You seem to suffer the same convenient lapses of memory (or reason) that a lot on the right do. Of course, given that most of what you get is spoonfed from the likes of 'fair and balanced' (not) FOX, Rush, Hannity, et al, it's not surprising.
Scalia wrote:
Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
Scalia's rulings drip with self-serving activism, so far from the purview of the judicial responsibility that he seems to be a non-elected legislator. His rightist agenda is not masked by his accusations of activism by other judges, as he would like to believe. His own activism, in cases involving Conservative causes, are often shameful. He's voted against the legality of laws that restrict protestors from barring access to health clinics, cause he can't get over Roe vs Wade. He's voted against repealing discriminatory laws, such as VMI's male-only admissions (where he was the lone dissenter), and such as the striking down of Texas's anti-sodomy laws. In each of these cases, he was not considering the Constitutionality of the laws, merely his own view of the morality of these laws. If that ain't activism, then nothing is.
Maybe he'd be happier in the Legislature, where he can actually vote on laws, rather than trying to create law from the bench. |
