Samira wrote:
A blogger on HuffPo pointed out that Scalia's dissent, as written, would invalidate Loving and therefore Justice Thomas' marriage.
Should I even be remotely shocked that a blogger on Huffpo has no clue what (s)he is talking about? Scalia's dissent was entirely about the lack of rationality to the decision itself (and linguistic mumbo jumbo involved as well). He didn't actually discuss any details of the case itself at all, just poked fun at the mental gyrations the court had to go through to arrive at the decision they wanted. As I mentioned above, it's not about SSM, but about the process of arriving at a decision that is the issue. In this case, there was no valid constitutional rationale for the decision, so they just kinda made stuff up anyway. That's what Scalia was talking about.
Quote:
Not thinking your cunning plan through seems to be a pattern these days.
Not bothering to read before judging seems to be as well. I'm sure it's a great source of false irony for liberals to pretend that the conservative dissent would invalidate Loving, but that's just not the case. The dissent (every one except Scalia's) directly addressed the differences between Loving and this case, and why one works constitutionally while the other does not. But let's just ignore all that boring stuff, zero in on the one dissent that didn't take this approach and pretend that not mentioning it means he'd have ruled against it.
Of course, when your audience consists mostly of people who will never read those dissents and instead just pat themselves on the back for a job well done, you can get away with such absurdities. Not like anyone on that site will correct the record or anything.
