Scalia is a such a classic!

Mar 26 2013 Published by under Lawyering

This is great. Skipping to the part where Justice Kagen is grilling the lawyer Charles J. Cooper, Esq, on the harms of permitting gay marriage.....

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, could you explain that a little bit to me, just because I did not pick this up in your briefs.
What harm you see happening and when and how and -- what -- what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and effect work?

MR. COOPER: Once again, I -- I would reiterate that we don't believe that's the correct legal question before the Court, and that the correct question is whether or not redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage as a -JUST

Justice Kennedy went to work on him for evading, leading to this incoherent blather from Cooper.

But consider the California voter, in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of -- of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. That is reason enough, Your Honor, that would hardly be irrational for that voter to say, I believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in Massachusetts, the oldest State that is conducting it, to say, I think it better for California to hit the pause button and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing.

Emphasis added.

HAHAHAHAAAHAHAH! In non-court parlance...Dude, they got NOTHING! This is pathetic, right? That the justification is to wait-n-see how it works out in some other state? When has it EVER been the case that protecting rights has worked out poorly and led to a lasting reconsideration? I mean, the case at hand is exactly this but they only had like 6 months to experiment (and as far as I know the comparative handful of gay marriages in CA during the window of opportunity has not destroyed heterosexual marriage in CA yet, right? There would've been news articles.)

It was left to Supreme Troll Scalia to rescue the point...tra-la-laaaaaaa!

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me -- let me give you one -- one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must -- you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's -there's considerable disagreement among -- among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not -- do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

Let me GIVE YOU an argument??????

Justice Ginsburg pokes holes in Scalia's nonsense with regard to California's gay adoption regulations and then Scalia comes out with a classic comment:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I -- it's true, but irrelevant. They're arguing for a nationwide rule which applies to States other than California, that every State must allow marriage by same-sex couples. And so even though States that believe it is harmful -- and I take no position on whether it's harmful or not, but it is certainly true that -- that there's no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.

HHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAAHAAH "I take no position" HAHAHAAHAHAAA!!!!!!!111!!!!!!

Sure you don't, Scalia, sure you don't.

Note: Academy of Pediatrics backs gay marriage; says kids raised in such families do just as well

7 responses so far

  • becca says:

    You're just jealous you don't get to #FWDAOTSC

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    I really want to be hopeful. I really do. But...

  • DrugMonkey says:

    I am not hopeful after seeing what Kennedy was asking....but you never know, I thought Olson did better than Cooper

  • dsks says:

    6-3 ftw. Kennedy and Roberts will both join the liberals, imho. The former because it's the right thing to do and the latter probably because it's the smart thing to do.

  • The Iron Chemist says:

    It's quite astonishing. I haven't heard one coherent explanation for how gay marriage would negatively impact straight marriages, and yet that argument gets pushed over and over again.

  • Hermitage says:

    Probably because none of them have the gonads to say "because then it will make my kid think it's ok to turn gay on me, and I will not have that shit." They have their All-American Christmas cards PLANNED OUT into PERPETUITY, and they're not going to let some librul bullshit mess it up for them.

  • chall says:

    it's so sad to think that people argue that "if they are allowed to get married my marraige gets devalued". Really? If you have value only by comparing yourself to others and/or thinking that makes you better, you're betting on a losing horse to start with.

    I think it's pretty obvious that they don't have a coherent good argument against it. They can still wishywashtalk of course... but hopefully they can see the pathetic in trying to put in on paper and argue for a no. I'm still hoping for a yes and letting the marriage rights be true to same-sex and opposite-sex.

Leave a Reply