Justice Scalia apparently doesn't like people suing for separation of church and state.

[Archae]

Considering he's a theocratic "Catholic," I'm not surprised.

Responding to questions following a lecture on Christian virtue and economics, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the standing to sue the government for violating the separation of church and state without having one’s free exercise rights violated represents “the greatest miscarriage of constitutional justice” from the court during his tenure. Scalia was speaking at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston on Friday.

The Houston Chronicle has a transcript of the exchange.

Q: What is the greatest miscarriage of constitutional justice during your tenure?

A: “Oh, there are many candidates. … The most disreputable area of our law is the establishment clause. (Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.) … A violation of the establishment clause that does not affect someone’s free exercise – there is no reason why you should have standing.

http://bjcmobile.org/scalia-church-state-standing-is-the-greatest-miscarriage-of-constitutional-justice/

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Scalia is merely a pompous, arrogant fraud.

Bush v Gore will hang as a millstone of shame around his neck for eternity.

[Archae]

3. I doubt it.

Without looking it up, can you name the SC justice who ruled against Dred Scott?

Who ruled for school segregation? (Before Brown vs Board of Education)

[Pab Sungenis]

6. Dred Scot was Roger B. Taney.

Notorious decision.

[Warpy]

5. He thinks he's the western pope.

He's gone barking mad in the past decade or so.

He needs to retire.

[Jefferson23]

2. What I'd give for this schmuck to retire, now while Obama is in office. n/t

[unblock]

4. so in scalia's pea-brain,

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

means

"congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"

and the "establishment part" is superfluous?

[longship]

7. Furthermore, it says "respecting the establishment"

That word, "respecting", is all important to an appropriate interpretation enshrined in the Lemon Test (Lemon v Kurtzman, 1971).

Here it is (from Wiki):

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)

If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

One of the great decisions by SCOTUS.