This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.Antonin Scalia, in his DOMA dissent.
I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.A big-deal case passed the Supreme Court this morning, with the court finding that genes can’t be patented. But the fun part of this decision is Justice Antonin Scalia’s reasoning for joining with the majority, which disregards a part of the opinion which notes that “Genes form the basis for hereditary traits in living organisms.” Apparently Scalia slept through biology class in high school, because that’s all way over his head.
Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who’s going to vote against that?Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia • Expressing his continued disapproval of the Voting Rights Act, which the conservative-leaning judge apparently views as a "racial preferment." Thankfully, much of the rest of the Supreme Court (and the United States as a whole, we’d wager) doesn’t seem to agree with him. source
I don’t think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons,” he said. “They vote the way they do because they have their own judicial philosophy.Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia • During an interview with Piers Morgan for “Piers Morgan Live” last night, refuting claims that he was feuding with Chief Justice John Roberts. The claims surfaced following the 5-4 upholding of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Scalia, who is currently touring to promote his new book, also took time to defend the court’s infamous Citizens United decision. “I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better,” said Scalia, adding, “That’s what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from.” source (via • follow)
It is a simultaneously exciting and exhausting time. There’s a good chance that with healthcare all the chambers are engaged in some way … and at full capacity.Kannon Shanmugam, a former law clerk for Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia • Discussing the June period when the court generally makes its most high-profile decisions. The court has two of those coming up — one on immigration and one on health care — which we imagine are stressing out both the justices and their clerks. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist particularly disliked the June period, once telling a colleague he joined in a majority ruling basically because he wanted it to be over with. Dude liked his vacations.
Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny … .Justice Antonin Scalia, emphasis his, writing the opinion of the court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., which, in a 7-2 decision, struck down a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. (via sonicbloom11)
» Three justices are fine, thanks: Reports from Washington suggest that the Supreme Court may be three members down during President Obama’s address tonight. Though a court spokeswoman would not verify which justices would be attending, it’s expected that Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas will skip the address. This seems particularly relevant to Alito, who irritatedly mouthed “not true” during last year’s address, after the President’s criticism of the court’s “Citizen’s United” ruling.