Via SCOTUSblog’s live blog of today’s decisions:
Scalia’s dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.
Do us all a favor, Antonius Obesus.
Hide your head in bag anyway.
Image: attr. to Charles Mellin, Portrait of a Stout Man (Nearest I could get to a Baroque separated-at-birth portrait of the Honorable Scalia), c. 1630
WereBear
It’s that he’s fat-headed.
Elizabelle
An embarrassment of wealth with BJ blogposts, an embarrassment of wealth with good decisions by the Supreme Court.
And Nino Scalia: just plain an embarrassment.
FlipYrWhig
Even projecting myself into the mind of Nino Scalia — a landscape worthy of Bosch — I can’t understand what’s supposed to be particularly loopy about the offending sentence.
dmsilev
Man, he had a bad week, didn’t he?
So sad….
mkro
Does this mean that Glenn Greenwald can move back to the US now ?
feebog
Just hope I live long enough to piss on his grave.
Gravenstone
Preferably plastic, cinched tight at the neck.
low-tech cyclist
I’m going with the HItchhiker’s Guide if I ever get the chance to meet Scalia, and will tell him to go stick his head in a pig.
But yeah, good news indeed from the Supremes this week. Surprisingly good, considering this Court.
MomSense
I may need to drink the wingnut tears on ice–they are getting pretty heated.
Steve Angelis @steveangelis 59m59 minutes ago
@sarahalive11 @SCOTUSblog millions of children are NOT born every year because of wasted seed due to sodomy!
0 retweets 0 favorites
Marianna Kaufman @MariannaKaufma4 17m17 minutes ago
.@steveangelis @sarahalive11 @SCOTUSblog what are we crops? #Lovewins!!
1 retweet 3 favorites
Steve Angelis @steveangelis 17m17 minutes ago
@MariannaKaufma4 @sarahalive11 @SCOTUSblog The seed of man is sacred and should NEVER be wasted!
0 retweets 0 favorites
WereBear
@MomSense: Cue song.
And every time a woman has a period that’s another potential person who isn’t going to cell-divide.
But they never, ever, bring that up.
chopper
@WereBear:
gonna need a bigger bag.
A Ghost To Most
And the tears flow (actual thread from DeadState):
Villago Delenda Est
Antonin Scalia continues to display the grace and dignity we’ve come to expect from him.
benw
@low-tech cyclist: but “go stick your head in a pig” was meant to be welcoming, right? I think what Scalia (and a lot of other conservatives) really need is a session in the Total Perspective Vortex.
Elizabelle
C-Span: just heard a bitter, bitter man call in to say he’s mad gay people will now get tax deductions cuz they’re married. That is going to hurt him. This is the end of this country.
He does not seem to be married. Gee. Wonder why not?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
No picture could make Scalia look more appropriately ridiculous than a photo of him in that Thomas Moore hat he’s so proud of
Felonius Monk
In regard to yesterday’s decision on Obamacare, Ed over at Gin &Tacos said of Fat Tony’s dissent:
I guess this could apply as well to his dissent on same-sex marriage.
Kropadope
10:06, 10:09, 10:49, 10:56; all gay marriage. That big foot be walkin.
sukabi
What no jiggery-pokery or pure applesauce? At least he’s still lucid enough to not go full-throated 3/5 the.
MomSense
@WereBear:
Oh my they are going nuts. Some of the stuff is just–wow.
Oh and Ben Rosen has the best gif of the rebel flag going down the pole and the rainbow flag going up. So great.
Elizabelle
President speaking.
FlipYrWhig
@mkro:
I guess there was bound to be a downside.
SiubhanDuinne
POTUS talking now on decision
Felonius Monk
June 25 & 26, 2015 will forever be remember as the days of the Great Wing-nut Head explosions. Will tax-payer dollars be used to clean up the carnage?
MelissaM
You know Scalia would have to pull his fat noggin out of his ass first to put it in a bag.
SiubhanDuinne
“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.”
SiubhanDuinne
“This ruling will strengthen all communities.”
Elizabelle
@SiubhanDuinne: Memorable line.
mike with a mic
Those of us in the poly community still don’t have our rights. Now marks the time for us to stand up and demand them and demand that our civil rights get put on the front burner and push for sacrifices to get corporate support for them.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@MomSense: Sing it with me now!
Kropadope
@Felonius Monk: @Felonius Monk:
No, to honor their memories and intent, the government will do nothing. Industry will be free to make money utilizing the remains, unburdened by any limitations or regulations.
Elizabelle
@mike with a mic: Funny. Fox was reassuring its viewers that today’s ruling does not permit polygamous marriages, or marriage to the underage.
C.V. Danes
<blockquoteI would hide my head in a bag.
Perhaps he could make that a plastic bag.
Kropadope
@Elizabelle:
It’s good that Fox recognizes its viewers as so poorly informed that they would need to be reassured of this.
mike with a mic
@Elizabelle:
It’s a civil rights issue. And in time those opposed to poly marriage will be viewed as the same sort of bigots as those who opposed interracial and gay marriage. Many of us were biding our time, now is the time to move forward and demand full support of poly relationships as a plank of the Democratic party, and a pressing civil rights issue. Now it’s our turn.
SiubhanDuinne
“Today we can say … we’ve made our Union a little more perfect.”
Omnes Omnibus
@C.V. Danes: Hey, look on the bright side. He is admitting that he is capable of feeling shame. Color me surprised.
chopper
@A Ghost To Most:
indeed. now that gay people can also get an official piece of paper saying they’re in a state-sanctioned relationship it’s clearly all over. last one out turn off the lights.
SiubhanDuinne
“America should be very proud.”
mobile amir khalid
@Elizabelle:
Always look on the bright sidewalk of life …
FlipYrWhig
@mike with a mic: I’d call that bluff. I don’t care. Let there be marriage-like compacts for groupings of 2 to infinity, as long as every party to the pact is a consenting adult.
Elizabelle
@Kropadope: I switched the channel before they got to reassuring them that marriage to animals is out too. Rest easy, household pets and barnyard animals.
President Obama looks happy and weary.
geg6
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Isn’t that Alito? Meh, whatever. They are both dinosaurs. No insult to actual dinosaurs intended. Actual dinosaurs are super cool.
Elizabelle
@chopper: Some bitter C-Span caller was saying divorce lawyers are going to be happy. Assume he meant that gay people will get divorced too.
Host did not ask if it was because straight couples were going to be throwing off the shackles of matrimony.
MomSense
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Just for today I don’t mind having that song as an ear worm. I can’t believe they still believe all that business.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Gravenstone: I pretty much the same thing. It was not nice of me, I know, but it’s really how I feel.
Plus, I can get gay married now! I’m thinking of asking my butterfly bush, Miss Ruby.
Elizabelle
@mobile amir khalid: mobile! woo hoo!
But not cuz you’re fleeing a volcano or anything. Right?
Beatrice
@Elizabelle: I thought he was rather subdued. And weary. I hope he just thought being more celebratory was not appropriate.
MomSense
@Elizabelle:
Oh that same thread on twitter has a lot of concern about polygamy and bestiality. Wowza those people need to get out more.
catclub
@low-tech cyclist:
Sing it like the jingle!
Elizabelle
If you want to hear tears, tune in C-Span. They open their phone lines to the unhinged. Seems the bitter call in on “Democrat” lines too. Maybe the GOP and Independent are too swamped.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Beatrice: Isn’t he going to Charleston today? I imagine that’s weighing on him
Elizabelle
@MomSense: Ellen Generes had a great routine, where she said they always go from gay marriage straight to animals.
Omnes Omnibus
@FlipYrWhig: Trust and estate lawyers would have a field day.
Elizabelle
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yeah. Heading out to the airport soon.
I am wondering if they moved the 11:00 a services to 1:45 p because they were expecting this opinion to be issued. C-Span schedule on my TV still says Pinckney service from 11-3 today.
Elizabelle
Great. Now a C-Span caller is talking about aliens, ghosts, or with a demon.
Rick Santorum has condemned the ruling. Quel surprise.
Gravenstone
@Beatrice: I suspect that the duty he will fulfill later today in delivering the eulogy is weighing upon him.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Elizabelle: What about that Dixie couple that vowed to get divorced if gay marriage is allowed. But it would be “symbolic,” and they’d still enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. Will they use a symbolic domestic attorney for that?
Elizabelle
C-Span: Lindsey Graham will respect the decision. He calls himself still a defender of traditional marriage.
mike with a mic
@FlipYrWhig:
That’s essentially what the fight is for.
MomSense
@Elizabelle:
It’s so creepy. If you look at your pet and think someone, somewhere wants to marry a pet or have sex with it you are messed up.
Elizabelle
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): They want to pay more taxes to the US government that bad?
Cervantes
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
It’s a Tudor bonnet, long part of various academic traditions.
Elizabelle
@MomSense: Protect the Purity of our Pets.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Zul? Holy Sigourneys! Whoyagonnacall?
Beatrice
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yes, that makes sense. I forgot for a minute but I’m sure he hasn’t.
Redshift
@Elizabelle:
Or maybe it was about the only way marriage equality is likely to “harm” opposite-sex marriage – as all those closeted self-denying conservatives who followed through on the wingnut dictum “they have equality — they can marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else” finally have a more realistic option.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cervantes:
Elizabelle
@Beatrice: I think you are exactly right.
Think I saw a small smile, though. Was typing and listening more than watching ….
dogwood
I think soon we will be hearing from Andrew Sullivan for the first time in months.
nanapple
One of my faux-watching, wingnut cousins just posted on Facebook that the divorce lawyers are all sooooo happy. This must be the faux talking point of the day.
PaulW
I tried reading Scalia’s dissent.
He’s coming across less as a respected jurist using legal arguments, and more like that aging uncle sitting at the sports bar counter working on his fifth beer.
Has any other jurist used personal and derogatory language in a legal decision like this?
Elizabelle
Scott Walker, talking, as Santorum did, about five unelected representatives.
BUT: it’s the Court’s duty to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. So SCOTUS was performing their duty, and Walker and Santorum are — surprise — wrong on style and on substance.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Elizabelle: Remember when the R’s were pretending to be scandalized because Obama criticized CU and the Court in his SOTU? for the record, I’m all for discussing the Nine as if they were mere mortals
Cervantes
@? Martin:
Not exactly what happened.
Omnes Omnibus
@dogwood: There had to be a downside somewhere.
mobile amir khalid
@Elizabelle:
Becoz in hospital. Bad reaction between Ramadhan dehydration and heart meds but Ok to go home Saturday.
B
BTW fuck autofill for messing up my Monty Pythonpunchline Pytgon
WaterGirl
@Elizabelle: Perhaps the pool of candidates for the rotating first lady position got a little bigger today?
Cervantes
@mobile amir khalid:
Very sorry to hear that.
Harap cepat sembuh-lah!
WaterGirl
@mobile amir khalid: Take care of yourself, Amir!
Elizabelle
@mobile amir khalid: Hope you are feeling spiffier soon. Sorry to hear it. Be well!
Bill
Scalia’s dissent – in addition to being his usual tantrum – basically boils down to an argument that the court lacks authority to interpret the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. He disagrees with the very idea of judicial review, and seems to want to overturn Marbury. (Among other reasons, apparently because of the lack of diversity on the Court. An issue he didn’t seem to mind until today. Does he now favor racial and religious based quotas?)
It begs the question, why would you want to be on the Court if you don’t want to do the one thing the Court has to do? Interpret the constitution.
raven
@mobile amir khalid: Hang tough may man!
SuperHrefna
@mobile amir khalid: I’m so sorry! Feel better soon. Can you get someone to give you a Ramadan exemption?
TriassicSands
This could be “El Nino’s” worst week ever. Bullies are always most powerful when they’ve got a mob behind them, and this week, Scalia found the mob had deserted him.
The four naysayers all lean heavily on what they claim is the traditional institution of marriage. In their naive view, marriage was all about the children and procreation for perpetuating race. Not much (or any) attention goes to the true nature of marriage when the Constitution was written. It was hardly an equal partnership, since women had no political rights and were viewed as property. In his profoundly humane desire to perpetuate the human race, the husband could rape his wife at will, and she would have no recourse under the law. I guess the right to be free from rape is also one to be left to the states to decide.
While trying to stress the universality of man-woman marriage, those same justices gloss over (ignore?) the reality of arranged marriages in which woman (and sometimes men) were (and may still be) required to marry to fulfill the political and social ends prescribed by their parents and political betters. Marriage was hardly the institution they claim to describe. Gradually, women have gained rights, some of which concern marriage. Even Kennedy, in his opinion affirming the right to same sex marriage mischaracterizes marriage of the past:
Being the property of a man and subject to his every sexual whim hardly promises nobility and dignity for women.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@mobile amir khalid: Feel better soonest, please.
WereBear
@mobile amir khalid: Mobile blog participation is a challenge. Get better soon!
brantl
Just get a picture of a fat toad with hemorrhoids, that will work.
elftx
Yet he thinks Hobby Lobby was just fine.
Ruckus
@Elizabelle:
Ellen Generes had a great routine, where she said they always go from gay marriage straight to animals.
Projection, that is an indication of conservatism isn’t it?
LAC
@MomSense: he sounds like he would be happy to prevent the waste of semen, if you know what I mean. ?
Cervantes
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yes, and (as your source points out) his immediate response upon trying it out was to suggest he would wear it in academic settings.
Is there an unresolved question? If so I am not seeing it.
MomSense
@LAC:
HAHAHA!
Elizabelle
@Ruckus: Projection. One of the few qualities they have perfected.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Cervantes: and it is, in the minds of Scalia and the people who gave it to him, a “Thomas More hat”. They didn’t give it to him because a shared love for Tudor haberdashery.
One of us is confused about a presidential inauguration being an “academic setting”.
and the eternal question with your posts: Why do you type them?
celticdragonchick
@PaulW:
Rod Dreher had an online orgam praising Scalia’s dissent.
He also thinks this is the end of American freedom and teh faggot mafia is coming to put Real Christians into camps fr som eold fashioned Roman persecution.
Also, too.
Sad_Dem
The last couple of days have been anything but sad. Scalia’s pained howls on the ACA and the gay marriage rulings are just so sweet to my ears, I want to send him a postcard with a little smiley face.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@MomSense: not a swallower, I take it
opiejeanne
@mobile amir khalid: I hope you feel better.
There are exceptions to such strict fasting for cases like yours, aren’t there?
opiejeanne
@Cervantes: You said they had been a “long part of academic settings”
I think the “long part” is questionable.
Leah
@Bill: Most of the right-wing don’t accept the notion of judicial review, although they rarely even try to make a case for what they think the true role of the court is supposed to be. That’s why it’s so weird that Scalia invokes the.”disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall ,” who. after all is said and done, is the Chief Justice who defined the Supreme Court’s mission to be that of Judicial Review, and who gave us Marbury, at a time, one should note, that most of the framers of the Constitution were still alive/
moderateindy
@mike with a mic: I have no problem with poly as a concept, but it would be a legal/legislative nightmare. Divorce is inevitable in any relationship. How does the gov’t, either court or legislatures, figure out matters like: child support, SS benefits, estate issues, and I imagine there are a whole host of legal issues beside those? It would be beyond a clusterf#*ck. You can say that you may draw up a contract/ prenup, but such things often fall into grey areas, and are easily challenged in court. I’m not against it, and it would have little effect on so-called traditional marriage, but I’m just saying from the gov’t perspective there are valid reasons to be wary of such arrangements.
Benw
Scalia’s tears taste like warm Bud Light Lime. Yuck.
Bill
@Leah: Exactly, why invoke the guy who wrote Marbury if at the end of the day your position is the Marbury is wrong. It’s bizarre.
And someone please tell me what the court is supposed to do if not engage in judicial review.
boatboy_srq
@Elizabelle: “Men are pigs.” It’s just that some people take that literally.
brantl
@MomSense: When are these people going to get to understand that you’d need a ratio of women to men of hundreds of thousands to one, not to “waste” any seed, and they are strictly Gladys Kravitz monogamists?
Cervantes
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I could not care less why they gave it to him, or what he thought of it. I simply made a brief (one-line) remark about its proper name and relevant history (which relevance was then reflected in your quotation from Scalia). You seem to have a problem with what I said. It’s puzzling.
No, I don’t think so.
Better question: Why do you bother “reading” them? It really won’t offend anyone if you stop.
Cervantes
@opiejeanne:
Sure, question whatever you want to.
I guess the answer to your question depends on what you mean by “long.” At Oxford, for example, Tudor bonnets have been used in academic ceremonies since the Elizabethan era (and I don’t mean Elizabeth II).
A recent innovation, would you say?
JustRuss
@nanapple:
So….gay marriage–and divorce–is creating more work for lawyers? Who knew? I, for one, welcome our fabulous job creating overlords! And the ones who wear flannel, too.
opiejeanne
@Cervantes: I think you know what I meant. I was questioning their continued use in modern times being a long tradition. If we go back to when they were in style, well then you win all the marbles. Duh.
And I must ask, why are you such a bully? Yes, you have a vast knowledge of certain areas, and there’s nothing wrong with showing it but you do tend to bully people with it.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
You engaged me, I responded, and you do seem to put so much effort in to being a tiresome douchebag.
“proper name”? Well, aren’t you a fine little pupil, Martin Prince. “Call on me, Teacher! I know the correct answer! I’m ever so smart!” Would you like a cookie, Precious? You’d probably prefer a gold star sticker. So much more proper.
“relevant history”? Actually, the “relevant history” isn’t Oxford (you know about Oxford!? Oxford in England?! You must be ever so smart! again!) much less the Tudor era, it’s the modern American right-wing “pro-life” outfit that has delusionally latched on to Thomas More and his martyrdom, and their conferring of what they see as a great honor on Scalia by giving him the hat… sorry, “bonnet”, and Scalia’s choice to wear said “bonnet” to a Presidential inauguration, a very public and political (not “academic”) statement about, not Tudor England, or Oxford, but the contemporary United States– that’s what makes it, the “bonnet”, relevant.
Truth be told, I do find your gratuitous, and apparently compulsive (and, regrettably, inexhaustible) pedantry grating, often completely irrelevant and generally useless, but I think the problem is more yours than mine. But by all means, enjoy that gold star.
Cervantes
@opiejeanne:
You’re still wrong about that.
But it is a “long” academic tradition, as explained above.
You appear to be using words here with no concern for what they actually mean. That’s your prerogative, of course.
Cervantes
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I can’t respond to gibberish, sorry.
Have a great week-end.