Justice Scalia Pens Scathing & Clownish Anti-Gay Opinion

Read More At:

Clip from the Friday, June 26th 2015 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday - friday 4-6pm Eastern.

Check out our website - and become a member - at:

Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:

Follow on Twitter:

Like on Facebook:

Friends Of SecularTalk:

AMAZON LINK: (Bookmark this link to support the show for free!!!)

[jonathanhansen]

The words "Justice Scalia" are the best modern example of an Oxymoron. Right there with Military Intelligence and Airline Food.

[DeMartinoAlvin]

Hippie? Hold on a it's still 2015 not 1965. Just checking.

[macharper]

I do not understand all the reverence that has been on display for this man from both the left and the right since he died. He was one of the most consistently foolish individuals I ever heard speak.

[jackcarlson]

Good riddance Scalia. You won't be missed in your grave.

[thepleblian]

Jeffrey Toobin on Scalia...

An Excerpt:

"In questioning Bonauto, Scalia further established his reputation as the Fox News Justice, who appears to use conservative talking points to prepare for oral arguments. Clearly drawing on a reservoir of outrage about the revision of an Indiana law that would have effectively allowed businesses to refuse to do business with same-sex couples, Scalia tried to pick an example that would motivate his ideological supporters, if not his colleagues. “Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if, indeed, this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?” he asked Bonauto. “Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?” Bonauto and Justice Elena Kagan shut down this silly idea with dispatch. Under the First Amendment’s free-exercise-of-religion clause, it’s long been clear that ministers can perform weddings (or refuse to perform them) for anyone they want."

[NewCanada]

Satan works in mysterious ways? I thought Yahweh worked in mysterious ways? 

So does everyone from the Bible work in mysterious ways?

[marktwain]

Scalia, yet again on the wrong side of history. He won't missed.

[SteveGellerMusic]

My favorite part is the "select, patrician, highly-unrepresentative panel of nine." 

First, Scalia is one of those nine, and when the majority of them agree on something that makes the aristocracy essentially an oligarchy ("money = speech"), he is all for this.  That is the very definition of patrician.  In this case, he wants for the will of 4 select Justices to take precedence over the will of 5 select Justices.

Secondly, as Kyle pointed out, gay marriage has majority popularity.  In this case, the SCOTUS is perfectly representative of that majority.  Usually things in a court are decided by one judge.  How can one judge possibly be representative of all sides of an argument, since he/she is only one person?  Would Scalia favor 500 justices on the court, so that every demographic in the country could be fairly represented?  Of course not, because right now 7 of the people are White and 6 are Catholic, and he'd lose those advantages.  But more than that, if they were perfectly representative, 61% of them would have voted for same sex marriage.  And by the way, given polling numbers, Scalia would lose a lot more cases than he'd win.

[MrDuneedon]

I'd be lying if I said that Scalia's "hippie" comment didn't make me chuckle.

[eddiemaxblack]

Democracy is majority rule. Majority rule would be the working class -- who are the majority -- would dictate public policy.
Scary-lia is basically saying he wants bigots to rule to country.

[justinsomniactor]

Let me put some quotes here from that very Supreme Court decision that Kyle left out:
“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti- tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit- tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav- agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im- portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular con- stituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surpris- ingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful law- yers18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South- westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Scalia’s argument, in its most basic form, is that he believes gay marriage should be left to the legislative body instead of the judiciary. It’s not that hard to understand and it’s not the evil and stupid opinion that Kyle is making it out to be.

[tonygomez]

An we have Scalia removed from the Supreme Court?

[gts]

By the way "putsch" isn't a "big, complicated" word, it just means "coup" in German. It sounds about as sophisticated as when 13 y. old otakus refer to each other as <name>-san/kun/chan. On the topic of German loan word that have a perfectly simple and well known equivalent in colloquial English, I would like to offer my personal culinary specialty to conservative sophisticates - Kuhscheiße Pie.

[hitchenshasrisen]

When talking about Antonin Scalia, I think it's important for everyone to remember one thing.

This is a guy who believes in a literal Devil.

'nuff said

[DoctorLipshts]

This is one of Kyle's angriest segments and I love it lol

[trevorgrover]

I think maybe 20ish year term limit for the justices would be a good thing.

[tinyswan]

Shouldn’t the judges on the supreme court have a realistic representation of all the people in the country rather than 99.9% christian when the country is less than half christian?

[jixolros]

Holy cow, Scalia really is a simple-minded, right-wing nut. He should not be serving on that court, or any court.

[GthemanTM]

5:20 Freedom of intimacy *is* abridged by marriage...but Scalia is saying this like conservatives mock gay marriage with sayings like "polygamy is next". Yep. Marriage is abridging individual liberties. All civil marriage should be abolished.

[justinsomniactor]

@6:07 your description of how Scalia thinks is a projection of how you think of Scalia. Removing any possibility of nuance from his dissenting opinion only to counter with nuance is a biased and dishonest way to put out information to your audience. I like Kyle. But his bias is strong and it blinds him.