'Do you sodomize your wife?'
 

April 14, 2005 -- WHEN U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (above) spoke Tuesday night at NYU's Vanderbilt Hall, "The room was packed with some 300 students and there were many protesters outside because of Scalia's vitriolic dissent last year in the case that overturned the Texas law against gay sex," our source reports. "One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy. Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia [Maureen] was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/44524.htm


very funny :)

That's awesome. I bet when they got home his wife was all hopeful and then he told her that it says nothing about sodomy in the Constitution.

I don't know if I did something wrong in trying to pull up the article, but it didn't come up in its entirety. I wanted to know what his answer to this question was.

I'll be having dinner with him (along with many other people) next semester, so maybe someone will ask then.

The attorney who represented Lawrence in the Lawrence v. Texas case spoke at my law school a couple months ago. I don't see how Texas rationalized ruling in favor of the sodomy law in light of the Constitution. Anyway, I'm curious to see what he said in response.

Yet another student that lacks intelligence and manners?

-Rudey

Being it's Scalia, there's not really much doubt what his answer will be.

I have to give him credit, his dissent in the Texas sodomy case was one of the most entertaining thing i've read while in law school. I'm pretty sure that decision was handed down my first year, and we discussed it in Con Law class. But his reasoning was so hysterical.

I probably would've peed myself laughing when the kid asked that. Inappropriate in some ways b/c it was so personal, but yet so so funny.

His dissents are usually quite entertaining.

I will say, his opinions and dissents are also usually quite consistent -- and he takes great joy in pointing out how the decisions of other justices are inconsistent with their earlier decisions or how even the parties or amici curiae take inconsistent positions. He skewered the American Psychology Association in the death penality for defendants under 18 case for saying minors aren't capable of understanding the implications of their actions when they kill someone, pointing out that just 10 years ago, in a parental consent for abortion case, the APA said that minors are quite capable of making these decisions for themselves and understanding the implications.

Love him or hate him, he's always consistent.

Dani, are you still in law school or out practicing now?

It's just a one paragraph article. The last sentence was:

The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer.

I graduate at the end of May :) Thank God i'm just about done!

Congratulations, and good luck. Remember my old motto for third year of law school: D mean Diploma. ;)

Do you know what comes next?

lol, that's a great motto. And why i'm not stressing TOO Much over finals.

Not sure what comes next yet, job market around here sucks so hopefully something will turn up. Blah. Until then, resumes and covery letters are my life!

I can only dream that Antonin will visit wherever I end up so I can sit there and giggle and think of this.

<--- would love to see Scalia and GP locked in a room together

What did I ever do to you? :(

I just like cheap entertainment ;) that would be hilarious to see