Word. Great news. Although I found it troubling that Scalia said the following: "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three, according to the AP. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

As with many other areas of social justice, it’s important to note that what is good for one segment of humanity is likely good for others. I can’t comment on the scope of this ruling, but the AP story notes that
“Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four - Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri - prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.” (emphasis added)

If you can say that homosexual behavior is deviant, you can also say that straight couples who do the deed in anything but the missionary position are also. The reverse issue got discussed back in the Santorum thread.

The conclusion to Scalia's dissent (which purports to be an even-handed reading of the Court's momentary insanity) is an extraordinarily dark and cynical moment in American history. In that dissent, in my opinion, you can see both the real contempt that he has for the judicial system (except when it functions to uphold the specific vein of "moral opprobrium" to which he is clearly loyal) and the ease and comfort with which he exercises his hypocrisy. I wouldn't think of going toe to toe with the lawyers on this board, but to me it is the dictionary.com definition of the term "brazen dissembling" when Scalia -- the man who knew better than the State of Florida -- writes, "But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best. "

At his best, Scalia is indeed an even-handed and intelligent (perhaps even brilliant) legal scholar. At his worst, he is a pedantic bully.

Sadly, he seems to be at his worst when defending conservative political values (I'm sorry, but I just don't see him as non-partisan).

Colin: I'm not sure if I'd go as far as to say he has contempt for the legal system, but you are sure right about the hypocrisy thing. The great thing about Scalia is, you don't need to have any great legal skills or background to see how he wears his heart on his sleeve (and rants with fury when his side loses).

The most troubling thing about Scalia is his age. Thomas is even worse. Pray for a Democratic President in 2004, because another couple of them, and we are in for a very, very long dark period of Constitutional law . . .