Random Blather

Feverish Ravings of a Middle-Aged Mind

Douglas Moran

Douglas Moran
Austin, Texas,
June 25
Low-level Technical Weenie
TechnoGypsy, family dude, technical writer, frisbee golfer, movie buff, political junkie, gadget fiend, computer nerd.


MARCH 30, 2012 3:23PM

Justice Scalia: Lazy, Hypocritical Douche

Rate: 14 Flag


Photo courtesy of the Boston Herald (obviously!) 

Justice Scalia has never been a particularly nice guy.  He says that he's "an originalist", i.e. interpreting the Constitution based on his understanding of "the Founders' intent", but that's B.S.; when he has his own axe to grind (e.g., Bush v. Gore) he tosses his high and mighty principles to the side and rules according to what he wants, rather than the rule of law.

Consider my favorite, Lawrence v. Texas, where the court found that, no, states don't have a right to invade your private bedroom space and tell you how to be intimate with your partner.  They don't have a right to say, "Yo, gay people:  butt sex is yucky, and we're not tolerating it!"  Nope; that was struck down. 

But Scalia clearly feels that butt sex is very yucky--it says so in the Bible, he noted--and so the state does have a right to poke its nose into your most private, intimate business.  But he is very clear to note that he's not homophobic.  No sir!  Some of his best friends are fags!  He just thinks butt sex is yucky and should be outlawed, but he's no bigot, no! 


That's hardly all, of course.  One of the most egregious quotes by Scalia was about his decision to allow innocent people to go to death row.  When someone asked him how he could countenance sending innocents to death he replied, "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."  So it doesn't matter that you were innocent; a court found you guilty, so time to die!  (How he squares that with Catholicism, I have no idea.) 

So in my opinion, the perception of Scalia as a short-tempered, grumpy old hypocrite is absolutely correct.  Look at the photo above.  The story behind it is that a reporter had the temerity to ask Scalia a question, and so Scalia made that gesture and noted to the reporter that it means "blah", which (depending on what source you check) is Italian for "fuck you.".  He is, in other words, flipping someone off/cussing them out just for being asked a question.  (The Supremes usually hide from that.)  In short, he's being a douche.

But here's what got me particularly irked:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happenedto the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? (Laughter)  And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That weare going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one? 

Look:  the entire job of the SCOTUS is to look at the list of laws that has been submitted to them, decide which ones they're going to adjudicate and which ones they aren't, and then render judgements on those they've decided to take on.  That's all they're supposed to do.  That's their entire job, their raison d'etre.   

And now comes Scalia, and he says that it would be cruel and unusual punishment (the 8th Amendment) to do his job.  Yes, Tony:  you are supposed to read the whole thing, item by item, and render a judgement as to whether it's consititutional, you lazy, arrogant jerk.  That's what the SCOTUS does.  Didn't you read Marbury v. Madison?  I know you're an old, "get those kids off my lawn" kind of guy, but if you've decided that doing your job is beneath you somehow, do everyone in this country a favor and retire!

So like I say:  what a douche. 

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
his face is the portrait of his soul
looks like he isnt a very happy guy.
Actually, Supreme Court justices are judges of Article III courts and their job is to resolve actual cases or controversies, not to fix poorly-drafted laws. The Patient Protection Act has no severability clause in it--a real bonehead mistake on the part of whoever drafted, or else a too-clever-by-half strategic move that has backfired. So the Court is now being asked by the government to go through the law and, if even one element is unconstitutional, decide what can be preserved. That's not what the court's supposed to do, it's there to render an up or down decision--read for example The Least Dangerous Branch by Alexander Bickel, a very liberal scholar of the Constitution.

The government argued for severability even though Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or their staffs didn't include this very basic provision in the statute. The laughter in the courtroom is at their expense, certainly not Scalia's who--like him or not--is recognized by his colleagues as the smartest person on the court.
Calling him a douche was being kind.
Calling him a douche was being kind.
Con: I thought their job was to rule on the Constitutionality of laws. If they don't read the laws, how can they rule on their Constitutionality?

But if I take your reading: if they are to rule on controversies, unless they educate themselves on the law, how are they going to be able to judge the validity of one side or another in that controversy? The law itself is the basis of any controversy brought before the court; implying with inappropriate and unfunny "humor" that it's an Eight Amendment violation to *read the law on which they are supposed to pass a judgement* strikes me as insanely obnoxious, to say the least.
I think it is an insult to douches to call this *$%#@+*& a douche! He is beneath contempt! R
You're probably right Douglas but I hear he's kind to small animals.
I have no doubt Scalia is smart. I also have no doubt he considers the Constitution as something to bend, fold, staple or mutilate, or sometimes even follow if it suits his purpose.
He's known for "Originalism," which is a canard that actually means..."when I don't like something, I'll imagine what they were thinking." He's so smart, that every time he does that he finds out they were thinking exactly what he was!
The ironic thing is the Founders didn't believe in Originalism.
My apologies but I have to disagree, he's a skanky unwashed bunghole. Better to spend all day with a child with a learning disability than 10 minutes with a brilliant bunghole.

Brains without decency are no benefit to our laws.
Every ecology supports a consistent set of inhabitants to conform to its standards. One cannot object that one participant in this consistency does not meet the qualifications of clear thinking, basic decency, honesty, and response to the needs of the positions they hold. All three branches of US government have no responses to those requirements. What would make Scalia different and why should he be?
I have to be honest and tell you I rated on the title alone. I'll go read now. :)
Is it not his job to read the law? Or at least his lackies should read it and report back to him. Yes, his point that the law was hijacked with pork and beans is well taken, but he should do his job. Scalia you're over paid and over done. Some one poke him and let all that hot air out, quick.
Scalia and Thomas are not fit to judge, let along on the Supreme Court. Extremely depressing.