Friday, June 4, 2010

Justice Scalia Classifies Babies As Objects

Now, Justice Scalia is apoplectic, I'm sure. "I'm not dehumanizing the unborn. Massachusetts is dehumanizing the unborn. I'm just washing my hands." Okay. But you do realize, don't you, that you--yes, you, Nino--have classified the unborn as legal objects? You are requiring them to be protected by statute. This odd, unfamiliar Constitutional law that some of us know as the equal protection clause, you say it doesn't apply. Why doesn't it apply? Because Harry Blackmun said it doesn't apply in Roe v. Wade. And you are following him right off that cliff. The cliff of insanity!

Is it possible--just throwing this out there--that all the people who are pissed off about Roe v. Wade, are actually pissed off about the dehumanization of the unborn, and the way the Supreme Court has defined them as non-human? Cause it seems to many of us that Harry's discussion of the "person" word is a much bigger nightmare for the Court than a bunch of judges throwing that "substance" word in front of that due process clause. I mean, you judges do that shit all the time. It's stripping human beings of their humanity that's kind of rare and unusual.

I know legal process and democracy and being a good judge and following your Oath sometimes requires you to follow bad laws. Like those judges in Yankee states who had to send runaway slaves back to the slave states under the fugitive slave clause. Okay. But does legal process and democracy and being a good judge and following your Oath actually require you to follow Justice Blackmun's moronic analysis in Roe v. Wade?

You want to answer that one, Nino, or should I?

From Justice Scalia's dissent in Casey: "The Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the 'central holding'. It seems to me that the doctrine of stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version."

So, if I understand your argument in your Casey dissent correctly, Justice Scalia, your reliance upon Harry's dehumanization of the unborn can best be described as contrived. You insist upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what you call its central holding, namely that the unborn are objects who may be discriminated against on a constitutional basis.

In your partial-birth abortion dissent, you write, "I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court's jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott." Okay, stop right there.

Korematsu was a person. Dred Scott was a person. Do you see a dichotomy in your jurisprudence? Because it's screaming out loud to pro-lifers. In this abortion case that outrages you so, it involves the termination of what you and all the other judicial right-wingers keep insisting are legal objects. Remember? This is your jurisprudence I'm describing. The unborn are outside of our Constitution and legally do not exist. Right? Am I quoting your argument correctly?

What is a person? Can the Supreme Court answer that? Inquiring minds want to know. Want to make sure I'm a person. Maybe I ought to migrate. Or look up that emolument word, see if I qualify under that. Shit, man, I got to emolument if I want to be a person? I don't even know if that's a verb. I just went to a second-tier law school, Justice Scalia, help me out here.

Scalia goes on to write, "The method of killing a human child--one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child--proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion." Okay, here's an important question. Are you in fact right that we are killing a human child? Or are you just throwing out some sloppy rhetoric? 

If you are right, and we are killing a human child--just quoting your words back at you, man--remind me again why a human child's not a person? I have to say you lost me. You lost me on the non-person status of the human child that is being killed. 

No comments:

Post a Comment