Slog Comments


Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Pope Peabrain 1
Scalia can have whatever feelings he wants. But his job isn't "feeling". His job is to protect "Equal Justice Under Law". And in case he forgets, it's emblazoned across the Supreme Court building. Comparing gay people to murderers is just twisted and not at all "moral".
Posted by Pope Peabrain on December 11, 2012 at 9:10 AM · Report this
biffp 2
Scalia has only succeeded in making the point opposite to what he intended. Murder can so easily be differentiated. It's a completely absurd comparison.
Posted by biffp on December 11, 2012 at 9:11 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 3
Just when you thought Scalia could not be more of an immoral, wingnut bigot who only sees his role as reforming the constitution to line up with his personal ideals:

He compares homosexuals to murderers.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on December 11, 2012 at 9:14 AM · Report this
Zebes 4
We can take slippery slopes and false equivalencies all the way to the supreme court? Awesome! By virtue of being a blowhard on the internet, I am apparently already qualified for the job! I have opinions! I like to talk! Where's my gavel and robey thing?!
Posted by Zebes on December 11, 2012 at 9:16 AM · Report this
Where in Seattle is that photo taken of the Gay Pride march? I can't figure it out.
Posted by mitten on December 11, 2012 at 9:18 AM · Report this
Freeway park looking east. Town hall in the background on the left
Posted by wl on December 11, 2012 at 9:20 AM · Report this
I mean right
Posted by wl on December 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 8
Laws are not created to satisfy "morals." They are created for real protections.

Morals are relative. All of them.

Murder is illegal because it deprives a person of their life, not because it's "a morally bad thing."

I can't believe a fucking Supreme Court Justice thinks laws are based on morals?!? That is terrifying.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on December 11, 2012 at 9:24 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 9
No one linked yesterday in the horse thread to this:

Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on December 11, 2012 at 9:25 AM · Report this
oh, I see. So they're walking down spring, or seneca or whatever that street is. It all looks so barren!
Posted by mitten on December 11, 2012 at 9:26 AM · Report this
That expresses the whole problem in our legislature: the Republicans (Tom, a DINO) made it happen, and the Democrats are pissed. Action v. frustration.
Posted by sarah70 on December 11, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
biffp 12
@4, it's free speech shithead. Self-deport to an authoritarian state.
Posted by biffp on December 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM · Report this
Chefgirl 13
My recently-retired mother called both of her local elementary schools and offered to volunteer as a reading coach for any of their students who needed help. Neither school ever called her back. So there's a bit of the reading problem we've got, explained...
Posted by Chefgirl on December 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 14
We need twin monuments in Washington State.

One to Legalized MJ. I suggest Herschel using a bong.

Second to Legalized Same Sex Marriage. I suggest that cute old couple.
Posted by Will in Seattle on December 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM · Report this
internet_jen 15
@13 - your Grams should try a library homework help program. Seattle lib has one. If the schools don't already have after hours reading help program I don't know if they could do much with unsolicited help. Also maybe the local Boys and Girls Club.
Posted by internet_jen on December 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM · Report this
Dear Justice Scalia,

Here is a moral guidepost that even *you* can use to draw a line of distinction between homosexual activity and murder: informed consent.
Posted by Clayton on December 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM · Report this
biffp 17
@15, I'd bet on the Boys and Girls Club being interested. Great suggestions. Don't let her give up @13. The gift is better than just about any gift I can think of.
Posted by biffp on December 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM · Report this
Bauhaus I 18
Scalia appears to have his notions set and impervious to debate. If he believes homosexuality is immoral (which denotes a choice in the matter - i.e., I choose to be gay and therefore immoral), and he cannot under any circumstances be convinced otherwise, shouldn't he recuse himself from this argument? Why go before a Supreme Court justice who in his heart is thinking, "Don't bother."? Fortunately, there are eight other justices - some of who (and we know who they are) are already in Scalia's camp.

President Obama, my dear Mr. President, should you get the weighty opportunity of appointing one or two or even three justices in these next four years and you wonder if the nominee should be black or white or male or female or Hispanic or Jewish or whatever, may I make a suggestion? How about some atheists or agnostics of any race or sex? We need some justices on the court who don't carry the baggage of religious dogma when deciding what is best for this country. Just a suggestion, sir.
Posted by Bauhaus I on December 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 19
Hasn't anyone wondered that America's obesity problem may be what we're eating, and not how much?
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on December 11, 2012 at 1:14 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.