A moment of your time, please, Justice Scalia

Eat shit and die, whiny motherfucker.

You are an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court. You are one of nine.

On a regular basis, your vote determines the lives and deaths of your fellow citizens. On a regular basis, your vote is overruled by five or more of your colleagues, and the lives or deaths of your fellow citizens continue in some manner contrary to your judgment.

Such is life, you giant fucking pussy.

Sorry, Gene, but you lost one earlier this year. Seems a couple of queers from Houston came in front of you and said “Please, U.S. Supreme Court! Tell the state of Texas that they can’t throw us in jail for engaging in consensual intercourse!” And after they said that, you and your colleagues went back into a conference room, and you voted on whether you thought the state of Texas should be able to throw the faggots in jail, and it turned out that you lost that vote, 6-3.

When was the last time one of your “liberal political order” colleagues–which include such renowned pinkos as Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor–went in front of a rabidy partisan audience and denounced your gaseous spewings? Is that what you want, asshole? Do you really fucking want every motherfucking vote you cast to become fodder for your fellow judges to publicly masturbate over in front of their adoring throngs?

Fuck you.

The vote is over Gene-o. You lost. Now suck it up like a big boy, have some motherfucking respect for the institution on which your fat, bigoted ass sits, and shut your damn fool mouth, you reprehensible piece of shit.

I had the chance to see the Supreme Court in session last January, for a small portion of the oral arguments in a case on the Family Leave Act. Scalia, alone of the justices, seemed to take a demonic glee in tearing the lawyers apart. It was surreal.

Of course, I entered with an anti-Scalia prejudice and left with one. Still, the man looked and sounded utterly evil.

He has a great legal mind, but it’s really sad to see it wasted on Neanderthal stances on almost every issue.

On the other hand, I’m glad he had the sense to recuse himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case.

Isn’t Gene Scalia someone else? You mean Antonin, right? Do I not get the joke? I agree completely about his antics, by the way.

Do you really need any further proof that the Undead walk amongst us?

Eugene Scalia is Antonin’s son.

I don’t particularly like Justice Scalia either.

Sorry, I went for the nickname and substituted the son for the father. Just goes to prove my theory that I can’t possibly post a rant without messing up some detail.

But on the big picture, I’m clear. May your prostate rise up and strangle your coal-back heart while you sleep, Mr. Scalia.

Whoa, look out. Scalia’s lap dog Clarence is headed for that soft spot on your calf.

To the contrary, Clarence Thomas has ordinarily been quite reserved in his public comments on the Court’s decisions. I disagree with many of his votes, but I have no complaint about him as a public masturbator.

I hate Scalia. IMO, the guy cares more about his ideology than the Constitution.

Oh, fuck, that was too funny. Best rant I’ve read in a month.

Yeah, eat me, Scalia, you morbific podesta of closeted concupiscence!

The real story here is that Scalia is hanging himself one speech at a time. He is going to have to recuse himself from everything at this rate. Or, he will be ridiculed. Oh, wait…

Well, at last he’s got his hay-bale wish. He’s finally well-hung.

“I hate Scalia. IMO, the guy cares more about his ideology than the Constitution.”

Yeah, how could he have missed the section of Constitution that says that states have no right to pass their own criminal laws?

Gee, schplebordnik, could a state make it a crime for gays to vote? There are limits, ya know.

Just let the justice keep talking. He has a right to express his opinions. And when they are so blatantly biased about upcoming cases, he has the right to realize how stupid he has been and recuse himself from those cases too.

It’s like what Beagle said. Only I wanted to say it and he beat me to it. :smiley:

Scalia came to my law school a year and a half ago. The first question right out of the gate was a student quoting numerous scathing sentences in various opinions that Scalia had made about his fellow justices. Scalia was quick to point out that, no, he never ever attacks the justices. He merely attacks ideas. And if an idea happens to be stupid, he has no qualms in saying so.
He also mentioned quite emphatically, that there has never been an argument of a personal nature behind the closed doors of deliberation. Well, I guess only 9 people know for sure. Me, I’m kinda doubting that.
I did find it amusing that EVERY SINGLE QUESTION somehow related to the founding fathers. Talk about a one trick pony.
Search and seizure? Founding fathers knew the answer.
Copyright laws? Founding fathers knew the answer
Animal sex using the constitution as a cumrag? Founding fathers knew the answer.

I even got to ask him a question. I asked whether he interprets each case within the vacuum of the court or whether he looks towards the larger social and political effects the outcome of the case would create. Yes, somehow even THAT dealt with the founding fathers. Don’t ask me how. I couldn’t follow it.

I think Scalia’s biggest problem is that he seems to be under some delusion that he’s living in Philidelphia, in 1776. Had white-out been invented, Scalia would undoubtably have used it on certain parts of the document before signing his name larger than John Hancock. Yes. I know, that’s the DoI. Scalia still would have signed his name to it in 72 point font.

Hmm, why do I get the feeling Scalia would be happily joining in with the “Cool, Cool Conservative Men” song/dance number in Philly '76? At least the future Mr. Feeney could smack him around some…

I was talking about Scalia in general, I wasn’t commenting on any specific decision of his. Would you argue that Scalia doesn’t have a specific ideology?

Yes, as do the the Justices who wrote the majority decision in Lawrence. Scalia would tell you that his ideology is one that respects the Constitution, and in particular the way that it enumerates certain civil rights that the federal and state governments may not abridge, and leaves the rest to the people to decide. And the subject matter at issue in Lawrence is not an enumerated civil right, hence the people of Texas can proscribe it. How is that not respect for the text of the Constitution over ideology.

And can the state of Texas make it a crime for gay people to vote? Sure, if they are convicted felons. Otherwise, voting, being an enumerated civil right, may not be abridged.

I found something that responds to your point better than anything I could write, so I’m going to post that

http://www.mail-archive.com/conlawprof@listserv.ucla.edu/msg00814.html