I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad-redeemer (your Divine Democrat your Hebrew Madman) and write over his thorn-torn brow, The true prince of Evil the king of the Slaves!
- Ragnar Redbeard, Might Is Right, 1890
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
If morality should never be considered in law, why do we have "war crimes"? Why would excessive collateral damage be punished? I'm sure Lt. Calley would be delighted to hear he's no longer holding the bag.
So this is not a good example.
Generally, our jurisprudence involves protecting society and its members. Attendant to that, we may have moral feelings relating to a law. Thus we criminalize child molestation because it both harms children AND it is morally repugnant. We don't ban Britney Spears albums, even thought they are arguable morally repugnant, because nobody is harmed by here dubious music.
Laws that simply discriminate against people because we don't like them are generally ruled unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Thus Scalia invidious comparison between moral feelings about murder and moral feelings about gays shows what an intellectual shill he is. He's just doing the bidding of the Right.
That's a hot mess of a legal argument that shows an inferior intellect at work. It's better suited to a Fox News show than the Supreme court.
and I would bet there is no one on this board with the intellectual gifts of Justice Scalia. Many legal scholars believe he is the most gifted justice to ever sit on the court. Only Roberts and Alito can match his academic record.