What’s gay got to do — got to do with it? What’s “Fuck” but a second-hand emotion?
I’m super busy, y’all. One of those busies where I try to avoid reading the news so that I can avoid ending up hating everything. But I read an article in California Lawyer today (I’m a subscriber since I’m both a Lawyer and I live in California) and wouldntcha know, I got downright concerned. The hazard of being a blogger who enjoys a good tirade is that sometimes my rant tendencies intersect with my lawyer tendencies, and not in a good way. This is one of those times.
In a recent interview with California Lawyer, Antonin Scalia again made the case for originalism, which is the view that the Constitution should be upheld and interpreted as written; none of that namby pamby “living breathing document” crap. Just look at what it says! It’s all right there!
Scalia is deliciously arrogant. He seems to think he and only he knows what’s right or wrong; what’s constitutional or un-. It’s almost as if he wishes he could have been on the bench back when the Court decided Marbury v. Madison (1803) and could somehow remain on the bench until the end of time. Life would be much simpler if it was All Up to Him, wouldn’t it?
The interview is a hoot. First, Scalia says that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender –so, suck it, ladies! (Now, lest you think that it’s insane to think that it isn’t unconstitutional to discriminate against women, recall that the Lily Ledbetter Act was just signed into law, like, yesterday.) He practically calls the Burger Court a bunch of stupidheads. Why? Well because back in 1971 when women were starting to get all uppity bra-burny, SCOTUS — with Chief Justice Burger at the helm — ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. (It was a case called Reed v. Reed and it was a travesty! What idiots those justices were! Yeah, I’m looking at you, Thurgood. What were you thinking? You weren’t, obvs. That’s what we get for letting black people on the bench.)
As for equal rights for our gay brothers and sisters, well don’t even get him started. The thrust of Scalia’s statements (as I view them) provides a snapshot of what his opinion on Prop 8 will be once that case makes its way to the Supremes. Scalia’s viewpoint is nothing shocking, really; it’s not like anyone who has been paying attention doesn’t already know what his opinion will be. But for those of you who have been trapped under something heavy, here it is: The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t protect ‘mos.
Sorry, queers. You might as well go ahead and figure out which 2/5 of your person you don’t really need and join us black amputees at the back of the Constitutional Bus.
::exhale::
Man alive — The pressure in my brain is starting to build. I feel a rant growing deep in my bowels (or wherever rants are stored) but I can’t let it out. It’s stuck. It has to be because I’ve got a couple of cases that very well may end up in SCOTUS. It’s a rare thing for lawyers (and no, I’m not going to be arguing anything, but I certainly will get to write a couple brieves, and that in and of itself is pretty fucking sweet), but it might actually happen, which means I need to go about getting myself admitted to practice in SCOTUS pretty soon, which in turn means I need to find someone to sponsor me — like AA. (It’s a small cross-eyed bear for the chance to get one of those cool certificates with the old timey calligraphy.)
The point is, I can’t go mouthing off about how certain Italian jurists who wear certain black robes make me feel a certain way about certain flammable items. So I’m not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent — at this juncture.
Instead, I’m going to let you, dear reader, imagine what my reaction to Scalia’s comments would be. Just fill in some fun words wherever you see blanks. If you’re feeling ambitious, tell me what you came up with in the comment section. Consider this a mad lib blogging experiment.
If you hate it, just shut up about it, skip to the end, and watch the damn videos.
From California Lawyer:
[ADVANCED WARNING: THIS SECTION IS A MESS BECAUSE WORDPRESS IS AN ASSHOLE. BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CLICK HERE TO READ A VERSION THAT MIGHT NOT MAKE YOU WANT TO STAB YOURSELF… OR ME. (PLUS, THERE’S A CAPTION FOR THE HEADER PICTURE WHICH MAKES IT LESS JARRING); THEN, COMPLAIN AWAY, IF YOU LIKE.]
Q. How would you characterize the role of the Supreme Court in American society, now that you’ve been a part of it for 24 years?
I think it’s a highly respected institution. It was when I came, and I don’t think I’ve destroyed it. [What the ___ __?] I’ve been impressed that even when we come out with opinions that are highly unpopular or even highly—what should I say—emotion raising [No that’s not what you should say; you should say ____.] , the people accept them, as they should. [You know what you should do? You should ___ in a very __ ___.] The one that comes most to mind is the election case of Bush v. Gore. Nobody on the Court liked to wade into that controversy. [Oh really? Then why the ___ did you ___ing ___?] But there was certainly no way that we could turn down the petition for certiorari. [Are you __ing ___? There was too a way! You could easily have ___! Go jump up your __ ___.] What are you going to say? The case isn’t important enough? [What about your ___ing love of ___ing states’ rights!!??] And I think that the public ultimately realized that we had to take the case. [The ___ it did! Half the country was so ____ that we couldn’t even ___ without ___ing!] … I was very, very proud of the way the Court’s reputation survived that, even though there are a lot of people who are probably still mad about it. [You’re ___ right we’re still mad about it! So are the eleventy billion brown people all over the world who we’ve bombed to ____ all in the name of ___ing Shock and Awe. You’re such a ___. You really ought to consider ___ instead of telling people to “get over it [Bush v. Gore]; it’s so old by now.” It was ten ___ing years ago and we’re still ___ing suffering the consequence of your ___ery, for ___’s sake!]
You believe in an enduring constitution rather than an evolving constitution. What does that mean to you?
In its most important aspects, the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do. It is a decision that the society has made that in order to take certain actions, you need the extraordinary effort that it takes to amend the Constitution. Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad—such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws—if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today’s society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual, it means nothing except, “To thine own self be true.” [What the ___ are you ___ ___!!!!??]
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. [ ___, please!] … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. [Oh my ___ing ___ you are such a ___! You make me want to ___ myself with a ___ ___ right in my own ___.] Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. [Tell that to Justices Burger, Marshall, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Blackmun, you ____wit.]
Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. [How’d that work out for the Little Rock 9, you __ing ___!??] You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. [Then why have one at all for ___’s ___?] All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. [What the ___?!] Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. [Or have the Mormon Church force its congregants to ____ ___ because if they don’t they will ___ in ____ for all ___.] That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society. [ ___ F. ___.]
What do you do when the original meaning of a constitutional provision is either in doubt or is unknown?
I do not pretend that originalism is perfect. [Oh gee, thanks. That’s really ___ of you.] There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot. … We don’t have the answer to everything, but by God we have an answer to a lot of stuff … especially the most controversial: whether the death penalty is unconstitutional, whether there’s a constitutional right to abortion, to suicide, and I could go on. All the most controversial stuff. … I don’t even have to read the briefs, for Pete’s sake. [Jesus __ on a ___. ]
…
You’ve sometimes expressed thoughts about the culture in which we live. For example, in Lee v. Weisman you wrote that we indeed live in a vulgar age. What do you think accounts for our present civic vulgarity?
Gee, I don’t know. I occasionally watch movies or television shows in which the f-word is used constantly, not by the criminal class but by supposedly elegant, well-educated, well-to-do people. The society I move in doesn’t behave that way. [What society is that? The ___ing ____ who _____ all the ____-ing ____??!!] Who imagines this? Maybe here in California. [Don’t you ___ talk ___ about California. We will ___ your ___ ___!!] I don’t know, you guys really talk this way? [FUCK YEAH WE DO!!] 1
Now that you’ve had fun (or not — probably not) playing my little game, watch this video:
[bonus video after the jump]
Colbert for the win. Per the yoozsh.
1 Shorter: “Bitches and homos suck. I rule. Scalia out!” ::drops mic::
[Yeah, yeah, tl;dr also, too FYWP. Why does WordPress hate Balloon Juice for its freedoms? I’ve been told the mad libs section isn’t so bad when WordPress isn’t trying to screw you in the pooch. So for the full effect, check out the post at my corner of the intertrons. Or don’t. Whatevs. Kisses, ABL.]
asiangrrlMN
You crack me up. You really do. I will fill out the Mad-Lib part later when inspiration hits (like three in the morning).
BethanyAnne
One of my first thoughts was wondering if Scalia believes that the 14th Amendment was meant to free female slaves?
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
…and though it’s been said many times, many ways: I love you, I do.
BethanyAnne
Oh, and I’m for 20 year terms for Justices. That’s enough time, period.
Tlachtga
Oh, Nino, I think Cee Lo Green said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU
The Republic of Stupidity
Awwwwwwwwww gaaaaaaaawd…
We’re talking about someone who thinks Jack Bauer is a real person…
He’s not just arrogant, or stupid… he’s freakin’ DELUSIONAL…
I’m beginning to hate these people… srsly…
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@BethanyAnne: No, being only 9/25ths of a human. I think he’s depressed that he didn’t get to advance the black race by spreading his seed among them.
Mr Stagger Lee
I wonder if Justice Scalia, works also as a nightclub DJ
This would be his theme to all women, racial minorities, the LGBT community, Muslims, Cleveland Browns fans, People who prefer Less filling than great taste.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): What about black lesbians? 27/125ths?
sb
Not sure about Marbury v. Madison but I’ll bet Scalia would sell his soul to go back in time for Plessy vs. Ferguson.
freelancer
@The Republic of Stupidity:
But he saved Los Angeles! Like six times!
rikyrah
he is who we thought he was.
anyone who has followed his cases KNEW this already.
‘original intent’ mofos can kiss my Black ‘ I would have been 3/5ths of a human being according to original intent’ Ass.
PS-ABL….YOU ROCK!!!!
General Stuck
I bets Scalia squeals like a pig weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
YellowJournalism
That sums it all up for me. We are all the peons of society, and his “crowd” are our superiors, so we should all shut up and take it with a smile.
ETA: I call bullshit on his society never acting that way.
Yes, because no one outside of California has ever written a book/play/screenplay/TV pilot that depicts the upper class as having filthy mouths and minds worse than the lower “criminal” classes. (“criminal”=poor/brown/black/blue collar)
Wile E. Quixote
Hey, there’s also nothing in the Constitution that says that we can’t discriminate against greasy papists like Scalia and Alito. I’m sure that if you went to the drafters of the 14th amendment and the politicians who passed it and said “Do you intend for this amendment to allow greasy papists to sit on the highest court in the land?” they would all have said, “Fuck no!”.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@YellowJournalism: I personally find it funny that my Christian friends cuss more than I, a former sailor, do.
El Cid
Scalia notes that in debate on the 14th Amendment at the time (post-Civil War) no one would have considered applying it to women, therefore, fuck off. Because you aren’t covered by the term “person” in the Amendment itself, and you know, fuck the actual words in the fucking Constitutional Amendment because Fat Tony Scalia is a Constitutional Literalist, right?
So, quit this shit about the term “person” applying to you non-thingy possessors, because according to the debates of 1868, they didn’t in any way mean you to be included in the term “person”, and if lawmakers used the term “person” in 1868 and they didn’t mean you birthin’ types, then, by God, you ain’t a “person”. (Though that unborn treasure inside some of you loose sinners is.)
After all, if you womenfolk want to be equal, pass some legislation like a democracy lets you. Remember, according to the supposedly brilliant, sharp legal mind of the utterly banal Scalia, nothing in the Constitution or 14th Amendment prevents you from passing such a law. Just as the 14th Amendment didn’t prevent former Confederate states from passing laws discriminating against free white males.
Of course, laws for women’s equality can be repealed or undercut or eliminated by new laws or some prick Supreme Court judge can toss it out.
So, if you womenfolk want equal rights under the Constushun, then you should pass a Constushunull Amendent about it saying that (1) Women are “persons” in the Constitution, and (2) They are to be as free from discrimination as any other party mentioned in the Constitution, meaning, you know, real persons, like men.
Now, this didn’t work the most recent time you weaker sex types tried, but, you know, them’s the breaks.
Silver Owl
Woot! Woot!
Like very fucking person living but the white conservative man lives suck Scalica penis because he not only lives but he thinks he fucking gawd with a pink dick!
Angry Black Lady
@rikyrah: exactly! whenever anyone says anything about original intent, i always say “which 2/5 of me should i part with?” (or something similar.)
Tlachtga
Scalia says:
So… if we want to, say, ensure that sex discrimination is illegal, or abortion is legal, we should pass laws saying so, since there’s nothing in the constitution which addresses it. Let’s say we do that–the Supreme Court could just nullify the law, then, declaring it unconstitutional, right? Even if we passed a law, someone could challenge it in court, it makes its way to the Supreme Court, and Scalia et al. could just say “sorry, it’s unconstitutional” and we’d be back at square one.
Am I missing something? Is there some step I’m forgetting that wouldn’t allow them to just throw out the law?
Valdivia
Just wanted to say this was awesome. Love you!
suzanne
ABL, I love you. Let’s make out.
El Cid
@Tlachtga: Just because women get menfolk to pass a law for them banning discrimination against their gender inferiority doesn’t mean there’s any guarantee that they’ll always have such protections.
You know, you win some, you lose some, and you hysterical girl types ought to be satisfied that we let you vote.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
Oh, they said the same quaint things about habeas corpus.
.
.
General Stuck
When the onion is peeled, Scalia is an El Duce grade fascist. I suspect he wanks off to that pigfucker about every night. He is almost 100 percent pure grade right wing ideologue, and only on strange days actually votes for the unsaid intent of the Constitution. The rest of the time, it is Peasant V Plutocrat, and the peasant class only gets the back of his hand. All this BS about original intent, textual interpretation is a smoke screen. When the plutocrats are on the docket, they are right regardless of the over riding intent of the founders for equal protection under the law, for everyone, and all that that implies. He is not alone on the SCOTUS in that sentiment, but is the spiritual leader and the lizard brain inspiration of the other wingnut justices.
hamletta
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Heh. Ever read the correspondence between Martin Luther and Saint Thomas More?
Being a Lutheran, I knew Br. Martin was a foul-mouthed motherfucker with a penchant for scat imagery. But damn if More didn’t give as good as he got.
@El Cid: One of the Rumproasters cited a post-14th Amendment Supremes case that ruled that, yes, women were persons and citizens according to the law. In, like, 1874.
asiangrrlMN
@El Cid: Yes. I love it when you post like this.
If Scalia actually believes his bullshit about the congress making laws and the court sitting around and twiddling their thumbs, why the fuck we have a SCOTUS in the first goddamn place?
Oh, and for Justice Scalia, this link.
DeistBrawler
Bless you Colbert.
Bless you.
Buck
We need a piece of paper to tell us if we’re “persons or citizens”? I don’t. I think most of you don’t either. But it’s very telling that Scalia doesn’t see it that way. The bastard thinks of himself as someone’s better – your typical wingnut.
Damn you Lipitor.
El Cid
@hamletta:
What does that have to do with anything? So a bunch of activist judges made a ruling. Big Fucking Deal.
Fat Tony don’t got to listen to no liberal postmodern interpretationers who were already abandoning the Original Intent of the legislators who had ratified the Amendment ages and ages ago, like 6 years or something.
You can’t just keep interpreting Scalia’s Constushun whatever way modern society wants to play with it, particularly some cultural radicals like were floating around in the hep late 19th century with their Red River Indian War and their 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in gauge railroads with their ‘couplings’ and ‘air brakes’ and their ‘Centennial’ and their ‘civil rights’ fetishists the ‘Radical Republicans’.
Besides, these wishy-washy types just ruled a few years later that the Constitution forbade laws against discrimination in private organizations but, aw shucks, could still bar slavery.
When Scalia wants the opinion of dead hippie Supreme Court activist post-modern pro-segregationists, he’ll fucking tell them.
PhoenixRising
But…but…ABL, whom was it who argued that damn thing? That’s right class, the estimable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (May she live forever.)
Don’t be blaming Marshall for all this “the law cannot discriminate on the basis of sex” crap, it’s HER life’s work. (May she resign after Obama is r-elected.)
Seriously, one Mary Anne Case has written some very interesting law review articles about this. Drink them in, along with a fine aged single malt, as you brief. Godspeed.
The Republic of Stupidity
@freelancer:
And therefore…
We should ALL be grateful for the torturers amongst us… indeed, they protect us from those who would hurt… us…
Hmmmm…
***starts double checking charts, numbers on paper…***
Uhhhhhh… something’s come up… I’ll get back to you on this… okay?
El Cid
@asiangrrlMN: For good measure, Article I’s text has been totally misinterpreted, and the Constitution never intended for there to be a Congress which passed “laws,” because by “law” the Founding Elders meant “READ THE CONSTITUTION OUT LOUD AGAIN.”
Now get back to washing the dishes and gathering dry sticks to start tomorrow’s fire so it won’t be chilly when I get up.
The Republic of Stupidity
@El Cid:
Well I, for one, am down w/ the whole ‘slaves only count as 3/5th of a person’ concept… and those dirty, stinkin’ Injuns don’t count at all…
What’s not to like in a little ’18th century/white man’s paradise’ way of seeing things?
No property… no rights…
And women? Chattel, baby… just chattel…
Wag
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to apply to Negros.
Not chicks
Not spics.
Not chinks.
Not japs.
Not Jews.
And for sure not wops.
And this is a full on snark, in case anyone’s snarkometers are busted.
Scalia is a fucking tool.
TooManyJens
@El Cid:
Actually, Scalia doesn’t believe that either. Person = born penis-bearer. His whole rationale for saying that abortion can be banned is that the Constitution doesn’t say it can’t be.
Yup. This is the deep thinker who comprises 11% of the highest court in the land.
TooManyJens
FYWP. Like we can have this conversation without throwing around the word ‘pen1s’ a few times.
John, please, I am begging you, install a better spam filter.
asiangrrlMN
@El Cid: You get me all hawt and bothered when you talk like that. I will have your
cyanide-lacedbreakfast waiting for you when you wake up, honey.@Wag: You forgot the pomo homos. So, by the complicated maths, I am 1/eleven-billionty-and-ten percent of a person.
And, I know this is crazy-talk, but I am not a Constitutional-purist at all.
Joseph Nobles
Scalia’s idea that the 14th Amendment’s sweeping language must be bound by the 19th century prejudices of its ratifiers is utterly abhorrent.
celticdragonchick
ABL…I think I love you. ;)
Honestly, your rants are the high point of each day I read them.
Angry Black Lady
@suzanne: i’m in!
@El Cid: brilliant.
Angry Black Lady
@celticdragonchick: oh good! i rant for you. ::tips hat::
Yutsano
@Angry Black Lady: I was thinking a lung, a kidney, half my liver, excess body fat…lemme think…oh yeah, half my colon and intestines. And my prostate. Am I at 2/5ths yet?
celticdragonchick
@Wag:
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to apply to Negros.
Not chicks
Not spics.
Not chinks.
Not japs.
Not Jews.
And for sure not wops.
And this is a full on snark, in case anyone’s snarkometers are busted.
Scalia is a fucking tool.
*************************************
You forgot the hunkies (anybody from Poland or Eastern Europe) or the “Mongolians” (people from Finland. No shit. Mongolians!)
By the by…when the 14th Amendment was ratified, Italians were not considered white, and Irish immigrants had only just made the cut around 1870. Italians got lumped in with the hunkies in the coal mines and the furnace rooms. Scalia would have been lucky to be shining shoes. More likely he would have black lung disease in the mines or a boiler room…or brown lung disease in the card rooms of the cotton mills.
asiangrrlMN
@Yutsano: Me-likey. Can have all my fat. That would reduce me by 2/5ths. Oh, and half my boobs. There. I’m done.
ETA: I know boobs are fat. I am just differentiating between the two because I can.
@El Cid: You’re pulling out the big G, eh?
El Cid
@TooManyJens:
I was talking about God’s Law, which in certain circumstances can override Scalia’s Law.
suzanne
@celticdragonchick:
TooManyJens
@El Cid: aaah. So confusing keeping track of all these big-L Laws. I guess it would be simpler if I were a
Scaliaist“Constitutional originalist.” Or a real person.suzanne
@asiangrrlMN: Oh, and half my boobs.
celticdragonchick
Two books that deal with what Scalia is busy wrecking are:
Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Become White. The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs
and…
The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class
Scalia seems to think that civil rights are a matter of popular opinion. Hence, there is no problem when 60% of the country calls you a hunky, a darkie or a wop, being white means Anglo/Saxon supremacy, and the only job you can get is doing “hunky work” shovling coal for 12 hours a day in a 120 degree furnace room.
Good times.
asiangrrlMN
@suzanne: The left one! It has the tattoo.
celticdragonchick
@suzanne:
LOL
celticdragonchick
@Angry Black Lady:
A tip of mine to you :)
El Cid
@Angry Black Lady: No problem. I try to stay current with my 1870s cultural references.
It was for this tied election that Reconstruction ended.
El Cid
@TooManyJens:
A serious course in attending Tea Party meetings and Constitution Party readings would help you.
ColleenSTL
And once again, we Dems fail to see the PR potential. Dems should IMMEDIATELY reintroduce the ERA and use Scalia as the justification. The 14th Amendment as a protection for women was only posited as a denunciation of the ERA to begin with, and Scalia has provided an opening only political malpractice could ignore.
Yutsano
@El Cid: “It’s 1877 and the Democrats would gloat; but they’re all amazed when Rutherford Hayes wins by just one vote!”
Xenos
@Joseph Nobles:
This applies to all of Originalism’s dubious claims for the Constitution. ‘The Ratifiers’ is invoked but never defined or described. The result is a sloppy sort of analysis of legislative intent that is really shameless.
Who were the ratifiers? The politicians who voted for it in the legislatures? The 100,000 or so voters who considered it in the various ballots?
How about the residents of Brookline, MA, who voted against ratifying the constitution because it contained no guarantee of religious liberty? Sure, they got what they wanted a few years later, but should the Constitution apply to ‘ratifiers’ who voted against the Constitution?
The constitutional text is not complex, but the ratifiers were complex, contradictory, and polyphonous. They agreed to the text, but for different reasons and with different understandings as to what they were agreeing to and what they wanted the Constitution to mean and how it was to structure our government.
burnspbesq
@BethanyAnne:
Of course not! Ya big silly.
El Cid
@ColleenSTL: This would immediately become discussed as a move to make abortions mandatory and to make heterosexual Christian marriages illegal and to grant citizenship to all Muslim and Mexican-like babies everywhere.
burnspbesq
When Scalia votes in favor of the constitutionality of the ACA (which he has to in order to be consistent with the position he took in his concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich), and heads start asplodin’ all over Leftblogistan, I am going to laugh until it hurts.
El Cid
@Xenos:
There’s nothing in the Constitution which recognizes the rights of polyphonous-Americans.
PS: The Ratifiers sounds like a cool Constitution-based action adventure show.
El Cid
@burnspbesq: Man, I would feel so bad if that happened. Especially if I thought there was some guy laughing somewhere.
asiangrrlMN
@burnspbesq: Are you guaranteeing that he’ll vote that way?
@El Cid: Heh. Extra maple syrup for your pancakes tomorrow morning. You are ON tonight.
burnspbesq
@TooManyJens:
Wait. So the only female commenter here with full civil rights is Amanda in the South Bay? That’s ironic enough to make even my head asplode.
burnspbesq
@asiangrrlMN:
Are you guaranteeing that he’ll vote that way?
I’m not guaranteeing anything. I’m just saying that a vote in favor would be consistent with his prior Commerce Clause opinions. He could go all result-oriented-and-untethered-to-any-recognizable-doctrine at a moment’s notice.
asiangrrlMN
@burnspbesq: Yeah, that sounds about right (to this non-lawyer). Thanks.
@Tattoosydney: Oh, you send chills up and down my spine with your sexy talk. Mreow! How you be, hon?
Tattoosydney
I’m a lawyer, but in a different country, so I’m never going to appear in front of SCOTUS, so I am able to say:
“Scalia – fuck you in your grimy fucking head, you fucking wizened old dickhead.”
Tattoosydney
@Yutsano:
Are you sure you won’t be needing that?
Xenos
I would not be surprised to see Scalia distinguish from Raich. How? No idea. But after the Bush v. Gore travesty I can’t see how anything is beyond him.
burnspbesq
@Tattoosydney:
Damn Aussie. You can’t talk about our judges that way until you fully atone for Olivia Newton-John and Mel Gibson. And no, you don’t get to count Crowded House toward your penance; they’re Kiwis.
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
I’m very well – I have spent the entire day handing over all of my files to other people, emailing clients to tell them I am getting a life, throwing rubbish away…
It’s fucking cathartic. Why didn’t I do this YEARS ago?
Yutsano
@burnspbesq: Hey, to be absolutely fair, Mel was born in the US. So he’s damn shared responsibility.
And hey c’mon Kylie Minogue.
@Tattoosydney: It really is liberating once you get past the initial fear. And then you wake up and wonder why the fuck you waited so long.
asiangrrlMN
@Tattoosydney: Woot-do-hoot! A little Kylie to celebrate (not that I need a reason). So this is your last week? The hubby taking you out to celebrate?
@Yutsano: I swear I was posting this vid before I saw your comment!
burnspbesq
@Yutsano:
Meh. You get some points for Kasey Chambers and Carol Young from the Greencards.
freelancer
@Angry Black Lady:
TooManyJens
@El Cid: That’s a definition of “help” with which I was not previously familiar.
Tattoosydney
@burnspbesq:
Um. Olivia was born in the UK, and is an artist of genius for whom no atonement is necessary.
Mel was born in the US, so he ain’t our fault.
Fuck you, buddy. Fucking fucker.
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
I finish on 12 January, but am basically in NMP mode.
On the 13th we are going to stay in an apartment on the north coast for four nights for a friend’s wedding.
It’s all good.
asiangrrlMN
@Tattoosydney: Are we drunk already?
@Tattoosydney: Cool. What’s NMP? Not My Problem? There should be an ‘F’ in there. NMFP.
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
No, just drunk on happiness.
Yutsano
@Tattoosydney: Thank you for reminding me I got that bottle of white rioja and a corkscrew and wineglasses to enjoy it.
asiangrrlMN
@Tattoosydney: Wooooooooot! Best kind of high.
@Yutsano: I thought you didn’t drink!
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
You are correct. I apologise.
Ruckus
@Wag:
Tools have uses. What’s 2/5 of a negative tool? Nah that sounds like too much value.
Ruckus
@suzanne:
Too slow to act. Painful and deadly, just way too slow.
asiangrrlMN
@Ruckus: Hey! I saw your comment over at ABL’s place. Thanks for weighing in. I was pleased to get such a dialogue going.
@Tattoosydney: If you really are sorry, apologize with a z. And, when are you and hubby having the beautiful bebes? I keed, I keed.
The cheery little tune to which I am listening.
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
What’s “apozolise”?
asiangrrlMN
@Tattoosydney: Oh my god. I am laughing so hard, I’m tearing up!
Yutsano
@asiangrrlMN: One must always have a good cooking wine handy. Plus I don’t really count wine as drinking.
freelancer
@Tattoosydney:
Not my frakking pants? I haz to now purchase a confuse.
Angry Black Lady
@suzanne: mer-MAN!
Yutsano
@Angry Black Lady: It’s a MAN, baby, a MAN!!
Exurban Mom
Thanks for that. After all the bullshit I’ve been reading today about how the Republicans are so excited about taking away more of my womanly freedoms, this just takes the cake.
Scalia is such an asshole.
Yutsano
OT, but a little something for gwangung, and any other band geeks out there.
bloodstar
@ColleenSTL:
Do that and then you’ll have the Right wing pointing out just as quickly that you’re agreeing with Scalia and then we’re going to have a heap of problems.
One of the things that struck me about what Scalia said is that he really tries to confuse the difference between constitutional and law. Even if by some strange happenstance he wants to argue that the 14th amendment only applied to the definition of person that was used when the amendment was written. (and I don’t know about you, but unless there’s some sort of corrosponding legal text showing that person was always meant to be male, I find this dubious)
Extending this out further, the Constitution uses person when describing who may be a member of Congress and President. Is Scalia willing to say the original intent was to prohibit women from being allowed to run for President or congress?
What I think Scalia is trying to actually do is muddle the waters. I think the best way to describe it, There are laws prohibiting the government and most businesses from discriminating against women. However if I as a person decide that I want to have a club that excludes women, i can do that, so long as my club/company isn’t involved in anything that would obligate me to abide by the laws created. The 14th amendment specifies that the government can’t discriminate against people (equal protection).
Scalia is trying to walk an argument out there to try to stop judicial overturning of DOMA. By muddling unconstitutional versus legal, and claiming that overturning something because it’s unconstitutional is somehow legislating rather than letting the ‘will of the voter’ tell the government to discriminate against groups of people.
DOMA is unconstitutional IMO because it fails the Equal Protection clause. Specifically, by having government involvement, the 14th amendment requires that there everyone is treated equally and fairly under the law. period. Once marriage became defined as a legal term and a binding contract between two people, it came under the Government’s domain and therefore are subject to the same restrictions. If Marriage were a purely religious ceremony with no legal implications, then people could determine what restrictions they want to place on who the consider married or not married. But, for whatever reason that’s not the case and now the chickens are coming home to roost. and there’s no way to disentangle The Religious ceremony Marriage from the Legal contract that the Governments recognize as marriage.
(Sorry for the rambling nature here)
Paris
the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do
Yeah, the Constitution is full of those ‘thou shall not do this’ and ‘thou shall not do thats’
What a pea brain.
Angry Black Lady
even with private clubs, it’s hard to pass constitutional muster. i can’t remember what case it was that had the famous footnote that basically made the commerce clause applicable to everyfuckingbody/thing and extended it to protect insular minorities. carolene products, i think.
sheesh, i can’t remember, yet the new teatwits are all fired up about debating the constitution. i consider myself pretty intelligent, and commerce clause jurisprudence drove me bananas in law school. i wanted a prof who would focus on the fun stuff — EP Clause, Civil Rights. Nope. I got the Commerce Clause guy. Brutal.
Lysana
I am up way too late reading this, but I am so glad I did. ABL, you have me under your spell. May I join the makeout party? I’ll bring the whisky!
burnspbesq
@Angry Black Lady:
” i wanted a prof who would focus on the fun stuff—EP Clause, Civil Rights. Nope. I got the Commerce Clause guy. Brutal.”
My guy was the same way. We spent what seemed like forever on McCullough, Shreveport, and Carolene. No sex appeal, but 30 years later I understand why. Article 1 matters.
Odie Hugh Manatee
There are too many reprehensible assholes, like Scalia, whose finest moment will be once they are worm food. Until then, they are nothing more than a cancer eating away at our society. I’m cheering for worm feed, they are hungry guys who will eat any kind of organic shit.
Scalia should be flavored just right for them.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Tattoosydney:
You guys gave us Rupert Murdoch and I don’t know if there is anything you guys can ever do to make that right. That’s ok though, we gave the world Bush and Cheney.
We won that losing contest…lol!
kay
@TooManyJens:
This made me laugh. I want some clarity, too.
“Person” comes up a lot in the Constitution.
We need a working definition from Federalist Society lawyers, pronto. I’m going to require about 50 follow-up questions. We need to nail this down.
Luci
I don’t have time to do more than skim this, and I have not read many of the comments, but I love you too, and from what I saw, I’m in total agreement with you, and thanks!!!!!!
LGRooney
As so often through the past two centuries, I see no discussion here of the 9th Amendment. That should be scrolled and used to sodomize Scalia, then perhaps he will get it into his head that the people enjoy whatever rights they want unless specifically proscribed by the law. IOW, my rights end where yours begin. If he still doesn’t get it, roll up a copy of TJ’s words, “it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket,” and shove that up his brain.
And, if there’s still room, you might shove a copy of Madison’s Remonstrance up there to further the lesson. …or a big volume of Locke’s writings.
ornery curmudgeon
Scalia is a hypocrite … his invention of rights for corporations is exactly what he complains about as “judicial activism.”
Original construction is a (yet another) Right wing lie; they don’t mean it for themselves, but as a smokescreen.
Cathy in Virginia
@ABL
The Supreme Court case that prohibited private businesses from discriminating was Katzenback v. McClung. Katzenback was the Attorney General charged with enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. McClung was a douchebag from Tennessee (??) who wanted to keep his motel lily-white. Private clubs are still a-okay, so long as they don’t significantly participate in interstate commerce (unlike a motel which invites the public in). Hence, all-male country clubs persist, though thankfully the little ladies do get to come to the pro shops for a couple of days before Christmas every year.
Barney
No less a person than Scalia’s shooting buddy, ex-VP and Dark Lord, Dick ‘Dick’ Cheney said to Senator Leahy “go fuck yourself”, in the Senate, and then said on national TV he felt good about saying it.
Maybe Cheney threatened to shoot Scalia in the face, and make him apologise, if he didn’t erase such behaviour from his mind?
bloodstar
@Angry Black Lady: Doesn’t the commerce clause only permit the Federal Government the right to pass laws regulating or prohibiting things? So in this case, that means the Federal government can outlaw clubs that only permit men or whites or right handed people to be a part of it. I think of Augusta National Golf Club, which still hasn’t let a single woman become a member (that was the whole controversy from 2002 related to it and The Masters, It looks unseemly, but it’s not illegal).
It’s like Scalia took two separate and distinct issues and intentionally muddied them up. He should know better.