Justice Scalia: The Supreme Court Can “Favor Religion Over Nonreligion”

supreme-court-moneyNeed another reminder why voting in the 2014 mid-term elections is so very important? With only about a month to go, the future for the hold Democrats have on the Senate is looking quite dim, and the House is almost certainly out of reach – and probably destined to give even more seats to Republicans.

As we sit here wondering if Democrats will keep the Senate, Justice Antonin Scalia (a friend of my brother-in-law, if you want to know what I’m up against) recently remarked that the Constitution allowed the Supreme Court could favor religion over nonreligion. In other words, it seems that he believes that the “freedom of religion” means that, in theory, if a religious challenge to a law forbidding Nativity scenes were to come up, the Constitution would dictate that he would rule on the side of the religious group.



But don’t take my word for it, here’s what the conservative Washington Times had to say:

Justice Scalia, part of the court’s conservative wing, was preaching to the choir when he told the audience at Colorado Christian University that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance to holding prayers before city hall meetings.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. (Source)

Kind of scary, huh? In the very conservative Catholic circles that Scalia and some members of my family frequent, this is a very real belief. In their minds, religious law does trump federal law, and somehow their freedom of religion is being persecuted by “godless liberals” like myself. Oh, and that there’s a Satanic force behind all of this – Justice Scalia and others, they believe that as well.

Just this week, we had a state senator in Texas compare the imaginary war on his religion to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. That’s just one example out of many where right-wing religious conservatives are pretending that their beliefs are under attack, all while forcing their ideas down the throats of everyone else – in the name of religious freedom, of course.

It’s not just attempts to do things like install the Ten Commandments for “educational purposes” in courthouses like Alexandria, Louisiana judicial candidate Lauren Saucier has promised to do as part of her campaign platform. It isn’t just allowing only Christian religions to distribute literature in schools, a practice the Freedom From Religion Foundation has fought against successfully.



Let’s look at climate change for example. Recently 35,000 walruses came ashore in Alaska due to losing their icebergs, thanks to global warming. Combine the fossil fuel lobby with millions of conservative Christians who believe it isn’t a big deal because Jesus is coming back any day now, and you can see why we can’t get any serious action taken to combat this threat to the only known inhabitable planet in our local star system.

Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas also have a rather comfortable relationship with the Koch Brothers, which is quite troubling from a conflict of interest standpoint. Now mix that with their conservative religious beliefs and it’s no wonder that they ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s ridiculous claim that providing insurance coverage that included contraceptives violated their religious freedom.

So why is getting out the vote in November so crucial when it comes to the Supreme Court? Here’s why:

Ginsburg, 81, and Breyer, 75, are two of the leading liberal voices on the court, and also among the oldest. Ginsburg, a two-time cancer survivor, has endured the loudest calls to step down.

Should either justice retire in the final two years of President Obama’s term, Democrats would find it difficult to replace to progressive judges with like-minded successors if Republicans control the Senate. Even if Democrats keep their narrow majority, confirming a Supreme Court justice takes 60 votes and becomes increasingly more difficult at the end of a presidency. (Source)

The next couple of decades of Supreme Court decisions including possible rulings on reproductive rights and marriage equality could very well rest on the outcome of the 2014 elections, and Justice Scalia has shown us what we could expect with the balance of the court firmly on the conservative side. Again, here’s what else is at stake besides the possible future of the Supreme Court.

—All 435 seats of the U.S. House of Representatives

—33 seats in the U.S. Senate

—46 State Legislatures

—38 State and Territorial Governorships.

Are you registered to vote? Do you know where your local polling place is? If not, turn off the TV, get off Facebook, and make sure that your friends and family are registered to vote as well. If we don’t vote, we can expect to see more people like Justice Scalia making decisions that will affect us and our personal liberties for generations to come.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • Sandy Greer

    I’m concerned about the election as well. The Left is not doing a good job selling its message. Our demonization of all things on The Right will prove our undoing. We are losing Middle America – and I don’t mean Geography.

    Your Average Joe and Jane don’t want to get a hate on for the ‘other’.

    But it seems the bulk of our message is what’s wrong with The Right.
    When it should be what’s right about The Left.

    Recent articles on FP say what’s wrong with Allen West, Michigan GOP, Republican Hypocrisy, TX Senator Chas Perry, Hobby Lobby and Bobby Jindal, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Republican Conspiracy Theories.

    ^^^Not one ‘positive’ story on The Left among them. West and Hasselbeck aren’t even on the ballot.

    Mr. and Mrs. Middle America want more than to vote for the lesser of two evils. We can be the party gives it to them. Or we can just continue to demonize the ‘other’ and hope for the best.

    • Hail Eris!

      The trouble is, while the Left may be better than the Right, you don’t have the “Left” represented in US politics at all, except by Bernie Sanders, and the Right is over-represented. The D’s are the Party of Sanity, of Reason, of Science, at the moment, and the R’s are the Party of Insanity, Unreason, and Religion, but they’re both on the Right. “Protest” voting will guarantee victories for the R’s, and demonisation is all either party has — but the R’s deserve to be demonised.

      Snarky
      There is no such thing as part freedom.

      • Sandy Greer

        Well, then. What do you think those ‘protest’ votes will be protesting – if not the snarky mocking Negativity – that will ‘guarantee victories for the R’s’?

    • forpeace

      What is wrong with publishing articles about the far right-wing?

      People have the right to know the truth about all the lies they keep spewing 24/7, unless you do not want people to know about that. Thanks to Koch Brothers money some of them even took over the GOP in the local and state offices, and in the U.S. Congress.

      Yes, thank god that Allen West and Elisabeth Hasselbeck aren’t even on the ballot, but their nonstop feeding “misinformation” and brainwashing the Fox viewers and listeners makes a huge impact of how and for whom those people vote for. Therefore, reading articles, talking about them, and exposing them is very important.

      Plus, big portion of “Mr. and Mrs. Middle America” you are talking about make their decision in the elections and evcerything else based on what they hear from Fox, and people such as Allen West, Michigan GOP, Republican Hypocrisy, TX Senator Chas Perry, Hobby Lobby and Bobby Jindal, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Republican Conspiracy Theories are telling them to do.

      Please tell me one positive thing about Allen West?

      I do not believe FP is a “left” blog, otherwise, I wouldn’t have posted comments in here because I am not on the left.

      • Sandy Greer

        It’s easy to think we’re superior. So easy to say Middle America
        is ‘brainwashed’ by Fox, and ‘make decisions in elections and everything else based on what they hear from Fox’. Way
        easier than trying to understand them, and posit ourselves in ways we may be understood.

        But Middle America sees our Elitism; they turn away from us.

  • Jim Bean

    I’ve always been curious about this; what quantifiable damages are suffered by a non-believer who comes in close enough proximity to a nativity scene to be aware that it is there or see it? Being unable to figure that out, it has always seemed to me that those so passionate about making sure they aren’t displayed in public spaces are sadist motivated only by the opportunity to inflict pain others.

    There are some who are made uncomfortable by people who are deliberately dressed/groomed in such a way as to confirm a homosexual orientation. Should those made uncomfortable by this have a constitutional right that prevents these people from occupying public spaces?

    • Hail Eris!

      How is anyone harmed by not having Nativity scenes in public spaces? Nativity scenes are not composed of living people.

      How is anyone harmed by being made uncomfortable by another human being? Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

      Snarky
      A lady came up to me on the street and pointed at my suede jacket. “You
      know a cow was murdered for that jacket?” she sneered. I replied in a
      psychotic tone, “I didn’t know there were any witnesses! Now I’ll have
      to kill you too!”

      • Jim Bean

        I should have phrased it ‘how is any reasonably well adjusted individual harmed’ apparently.

    • Di Kelley

      Then some people need to educate themselves in order to not become uncomfortable. People have the right to dress or groom themselves in any way they please. If I want to walk out in clothes that make it obvious I’m trying to pass as male, I have every right. If one of my male friends wants to walk out of their home in a dress, they have every right. You discomfort is not my problem, nor is it my fault.

      • Jim Bean

        I agree, completely. However, those who would protest the nativity scene would not (unless they have double standards.)

      • Di Kelley

        Their main issue with such (Note, I don’t have one, any more than I do the ten commandments being placed outside of a building as long as the symbols of other religions share equal right to be there.) is due to the fact that the US was intended originally to be a secular society. I suspect also that their issue is not with the scene itself, but wiith the fact that if the supreme court has its way other relgiions will *not* be allowed to place their own symbols outside of public buildings and whoops, there goes our religious freedom in leui of having a nationally sponsored religion.

      • Jim Bean

        The US was most certainly NOT ‘originally intended to be a secular society’. Crosses were the customary grave marker for government military personnel killed in the line of duty throughout its history. (Google American Military Cemetery pictures if you need verification.) That is because the Constitution recognized and respected that the US was ALWAYS a predominately non-secular, Christian society.

        What WAS intended was that the US be governed in a secular manner, neither adopting nor rejecting any religious sects values – the ‘nor rejecting’ aspect being the component that today’s evil doers wish to obscure. That’s obvious anywhere you look in early American history.

        It was a good plan. All the bullshit that has come along since to the contrary is the malicious product of psychologically impaired (sadistic, to be specific) individuals.

        These miscreants will never insist upon these crosses being removed because that would put their lunacy on the world stage, (and they know its lunacy and that’s why their intent is malicious at its core.) No, no, they will settle for the perverse satisfaction of sticking their thumb in the eye of the little corner church with the nativity scene rather than throw their full weight behind their ‘principles’ and get their frickin’ teeth kicked out. Little, little, pathetic, immature people, all of them.

        Personally, I could care less how a homosexual dresses and I could care less whether a Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim symbol appears on public property. If you can’t get past those things, you can hardly think of yourself as ‘Progressive.’

      • Di Kelley

        I personally would *prefer* no religious symbols on government property, but that’s me. I however recognize that personal preference is just that, Personal preference. I have no right to press those preferences on anyone else, and I would not because I know I don’t have that right. I subscribe in some ways to the Wiccan creed “Do what ye will, so long as it harm no one.” You can have whatever personal preferences you please, but to enforce them upon an entire nation. (The hobby lobby decision is a good example in that it makes it extraordinarily difficult for female employees to obtain hormonal birth control due to it not being available in their health care plans) is just wrtong and harmful.

      • Jim Bean

        Hobby Lobby is no extraordinary obstacle to anyone obtaining birth control of any kind. It simply requires the woman to find an alternative way to pay for it. Considering that HL is under no obligation to provide any healthcare coverage whatsoever, that seems to be a mighty trivial detail.

      • Cemetery Girl

        They are under no obligation to provide healthcare, but they should be under obligation if they provide health insurance it covers equally. Roughly 20% of the women that use birth control do so to treat a medical problem. Ruling that birth control does not need to be covered is saying that 20% need to find their own way to treat their medical problems. Yeah, we offer health insurance but we don’t cover uterus problems. If you wanted to be fully covered by our health insurance you should have been born male.

      • Jim Bean

        But you assume women are somehow ‘owed’ that (or anything, for that matter) by virtue of some unquantifiable, arbitrarily arrived at, moral instinct that everyone must be feeling.

        Anyone capable of raw self examination will quickly discover that all such instincts are fundamentally selfish. For example, if I ask any one at odds with the Hobby Lobby decision, “What do you think HL employees should feel obligated to give their employers in addition to a fair day’s work, on time, every time(?)” they will, without exception, look at me like I have three heads.

        Everyone needs food, shelter, and clothing. Once they’ve achieved that, every other moment of their lives is devoted to acquiring one single thing. Contentment. And contentment is a state of mind, not a state of prosperity. When you learn to accept that, you learn to appreciate what you have and let go of the pettiness that corrupts your psyche and your relationships with others. You find what you’ve been looking for all along.

        Something tells me its in your future. Being a human being, alive in this time, among the top 2% wealthiest people in the world, residing in the greatest nation the planet has ever hosted. How bad can that be? Millions of kids in other places go to bed hungry in their own filth every night. Many never wake.

      • Cemetery Girl

        You are seriously going to argue that a company should not have to treat employees equally? I don’t have a prostate, should I oppose prostate healthcare? This isn’t about being happy, it is being healthy. If they don’t want to offer health insurance as a benefit, then don’t. Let them have employees go to employers that will. As it is now it is inequality. It denies treatment for illnesses only a female can get. Treatment that not only eases the symptoms (improving quality of life, which will have an impact the employee’s productivity) but also delays the progression of the illness. If they have no desire to offer healthcare as additional compensation for labor (which is all benefits are) then don’t offer it at all, but don’t select what benefits you will offer based on gender.

      • Jim Bean

        There is not a Hobby Lobby employee on the payroll who would choose giving up their plan rather than take it with 4 BC options not included.

        They don’t pay men for childbirth. I take it back. I don’t think you will find it.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Men are required to have the same leave options as women. Considering few companies offer paid leave, it isn’t an option that many men will take. But I wasn’t referring to childbirth, but medical conditions that men cannot have because they lack the organs. It is why I mentioned the prostate (an organ women do not have). It would not be acceptable if a company stated they will not cover treatments for prostate problems. It was bad enough with insurance companies dictating treatment, now employers too.

      • Jim Bean

        Yeah, but hold on. Men might not be able to give birth but there is no reason the employer can’t give the man a check equal to cost of childbirth so that he is compensated equally.
        The ridiculous extremes this equality thing can be taken to are limited only by ones imagination. Life is not always fair and its almost always a compromise. If you can’t accept both, life is a journey in frustration.

      • Cemetery Girl

        If employers paid their employees to give birth that would be a valid argument. Instead insurance (hopefully) is paying some of the cost of prenatal care and delivery. You tend to forget how insurance works. Employers are not directly paying the medical bills of employees. Premiums are paid (typically with employees contributing) and the insurance company makes payments on expenses (depending on deductibles and co-pays, ect.), but the employer is not directly paying that expense. They are certainly not directly writing out a check for thousands of dollars to an employee (or wife of an employee). I find it sickening that they can offer coverage (and maternity coverage is not automatically covered in all health insurance, but that isn’t what this argument is about) and an employer can refuse to cover some aspects of medical treatment based on gender because the employer “disagrees”. And you come back with cut a check to men equal to the cost of childbirth? How does that even make sense Jim??? There isn’t a single illness that a man could have that an employer could exempt treatment based on religious views. How does saying if men are not withheld medical treatments based on religion then why should women have employer exceptions in their healthcare turn into pay people directly for not needing a certain treatment? I’ve never broken my leg, so should I be given a check for the expense of the ER visit, surgery to pin the leg, and the hospital stay just because my neighbor did have that happen and insurance covered it? No! Does the fact that I haven’t broken my leg mean that I think insurance shouldn’t cover it? No. We buy into insurance, even when we think we are alright, because we are contributing to the great big pot of money that will help pay for our medical expenses if we need it. Views shouldn’t play into who is covered for what. If you believe that women committed the original sin and all pain and problems with their uteruses stems from that and it is God’s will to be so, that shouldn’t impact coverage for others. If you believe mental illness is actually demon possession and people need an exorcism instead of pills, that shouldn’t impact the treatment of others. Religious views should not impact medical treatment of others. And don’t say “nothing is stopping them from trying to come up with a way to pay for it out of pocket” because we both know darn well that if someone said that men should just find the $50-100+ a month to treat an enlarged prostate because their employer didn’t want the insurance to pay for it we would have people galore having a fit.

      • Jim Bean

        You are continuing to splash around in the shallow end of the pool. Not everything will ever be equal, especially when you consider that you and I can’t even agree on what ‘equal’ is in this simple instance.

      • Cemetery Girl

        No, we will not agree if men need to be paid thousands of dollars directly to them for women to beable to have their medical care paid for. There is an issue here with what equal means. Equal would be two people with the same employer being able to each have their medical care covered, not just one. Equal does not mean because two people pay into the same insurance that if one has an expensive procedure (childbirth, cancer treatment, heart surgery) that the other person deserves a check for that amount. You know that is ridiculous. Would you call your insurance company and demand a check for the price of your neighbor’s car repair? There is a huge difference between and you know this.

      • Di Kelley

        There is also something else you fail to mention. It is not HL that pays for the insurance, but the employees that pay for it, out of their paycheck. So yes, they should have the option to purchase insurance with BC if they want to do so, since they pay for it.

      • Jim Bean

        Who paid for their paycheck? And HL insurance DOES pay for BC.

      • Di Kelley

        Most of the articles I have read have stated it does not pay for hormonal BC or IUDs, but I may very well be incorrect in the first one. Again, though, they *work* for their paycheck, it isn’t as if it’s just some magnanomous gift the company is giving them for the sole purpose of existing.

        The point being again, they work for the money, the health insurance is paid for out of their paychecks, they should have the choice of what is covered.

      • Jim Bean

        Hobby Lobby covers:

        Male condoms
        Female condoms
        Diaphragms with spermicide
        Sponges with spermicide
        Cervical caps with spermicide
        Spermicide alone
        Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
        Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
        Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
        Contraceptive patches
        Contraceptive rings
        Progestin injections
        Implantable rods
        Vasectomies
        Female sterilization surgeries
        Female sterilization implants

        Hobby Lobby does not cover”
        Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
        Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
        Copper Intra-Uterine Device
        IUD with progestin

        Hobby Lobby voluntarily provides heath insurance as part of its compensation plan. They are under no obligation to do that. They could choose to give extra cash instead, or give nothing at all. Because there is no obligation to provide anything at all, there is no entitlement to which employees can lay claim.

    • Cemetery Girl

      I’ve always seen the issue as more those that want a Navtivity scene do not want representations of other religious holidays “cluttering” up the are that would have the scene. I have actually heard people complain that other religious symbols take away from the focus of the Nativity. Not everyone is Christian, not everyone celebrates Christmas, so why act like it is the only real holiday around December? There are too many people that will have a hissy fit that acknowledging other religions “takes away” from Christians

      • Jim Bean

        Or, we could all detox off hissy fits. Then everyone wins.

    • Nemisis

      I agree with you, “what quantifiable damages are suffered…” .

      The damage done is negligible. Until taken in as a whole.

      The continual practice of injecting religion in public space has given rise to precedence, and then assumption.

      I have no problem with displays of a religious nature when at a church or in a persons yard, or at a business or collection of business such as a mall. My only complaint in this is when placed at city hall, a courtroom, or a public school, or used as an exception to law or as a basis for law. There must be equal exposure and consideration of all religions or lack there of.

      “All or none” is my thought on this.

      Since there has been a push in the last 70 years to place a specific religious establishment above that of others the resultant effect is the creation of preference and that is the problem.

      That effect is the assumption that the USA was founded as a Christian Nation. That effect is compounded due to the delay in countering the actions that have caused the assumption.

      For instance the changing of the Pledge of Allegiance 1954, the changes to printed money in 1956, and with the same act changing the original national motto of “E Pluribus Unum” for “In God We Trust” . I believe that the politics of the 1950’s have directly resulted in the calamity we face today. The preference of few over that of many.

      The antithesis of the question also begs asking “What quantifiable benefits are gained by the believer” who seeks only to increase control either perceived or actual over the public as a whole.

      In regards to people made uncomfortable by the presence of people not dressed as they, or not of the same sexual orientation, or not of the same color, or ethnicity, or because they speak a language other than that of the observer.

      This is America, where the juxtaposition of cultures either collide with disastrous results or allow them to mingle freely to expand tolerance and add to a society.

      I don’t stop the street corner prophet from preaching on the street.
      I would stop them from preaching in the courtroom.
      For the record swearing on a bible is not something I agree with.
      It has never stopped a liar.

      • Jim Bean

        The quantifiable benefits to the believer are that they believe they’ve done something that pays homage to what they believe in. I don’t personally buy into that notion and might say to them, ‘why not just put it somewhere else to keep the peace?’ But why would I do that? If its central (if irrationally, in my mind) to their pursuit of contentment and isn’t obstructing mine, what the hell do I care?

        “You wrote” The continual practice of injecting religion in public space has given rise to precedence, and then assumption.” I’m not sure I agree. I would sooner say the precedents and assumptions where there all along and unprovoked (not to be read as ‘unjustifiable’) assaults on them (gay marriage, abortion) is what gave rise to most of the conflicts. A pissing contest over a Nativity set is just a symptom of what you might describe as a collision of ideologies. The contest however, serves to inflame it, not tame it.

        This doesn’t go away until no one wants to tell someone else what they can or cannot think, feel, or express.

      • Nemisis

        If a non-believer were to demand that a Nativity Scene be taken from a church, I would disagree with the non-believer. I also agree that when we all agree with “to each their own” then the contest is neither won or lost but simply over.

        However, the non-contest of the past in relation to religious bias injection has created the very problem we speak of. The “slippery-slope”, if you will.

    • What if the Nativity scene was some ‘other’ scene from a different religion?

      • Jim Bean

        I’d still want to punch in the nose any silly-ass jerk who wanted to make an issue of it (provided the symbol wasn’t promoting harm to others.)

      • Oh no! We agree on something!!! 🙂

      • Jim Bean

        We agree on most things but you joined a cult that prohibits you from admitting it. (After decades of these interactions, I still refuse to accept that Liberals actually believe any of the preposterous arguments they make. I think they know they’re preposterous but think the people they’re trying to sell them to are too stupid to know any different.)

      • And, what ‘cult’ would that be?

  • Pipercat

    With all of these split hairs, one question remains unanswered: Is it ethical to impose one’s moral values upon another?

    • Hail Eris!

      Depends on whether one is making an establishment of religion, or not, I suppose. But usually, one is attempting such, with imposed morality; in which case, it’s unethical.

      Snarky
      Monsieur La Padite, to both your family and your cows, I say, bravo.

      • Pipercat

        Big picture stuff is my focus. I’ve been remiss as of late to visit you over at Zuck’s joint. Life and all being unethical, as it were..

  • The Reader

    Scalia has never been able to project beyond his ears, his forehead and the nape of his neck. His tunnel vision related to his own life experiences renders him useless and dangerous to our representation on the Supreme court. I have to wonder how many poor people he counts as friends.

  • forpeace

    More like a Injustice Antonin Scalia is talking about is not the U.S. Constitution, it is the the Koch Brother’s money he is talking about.

    A Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believes “Constitution allows religion to be favored over secularism,” meaning he does NOT even believe in “Separation of Church and State” is talking about U.S. Constitution.

    That is a Jesus moment.

  • Nemisis

    In a narrow sense the constitution does not prohibit the judicial branch from ruling in favor of religion over that of non-religion.
    The judiciary is charged with interpreting the laws that the legislative creates.
    However the rule of law should be applied in the decisions they make.
    To do otherwise is contrary to the instruction of the Constitution regarding law. The supreme court should not extend courtesy to any group that elevates their position above that of another.

    In light of Scalia’s public speeches, he is establishing that he would rule with religion in a favorable light to that of non-religion. Establishing a bias.

    That is judicial bias and that is grounds for impeachment. (ref: Samuel Chase)

    I am interested in contrasting opinions on this.

    • Sandy Greer

      >In light of Scalia’s public speeches, he is establishing that he would rule with religion in a favorable light to that of non-religion. Establishing a bias.

      I believe it possible a man may lean one way or the other, politically – but judge on the law, and precedent. Not to allow for that possibility seems to imply we think he cannot rise above base instincts, be fair, and do The Right Thing. Without knowing a man personally – I am loathe to take such a position – and must give benefit of doubt.

      I cannot condemn a person for what they might do in future. Even if I suspect bias. Impeachment prior to a ruling is like a sentence prior to the crime.

      Just my (contrasting) opinion, of course, FWIW 😉

      • Nemisis

        I would urge that we wait as well.
        Though, he has already ruled twice in favor of a single person’s (company) religious views over that of a collective, that company’s employee’s religious views.
        That ruling triggered another case that was not yet in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS and he ruled in favor of another religious institution. That ruling established that a religious institution’s religious freedom was being harmed simply by stating that they object on paperwork that allowed them to exercise their exclusion established by the former ruling.
        The complaint was; Because they objected to providing “birth control” to women, then by simply filing a paper they would create a proxy by which someone else would be allowed to provide “birth control” to women in their stead.
        In simple terms, they don’t want anyone to provide “birth control” because it violates their religious beliefs.
        Even if they have no direct action in doing so.

        That is disturbing it itself. It is not unheard of for SCOTUS to preempt jurisdiction, however it is extremely rare.

        The case I reference is Wheaton College v. SYLVIA BURWELL.

        (Read Justice Sotamayor’s dissention on Wheaton.)

        Those two cases alone would not be enough to establish bias. If you factor in his recent speeches. Then there is an alarming pattern of evidence with statements of continued intent of bias. I am not waiving the flag for impeachment.
        I am predicting that this will lead to an inevitable resolution.

  • I1dirY

    I must have missed that caveat in the equal protection clause.

  • Steve Brains

    Rampant nonsense will ALWAYS be rampant nonsense.

    Scalia deserves prison for corrupting the Constitution on Partisan terms, which his oath forbids. Treason is a NASTY NASTY criminal act.