2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + +
→[[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia's]] Dissent
== [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia's]] Dissent ==
== [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia's]] Dissent ==
Justice Scalia filed a scathing dissent in this case. He argued that if morality is no longer sufficient justification for regulation, then ''Lawrence'' contains the dicta that "ate the rule of law." He further argued that the Court's willingness to overrule ''Bowers'' is hypocritical, considering that the doctrine of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' is (in his mind) significantly more flawed and less workable, blasting the Court for being unfaithful to its litmus test for overturning bad law as iterated in the the ''stare decisis'' & reliance-based holding of ''Casey v. Planned Parenthood.''<ref>''Casey v. Planned Parenthood'', 505 U.S. 833, opinion of the Court, section III.</ref> Scalia ended by criticizing the Court for selling out to the "homosexual agenda."
Justice Scalia filed a scathing dissent in this case. He argued that if morality is no longer sufficient justification for regulation, then ''Lawrence'' contains the dicta that "ate the rule of law." He further argued that the Court's willingness to overrule ''Bowers'' is hypocritical, considering that the doctrine of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' is (in his mind) significantly more flawed and less workable, blasting the Court for being unfaithful to its litmus test for overturning bad law as iterated in the the ''stare decisis'' & reliance-based holding of ''Casey v. Planned Parenthood.''<ref>''Casey v. Planned Parenthood'', 505 U.S. 833, opinion of the Court, section III.</ref> Scalia ended by criticizing the Court for selling out to the "homosexual agenda."
Scalia also argued that, despite Justice Kennedy's promises, the case clearly opens the door for the constitutional legalization of gay marriage.
== References ==
== References ==
<references/>
<references/>