'Justice Scalia' Is an Oxymoron

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-j-blumenfeld/justice-scalia-is-an-oxym_b_9236368.html?utm_hp_ref=transgender

The Huffington Post/By Warren J. Blumenfeld   02/15/2016 12:17 pm ET

"As we know, an oxymoron is a linking of words that have contradictory or different meanings, like, for example, "cruel kindness" or "jumbo shrimp." I have long believed that when it comes to protecting the rights of minoritized groups in the United States, we can include "Justice Scalia" on the list of oxymorons since Scalia promoted anything but justice in his opposition to the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action, women's reproductive freedoms, and in particular, the rights and freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* people."

I have a great deal of respect for the SCOTUS and I have read many of its opinions as well as opinions of other courts with great interest and I will refrain from criticism of one of the courts most intelligent and respected Justices.  Antonin Scalia's opinions and descents concerning LGBT issues was unfortunate and somewhat surprising for a man who was so obviously intelligent. Why such intelligence could be persuaded by bigotry tells me that he at least in part, let emotions guide his opinions rather than reason.

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Supreme Court finally ruled that states could no longer criminalize private consensual sexual contact between same-sex partners.  Antonin Scalia and his judicial satellite Clarence Thomas were outraged and scandalized by the decision and filed a dissenting opinion.  They wanted to uphold the right of Texas to jail gay people for having private consensual sex.  Here is an excerpt from their dissent, in which they support discrimination against LGBT people as moral, as rational, as lawful, and as a Constitutionally protected right:

*****

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 02—102

JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER,
PETITIONERS v. TEXAS
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT

[June 26, 2003]

    Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.


* * *

    "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. . . .
    "One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." . . .  Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress; that in some cases such "discrimination" is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such "discrimination" is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)."

*****

Throughout his career, Antonin Scalia was a hardened and unapologetic enemy of the rights of LGBT people.  So when the President names a nominee to fill Scalia's vacancy on the Court, should he pick another Scalia?  I think not!