counter statistics

Monday, November 03, 2008

Dean Barkley Hearts Antonin Scalia

During the Senate Debate at Blake School, Dean Barkley stated his favorite supreme court justice was Antonin Scalia. I thought that odd, because Scalia's rulings when addressing gay plaintifs have been full of venom. I asked his spokesperson, Chris Truscott about this.

Chris - Can you get a comment from Barkley about why he thinks Justice
Scalia is the best Justice on the Supreme Court? Has he read the Lawrence v Texas decision? I thought Barkley was of the opinion that Government should stay out of people's bedrooms. Scalia believes in Sodomy laws, laws against sex toys - and laws against masturbation.

From the dissent:

Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is "immoral and unacceptable" constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama's prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that "[t]he crafting and
safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny"); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that "[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms"); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying
on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that "a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage"); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves
relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana's public indecency statute furthered "a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality," ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation,
adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult
persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. "The law," it said, "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."
478 U.S., at 196.2

It took several emails and calls to get a response from Barkley's campaign:

Sen. Barkley is a strict constructionist, though his view of what the Constitution means sometimes differs from that of others who describe themselves the same way.

Keep in mind that Sen. Barkley is the only candidate in this Senate race who lists support for same-sex marriage on his issues page. That's his view of what the equal protection clause means to the letter of the law.