Scalia: His robes are white

[Dr. Medulla]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/2 ... 35591.html

So, the idea that Brown v. B of E is evolutionary, and therefore bad, but Plessy v. Ferguson was originalist and good? Nope, no racists in the GOP …

[matedog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/2 ... 35591.html

So, the idea that Brown v. B of E is evolutionary, and therefore bad, but Plessy v. Ferguson was originalist and good? Nope, no racists in the GOP …

Right because societal things don't change/evolve.

[Flex]

I'd like to say Scalia's statements are embarrassing even for him, but they're actually par for the course. If anyone stops feeling a constant low-level sense of terror at the insanity of the world, just remember that this dude is deciding laws for one of the most powerful states in the world.

Sleep well.

[Dr. Medulla]

He had a great perspective a few weeks ago about, I believe, the presence of a giant fucking cross in a military cemetery:

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."

Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"

[eumaas]

He had a great perspective a few weeks ago about, I believe, the presence of a giant fucking cross in a military cemetery:

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."

Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"

[Wolter]

God I fucking hate that guy.

[JennyB]

I hate that guy so much that I refuse to even eat scallions anymore.

[Flex]

I hate that guy so much that I refuse to even eat scallions anymore.

AHAHAHA!

[matedog]

God I fucking hate that guy.

My sister used to have classes with his daughter when we lived in the VA. Apparently she was not a good person either.

[darter]

Did anyone see John Dean's (from Watergate) book in which his says his "research" led him to discover that there is such a thing as an "authoritarian personality?" He only recently discovered this! What a waste of an education he must have had. Anyway, whether they call themselves strict constructionists or biblical literalists, it's the same compulsion to prove their correctness by pointing to a rule or an "authority" or a deity or whatever. Yea, I hate those bastards too. Anyway, here's Dean's take on Republicans:


For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work.

What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... autho.html

[eumaas]

Right, because the Dems aren't authoritarian at all.

[Dr. Medulla]

Right, because the Dems aren't authoritarian at all.

Nonsense.

[darter]

As luck would have it, here is a nice example from last night's news. This twit cannot just say he dislikes gays for personal reasons, family upbringing, or whatever. Instead he claims to base his belief on "natural law" which of course led him logically to the conclusion that his personal views are irrefutably correct because they are in accord, ultimately, with God's laws, which are also, well, blah, blah, blah ...



Va. att’y gen’l candidate denounces ‘homosexual acts’
Cuccinelli draws ire after anti-gay remarks

HOME > NEWS > LOCAL

Oct 30, 2009 | By: Chris Johnson | COMMENTS [Share this article!] Printer Friendly Version

As the campaign season in Virginia enters its final days, one conservative candidate is drawing the ire from LGBT people for recent remarks against “homosexual acts.”

State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax), the GOP contender seeking to become Virginia’s next attorney general, made the comments to the editorial board of the Virginian-Pilot. The paper published the remarks on Monday in an endorsement of his opponent, Democrat Steve Shannon. The election is set for Tuesday.

Cuccinelli, who has often voted against gay issues during his time in the General Assembly, reportedly declined to commit to a non-discrimination policy in his office against gays as attorney general, and went on to criticize gays.

“My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong,” he was quoted as saying. “They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that.”

[Dr. Medulla]

Antonin Scalia: Holocaust scholar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 32118.html

If only the German justices had greater sense, Himmler and Eichmann would have had no choice but to call it off.

[JennyB]

Antonin Scalia: Holocaust scholar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 32118.html

If only the German justices had greater sense, Himmler and Eichmann would have had no choice but to call it off.

Oh, for fuck's sake. He has to be trolling us now. He's like the Amanda Bynes of SCOTUS.