While my plans for law school are on the back burner, for an undetermined length of time, I still read the “blawgs” that are listed on the sidebar. This past week I’ve noticed one or two taking exception to a question asked of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down state sodomy laws. The question?
“Do you sodomize your wife?”
The responses?
I hope, looking around my law school, that no one here is tacky enough to use an award ceremony as an opportunity to query a Supreme Court justice about his intimate relations with his wife.
And
What’s actually sickening, of course, is the fact that people think they ought to silence a speaker at a university. And before anyone jumps on my (or Scalia’s) prudishness, it’s not that I think there’s anything particularly horrible about “sodomy”. But there is a way to conduct yourself when disagreeing with anyone, especially when you’re entrusted with some of the precious time allotted to question an important public figure. Scalia’s not a child – he can handle even very strong disagreement. But the actions of these students were both anti-democratic in a fundamental sense, and counterproductive. Whoever organized these protests ought to be rewarded by having their group summarily abandoned by all right-thinking partisans.
Me? Well, what do I know? I’m neither lawyer nor law student, though I am gratified to know that at the very least my husband and I can travel the country with out worrying about committing a felony by doing what straight people do every day (and many who say they don’t are lying) without fear of legal recourse. The student has stepped forward to defend himself, quite eloquently if you ask me.
Maybe “there is a way to conduct yourself when disagreeing with anyone.” From my perspective, that would have been to afford Scalia as much dignity and respect as he—based on his arguments and opinions—affords Americans like myself. As much, but certainly not more. I guess that’s why I lean more towards Jaye’s response.
Think about this for a moment. Why is the question unworthy of an answer? Justice Scalia wants this student to answer in a court of law for his behavior. Courts are public forums. So are speeches. Justice Scalia would have people arrested for engaging in sodomy and assuming that we haven’t gutted the Constitution entirely these arrestees would be read their rights before being ask if they actually committed sodomy. The state would have to prove that they did and the accused sodomite wouldn’t have to answer that question under the 5th Amendment.
…The question is a good one and with in the young man’s rights to political speech. But it really isn’t worthy of an answer. And while it isn’t a very polite question, asking it is important, but not having to answer it is more important. [emphasis added]
Exactly. And Scalia would have had me and other gay & lesbian Americans answer. Why shouldn’t he have to take a little of what he was so willing to dish out to us?
T, come on.
First, please point me to the bit in Scalia’s jurisprudence that actually says that sodomy laws should be passed and enforced. There is a big difference between saying a law is within the power of Congress and saying that a law is a good idea.
Secondly, do you honestly hold that it is appropriate for anyone to do to you what a public prosecutor would be authorized to do to you? I can’t actually believe you’d uphold that standard of behavior for your own dinner guests.
Even if one supposes that Scalia does think that sodomy laws are a good idea, in order for you to be put in front of a court, you’d have to get enough proof for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, and if you didn’t, you’d face ethical and possibly criminal penalties for bringing a frivolous charge. So, frankly, if you’re willing to see Mr. Berndt face such penalties for his behavior, then your analogy stands, but otherwise it’s just excusing boorish behavior.