Yay SCOTUS!
I feel bad for judging Scalia's opinion based entirely on Kat's quoting from it, but I do.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.
Seriously, this is coming from Scalia? So glad he feels his extravagances are acceptable, not egotistical. Argh!
And Steph, your aunt's complaint sounds like my cousin's. Boo hoo.
Well, it doesn't help that his defense of his political views boils down to "Because I said so, that's why".
And also "nyah nyah"?
Nice! Our mayor is marrying same-sex couples on Fountain Square at 4:30 today!
Aw! I fucking love how fast folks were on it.
I also love that a senior person here just gave me a really nice compliment about the hardest part of my job! I would love it a little more if he said it to my boss, but still.
I'm not so sure about that, but whatevs.
I mean, whatevs to both of them, not to you, Burrell!
Burrell, there's a thoughtful article about Scalia's writing excesses here: [link]
Favorite part:
The truth is something closer to this: Scalia is a crank, and not a particularly original one. If his dissents are fascinating, it’s only because there is something curious and sad about a person who holds such a powerful position gleefully writing such garbage. It’s like hate-watching Sean Hannity, only with the added thrill of realizing that the speaker actually has some power over your life.
Scalia was almost the Dean of Catholic University's law school. He may have still been there when I attended. While I would have deplored having him in the building, I would have rather taken one for the team to him sitting on the Supreme Court bench.
Also, in re: Roberts's assertion about marriage across time and space: [link]
I mean, whatevs to both of them, not to you, Burrell!
Heh, yeah, I get it.
Scalia is a total crank! Not to mention an unrepentant asshole.
Jesse, Roberts was addressing a point made in the majority opinion when Kennedy wrote that marriage “has existed for millennia and across civilizations." And so the articulation of the fact that this is in fact a radical and important change in defining marriage relative to where it had been defined before is less idiotic in that context. Don't bring up millenia and civilizations, even as a set up for counterarguments, if you are going to be annoyed that someone else DEFINES those civilizations.
I do agree this is radical redefinition of marriage. I also think it's a necessary, just, and timely one.
