Dissenting Justice Scalia’s sarcastic rebuke raises eyebrows #bestdissentever

He labelled the United States Supreme Court “a threat to American democracy.” And then Justice Antonin Scalia, one of that court’s nine judges, got nasty.

Writing in dissent from the historic 5-4 ruling legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States, the 79-year-old judge said the opinion lacked “even a thin veneer of law.” He called the style “pretentious” and the content “egotistic.” He said he was astounded by the “hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.” He called the judges unrepresentative – not a single evangelical Christian or “even a Protestant of any denomination.” And he mocked the majority for its description of intimacy in marriage, saying “One would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”


Personally I believe Scalia is the only Judge on SCOTUS worthy of the title.

  • Martin B

    He’s 79, the chance he will be replaced by another judge of similar caliber is pretty close to zero I suspect.

    • Alain

      I fear you are correct about any replacement.

  • Scalia said the opinion lacked “even a thin veneer of law.”

    • He’s right, it’s as if SCOTUS was riffing on Alice Through The Looking Glass.

  • Liberal Jews on that bench….

    • Norman_In_New_York

      It’s three Jews and six Roman Catholics. Furthermore, of the nine justices, four are from New York City, one from Buffalo and a sixth one from New Jersey, with a seventh from Massachusetts. Geographically skewed, wouldn’t you say?

  • Norman_In_New_York

    Justice Scalia’s dissent was about the usurpation of democratic rights by “an unelected panel of nine lawyers.” He personally felt that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states after healthy debate. Whichever way state legislatures voted was alright by him. In other words, he argued for judicial restraint. By the way, his best friend on the Court after hours is Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who are both from New York City’s outer boroughs and are children of immigrants.

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      In Canada, the powers of the provinces and the powers of the federal government are clearly defined by the Constitution.
      However, nobody seems to realize this.
      I am constantly telling people that, for instance, health care is a provincial jurisdiction, not a federal one.
      I get blank stares from them because they don’t comprehend.
      I then ask them who issues their health cards.
      The Government of Canada or their Province?

    • He was correct to have done so. This decision was akin to Imperial decree.

    • G

      Why would anyone want to be friends with that activist, old scrag?

      You would think drooling, Depends-pissing old Ginsburg would be more of a constitutional traditionalist. After all she was in friggin law school when they wrote the damned thing.

    • RB Ginsburg, as I recall, is a lesbian. I wonder how many others out of the five “judges” that made the decision have kinky sex lives that color their judgment.

  • David Murrell

    Notice the Globe and Mail’s headline, and the left-wing slant in the article. Writer Sean Fine interviews a few left-wing law professors to claim that Scalia has somehow “last it”.

    • Alain

      This is why I ceased long ago bothering to read, watch or listen to any MSM, because I can predict with 100% accuracy what I would find.

      • G

        I don’t see any value in reading what some feminine beta male at a *canadian* paper thinks about a matter that is purely American internal politics.

        The entire waste of time article was nothing more than yet another candy-assed canadian journalist sneering at Americans.

        If that’s the best the Globe can offer then STFU and use the print space for something useful, advertising, public service messages, “This-Day-In-History” who cares? Anything but some emo wuss trying to feel morally superior.

  • David C Fischer

    last sentence is unfair to Thomas and Alito.

  • Helios Megistos

    {On Scalia’s Dissent
    Scalia’s dissent on the Obamacare verdict, despite all of its bravado, is utterly, totally devoid of virtue or merit unless and until Scalia RESIGNS.
    This is the point I have been desperately trying to make for years, to pretty much zero avail. Continuing to engage a blatantly, obviously illegitimate paradigm is totally irrational and immoral, and belies a serious lack of character. Scalia can give us all the rhetorical candy he can come up with, but until he resigns he is a rank hypocrite, and this is undeniable precisely because he has demonstrated in writing, in a SCOTUS dissent no less, that he sees and understands exactly what the situation is vis-a-vis the Rule of Law in the former United States.
    But, but, but… his SALARY! And his PENSION! And, and, and people might not be nice to him if he resigns in protest! And, and, and that would just give Obama the ability to appoint another commie!
    Because after having the entire notion of the Rule of Law formally and explicitly shredded in the Obamacare decision, and the Natural Law CRIMINALIZED in the sodomite marriage decision a few minutes ago, WE HAVE SO MUCH TO LOSE AT THIS POINT. Am I following your thought process correctly? Boy, if Obama gets to appoint another SCOTUS seat, something REALLY BAD MIGHT HAPPEN! Do I have that about right? Eyeroll.
    It’s over. It’s been over for years. We all consented to living under the Law of the United States of America and consented to pay taxes TO THAT NATION. That nation NO. LONGER. FLIPPING. EXISTS. and hasn’t for years. What you must now decide is whether or not you CONSENT to be governed by an explicitly, openly evil tyrannical oligarchy. The most clear and obvious sign of consent is the paying of taxes. Just sayin’.} http://www.barnhardt.biz/ http://i55.tinypic.com/znm1b6.jpg

    • David

      so 9 sotomayors is good?

      • dance…dancetotheradio

        I know.
        Same argument for when Harper started filling those Senate vacancies.
        I’m saying I agree that he did.

        • El Martyachi

          What about Iceland? Shouldn’t they have gone along to have gotten along instead of kicking the bankers out?

          I realize this is a stupid comment on multiple levels. And I don’t care.

          • dance…dancetotheradio

            Fair enough.
            When the Coalition crisis in 2008 came it became apparent, at least to me, that Harper’s policy of not appointing anyone to Senate vacancies was Quixotic.
            I believe he saw it, too.
            You can’t hand your enemies the cudgel with which to bash your head in.

    • Alain

      I understand what you are saying, but in my view resigning in this case would amount to surrender to the enemy. His resignation would be immediately accepted and any reports of it would be portraying him in a negative light, and he would be immediately replaced with another neo-marxist lawyer. At least by remaining until health forces him to step down or leave he remains a thorn in their side.

      • Helios Megistos

        Eveybody should go John Galt all at once!

    • Minicapt

      Barnhardt should commit suicide in support of his moral position, and arrange to have video of the act posted on-line. This only can give him the closure he desires.


  • Helios Megistos

    The republic died decades ago; time to colonize Greenland , I guess! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Pompeo_Batoni_-_Aeneas_fleeing_from_Troy,_1753.jpg

  • bob e

    coup d’etat is complete ..

  • irishrus

    Right on Scalia! Except for one thing… he hold’s the opinion that individual States can have legal homo marriage and abortions if they so choose… making him a strict Constitutionalist but not big on ‘United’ States or morality.

  • irishrus

    Of course, that still gives him bigger balls than anyone in God forsaken Canada.