Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...
posted at 12/11/2012 12:35 PM EST
"Scalia's cogent point refuting the foolish progressive argument that you cant "legislate morality""
Did you even read what he said? He was arguing in support of morals-based laws against sodomy. But his "argument" simply took the form of "if we can't have moral feelings about X, then how can we have moral feelings against anything"?
For Scalia, X = "sodomy".
The argument is crap insofar as he offers it in support of something particular (sodomy) because X can be anything and the argument would make the overall same point: ownership of black cats, public nosepicking, etc.
I'm not sure what the point of your rants about "liberals" and "progressives" was.
"Morals and morality and the law cannot be separated."
Of course they can. Laws against theft, murder, and the like can be justified simply by the negative pragmatic effects on society that would result if theft and murder weren't crimes.
They aren't simply because notions of morality seem ingrained in all humans, even if the particular moral schemes vary.
Again, not an argument in support of anti-sodomy laws (nevermind there is little point in defending a law that was ruled unconstitutional back in Lawrence v. Texas; but hey, he said it).
"That is a correct statement."
A number of other justices disagreed with him.
Nevermind that if you have newly discovered evidence that shows you are innocent you can (1) get a new trial, (2) whereupon you might even get a directed verdict of acquittal by the judge depending on how strong the evidence is.
So, yes, it is unconstitutional to punish an actually innocent person.