The following quote from Justice Antonin Scalia is making the rounds.
“I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.”
Here's the full context, which isn't quite as fun as taking it out of context.
Earlier in the evening, Scalia ridiculed the European Court of Human Rights’ 2000 decision striking down British legislation that bars group gay sex on the grounds that the law intruded upon private life.
He asked—rhetorically—how many individuals would have to be involved in a sex act for it to no longer qualify as “private.”
“Presumably it is some number between five and the number of people required to fill the Coliseum,” Scalia joked.
An audience member later rose to ask Scalia “whether you have any gay friends, and—if not—whether you’d like to be my friend.”
“I probably do have some gay friends,” Scalia said. “I’ve never pressed the point.”
But Scalia said his personal views on social issues have no bearing on his courtroom decisions.
“I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged,” Scalia said.
“But it is blindingly clear that judges have no greater capacity than the rest of us to decide what is moral.”
Another excerpt,
The Kennedy School student, Larry Harris Jr., said that his Fourth and 14th Amendment rights had been violated when he was pulled over in Cambridge for—as he put it—“driving while black.”
Scalia was less convinced.
“What the Fourth Amendment prohibits is ‘unnecessary’ search and seizure,” the justice said. “Is it racial profiling prohibited by the Fourth Amendment for the police to go looking for a white man with blue eyes? Do you want to stop little old ladies with tennis shoes?”
The eccentric justice launched into a parody of a police radio dispatch under a scenario in which profiling were prohibited. “The suspect is 5’10, we know what he looks like, but we can’t tell you,” Scalia quipped—drawing laughter from the audience.
And finally,
Dunster House resident Zachary D. Liscow ’05 rose during the question-and-answer session to suggest that Scalia’s own vote in the controversial 2000 presidential election case could be viewed as an example of the “judicial activism” Scalia deplores.
“I do not mean by [‘judicial activism’] judges actively doing what they’re supposed to do,” Scalia responded. He said the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to order a recount in Miami-Dade County—a decision Scalia and his colleagues overruled—amounted to a “clear violation of the federal constitution.”
And while conservative justices have been criticized for effectively deciding the 2000 election themselves, Scalia quipped: “Would you rather have the president of the United States decided by the Supreme Court of Florida?”
No comments:
Post a Comment