From the Guardian:
Who says strict constructionists are bluenosed prudes? 
(Placed in the Pit in anticipation of a stream of Dopers trying to get really, really ugly images out of their brains.)
Ugh I need some mental floss for that one.
Hmm… A bunch of reclusive figures in black robes engaging in orgiastic sex…
Where’s the part where Tom Cruise walks in on Scalia, Rhenquist, and O’Connor engaging in a ritualistic 3-way in a large country estate?
Well, he is pals with Clarence Thomas, right?
Paging Anita Hill! Paging Anita Hill! Where is she when you need her…
The goggles! They do nothing! 
What is it with judges? Does the position attract nutjobs, or just turn you into one?
The guy has nine children. He should know something about sex.
I think this is more giggle worthy than pit appropriate.
Antonin Scalia is Pro-Orgy…
…but only if it’s between heterosexual couples, I’d wager. 
The pit-appropriate bit is here, from the article linked to in the OP:
Which, taken along with Scalia’s other statements in the past, can be read to say, “I don’t have a problem with gay people, as long as they keep it secret and never, ever talk about it to anyone.” In other words: don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t be anything other than ashamed of who you are.
But orgies are perfectly fine and healthy.
You know how those orgies always turn out – I guess some of those guys could’ve been gay, but I didn’t press the point. I mean, there’s not a lot of time for talking, if you know what I’m sayin’. You with me here, guys? Oh yeah.
Their mouths are usually full.
Well, as long as the orgies are only between one man and one woman; anything else would threaten a breakdown of the entire social fabric.
Wowzer! I see a packed Supreme in the future. 
(bolding mine-sc)
Wall Street Journal suggests that perhaps the London Guardian’s writer doesn’t recognize Scalia’s comments as a joke.
When the Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle agree on something, odds are pretty good it’s correct.
For the love of God and all things holy it better be a joke!
Oh. Is that what counts as “humor” among conservatives these days? I don’t get it.
Guh.
Guh.
Guh.
Sol, you probably had to have been there.
Actually, the part of that Chronicle article that worries me is this:
A US Supreme Court Justice thinks it’s ridiculous to forbid governments from outlawing group sex? What, because you have more than two people involved all of a sudden “privacy” has no meaning anymore? It’s perfectly okay for the government to regulate what three or four consenting adults are allowed to do together?
Sometimes Scalia worries me.
So THAT’S what the SC does in chambers when they are “deliberating”. Pretty cool. No wonder they have kept it such a close held secret!