tomBitonti
Adventurer
I have to say Thomas' dissent is perplexing to say the least. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
View attachment 69014
So the Jews in extermination camps didn't lose their dignity? That man is a sad joke and needs to lose his job. Can that happen under US law?
Edit: Scalia ain't any better. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia
He does seem to go off the rails in the quoted text.
Hard to know what he is meaning when he says "dignity", but I'm guessing he is tending to a very literal definition, and using that meaning in a context where it doesn't fit.
For example, I could say that "life" is an "inalienable right". Then, with a literal meaning of "inalienable", it literally cannot be taken away from you.
What I think that is taken to mean is that one who takes life commits a wrong, and the government cannot change the taking into something that isn't wrong.
Then, a camp cannot take away a persons right to dignity, although, it does take away their dignity. I'm thinking that Roberts is interchanging "right to dignity" with "dignity".
Thx!
TomB