Gay Princeton law student who questioned Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on his inflammatory, insulting antigay rhetoric is interviewed on MSNBC

Moderator Alex Wagner watched as George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley lit into Scalia's remarks:

Scalia has a history, first of all, of making public statements that many of us find very difficult to square with judicial codes of conduct. You know, many judges don't make speeches at all on subjects related to pending cases. The court has two pending cases and he just spoke again about one of the court issues in those cases. He's done that before. It is very troubling. At one time, a chief justice would call him up and say, 'Look, you know, you're in an exclusive club here, and the price of the ticket is — stop making these speeches,' because there's an appearance that he's maintaining a base: his own constituency...
     What's more troubling, and I really want to commend Duncan. He's a remarkable student and represents his university well and represents, frankly, all of us well... But what Justice Scalia was talking about did succeed in reducing this to the absurd... He talks about what's often called the 'slippery slope,' — that if you don't let legislatures declare things immoral, all these things will happen. But he's the one on the slippery slope. Because if you allow the majority to simply declare anything they want to be immoral, you go back to Loving v. Virginia, when they criminalized mixed marriages. That's what you get when the majority can simply criminalize what they consider to be immoral.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post ripped Scalia yesterday, too:

The court’s decision to take up a pair of gay-marriage cases is almost certainly good news for gay rights and almost certainly bad news for Scalia’s defense of discrimination. Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t let his court stand in the way of immigration and Obamacare, and he surely doesn’t want to be responsible for a modern-day Plessy v. Ferguson that stands against the fast-emerging majority in support of gay rights.
     ...This puts Nino in a tough spot. When he stood in the schoolhouse door a decade ago in his dissent in the sodomy case, he wrote: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means...” Now gay-rights supporters have done just that. If Scalia is to honor his own principle, he’ll vote to strike down DOMA...But don’t count on it.
     ...His 2003 dissent in the sodomy case was typical of his extra-legal logic. He accused his colleagues of signing on to “the so-called homosexual agenda” and taking “sides in the culture war”...
     A practiced cultural warrior himself, Scalia wrote that laws “called into question” by the court striking down the sodomy ban were “laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.”
     ...A decade later, ...support for gay marriage has spread by the very means — democratic change — that Scalia praised
     ...Scalia finds himself with a growing list of foes: public opinion, empirical evidence, his own writings and an increasing number of conservative legal thinkers. Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, a Republican appointee and a conservative, wrote in an opinion striking down DOMA that “the Constitution delegated no authority to the government of the United States on the subject of marriage.”
     This would appeal to an “originalist” such as Scalia — if he weren’t more concerned with bestiality.