Last edited: October 25, 2003

Scalia Ridicules Court’s Sodomy Decision

Datalounge, October 24, 2003

WASHINGTON—Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience of conservative activists on Thursday that the recent decision declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility. The ruling, said Scalia, “held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter.” To the amusement of his audience, he then adopted a nasal and mocking tone in reading excerpts of the majority decision which legitimized the struggle for gay civil rights.

Scalia wrote a bitter dissent in the case that was longer than the ruling itself. Scalia said his colleagues on the Supreme Court ignore “founder intent” in the Constitution when it suits them.

“Most of today’s experts on the Constitution think the document written in Philadelphia in 1787 was simply an early attempt at the construction of what is called a liberal political order,” Scalia told a gathering of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. “All that the person interpreting or applying that document has to do is to read up on the latest academic understanding of liberal political theory and interpolate these constitutional understandings into the constitutional text.”

Scalia is a hero to conservatives who, like him, favor wiping out the civil rights advances of the last 50 years under the banner of “strict interpretation” arguments.

In other remarks, Scalia appeared to blame the nation’s institutes for higher learning on the nation’s predominantly liberal ethos. While, “it would be foolish” to say that the “one-sided nature of institutions of learning” is the product of “some left-wing academic conspiracy . . . it would also be unrealistic to think [such a conspiracy] does not exist.”

President Bush sent a video greeting to the conservative group in which he praised their idealism and their defense of free market values.

[Home] [News] [Lawrence v. Texas]