xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)


Justice Scalia’s EXCELLENT Dissenting Opinion Specifies 37 LIES from the US Supreme Court

 Opinion| Survey: Lies or Opinions?| Justice Ginzberg's Background| Syllabus| UVa Speech| Biography| Ginzberg & Gays| Picture| VMI Forum| Dissenting Opinion| Excerpts from Dissenting Opinion| Guestbook| Phyllis Schaffley on VMI

The following excerpts from Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion illustrate how far off the deep end Justice Ginzberg’s “opinion” really is.  Can you see the distinction between what Justice Scalia considers to be“opinions” and what he considers to be “lies”?

1) “We have no established criterion for ‘intermediate scrutiny’ either, but essentially apply it when it seems like a good idea to load the dice”

2) “the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.”

3) “reversion to single sex education is prohibited nationwide, not by democratic processes but by order of this Court.”

4) “This is not the interpretation of a Constitution, but the creation of one”

5) The “Government” [stated] “unequivocally that the appropriate standard in this case is `intermediate scrutiny”, but for VMI only this Court used “strict scrutiny [as] the correct constitutional standard for evaluating classifications that deny opportunities to individuals based on their sex”

6) “Only the amorphous "exceedingly persuasive justification" phrase, and not the standard elaboration of intermediate scrutiny, can be made to yield this conclusion that
VMI's single sex composition is unconstitutional”

7)  “the statements are misleading” and “the statements are irresponsible”

8)  “The Court's intimations are particularly out of place”

9)  “It is hard to consider women a "discrete and insular minorit[y]" unable to employ the "political processes ordinarily to be relied upon," when they constitute a majority of the electorate”

10) “single gender education at the college level is beneficial to both sexes is a fact established in this case” and “that fact was overwhelming--indeed, ‘virtually uncontradicted’ in the words of the court that received the evidence” re: Ginzberg’s false statement.

11)  “There can be no serious dispute”

12)  “it relies on a series of contentions that are irrelevant or erroneous as a matter of law”

13) “the Court's most fundamental error”

14)  “is without antecedent in our sex discrimination cases and by itself discredits the Court's decision”

15) “utterly refute the claim that VMI has elected to maintain its all male student body composition for some misogynistic reason”

16) “That is wrong on numerous grounds”

17)  “This is an unheard of doctrine”

18)  “It is, moreover, not true”

19)  “the plain fact, which the Court does not deny, is that it was”

20)  “If it were impossible for individual human beings (or groups of human beings) to act autonomously in effective pursuit of a common goal, the game of soccer would not exist”

21)  “How remarkable to criticize the District Court on the ground that its findings rest on the evidence”

22)  “has rendered the trial a sham”

23)  “This is law making by indirection”

24)  “that mission is not ‘great enough to accommodate women’."

25)  “the Court would certainly be on the losing side”

26)  “The point  ... is a strawman; no one has made any such claim”

27)  “is simply false”

28)  “is either false or else sets a standard much higher than VMI had to meet”

29)   “is irrelevant”

30)  “the Court simply declares, with no basis in the evidence”

31)  “is rather like making crucial to the lawfulness of the United States Army record "evidence" that its purpose is to do battle”

32)  “That is simply wrong”

33)  “Any lawyer who gave that advice to the Commonwealth ought to have been either disbarred or committed”

34)  “This is a great puzzlement.”

35)  “ Supreme Court of the United States does not sit to announce "unique" dispositions”

36)  “that assurance assures nothing, unless it is to be taken as a promise that in the future the Court will disclaim the reasoning it has used today to destroy VMI”

37)  “did not the Court today abandon the principles of law it has applied in our earlier sex classification cases?” THE 24 LIES