Antonin Scalia is Pro-Orgy

[Weirddave]

On a more serious note, from The National review Online

Kathryn, re the Scalia remarks, I just received the following comment from Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC, where Scalia made the remarks I heard:

Justice Scalia gave a speech here on Sept. 20. (That’s the one Stanley Kurtz attended.) In that speech, he made the point that even if one were to adopt arguendo the assumption that orgies are socially beneficial, that assumption wouldn’t entitle judges to strike down laws against orgies. As a former clerk of his, I am certain that he made this same arguendo point at Harvard. Evidently it was a tad too subtle for the Crimson reporter. 

This actually makes a lot more sense that beliving Scalia has suddenly come out as a swinger.
*Kudos to pricciar for digging up the link

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Kimstu

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.

Well, not quite. Scalia has already established that he doesn’t hold with the whole “privacy” thing- see Lawrence v. Texas, and a metric shitload of anti-abortion dicta he’s inserted into his opinions.

(For those of you who don’t know, Roe v. Wade, like Lawrence, hinged on a right to privacy implied but not spelled out in the COTUS.)

[mks57]

@Really Not All That Bright

(For those of you who don’t know, Roe v. Wade, like Lawrence, hinged on a right to privacy implied but not spelled out in the COTUS.)

Vapors of penumbras?

It always amazes me how some justices can conjure constitutional principles out of thin air, while simultaneously being blind to the plain reading of the text in other cases.

[Already_in_Use]

@John Mace

Well, he is pals with Clarence Thomas, right?

Get out the Crisco and dial John Ashcroft!

[Kimstu]

mks: Vapors of penumbras?
It always amazes me how some justices can conjure constitutional principles out of thin air, while simultaneously being blind to the plain reading of the text in other cases.

Actually, the ruling in Roe vs. Wade rested partly on the argument that denying abortion rights would be “conjuring constitutional principles out of thin air” because there is no indication that the law considers fetuses to be persons. In other words, the concept of fetal rights is at least as much a judicial “conjuration” as the concept of abortion rights.

Personally, I think an individual right to privacy is a damn good thing, and I am not happy about a Supreme Court Justice thinking that it doesn’t exist.

[Mtgman]

@John Mace

Well, he is pals with Clarence Thomas, right?

Paging Anita Hill! Paging Anita Hill! Where is she when you need her…

New from Vivid Video! “Jonesin’ for the Judge” starring “Long Dong Scalia”.

Enjoy,
Steven

[SanibelMan]

I was just reading about this in America: A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction:

Inside the Supreme Court

Cameras have never been allowed inside the Supreme Court, and those who have entered its hallowed halls must take a sacred oath not to reveal what they have seen. Nevertheless, a handful of scattered eye-witness accounts and sketched interpretationz have emerged over the years, offering Americans a tantalizing glimpse into the most mysterious of the three branches of government.

…

Account Number Three
(Brian Hicks, attorney, 1999)
“All I know is, everybody was fucking. Everybody. It was nine heads and 36 tangled limbs intertwined in a writhing, whirling dervish of group sex. … Once in a while Scalia would break off from the orgy to cut hunks off a giant brick of hash with a Bowie knife. Then he remounted Ginsburg.”

(Note to Mods: This is a very small excerpt of a big book and it’s not even 1/3 of the content of this sidebar.)

[NurseCarmen]

@rjung

…but only if it’s between heterosexual couples, I’d wager.

But it was a group grope, Bob!

obscure movie reference.

[Gest]

@FriarTed

Wall Street Journal suggests that perhaps the London Guardian’s writer doesn’t recognize Scalia’s comments as a joke.

There is no London Guardian. Similarly, there is no London Times but at least The Times is published out of London. The Guardian is Manchester based and its title used to reflect that.

[Anaamika]

@lissener

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.

It already has. Why just look at all the places where they’ve allowed gay marriage. Total moral degeneration.

Flames…flames.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@SanibelMan

I was just reading about this in America: A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction:

Whatever you do, don’t look at page 99!!!

[SanibelMan]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Whatever you do, don’t look at page 99!!!

Too late. :retch:

[SolGrundy]

@NurseCarmen

But it was a group grope, Bob!

obscure movie reference.

Auto-Focus. And I’ve been thinking of that line all through this thread.

[Wolfian]

Fidello.

[Miller]

@Mtgman

New from Vivid Video! “Jonesin’ for the Judge” starring “Long Dong Scalia”.

Enjoy,

Not likely.

[Shalmanese]

@Cervaise

Guh.

Guh.

Guh.

Please, could you put down some plastic sheeting the next time you do this. The cleaning bills are killing me.