Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   Antonin Scalia discusses flogging, his belief in the devil, and other highlights of his legal philosophy. Can we get a farking "insane" tag around here?   (nymag.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Scalia, originalist, Seinfeld, pound gorilla, Supreme Court, imperial presidency  
•       •       •

1673 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2013 at 10:25 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-07 09:17:07 AM  
i don't know. It's a pretty good read. He sounds like a fun guy.

You know, kind of like that old fat cigar smoking uncle that everyone in the family loves, until some guest gets him going about politics, money, race, or religion, and then everyone rolls their eyes and clears the room.

I would love to play him in poker. I bet he's pouty as hell when he loses.
 
2013-10-07 09:24:54 AM  
Big fan of Celt-punk?
 
2013-10-07 09:36:26 AM  

whistleridge: i don't know. It's a pretty good read. He sounds like a fun guy.

You know, kind of like that old fat cigar smoking uncle that everyone in the family loves, until some guest gets him going about politics, money, race, or religion, and then everyone rolls their eyes and clears the room.

I would love to play him in poker. I bet he's pouty as hell when he loses.


The problem is your fat old uncle isn't a judge of anything more important than what game to watch.
 
2013-10-07 09:48:25 AM  
Even females are using the effin-and-jeffin these days!
 
2013-10-07 09:54:35 AM  

DamnYankees: Even females are using the effin-and-jeffin these days!


They're wearing trousers now, too.
 
2013-10-07 09:55:03 AM  
So he reads Washington Times and Wall St. Journal.

Used to read the Washington Post and New York Times, but they are "too liberal." Listens to "Talk Radio" and cites Bill Bennet's show.

Honestly, this guy sounds a lot more like a derpy old senile retiree than someone entrusted with the Supreme Court. Can't wait until he's gone, honestly. He actively shuts out opinion of at least half the country because he just knows that he's right, and then goes out and reinforces that by encircling himself with only opinions that equal his.
 
2013-10-07 10:11:12 AM  

Generation_D: He actively shuts out opinion of at least half the country because he just knows that he's right, and then goes out and reinforces that by encircling himself with only opinions that equal his


This.
 
2013-10-07 10:13:40 AM  
The most interesting about this interview is actually his comments on Ford. I saw it noted on Twitter, and it really does seem like many younger conservatives who worked in the Ford administraton, like Scalia and Cheney, were in some ways scarred by that experience and have really taken that attitude that they were insulted all through their public life.
 
2013-10-07 10:20:30 AM  

Generation_D: So he reads Washington Times and Wall St. Journal.

Used to read the Washington Post and New York Times, but they are "too liberal." Listens to "Talk Radio" and cites Bill Bennet's show.

Honestly, this guy sounds a lot more like a derpy old senile retiree than someone entrusted with the Supreme Court. Can't wait until he's gone, honestly. He actively shuts out opinion of at least half the country because he just knows that he's right, and then goes out and reinforces that by encircling himself with only opinions that equal his.


Well, I mean, DUH.

He's TRYING to save you from yourself, stupid. I mean, the choices he made have worked for HIM. If you would just try super duper hard to be more like HIM, you'd be FINE. And you wouldn't need Obamacare and soshulism and gay rights and all these other libruhl changes.
 
2013-10-07 10:26:12 AM  
But Scalia's writings on gay rights explode any notion of judicial remove, rocketing beyond casual homophobia into the repugnant realm of virulently anti-gay invective. Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy, and animal abuse. He's analogized gay people to drug addicts and prostitutes and likened gay sex to incest, adultery, and bestiality. He's echoed his son in questioning whether gay people even exist, suggesting that homosexuality is actually aberrant, depraved conduct rather than a true identity. And he's derided the "homosexual agenda" for "eliminating the moral opprobrium" against "a lifestyle [many Americans] believe to be immoral and destructive."

Whatever he says in this interview, Antonin Scalia really, really hates gay people. He thinks they're wicked and twisted and deviant; he suspects they're insidiously indoctrinating America with perverted values; he thinks homophobes are merely "protecting themselves and their families" from homosexuality's corrupting immorality. Link
 
2013-10-07 10:29:58 AM  
"words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.
 
2013-10-07 10:32:23 AM  

DamnYankees: The most interesting about this interview is actually his comments on Ford. I saw it noted on Twitter, and it really does seem like many younger conservatives who worked in the Ford administraton, like Scalia and Cheney, were in some ways scarred by that experience and have really taken that attitude that they were insulted all through their public life.


That's the most interesting and insightful thing I've read all week.

Conservatives' current issues stem from long-held bitterness over a political low point nearly half a century gone. They want to reclaim not Reagan's policies but the way he redeemed public opinion of Republicans.
 
2013-10-07 10:33:11 AM  

DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.


Frankly, there are some crimes I'm OK with flogging for. Pedophilia, for example. Or mass murder.
 
2013-10-07 10:33:21 AM  
Antonin Scalia is a malicious, vile, and reprehensible individual. Were only Hell an actual afterlife destination.
 
2013-10-07 10:33:25 AM  
All the casual misogny and gender essentialism is fun too. Oh, there are legitimate reasons to discriminate against women, because COMBAT (never mind women soldiers have been in combat situations for a long time."

And the bit about how "ladies" are swearing now too.

Ugh.
 
2013-10-07 10:35:21 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But Scalia's writings on gay rights explode any notion of judicial remove, rocketing beyond casual homophobia into the repugnant realm of virulently anti-gay invective. Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy, and animal abuse. He's analogized gay people to drug addicts and prostitutes and likened gay sex to incest, adultery, and bestiality. He's echoed his son in questioning whether gay people even exist, suggesting that homosexuality is actually aberrant, depraved conduct rather than a true identity. And he's derided the "homosexual agenda" for "eliminating the moral opprobrium" against "a lifestyle [many Americans] believe to be immoral and destructive."

Whatever he says in this interview, Antonin Scalia really, really hates gay people. He thinks they're wicked and twisted and deviant; he suspects they're insidiously indoctrinating America with perverted values; he thinks homophobes are merely "protecting themselves and their families" from homosexuality's corrupting immorality. Link




Me thinks Scalia protests too much.
 
2013-10-07 10:35:36 AM  

DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.


Not only is he an asshole, but he's wrong. Words change meaning all the time. Look at the word "peruse" or the word "literally." I won't make judgements about whether the changes are right or wrong, but the common meanings of both of these words has changed.
 
2013-10-07 10:36:50 AM  

Snarky Acronym: Dusk-You-n-Me: But Scalia's writings on gay rights explode any notion of judicial remove, rocketing beyond casual homophobia into the repugnant realm of virulently anti-gay invective. Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy, and animal abuse. He's analogized gay people to drug addicts and prostitutes and likened gay sex to incest, adultery, and bestiality. He's echoed his son in questioning whether gay people even exist, suggesting that homosexuality is actually aberrant, depraved conduct rather than a true identity. And he's derided the "homosexual agenda" for "eliminating the moral opprobrium" against "a lifestyle [many Americans] believe to be immoral and destructive."

Whatever he says in this interview, Antonin Scalia really, really hates gay people. He thinks they're wicked and twisted and deviant; he suspects they're insidiously indoctrinating America with perverted values; he thinks homophobes are merely "protecting themselves and their families" from homosexuality's corrupting immorality. Link

Me thinks Scalia protests too much.


I don't think Scalia is secretly gay. I think he's one of those people who wants everything to stay the same forever and never change, and the world just doesn't work like that.
 
2013-10-07 10:36:53 AM  

Genevieve Marie: All the casual misogny and gender essentialism is fun too. Oh, there are legitimate reasons to discriminate against women, because COMBAT (never mind women soldiers have been in combat situations for a long time."

And the bit about how "ladies" are swearing now too.

Ugh.


He gets to decide the most important sexual discrimination cases.

Because, you know, it's October and we all deserve to be scared shiatless.
 
2013-10-07 10:37:30 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But Scalia's writings on gay rights explode any notion of judicial remove, rocketing beyond casual homophobia into the repugnant realm of virulently anti-gay invective. Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy, and animal abuse. He's analogized gay people to drug addicts and prostitutes and likened gay sex to incest, adultery, and bestiality. He's echoed his son in questioning whether gay people even exist, suggesting that homosexuality is actually aberrant, depraved conduct rather than a true identity. And he's derided the "homosexual agenda" for "eliminating the moral opprobrium" against "a lifestyle [many Americans] believe to be immoral and destructive."

Whatever he says in this interview, Antonin Scalia really, really hates gay people. He thinks they're wicked and twisted and deviant; he suspects they're insidiously indoctrinating America with perverted values; he thinks homophobes are merely "protecting themselves and their families" from homosexuality's corrupting immorality. Link


Yep....unfortunately he's in a position to do a lot more than just "have an opinion".

And he's there for life.
 
2013-10-07 10:37:37 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: The most interesting about this interview is actually his comments on Ford. I saw it noted on Twitter, and it really does seem like many younger conservatives who worked in the Ford administraton, like Scalia and Cheney, were in some ways scarred by that experience and have really taken that attitude that they were insulted all through their public life.

That's the most interesting and insightful thing I've read all week.

Conservatives' current issues stem from long-held bitterness over a political low point nearly half a century gone. They want to reclaim not Reagan's policies but the way he redeemed public opinion of Republicans.



. . .a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups . . .
 
2013-10-07 10:38:27 AM  
And the bit about how flogging would be constitutional but stupid?

Um... cruel and unusual punishment? One of those things not permissable under the Constitution?

I wouldn't think that would even be a hard one to call.
 
2013-10-07 10:41:40 AM  
No 50 shades jokes, I know it's early but I am dissappointed.
 
2013-10-07 10:43:02 AM  

Kit Fister: DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.

Frankly, there are some crimes I'm OK with flogging for. Pedophilia, for example. Or mass murder.



Why?  Because it's more cruel?  That's what the prohibition is there for, to ensure the rule of law over men.  Punishment shouldn't be a function of what any one person finds particularly repugnant.

Most child abusers were abused themselves.  Beating them isn't going to correct the problem or mitigate its existence in the future.  In some respects the founding fathers were very enlightened.  In others not so much.
 
2013-10-07 10:45:02 AM  
In all likelihood Scalia has some kind of illegal underground dungeon in which he tortures beautiful women for fun.

He's one of the few people in the world I wish actual cancer upon. Not normal cancer. Like an eat your face off torturous amalgamation of Ebola and Cancer that also maliciously goes after your testicles.
 
2013-10-07 10:45:41 AM  

Generation_D: So he reads Washington Times and Wall St. Journal.

Used to read the Washington Post and New York Times, but they are "too liberal." Listens to "Talk Radio" and cites Bill Bennet's show.

Honestly, this guy sounds a lot more like a derpy old senile retiree than someone entrusted with the Supreme Court. Can't wait until he's gone, honestly. He actively shuts out opinion of at least half the country because he just knows that he's right, and then goes out and reinforces that by encircling himself with only opinions that equal his.


When your opinion is not supported by logic or facts you need continual reinforcement of that opinion by other sources. Its not a surprise he needs to reinforce his opinion with right wing fan fiction. I bet he also goes to church every Sunday.
 
2013-10-07 10:45:59 AM  

Genevieve Marie: And the bit about how flogging would be constitutional but stupid?

Um... cruel and unusual punishment? One of those things not permissable under the Constitution?

I wouldn't think that would even be a hard one to call.


Because a moment of fleeting physical pain is so much more cruel than taking away irreplaceable years of lifespan by tossing someone in a hole fore a while right?
 
2013-10-07 10:47:58 AM  

Genevieve Marie: And the bit about how flogging would be constitutional but stupid?

Um... cruel and unusual punishment? One of those things not permissable under the Constitution?

I wouldn't think that would even be a hard one to call.


Based on (GRAPHIC, NO NUDITY BUT POTENTIALLY NSFW)  these pictures, yeah...I think it's cruel. And unusual

So far as I can tell, all of the pictures of flogging victims come from Islamic countries with very harsh penal codes and no reputation whatsoever for responsible jurisprudence. I find it curious that he would identify so strongly with such a place.
 
2013-10-07 10:49:13 AM  

Selena Luna: Words change meaning all the time. Look at the word "peruse" or the word "literally." I won't make judgements about whether the changes are right or wrong, but the common meanings of both of these words has changed.


I don't think the meaning of "literally" has actually changed, it's just that people are using it without even knowing what it means.

"My head literally exploded"

/no it did NOT
 
2013-10-07 10:49:55 AM  

Selena Luna: DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.

Not only is he an asshole, but he's wrong. Words change meaning all the time. Look at the word "peruse" or the word "literally." I won't make judgements about whether the changes are right or wrong, but the common meanings of both of these words has changed.


'well-regulated'
 
2013-10-07 10:50:03 AM  

Selena Luna: DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.

Not only is he an asshole, but he's wrong. Words change meaning all the time. Look at the word "peruse" or the word "literally." I won't make judgements about whether the changes are right or wrong, but the common meanings of both of these words has changed.


... not to mention that 'gay' once meant 'lighthearted and happy' (see 'The Flintstones' lyrics) or that 'filibustering' once had a meaning akin to 'adventurous'.
 
2013-10-07 10:51:03 AM  
What I wish for Scalia on his deathbed is for the crushing realization of just how monumentally wrong he has been all these years to finally awaken in what few brain cells he has left. I wish for that one fleeting moment before he finally dies, that the pain and the problems he's caused America will finally in some sweeping tsunami of awareness come crashing down upon his rotten soul, and the anguish he's caused countless thousands if not millions of others will for once finally be made known to him.

And that moment, his final moment on earth, I wish that he will go violently, angrily, and bitterly, without an ounce of peace in his soul.

And then I will dance on his grave.
 
2013-10-07 10:51:11 AM  

whistleridge: Genevieve Marie: And the bit about how flogging would be constitutional but stupid?

Um... cruel and unusual punishment? One of those things not permissable under the Constitution?

I wouldn't think that would even be a hard one to call.

Based on (GRAPHIC, NO NUDITY BUT POTENTIALLY NSFW)  these pictures, yeah...I think it's cruel. And unusual. 

So far as I can tell, all of the pictures of flogging victims come from Islamic countries with very harsh penal codes and no reputation whatsoever for responsible jurisprudence. I find it curious that he would identify so strongly with such a place.


You mean a country with a perpetual right wing government and strong religious traditions that is hostile to outside influences and perpetuates a two-class system that has created untold prosperity for the upper class?

gee, why the fark would Republicans cream their pants over that idea.
 
2013-10-07 10:53:08 AM  

DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.


Yep, monumentally stupid bastard.  Of course words change.  He can see that to have happened just during his life.  Did the word "gay" have the same meaning when he was a kid as it does now?  If words can't change meaning, then the mouse in your hand right this very minute could bite you!

More specifically and to his point regarding words and the Constitution:  if words can't change then the Constitution could only apply to the time period where those words had only and exactly the meaning they had when written.  He would be out of a job if that were the case.  He should be out of a job in any case.

Turning a blind eye to reality because reality doesn't reinforce your preference for what should be is not a good thing in a Supreme Court Justice.
 
2013-10-07 10:54:26 AM  
...how much he cares about his intellectual legacy ("I don't").

Odd for someone whose every decision is supposedly guided by the Founding Fathers' intellectual legacy and whose every ruling sets precedent.

Unless Scalia denies any intellectual content to his legal legacy...which I can totally believe.
 
2013-10-07 10:57:21 AM  

Aquapope: DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.

Yep, monumentally stupid bastard.  Of course words change.  He can see that to have happened just during his life.  Did the word "gay" have the same meaning when he was a kid as it does now?  If words can't change meaning, then the mouse in your hand right this very minute could bite you!

More specifically and to his point regarding words and the Constitution:  if words can't change then the Constitution could only apply to the time period where those words had only and exactly the meaning they had when written.  He would be out of a job if that were the case.  He should be out of a job in any case.

Turning a blind eye to reality because reality doesn't reinforce your preference for what should be is not a good thing in a Supreme Court Justice.


It isn't even that he turns a blind eye, but an inconsistent one as well. Look at how much legislative drift he's allowed on topics like corporate personhood or corporate free speech.

So it's all fine to sing "textualism" and "strict interpretation" and "that's what the Framers Intended" when it applies to personal liberty, but when a corporate entitlement is on the line he is more of a legislative jurist than Warren Burger ever was.

Just in a way that worships the domination of the powerful over the weak, rather than the liberal judges trying to "help even the score" for the individual against the powerful, the conservative judge seeks to do just the opposite.

He's a hypocrite and a dogmatist. And too stupid/disingenuous to see it. He thinks he's superior to everyone else, playing this rigged poker game called "let's rule in favor of everything I agree with and cite philosophy, yet strike down everything I don't and cite Textualism."

He truly will be remembered as one of the great worst judges of history.

And 5 minutes after he's gone, Thomas will have no idea what to think, because nobody around will tell him any more.
 
2013-10-07 10:58:28 AM  
Warren OR Burger.

Though combining them into one judge isn't such a bad idea either.
 
2013-10-07 10:59:29 AM  
Adolf Von Scalia said: "Flogging. And what I would say now is, yes, if a state enacted a law permitting flogging, it is immensely stupid, but it is not unconstitutional. "

The tired/scary "the states can do anything they want because it's only the federal government that cannot do these things." excuse.

Sound like Anton the Asshole is trying to grease the slippery slope back to states re-legalizing things like slavery and Spanish Inquisitions.
 
MFK
2013-10-07 11:02:26 AM  
HE READS THE WASHINGTON TIMES BECAUSE THE POST IS TOO LIBERAL
 
2013-10-07 11:04:07 AM  

Ned Stark: Because a moment of fleeting physical pain is so much more cruel than taking away irreplaceable years of lifespan by tossing someone in a hole fore a while right?


Well I suppose that depends on the offence. If a flogging is all I have to have to do to get out of murder, well...sign me up. On the other hand, if that's the punishment for, say, petty theft, well...it's a bit much, eh?
 
2013-10-07 11:04:36 AM  

Aquapope: DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.

Yep, monumentally stupid bastard.  Of course words change.  He can see that to have happened just during his life.  Did the word "gay" have the same meaning when he was a kid as it does now?  If words can't change meaning, then the mouse in your hand right this very minute could bite you!

More specifically and to his point regarding words and the Constitution:  if words can't change then the Constitution could only apply to the time period where those words had only and exactly the meaning they had when written.  He would be out of a job if that were the case.  He should be out of a job in any case.

Turning a blind eye to reality because reality doesn't reinforce your preference for what should be is not a good thing in a Supreme Court Justice.


His jurisprudence is akin to a ouija board, where he lets his own biases stand in for claiming to read the minds of dead people.
 
2013-10-07 11:07:44 AM  

Ned Stark: Because a moment of fleeting physical pain is so much more cruel than taking away irreplaceable years of lifespan by tossing someone in a hole fore a while right?


Why not both?
 
2013-10-07 11:07:46 AM  

Generation_D: Warren OR Burger.

Though combining them into one judge isn't such a bad idea either.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger

Or did I miss the joke?
 
2013-10-07 11:08:31 AM  
Can we get a farking "insane" tag around here?

What does Florida have to do with this?
 
2013-10-07 11:15:12 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: But Scalia's writings on gay rights explode any notion of judicial remove, rocketing beyond casual homophobia into the repugnant realm of virulently anti-gay invective. Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy, and animal abuse. He's analogized gay people to drug addicts and prostitutes and likened gay sex to incest, adultery, and bestiality. He's echoed his son in questioning whether gay people even exist, suggesting that homosexuality is actually aberrant, depraved conduct rather than a true identity. And he's derided the "homosexual agenda" for "eliminating the moral opprobrium" against "a lifestyle [many Americans] believe to be immoral and destructive."

Whatever he says in this interview, Antonin Scalia really, really hates gay people. He thinks they're wicked and twisted and deviant; he suspects they're insidiously indoctrinating America with perverted values; he thinks homophobes are merely "protecting themselves and their families" from homosexuality's corrupting immorality. Link


Doesn't all that prejudice against gay people (he's pre judging them, after all) means he should recuse himself from any case involving gays or gay rights?
 
2013-10-07 11:15:46 AM  

Aquapope: DarnoKonrad: "words have meaning and they don't change"   except when it comes to "cruel and unusual."

Farking asshole.

Yep, monumentally stupid bastard.  Of course words change.  He can see that to have happened just during his life.  Did the word "gay" have the same meaning when he was a kid as it does now?  If words can't change meaning, then the mouse in your hand right this very minute could bite you!

More specifically and to his point regarding words and the Constitution:  if words can't change then the Constitution could only apply to the time period where those words had only and exactly the meaning they had when written.  He would be out of a job if that were the case.  He should be out of a job in any case.

Turning a blind eye to reality because reality doesn't reinforce your preference for what should be is not a good thing in a Supreme Court Justice.


If for some happenstance the american lexicon changes to where servitude changes to mean a green banana  and loses it current meaning, would that allow me to actuallyforceably keep a gimp in by basement to shine my shoes?  I swear I will not call him a slave.
 
2013-10-07 11:17:33 AM  
Someone in my facebook feed posted the quote about the devil this morning, describing Scalia as "schooling" the reporter on theology...
 
2013-10-07 11:20:22 AM  
Just to be clear holding a belief shared by the overwhelming majority of people is in no way, shape, or form - a form of insanity.
 
2013-10-07 11:21:25 AM  
"Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad."

Terry Pratchett's Lords and Laidies
(On how words can change their meanings)
 
2013-10-07 11:22:10 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Antonin Scalia is a malicious, vile, and reprehensible individual. Were only Hell an actual afterlife destination.


I believe in it. Personally many are probably 1 foot in the pit of flames and the other on a banana peel. There is only so much greed, selfishness, avarice and complete lack of empathy one can get away with for an entire lifetime without putting your soul on the line.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report