Dissent of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the Ruling on Same Sex Marriage


http://www.biography.com/people/antonin-scalia-9473091
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/scalias-full-dissent-same-sex-marriage-ruling
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/scalia-in-gay-marriage-ruling-dissent-where-are-the-protestants/ 

 

 
Taken from one webpage: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/scalia-in-gay-marriage-ruling-dissent-where-are-the-protestants/

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision that discovered a right to same-sex marriage in the American Constitution, a fascinating and disturbing observation by Justice Antonin Scalia was largely overlooked: U. S. Protestants had no say whatsoever in the new social order enacted by the Court.

In his nine-page dissent, Scalia ripped into the majority opinion, calling it a "judicial Putsch" that poses a "threat to American democracy."

He added that a "system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy." The Court’s "naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power" bulldozed the right of the People to self-government, said Scalia, who then turned to the peculiarly unrepresentative composition of the Supreme Court itself. Scalia noted that "the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America."

"Take, for example, this Court," he said, "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."

Scalia then observed that not "a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination" is to be found on the Court, which currently consists of six Catholics and three Jews. How can such an elite, homogeneous committee presume to legislate over a constituency that finds itself as wholly unrepresented as do American Protestants? he suggested.

"The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges," Scalia continued. "But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis."

To underscore the gravity of the Court’s action, Scalia compared it to England’s treatment of the American colonies before the war of independence. ... Indeed, "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," he said. "Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.


 

 

 

Kinutlos gikan sa:
Usa ka panid sa Lawalawaan: kahttp://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/scalia-in-gay-marriage-ruling-dissent-where-are-the-protestants/

Sunod sa hukom sa Labaw nga Hukmanan sa Amerika nga nikaplag og katungod sa pagpalegal sa pagtipon sa managsama og kinatawo dinha sa Batakan nga Balaod sa Amerika, dako nga gikalimtan ang makadakop ug makatugaw ang paniid ni Justice Antonin Scalia: walay bisan’g unsang tingog ang mga Protestante sa Amerika sa bag-ong han-ay sa katilingban nga gimando niini.

Sa 9 nga panid sa pagsupak si Scalia nitastas nitastas sa pag-isip sa paghukon sa mayoriya, pagngalan niini nga usa ka "kudeta sa hukmanan" nga "maghadla sa demokrasya sa Ametrika."

Nidugang siya nga usa ka "sistema sa pangamhanan nga naghimo sa katawhan nga ubos sa usa ka komitiba sa siyam ka wala pilia nga mga abogado dili takos nga nganlan og demokrasya.." Ang gihimo sa Labaw nga Hukmanan "nga dayag nga pag-angkon sa hukmanan og gahom paghimo og balaod —sa kamatuod labaw gyod kaayo nga gahom pagbalaod" nibuldos sa katungod sa mga tawo sa kinaugalingon nga pangamhanan, matod pa ni Scalia, nga dayon nibalik ngadto sa ulusahon nga wala tugyani nga gambalay mismo sa Labaw nga Hukmanan. Nihisgot siya nga "Ang Federal Judiciary halos wals gyod magrepresentar sa tibuok Amerika."

"Tan-awa, pananglitan, kining maong Hukmanan," niingon siya, "nga gisakopan lamang og siyam ka mga lalake ug babaye, tanan sila malampuson nga mga abogado nga nituon sa Harvard o Yale Law School. Upat sa siyam mga lumulupsyo sa Dakbayan sa Nueva York. Walo kanila nitubo sa silangan ug kasadpang mga Estado sa Amerika. Usa lamang ang gikan sa lapad nga kawanangan sa taliwala niining duha ka bahin sa Amerika."

Dayon si Scalia nipaniid nga"walay usa niini nila evangelical nga mga Kristiyanos (hut-ong nga naglangkobg og mga kaupatan sa mga Amerikano), o gani ni usa ka Protestante sa maskin unsa nga denominasyon" makita dinhi niing mao nga Hukmanan, nga karon gilangkob og unom ka mga Katoliko ug tulo ka mga Judiyo. Unsaon man pagpangahas pagbalaod sa ingon nga mga ginili, managsama og kinaiya ug kagigikanan nga komitiba alang sa usa ka kabotantehan nga nagkita nga wala karepresentahi sama sa mga Protestane nga Amerikano? Nisugyot siya.

Nipadayon si Scalia "Ang makahapak nga wala tinugyani nga matang sa pundok nga nagbotar sa katilingbanon nga kagubot karon mahimo nga mawalay kalabotan kon naglihok pa sila isip maghuhukom." "Apan lagi ang mga Maghuhukom sa mayoriya karon wala man magbotar sumala nianang mao nga panukaran."

Paghinungdanon sa kagrabe sa lihok sa Hukmanan, si Scalia nitandi niini sa tinagdan sa Inglaterra sa mga kolonya sa Amerika sa wala pa ang gubat sa kaugalingnan. ... Sa kamatuod, "pagtugot sa palisiya sa suliran sa kaminyuon sa managsama og kinatawo nga usisahon ug sulbaron sa usa ka gipli, aristokratiko, ug hilabihan ka wala tinugyani nga siyam ka jurado, usa ka paglapas sa panukaran nga labaw pa ka sukaranon kay sa pagbuhis nga walay pagrepresentar: wala untay kausaban sa katilingban nga walay representasyon," niingon siya. "Ang dekreto karong adlawa nag-ingon nga ang Nagmando kanako, ug ang Nagmando sa 320 ka milyones ka mga Amerikano, usa ka mayoriya sa siyam ka mga abogado sa Labaw nga Hukmanan, niingon si Scalia.

 

 

In all the Sturm und Drang following last Friday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that discovered a right to same-sex marriage in the American Constitution, a fascinating and disturbing observation by Justice Antonin Scalia was largely overlooked: U.S. Protestants had no say whatsoever in the new social order enacted by the Court.

In his nine-page dissent, Scalia ripped into the majority opinion, calling it a “judicial Putsch” that poses a “threat to American democracy.” He added that a “system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

The Court’s “naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power” bulldozed the right of the People to self-government, said Scalia, who then turned to the peculiarly unrepresentative composition of the Supreme Court itself.

Scalia noted that “the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America.”

“Take, for example, this Court,” he said, “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.”

Scalia then observed that not “a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” is to be found on the Court, which currently consists of six Catholics and three Jews.

How can such an elite, homogeneous committee presume to legislate over a constituency that finds itself as wholly unrepresented as do American Protestants? he suggested.

“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges,” Scalia continued. “But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis.”

To underscore the gravity of the Court’s action, Scalia compared it to England’s treatment of the American colonies before the war of independence. The justice said that in its hubris, Friday’s majority decision had perpetrated a more serious offense than the one that ignited the American Revolution.

Indeed, “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,” he said.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter @tdwilliamsrome.

      All the teachings in these pages are for the instruction of the faithful of the Particular Church in Misamis Occidental, Philippines
                   WebMaster: Archbishop Jesús Dosado, C.M. Send Mail to: dosadokuno@yahoo.com