Justice Antonin Scalia spoke on Thursday at his granddaughter’s graduation from a Catholic high school in Bethesda, Maryland. During the speech, however, the sitting Supreme Court justice offered a subtle nod to young earth creationism, the belief that that the earth was created by God and is only several thousand years-old.
“Class of 2015, you should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented,” Scalia said, adding that “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.”
Humanity began to develop much more than 5,000 years ago. Early human ancestors began to diverge from the chimpanzee lineage about six million years ago. The first members of the species Homo sapiens are believed to have lived in Africa about 100,000 years ago, and cave paintings and other evidence of human culture exist that are believed to have been created 50,000 years ago.
Young earth creationists generally believe that God created the earth within the last 10,000 years. This is a fringe view, however, within Scalia’s Catholic faith. In 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote in a letter to bishops that the Catholic church “does not forbid” research or discussions regarding “the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” More recently, in 1996, Pope John Paul II wrote a similar letter to bishops saying that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.”
Remember this idiot is not simply a judge in traffic court, he is a justice on the freaking Supreme Court!
And let me remind everybody that if a Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, or Mike Huckabee wins the presidency in 2016 that he will be joined, or replaced, by others just as ignorant and backward thinking as he is.
He's just really stupid. I don't think he can make a decision without having a Koch brother whispering in his ear. The other Koch brother whispers in Clarence Thomas' ear at the same time.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
Beaglemom
I think it's more like one of the Koch brothers whispers into Scalia's ear and Clarence Thomas gets the information Human-Centipede-style.
DeleteAnd who would have controlled George W. Bush's little friend?
DeleteHarriet Miers Supreme Court nomination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination
More Opus Dei party line bullshit from Scalia.
DeleteOpus Dei. Google Opus Dei controversies, Opus Dei abuse,
or go to Opus Dei Awareness Network http://www.odan.org/
I honestly think dementia is setting in, Alzheimers.
DeleteUnbelievable!
ReplyDeleteBelievable when you consider who put him on that bench.
DeleteIt just seems like there should be some way to legally remove an incompetent, ignorant, justice from the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteLike a subordinate relieving a captain of duty due to incompetence, dementia, etc. Justified mutiny. Is America getting to the point of revolution yet....
DeleteThere is no rule that says there can only be 9 justices. In the past there were times when there were many more than 9. Maybe we need a couple more left leaning justices to outweigh the idiots on the court.
DeleteIt takes an act of Congress to change the size of the Supreme Court.
DeleteEmbarrassing as hell.
ReplyDeleteOh, there is a very wealthy, very conservative faction in the Catholic Church. And according to them, very persecuted (of course.) Scalia is a big hero to this bunch.
ReplyDeleteCheck out www.remnantnewspaper.com if you want to be informed, horrified, and disgusted.
This Dad’s Hilarious Response To Public School’s Religious Indoctrination Is A Must Read (IMAGES)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/06/this-dads-hilarious-response-to-public-schools-religious-indoctrination-is-a-must-read-images/
I am ashamed of the ignorance on public display and in public power in our country.
ReplyDeleteTHank GWB and Gingrich.
DeleteBlame Bonzo the Chimp's co-star!
DeleteDon't worry. Scalia refers only to the 5000 years which has personally experienced . . .
ReplyDeleteWell, what existed 100,000 wasn't human. I imagine he was only referring to the human history of which we derive most of our culture, which wasn't 50,000 years ago, but more like 5,000.
ReplyDeleteCave paintings date back to around 40,000 years ago arrowheads to around 64,000 years ago.
DeleteWere those not signs of humanity?
While I expect marriage equality to be the law of the land at the end of this Court session, it will be absolutely fascinating to read any written dissent. Who will author it, how ignorant will it sound, and how much will it lean into religiosity and away from deliberative, sober jurisprudence...?
ReplyDeleteHaving READ the Bible (most "Christians" haven't - really - just ask them) I know that Adam and Eve weren't the first human beings...
ReplyDeleteEve had two sons; Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and moved to the land of Nod where he married a woman.
No - Adam and Eve weren't the first humans
...they were the first Jews.
The Bible tells me so.
(No kidding - go read Genesis and tell me I'm wrong)
I've been an atheist for many years,but I went to Catholic high school myself in the mid to late 60's. We were taught EVOLUTION back then, and that the definition of "7 days" did not necessarily mean 7 24-hour days, it could be interpreted to mean however it fit into the latest science.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have zero use for the Catholic church and feel it is one of the most destructive forces on earth, when I attended high school, politics were left at the door. I'd love to know what the nuns who taught me science would say about Scalia.
I was taught the same about the seven days in second grade, in 1948, in a Catholic elementary school in the South Bronx.
DeleteI'm no fan of Scalia, but what he said was so vague I could charitably say that he was speaking of recorded human history, which does go back only five thousand years.
ReplyDeleteWell, I can't say it surprised me. He's in the same league as Santorum, Opus Dei Catholic. So was Psychic Sylvia Brown, so the bar's pretty low. He's very careful not to fall off the edge of the earth when he goes out. And he wears suspenders AND a belt in case one fails. He may be on the Supreme Court but he's dead wrong on this issue. Carbon Dating anyone? Fossils?
ReplyDeleteScalia.... Supreme Court Justice. Important guy.
ReplyDeleteImers... bunch of nobodies pretending to be smart important sombodies.
Scalia author of thoughtfull short on Ginsburg:
http://time.com/3823889/ruth-bader-ginsburg-2015-time-100/
Ginsburg praises Scalia for pro 4th Ammendment stance:
http://www.businessinsider.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-praises-antonin-scalia-2014-5
an excerpt:
"There are other recent examples where Scalia has demonstrated pro-Fourth Amendment opinions, as the Los Angeles Times has reported. That includes Scalia’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion that permits police to use anonymous tips to stop cars on highways. And in 2013, he fiercely dissented to the Court’s ruling that police can routinely swab for DNA from arrested people."
Do you all remember the famous case of eminent domain about ten years ago, where a town (New London) was using eminent domain in order to utilize land for private development (for pfizer)? The dissenting justices were outraged noting that it was similar to a reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor to give to the rich and politically connected.
from wiki:
""During arguments, several of the Justices asked questions that forecast their ultimate positions on the case. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use," asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power." ""
In the end... Pzizer and the developer abandoned the project, and the area is now vacant.
Other organization that filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs:
Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners.[6] Susette Kelo's (plaintiff) supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.
Scalia was on their side.