A note to a few special snowflakes on the pro gay marriage side: Grow the fuck up!

I used to have a note on my bench. I wrote it in my childish handwriting, It said something like: “Rich, shut the fuck up!” I removed the note when I realized I would never follow the injunction.

That brings me to the oral argument in the gay marriage case. Some guy, who probably speaks to himself in tongues most of the time, disrupted the arguments and got his ass hauled out of the courtroom. Before his exit, the guy screamed, “If you support gay marriage, you will burn in hell!* It’s an abomination!”

Chief Justice John Roberts took a brief timeout before calling on the next attorney. In turn, Justice Scalia quipped, “’It was rather refreshing, actually,’ he said. His tone sounded jovial, and laughter could be heard in the courtroom.'” Bob Egelko, Scalia’s quip about gay-marriage protester stirs bias debateSan Francisco Chronicle (May 2, 2015).

Now a few special snowflakes supporting gay marriage have asserted that Scalia’s remark was biased and improper. Id. For example, a law professor on legal ethics was upset and solemnly proclaimed:

It was “a gratuitous comment that could be heard to legitimize an offensive outburst,” said Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor who teaches legal ethics. While judges often reveal their viewpoints when questioning lawyers, she said, a remark like Scalia’s tends to “diminish popular perceptions of the justices as disinterested neutral observers.”

Id.

On the other hand, a non-snowflake supporter of gay marriage gave this adult response to Scalia’s critics:

 One gay-rights advocate in a forgiving mode is Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry and an early organizer for equal-marriage rights. Wolfson, who was in the courtroom Tuesday, said he’s willing to give Scalia “the benefit of the doubt, that it was a joke, in the moment, about the tension in the room.”

More important, he said, was the message that the protest itself should send to the court.

“I think this was a real vivid piece of evidence about why gay people should not have to put their rights up to a vote,” Wolfson said. “Not that everyone’s a hater, but that there is hatred out there.”

Id.

For those few special snowflakes in the gay marriage movement who believe they are unique, that we should watch our words around them to avoid triggering unpleasant feelings, who love being victims and who see the bogey man at every turn, please, please “grow the fuck up!” At least to me, you have become tiresome.

299348775170772191_1363822843

RGK

*I came to grips long ago with the certainty that I would burn in hell. I plan on taking an air conditioner, a straw hat and a Hawaiian shirt, a plush recliner and a boatload of margaritas.

H/T How Appealing.

14 responses

  1. You are surely right. We all see the world revolving around U.S., and we over-think matters that are important to us. So, we all need to tell ourselves to lighten up. We should tell ourselves that daily. Maybe more often.

    As for the afterlife, I decided to go to Hell some years ago, when I realized that spending eternity with all those people wno are sure they’re going to Heaven would be, well, hellish. So I guess we’ll get to see each other there. I’ll keep an eye out for you.

  2. “So I guess we’ll get to see each other there.”

    As Shakespeare has Henry V say, “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.”

  3. “diminish popular perceptions of the justices as disinterested neutral observers.” Someone has a very feeble grip on reality.

  4. I can think of a lot of better things for legal ethics scholars to spend their time pontificating about than Justice Scalia’s sense of humor — say for example the widespread practice of attorneys trying to paper a case to death (i.e. filing frivolous motions, discovery requests designed to make the other side spend money responding rather than to actually gain information, etc.)

  5. I think Rhode has a point, Scalia goes out of his way to provoke those who disagree with him in a way that makes what may have been a clever wise crack seem offensive, on the other hand I do not think that anyone really did not know which side Scalia was on. Trouble is that Scalia like other graduates of a Jesuit high school was never told nobody loves a smart ass because the Jebbies do. Mea culpa.

  6. Judge:
    Heaven? Hell? Listen up: if theres’ no “Hercules and the Umpire” in the afterlife then I’M NOT GOING.
    RT

  7. Robert,

    I will continue to write from down there, but the blog will be renamed “Hercules and the Umpire plus the Devil.” Thanks for your kind remarks.

    All the best.

    RGK

  8. Shouldn’t the guy who disrupted the argument be charged with a crime or with contempt?

  9. If he hasn’t been already, he almost certainly will be. Title 40, Section 6134 of the US Code makes it a crime to “discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.”

  10. It’s a crime to make a harangue or oration in the courtroom? How many lawyers have been charged?

  11. And how many Supreme Court Justices? one might also fairly ask.

    Of course, I just quoted the statute. I didn’t said it was fairly or honestly applied.

    And when I was in the Supreme Court recently I just sat at counsel table trying not to do anything to draw the Justices’ attention – I wasn’t the one haranguing.

  12. A couple days ago, I saw an interesting headline on one of the big legal news/gossip sites that declaimed a “tasteless joke” Justice Scalia made during the same sex marriage arguments. “Ooooh,” I said to myself, “this should be good for some righteous liberal indignation.” I mean, on my part. I’m a liberal and a feminist, and I’m always up for some righteous indignation. It’s better than coffee in the mornings.

    Imagine my disappointment when I read what actually happened. It read like a joke either about breaking the tension or about the contrast of the protestor’s, um, plain language with the high-falutin’ legal arguments the Court had been hearing. It didn’t come across like an endorsement of the fellow’s message. But then, I wasn’t there, so it’s hard to judge.

    I think Mr. Wolfson makes a good point, and I think the speaker did much more harm than good to his cause. “Great,” Justice Scalia may have thought, “now anyone who votes against same sex marriage will be lumped in with this lunatic.”

    Anyway, what a letdown that joke was! I expected something a lot juicier, especially from Scalia.

%d bloggers like this: