![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Things That Are Horrifying Me Today: Clarence Thomas's dissent in Brown v. EMA. Scalia writes a very good majority opinion--when Scalia's on your side, he's great (it's just that he's never on my side*)--but the real "standout" is Thomas's valiant defense of Puritan Family Values:
"The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their chil-dren. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood “the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors toaccess speech) without going through the minors’ parents. The founding generation would not have considered it an abridgment of “the freedom of speech” to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors’ parents."
Justice Clarence Thomas: Reverse Time Traveler!
*In this case, see the opening bit of Scalia's rebuttal of Thomas: "He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say."
Shorter Scalia: Dude, that's bullshit and you know it.
"The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their chil-dren. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood “the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors toaccess speech) without going through the minors’ parents. The founding generation would not have considered it an abridgment of “the freedom of speech” to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors’ parents."
Justice Clarence Thomas: Reverse Time Traveler!
*In this case, see the opening bit of Scalia's rebuttal of Thomas: "He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say."
Shorter Scalia: Dude, that's bullshit and you know it.
