properly voted on and enacted by Colorado's citizens for no real legal basis other than their feelings.

I think his point, which I agree with, is that the law was not discriminatory, but instead actually prohibited discrimination. And the merely because the Court disagreed with the law did not give them a legal basis for interfering in a state matter.

[stratocophic]

I wasn't about to write an entire brief on the history of GLBT discrimination. Sorry, I'll be sure to do that next time.
EDIT: Also, you've got your burden of proof backwards. The State has to prove why the discrimination is permissible, not the other way around.

You don't have to write a history of GLBT discrimination, which I wouldn't read anyway, but not posting worthless, unreasoned horse shit would be nice.

TBF, this should tell you all you need to know

Sports-related clips are ANTI-motivational for me. Really, a game chasing a ball around a field is that important to you? The only exception would, maybe, be Remember the Titans because the importance is not on winning a game, but overcoming racial tensions and segregation.

[Grizz]

I wasn't about to write an entire brief on the history of GLBT discrimination. Sorry, I'll be sure to do that next time.
EDIT: Also, you've got your burden of proof backwards. The State has to prove why the discrimination is permissible, not the other way around.

You don't have to write a history of GLBT discrimination, which I wouldn't read anyway, but not posting worthless, unreasoned horse shit would be nice.

TBF, this should tell you all you need to know

Sports-related clips are ANTI-motivational for me. Really, a game chasing a ball around a field is that important to you? The only exception would, maybe, be Remember the Titans because the importance is not on winning a game, but overcoming racial tensions and segregation.

mythosopher sounds like an absolute blast to hang out with

[stratocophic]

I wasn't about to write an entire brief on the history of GLBT discrimination. Sorry, I'll be sure to do that next time.
EDIT: Also, you've got your burden of proof backwards. The State has to prove why the discrimination is permissible, not the other way around.

You don't have to write a history of GLBT discrimination, which I wouldn't read anyway, but not posting worthless, unreasoned horse shit would be nice.

TBF, this should tell you all you need to know

Sports-related clips are ANTI-motivational for me. Really, a game chasing a ball around a field is that important to you? The only exception would, maybe, be Remember the Titans because the importance is not on winning a game, but overcoming racial tensions and segregation.

mythosopher sounds like an absolute blast to hang out with

I was more pointing to m self outing as a pseudo-intellectual as a reason for the lack of reason, but that's definitely the next step in that logic chain

[keg411]

I do think Scalia is incredibly smart, but he has a tendency to come off like an asshole in his opinions. I get that it's his writing style and it amuses me plenty, but sometimes he's can be so OTT with the snarky-ness that his point gets lost.

Although I'd bet the period when both he and Brennan were on the Court was incredibly lulzy.

[snowpeach06]

I do think Scalia is incredibly smart, but he has a tendency to come off like an asshole in his opinions. I get that it's his writing style and it amuses me plenty, but sometimes he's can be so OTT with the snarky-ness that his point gets lost.

Although I'd bet the period when both he and Brennan were on the Court was incredibly lulzy.

Sometimes I really do wish I could just be a fly on the wall there. I bet that would've made an excellent reality show.

[beach_terror]

I do think Scalia is incredibly smart, but he has a tendency to come off like an asshole in his opinions. I get that it's his writing style and it amuses me plenty, but sometimes he's can be so OTT with the snarky-ness that his point gets lost.

Although I'd bet the period when both he and Brennan were on the Court was incredibly lulzy.

He totally does come off like an asshole, but I like to think he does it for the lulz.

[rowlf]

I also think Scalia swaggers for the lulz, which is kind of awesome. That being said, I think people overstate how smart Scalia is. His judicial philosophy is something important to contend with these days, and he's obviously smarter than some of the less sharp Justices we've had, like Potter Stewart and Burger, and his jurisprudence does a better job of not seeming ends-driven than say, Brennan's, but c'mon. Just to take current and recent justices, I think Rehnquist, Roberts, Souter, and Breyer all tend to write distinctly better-reasoned opinions than Scalia does. But nobody goes around calling even those Justices smart, really. And that's probably appropriate. Because at the end of the day, all Supreme Court Justices are brilliant, and the real question is, how well does the judicial philosophy each Justice is selling work? At the end of the day, I think people mention how smart Scalia is just because, in his case, despite the fact that he's smart even relative to other Justices and that his judicial philosophy is academically interesting, the answer is: not very. It's almost apologetic. /rant

[JusticeHarlan]

BTW, there's an extremely interesting background on Roe in The Brethren and the reasons why Blackmun wrote the majority opinion and how the Court worked during the entire period. Whether you agree or disagree with Roe, it's an enjoyable read.

Also a nice bit in Becoming Justice Blackmun, iirc.

[beach_terror]

BTW, there's an extremely interesting background on Roe in The Brethren and the reasons why Blackmun wrote the majority opinion and how the Court worked during the entire period. Whether you agree or disagree with Roe, it's an enjoyable read.

Also a nice bit in Becoming Justice Blackmun, iirc.

Roes gonna get overturned. Abortion jurisprudence is a mess right now. The fuck is an undue burden? Cool.

[keg411]

BTW, there's an extremely interesting background on Roe in The Brethren and the reasons why Blackmun wrote the majority opinion and how the Court worked during the entire period. Whether you agree or disagree with Roe, it's an enjoyable read.

Also a nice bit in Becoming Justice Blackmun, iirc.

Roes gonna get overturned. Abortion jurisprudence is a mess right now. The fuck is an undue burden? Cool.

I just wrote about this a page ago .
Also, Kennedy was part of the plurality in Casey. Who's your 5th vote?

[beach_terror]

BTW, there's an extremely interesting background on Roe in The Brethren and the reasons why Blackmun wrote the majority opinion and how the Court worked during the entire period. Whether you agree or disagree with Roe, it's an enjoyable read.

Also a nice bit in Becoming Justice Blackmun, iirc.

Roes gonna get overturned. Abortion jurisprudence is a mess right now. The fuck is an undue burden? Cool.

I just wrote about this a page ago .
Also, Kennedy was part of the plurality in Casey. Who's your 5th vote?

It's going to depend on the timing of Ginsburg's or Kennedy's retirement. They're both getting up there. It may not happen soon, but it's not strict scrutiny and I don't think the new made up undue burden standard is legitimate, so it should logically get knocked down to rational basis at some point.

I wonder why abortion has never been challenged on Equal Protection grounds? We're just getting there now, so maybe I can answer my own question in a week or so.