My problem with Scalia (and I admit I'm no Scalia study scholar) is he seems to fit the determination of rationality with a personal desired result, so he can decide to use a modern/current rational perspective or whatever era - he can pick and choose. After all, at one time it was "rational" to believe the Sun orbited the Earth. At one time it was "rational" to believe in the intrinsic inferiority of the female of the species. At one time it was "rational" to believe children grew up just fine despite the demands of factory jobs.So what (or when) is his POV on same sex marriage and the rights of same sex couples?I have no idea on what his POV is on the substance of either of those. It's clear that he does not believe that the Constitution prohibits laws barring same-sex sodomy (which was presented in Lawrence), and his comments suggest that he shares O'Connor's view that ss marriage is similarly not required to comply with the Constitution - but that latter issue has not yet come before the court.Rational is not applied in that context, BTW, in rational relation review. The Court does not engage in determining whether belief in a fact or policy is rational or not - a law allowing, or even requiring, childred to work in factory jobs would pass the rational relationship test even today.Albaby
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat