Sandefur is defending himself against Owen Courreges of Southern Appeal on the rude question asked to Scalia, and doing quite well I think. He writes:
Courreges concludes, "stop being a jerk about this and admit that the question was inappropriate." I have admitted the question is inappropriate - that was my entire point. Whether or not I am a jerk is not the issue. The issue is, why is it inappropriate to ask Justice Scalia this question, but okay to drag John Geddes Lawrence in handcuffs to the witness stand to ask him the same question?It is nice to see that Courreges is capable of being appalled. Why is he not appalled by the idea that the state may send armed agents into our bedrooms to ensure that we are having the right kind of sex?
Quite so.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Wow, I somehow missed this story. Justice Scalia was visiting NYU recently to receive an honor from the law school and while he was there he met with law students and had a question and answer session, as he always does. The NYU newspaper tells what happened:
The Q-and-A opened with hostility as…
Despite the fact that the first thing he did upon returning from his weekend getaway was bust my chops for my take on the Dan Rather fake memo story (LOL), I'd like to congratulate Timothy Sandefur both on his award from the Clarement Institute and on the recent publication of his article about the…
I have been riveted by yesterday's re-argument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission before the United States Supreme Court. I mean who hasn't? At stake, as they say in media newspeak, is the entire state of campaign finance law (the astute reader will note the choice of words in this…
I decided to take a look and see if Justice Scalia had ever addressed the ruling of Loving v Virginia. It turns out, apparently, that he thinks the case was decided correctly, even while embracing the exact same argument made in that case by the state of Virginia. In his dissent in Lawrence, he…
FYI and FWIW, Owen no longer blogs at SA. He now blogs at the Lone Star Times. He simply left a comments to a post at SA.
Feddie-
Oops, I didn't realize that. I saw the link to the Lone Star Times, but just assumed he was still blogging with you.
It is extraordinarily difficult to penetrate the deeply embedded hypocrisy of those who profess views of the recklessly righteous. They simply refuse to acknowledge that that concept even exists in relation to them. It is similar to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, where no one in the military would presume to ever question the behavioral choices of those who are "apparently" heterosexual.
Unless I'm missing something, there's a rather significant distinction. Lawrence was observed by a policeman while he was engaged in "the act." It isn't just a question directed to him. So the appropriateness of a question directed to him wasn't really in issue. The question could just as well have been addressed to the policeman.
Um, of course, that doesn't mean that the cops shouldn't have just, you know, averted their eyes. They didn't need to make a federal case of it. On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing that they did.
BTW, there was no 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) issue either, since the police had been directed to their abode by a telephone call that turned out to be a lie. From what I read, the dissembler was convicted of filing a false report.