Conspiracy Theorists Justice Scalia: "this court's threat to American democracy."

Is American "democracy" under threat by marriage equality?
or is this just "heretic rhetoric" of the out-of-touch right?

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage but about "this court's threat to American democracy." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented. hosted.ap.org...

If you want to discuss the court making "Gay Marriage" legal
there is already a thread for that here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is about what Scalia said (and "democracy" in general).
- Is the Court a threat?
- What is democracy

a reply to: wasaka

I actually made a comparison about the assault on democracy and a selective usage of our rights . I was ganged up on by 3 to 4 posters telling me my stance was illrelevant .

I can see where Justice Scalia see this as a threat to democracy. In 30 states, the question of gay marriage had been put to the voters and 30 times the people rejected gay marriage. And 30 times the Federal Court Over turned a decision the people had chosen.

Under the Constitution if 3/4 of the states can get an Amendment ratified it becomes law. So with 30 states having passed a ban on gay marriage you were only 4 states of way from getting to the 3/4 threshold for a Constitutional Amendment. So in theory if the states pushed for it you could still get a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

So Justice Scalia is correct in saying that democracy is under threat. If the people decide they want things a certain way (wither you agree with them or not) and a few people in robes we call Judges can over rule the will of the people, what's the point of voting at all.

There in lays the threat to Democracy.

Can't help but notice he's writing this about a decision he didn't agree with.

a reply to: JBRiddle

You're forgetting we are a Republic?

A Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting what's for dinner.

A Republic has the ability to protect the lamb.

The system worked today as it should.

a reply to: wasaka

Enemies of "American democracy":

Personal liberty
Empathy
Imagination
Humor
Curiosity
Humans

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: wasaka

Enemies of "American democracy":

Personal liberty
Empathy
Imagination
Humor
Curiosity
Humans

You forgot ATS.

I'm a bit worried about the Colorado marijuana ruling, which hasn't been announced yet. Hopefully Scalia isn't including that one (which he knows the result of) in his thinking regarding his writing of that comment.

So a SC Justice is butthurt about being overridden in a decision, and goes on to say that the court is a danger to America?

"The system worked, we're all doooomed!"

I literally lol'd.

a reply to: JBRiddle

You nailed it. Regardless of stance on gay marriage, everyone who values freedom should find this troubling. Looks like celebration will drown out any rational concern, though.

Let them have all the democracy they want. I'll keep my republic.

The court is only a threat when we continue to let politics influence their decisions, rather than the constitution. The gay marriage decision is not a threat. It only reinforces the constitutional ideal that All Men are Created Equal.

How is that a threat?

Scalia, on the other hand, is a threat. He is more political than constitutional.

Here is a quot from Scalia in his dissent that I found interesting. Basically he is saying the body of Judges is not a representation of the Union as a whole. Although true, the Judges are not elected to represent the nation, they are there to interpret law. But, what it sounds like to me is he thinks the Supreme Court wields too much power. Or am I just reading to much into what he said?

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: JBRiddle

You nailed it. Regardless of stance on gay marriage, everyone who values freedom should find this troubling. Looks like celebration will drown out any rational concern, though.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy and irony in what you posted?

So everyone who values freedom should find it troubling that we are allowing people to have their freedoms?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
Can't help but notice he's writing this about a decision he didn't agree with.

Does that automatically make him wrong?

You can take a pot shot, but can you explain where his assessment falls short?

originally posted by: warpig69
Here is a quot from Scalia in his dissent that I found interesting. Basically he is saying the body of Judges is not a representation of the Union as a whole. Although true, the Judges are not elected to represent the nation, they are there to interpret law. But, what it sounds like to me is he thinks the Supreme Court wields too much power. Or am I just reading to much into what he said?

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Wow, he went full "It's time for a revolution" on us. Neat.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: JBRiddle

You nailed it. Regardless of stance on gay marriage, everyone who values freedom should find this troubling. Looks like celebration will drown out any rational concern, though.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy and irony in what you posted?

So everyone who values freedom should find it troubling that we are allowing people to have their freedoms?

Everyone who values to keep the gov out of things like marriage should be concerned.......

I find it troubling that the gov is involved at all

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: wasaka

Enemies of "American democracy":

Personal liberty
Empathy
Imagination
Humor
Curiosity
Humans

progressives who say if you have an opinion youre irrelevant and should be silenced.........in the name of equality and diversity

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Where in the constitution is the federal government given power over marriage rites?

Which amendment guarantees any two people the right to marry?

If you can't find either, then the Supreme Court has no say in the matter.

Legislatures make laws. That is democracy (representative in the US). The Supreme Court determines if those laws are in accordance with the constitution. That is a republic. The US is a republic so I would say the Supreme Court endangering democracy is how it is SUPPOSED to work.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Actually, progressives say you can have any opinion you want, but religious opinion can't be law.

I love this myth that Progressives want to take away your 1st amendment rights.
Do some progressives want to make "hate speech" illegal? You bet! Those are the radical left that make the moderate left look bad. Just as the radical right make the moderate right look bad.