I just finished reading The Notorious RBG - and what I remember is that Scalia was Ginsberg’s shopping buddy. They were friends. I figure if the two of them, who could disagree in court on almost everything, were friends, then Scalia’s human side was probably a lot more human than monster.
My favourite pair like that is Mary Matalin and James Carville—married since 1993.
This is has got to be a whoosh. Or maybe a kidnapping. But I’m not sure who the target is.
I don’t see how they take any other position than “our guy is going to win, let’s wait and fight for 9 months”. Any strategy that involves getting the seat filled prior to 2017 by default implies that the Repubs have given up on 2016.
Not a whoosh. septimus, with whom I have no other beef, is rabidly against the idea that Willy the Shake wrote his own stuff. We all have our bouts with sanity.
Well I hope this thread answers your questions about the Dope.
I’ve asked those who want to discuss the Shakespeare Authorship to start another thread. … But I won’t be insulted in this thread without answering.
Those who think the plays and sonnets were written by a different person agree that William Shakespeare was a front-man, a sort of living, breathing pen-name. To fully appreciate the case against Shakespeare as author, you’d want to read books, articles, hundreds of webpages. There is a huge amount of evidence. But the fact that a non-author’s name was deliberately shown as author is the key point, perhaps the very first sentence in any description of a hoax. Yet GIGObuster’s posts make clear that he didn’t even understand that much.
And my guess is that all the other detractors know nothing whatsoever about the controversy except what they read on “debunking” sites – with the debunking sites giving the impression that all sane persons reject the possibility of a hoax. In fact there are rather many Shakespeare scholars who think hoax is very likely and … ta-da, the relevance to this thread … at least three Supreme Court Justices (not a group particularly noted for idiocy, insanity, or accepting wild theories) believe(d) Shakespeare was not the author.
I, again, ask those ridiculing the hoax hypothesis to indcate whether they know anything at all about it. No? That’s what I thought.
“…there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so …”
Well, I think you mean insanity, the reports back then about the American judges was that when the issue was looked (with no jurisdiction or real case) the evidence for De Vere was wanting, as not sufficient. That has not changed in all the subsequent years and a judge changing his mind later is even less relevant. And Scalia belebing that Shakespear was not the author is even less relevant since he was not part of the judges that did take a look then, Scalia just reported where his preference was later. So it was not even part of a show trial, I have to say that it was even more insane to mention this item about Scalia and the Shakespeare “conspiracy”.
In any case when judges in a more relevant place like England did look at the evidence the British judges in 1988 declared that Shakespeare was the author based on the evidence.
Of course when I posted first I pointed at Scalia’s climate change denial as one item that will cause harm to many, his Bush v. Gore ruling should be enough to discredit him. But one has to add many things like how his bigotry did and came close to deny the rights of many gays and lesbians and to put down minorities thanks to his decisions on voting rules.
That Scalia swallowed the Shakespeare conspiracy is only gravy to me, it is not much needed to demonstrate how loopy this judge was (crank magnet) and the legacy of Ronald Reagan (that appointed him) is diminished more thanks to what the judge ruled.
Well, I already participated in other Shakespeare discussions and you are just lying here, and you did use a lot of cherry picking regarding what the judges did in the past regarding Shakespeare.
I choose my words carefully. 
My question. Scalia was at this resort in a company of 40 people. Who were these people? Were there lobbyists? Koch brothers? Investment bankers? Tea Party activists? Were they discussing upcoming Court decisions?
“She also has been a “sidewalk counselor” outside of abortion clinics, according to Jezebel.”
Question. How many babies of color did that gutter slut adopt?
I congratulate you on your choice of screen name.
Missed the edit window but I’d say being married for 56 years to a successful, well-to-do and highly respected man and mother to nine successful children would make Maureen Scalia pretty much the exact opposite of a gutter slut.
I thought there was a hard-and-fast rule that the noun “gutter slut” always be qualified by the adjective “cum-gulping.”
She had nine kids. I think his omission was accurate.
[QUOTE=RationalWiki via BG]
Oddly enough, Scalia was also the only prominent conservative in U.S. politics today with a sense of humor: at the White House Press Club party entertained by Stephen Colbert (who was sweating bullets to power), Scalia was not only the only audience member laughing, but he joined in the fun with some “ethnic sign language” directed back at the podium.
[/QUOTE]
Parse error - wtf does the highlighted part mean?
No Ukulele Ike. The current vernacular is “Goat Felching”.
Also the one where he said that torture used in investigations doesn’t violate the 8th Amendment, because it isn’t “punishment.” The man was evil.
Sarcasm is cheap irony, but that doesn’t make it the sole province of incompetents.
That said, fuck Scalia and the bullshit legal theory he rode in on.