{"id":186074,"date":"2014-05-20T18:06:00","date_gmt":"2014-05-20T23:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2014\/05\/20\/fabulous-8\/"},"modified":"2014-05-20T18:06:00","modified_gmt":"2014-05-20T23:06:00","slug":"fabulous-8","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2014\/05\/20\/fabulous-8\/","title":{"rendered":"Fabulous!!!!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Not only did a federal judge overturn Pennsylvania&#8217;s gay marriage ban, but he <a href=\"http:\/\/talkingpointsmemo.com\/dc\/judge-cites-scalia-pennsylvania-gay-marriage\">cited Antonin Scalia in his opinion<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">Upon <a href=\"http:\/\/talkingpointsmemo.com\/news\/pennsylvania-gay-marriage-ban-overturned\">striking down<\/a>  Pennsylvania&#8217;s gay marriage ban Tuesday, a federal judge cited Justice  Antonin Scalia&#8217;s &#8220;cogen[t]&#8221; argument that the Supreme Court had  essentially paved the way for nationwide marriage equality last year.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\">Here&#8217;s the relevant passage from George W. Bush-appointed Judge John E. Jones III in his 39-page opinion:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">As Justice Scalia cogently remarked in his dissent,  \u201cif [Windsor] is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a  confusing one.\u201d Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2706 (Scalia, J., dissenting).  Although Windsor did not identify the appropriate level of scrutiny, its  discussion is manifestly not representative of deferential review. See  id. (Scalia, J., dissenting) (observing that \u201cthe Court certainly does  not apply anything that resembles [the rational-basis] framework\u201d  (emphasis omitted)). The Court did not evaluate hypothetical  justifications for the law but rather focused on the harm resulting from  DOMA, which is inharmonious with deferential review.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue;\">It was a reference to Scalia&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/talkingpointsmemo.com\/dc\/scalia-rages-against-supreme-court-s-gay-rights-ruling\">scathing dissent<\/a>  against the Court&#8217;s 5-4 opinion that struck down a portion of the  Defense of Marriage Act which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex  marriages. The Reagan-appointed justice warned that the majority  decision &#8212; despite officially staying neutral on whether gay marriage  was a Constitutional right &#8212; relied upon reasoning that would lead to  that conclusion.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I will note that referencing a <b>minority<\/b> opinion does not seem to me to be a common thing, (Note however, that I an engineer, not a lawyer, dammit<sup>*<\/sup>) but this is the 2<sup>nd<\/sup> or 3<sup>rd<\/sup> time that a judge has cited Scalia in making a decision invalidating a gay marriage ban.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m beginning to think that the Federal Judiciary is conspiring to offer a <b>very<\/b> well deserved f%$# you to Fat Tony Scalia.<\/p>\n<p><sup>*<\/sup><span style=\"font-size: xx-small;\">I <b><span style=\"font-variant: small-caps;\">love<\/span><\/b> it when I get to go all Dr. McCoy!!!<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Not only did a federal judge overturn Pennsylvania&#8217;s gay marriage ban, but he cited Antonin Scalia in his opinion: Upon striking down Pennsylvania&#8217;s gay marriage ban Tuesday, a federal judge cited Justice Antonin Scalia&#8217;s &#8220;cogen[t]&#8221; argument that the Supreme Court had essentially paved the way for nationwide marriage equality last year.Here&#8217;s the relevant passage from &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[971,972,1030,1019],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil-rights","category-justice","category-lgbtq","category-schadenfreude"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186074"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}