http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-fish/scalia-gets-it-pretty-muc_b_7880118.html

Comment

"A lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, a lot of slippery slope and not a word about equal rights--and this from a law professor."

"What nonsense. The ruling was about contract law and Scilica based his decent on this faith. America is not a church state but a country of laws. He can always move to Iran."

"It is both startling and rather sad to hear a scholar as distinguished as Stanley Fish lower himself to take Scalia's latest jiggery-doodly verbal bubbly humbuggery as anything but the puerile partisan posturing it actually (and transparently) is. I would readily wager an extravagantly large sum that the Supreme Court will never, in my lifetime, follow this tortured line of so-called "reasoning" to legalize polygamy. I recommend to Dr. Fish that, in reviewing Scalia's bizarre rhetoric, he review what George Orwell said about "a cuttlefish squirting its ink." In this instance, it seems, the Fish has been disoriented by the Cuttlefish."

"What the hell? At one point under the Constitution, it was legal for Chritians (and everyone else) to descriminate against slaves. At one point it was legal to descriminate against women (not allowed to vote). At one point it was legal to descriminate against mixed race couples. Yet, during that time, the wording of the Constitution never changed."

"Your entire argument is based in -and thusly nullified by- religion. Our laws are not meant to be Christian sharia, and Christians don't get to tell us all to live to their god's moral code. So take your wordy opinion and shove it up your ass."

"ll this sophistry fails to justify ignorance or to nullify the phrase in the Declaration of Independence about Americans being 'equal under the law.' Nice try."

"Why should polygamy be next? Allowing the LGBT community to marry has absolutely nothing to do with allowing different 'types' of marriages to be legal. It has everything to do with RIGHTS... And from a legal perspective, it would be an absolute chaotic nightmare. If every individual were free to have as many marriages with others as they desired, it would radically alter many of our existing legal structures based upon the family unit (taxes, property, etc)."

"Out of curiosity Prof. Fish, have you considered getting yourself tested for some kind of mental disease? You ignored the actual basis for the decision - the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment - to concentrate on the dicta about morality, norms, and justifying arguments for the "compelling" reason a state would need to deny to one person what it is granting to another. Polygamy is not even in the same universe as LGBT. Let me give you a general rule: When you start agreeing with the most bigoted, vicious, and grossly offensive reasoner in the court's history (and they've had some biggies) in the form of Justice (Not!) Scalia, you are wrong."

"This is the most transparent attempt to rationalize discrimination that I have read in a long time. I am upset that I even bothered to read it to the end. Casual discrimination is the worst. You get to rationalize denying people rights and maintain the pretense of being a good citizen. Scalia being "right" should have warned me off, so I only have myself to blame."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2951755&forum_id=2#28460580)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7898486

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2951755&forum_id=2#28460837)