no-homo bros before homos and hoes

Antonin Scalia: Constitution Only Protects Men (Straight Men)

His hands are tied by zombies. SORRY. ZOMBIES ARE STRONG.According to Justice Antonin Scalia, who will only rule on court cases involving robots if the Constitution lists the EXACT model number and specifications of said robot in the text, the Constitution is for men who happen to be heterosexual and NOBODY ELSE, so other humans should just “get over it.” “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t,” he spat. Oh, good! So the Constitution doesn’t force us to discriminate against women; it’s just a sort of extra-credit assignment. But what about the Fourteenth Amendment? It only protects against discrimination of non-white men, according to Scalia. If you want rights for women or non-heterosexuals, you’re going to have to have another civil war.

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. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. 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.

IF! It is certainly a big “if.” Scalia certainly doesn’t give a fuck if women or gay people have rights. He will be just fine. We have these things called Supreme Court justices, and they protect people called straight men.

You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. 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. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. 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.

Really? Because it would seem basic equality is something that should exist in a democracy, as opposed to a republic or a “No Gurlz Allowed” clubhouse or what have you. (Also, laws have to be passed against abortion, because people have an implied liberty to do what they want with their own bodies otherwise. It’s not a right that has to be laid out in law.)

But perhaps most startling: Scalia is not certain he’s infallible!

I do not pretend that originalism is perfect.

Yes, you do. Isn’t that the whole point of originalism?

There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot.

If you’re unsure, it’s best to rule against women and non-heterosexuals. Always safer just to protect people who are like Antonin Scalia.

But wait, you say. Doesn’t the text of the Fourteenth Amendment protect us all?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Haha, you’re so dumb! By “person,” the authors of that amendment meant white straight men AND also black straight men, because of the Civil War. Any other kind of living being was not a human, according to Antonin Scalia. And we have to abide by this terrific definition of human biology, because that’s how people thought when they didn’t know any better.

But again, if you want to kill each other in a bloody civil war and pass a new amendment to the Constitution reflecting the victory of the side that wants women and gays to be protected by the document, be his guest. Democracy! [California Lawyer via HuffPo]

About the author

Jack Stuef is your loyal editor and a freelance satirist or something like that. He is a contributing writer for The Onion. E-mail him or whatever.

View all articles by Jack Stuef
What Others Are Reading

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

179 comments

  1. horsedreamer_1

    Thing is, if these protections aren't enshrined in Constitution, it doesn't matter if the Legislature passes a bill, then signed into law by the Executive, granting them. They'll just be challenged. & the strict constructionists in the Courts will find the laws unconstitutional.

    1. Lascauxcaveman

      Shorter Scalia: The effect of what we do here doesn't matter. Just as long as we precisely follow the rules written down 200-some-odd years ago, back when everyone was sooo much smarter than we are now.

      1. CBH77

        Exactly right! And Scalia knows exactly what the Framers meant when they drafted the Constitution those years ago, so we should just defer to what he says, because he would never, ever make a decision based on his existing biases then work backwards to justify said decision through "originalism." Ever. He wouldn't do that kind of thing.

      2. Swampgas_Man

        I'm sorta beginning to agree they were smarter than SOME of us now.

        But I think we can all agree w/ Scaly-Ass on one thing — he's definitely been there too long.

  2. Blendergoathead

    Cool. Can we pass a law exiling Justice Scalia to a leper colony? On Mars? After he's sodomized by a pack of rabid dingos? Also?

  3. horsedreamer_1

    His hands are tied by Zombies. & ZOMBIES STRONG.

    Reminds me of my computer-science geek friends in high-school wanting to write a game called UNDEAD PRESIDENTS. I wonder if they ever did. Is it on the facebook or the iphone like those Mafia Wars & Angry Birds?

  4. James Michael Curley

    Send him through a TSA check point. I want to see (euphemistically) what's under that big black house dress he always wears.

    1. freakishlywrong

      Why, his junk, of course. All White, Republican males now hate Homeland Security and feel infringed upon by the TSA, it's only to stop browns, browns are ter'ists and don't possess huge, rightwing, white male junk.

  5. MittsHairHelmet

    I thought the Supreme Court's job was to tell us which parts of the constitution are the true, literal word of Jesus and which parts are just paraphrasing.

  6. SorosBot

    Scalia knows that "person" in the 14th Amendment really only means racial minorities, and imaginary legal persons known as corporations.

    1. Guppy06

      Do the corporations need to be run by men to qualify as "persons?" Did Carly Fiorina's Hewlett-Packard qualify as a "person?"

  7. aguacatero

    And for "superannuated judges," we have these things called "Letters of Resignation," and "Assisted Living Facilities," and "Eldercare Attendants Who Draw Very Unfortunate Work Assignments."

  8. Boredw/Gravity

    "No State shall make or enforce any law…. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Haha, 18th century America was so quaint. Thank goodness we now have at least 14 states that are chomping at the bit to decimate that pesky 14th Amendment, and a House majority to grant corporate citizens rights over U.S. citizens.

    1. JustPixelz

      If there's one thing the TP'er hate more than activist judges who ignore "the plain language of the Constitution", it's the actual plain language of the Constitution.

  9. Callyson

    Women – not people.
    Corporations – people.
    I'm sure that makes sense to Scalia somehow, but…capital WTF?!?

    1. JustPixelz

      Nothing in the Constitution says "money is speech". So we democratically enacted a law rammed a mandate down Real Americans™ throats saying corporations can't make political contributions. Hooray! The Scalia system works. What? Citizens United? Huh?

  10. Sue4466

    I thought we should only go to legislative intent if the plain meaning of the words are not clear. Maybe he doesn't think "person" has a clear meaning that includes women? But it does include corporations?

  11. Serolf_Divad

    Poor Antonin Scalia. He would have made a top notch Inquisitor, but he was born two centuries too late. So now, instead or ordering senile old widows burned at the stake he has to content himself with being the most unreasonable extremist of the U.S. Supreme court.

  12. doxastic

    Antonin Scalia would have made a wonderful Middle Ages rhetorician. "I have used my superior interpretive skills to penetrate the mind of God through His Word. Turns out, He thinks I'm awesome!"

        1. V572625694

          Thank goodness heroic Communism-destroying Pope J2P2 put a stop to that nasty liberation theology business. It coulda gotten outa hand.

          1. SorosBot

            In some ways I actually prefer the Nazi Pope, because John-Paul was just as evil in mostly the same ways but he seemed nice so most people, including non-Catholics, treated him as if he had some sort of moral authority; Benedict however is so obviously, cartoonishly evil only truly devout Catholics listen to him.

    1. undeterredbyreality

      What do you do with witches? "Burn them!"
      What burns apart from witches? "Wood!"
      Why do witches burn? "Cause they're made of wood!"
      How do we tell if she is made of wood?
      Does wood sink in water? "No, it floats!"
      What also floats in water? "A Duck!"
      Exactly. So, logically? "If she weighs the same of a duck, she's made of wood!"
      And therefore? "She's a witch"

      Q.E.D.

      (wrong answers omitted)

      1. DoktorZoom

        Also, "small rocks" are not in the Constitution. (Oddly enough, Scalia does believe that strange women lying around in ponds distributin' swords actually IS a rational basis for a system of government)

  13. prommie

    Hey and you know what? There is this thing in the Constitution that says congress has the sole authority to decide a disputed presidential election. But, the Scalia wing of the court worried that if W were elected by the GOP majority in the house, he would lack legitimacy, so they went all blazing activist, seized the case and decided it by validating the disputed election, so as to protect W from the proper operation of the original intent of the founding fathers as clearly expressed in the Constitution, because if they hadn't, W would have forever been the "asterisk" president.

    1. Ducksworthy

      I seem to remember something about states deciding on how to elect people and the Florida Supreme Court deciding they wanted to count the votes.

  14. Crank_Tango

    Hey dickface,
    pretty sure there is nothing in the constitution about protecting greaseball ginny goombas either.

    sincerely, your Kraut Mick Friend,
    Crank Tango

    1. V572625694

      As a white, Anglo-Saxon [redundant, I know] straight male property owner, I concur with your reading of the Constitution. Whatever part of it allowed Scalia's grandparents to come here must have been a mistake.

      Affirmative-action beneficiary Clarence Thomas agrees with me.

        1. NewtsChicknNeck

          actually wops (WithOut Papers) by definition have equal protection of scalia's housekeeper.

  15. mumbly_joe

    Of course, by the same logic, the founders obviously weren't thinking about semi-automatic or magazine-fed pistols when they wrote the word "arms", in the Second Amendment, since neither of those things existed for another hundred years, give or take. Whereas women were kinda there the whole time, actually.

    For some reason, though, that didn't stop Scalia when it was a matter of striking down all gun control everywhere. I kinda wonder what the difference between these two matters is, hmm.

    1. Guppy06

      No breech-loading, no jacketed cartridges, not even percussion caps. Having to muzzle-load a flintlock will drastically hamper the number of faces his good friend Dick Cheney can shoot.

    2. DoktorZoom

      For that matter, shouldn't the 2nd amendment only apply to muzzle-loaded muskets, pistols, and rifles? These self-contained cartridge thingies are a post 18th-century innovation, and hence are Of the Devil (or at least not protected by the Constitution).

      1. mumbly_joe

        Well, arguably, it could also permit private citizens to own all the cannons and 18th-century ships-of-the-line they could afford, also. Which might be a wash, but on the other hand, you can't shoot up schoolyards or hold up liquor stores with 18th-century ships-of-the-line, so really not.

        More to the point, though, is that the Second Amendment is an anachronistic artifact that expicitly assumes an outmoded military philosophy (universal citizens' militia) that is not only obsolete in a modern military power, but somewhat dangerous, as it blurs the line between civilian and soldier in a way that makes it fairly easy to justify war crimes, as all the folks on the other side of any of America's bombs for the last 70 years can well testify.

        1. mumbly_joe

          Note however that 18th-century ships-of-the-line can be used to perpetrate massive, industrial-scale human trafficking operations for several centuries, so in that sense, maybe not so good.

  16. seppdecker

    It's only natural that Scalia has become so selfish and cynical – how else could we explain his surviving a hunting trip with Cheney. But does he have to be such a dick about it?

    1. PsycWench

      Well, yes he does. He agreed to be selfish and cynical in all things, in exchange for Cheney shooting Harry Whittington instead of Scalia.

  17. elviouslyqueer

    Sounds like someone is in dire need of repeated ball-kneeing. Ruth, Elena, Sonia, are y'all game?

  18. hagajim

    You gotta love these "strict originalists" and their bullshit. They love to claim how they are just following the Constitution, but they overturn precedent after precedent (which is what I thought was important) all to serve their political hack masters. As a Constitutional fan it makes me want to puke.

    1. DoktorZoom

      I wonder when they'll just cold throw out Marbury v Madison and put themselves out of business.

  19. vulpes82

    God, I wish Kagan, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor would just take turns cock punching him the next time there's an argument before the Court.

    1. jus_wonderin

      They'd better hurry before he decides that a scanning electron microscope is unconstitutional. Because that's what is needed to find his judicial junk.

    1. prommie

      Scalia is an uber-Catholic, holier than the Pope; he publicly stated, for example, that the Pope was wrong to condemn the death penalty (remember, Catholics believe that God actually got the death penalty, when he visited here once). But the point is, Scalia's woman-hating is just a Catholic thing.

      To understand the Catholic Church, you have to understand the depth to which the faith despises women. Most people, for example, think the Catholic church is down on sex, all going on all the time about how evil sex is, but thats not true, you see they have no problem with grown men having sex with little boys. The church hates sex, because sex leads to fraternizing with women. Women, being evil, not only can't be priests, but priests can't go near them, or the priest would be polluted by the contact, hence the prohibition against priests marrying.

      And then it becomes a vicious cycle, a church hierarchy of celibate men who fear and despise women, promulgating their women-hating doctrine, which sexists adherents to the faith love as it provides the authority for their patriarchal dominance of their wives, if not actual physical abuse.

      1. twaingirl

        two things:

        1) do they really think God got the death penalty? then so, cuz God gets it and now criminals do, is God a criminal?

        2) I was just trying to make a joke about women and broads. joke fail.

        1. JustPixelz

          joke != fail

          but howzabout: to scalia, to see women as persons is a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment.

      2. NewtsChicknNeck

        like my wife said, supreme court tea-leaf readers would be best served by just asking mel gibson's dad how he'd rule. over the years he & scalia are more closely aligned than scalia and thomas.

      3. Captain_Blah

        Aren't there seven Catholics and two Jews on the court? If the Supreme Court reflected law school, wouldn't there would be seven Jews and two Catholics? And if the Court reflected the founding fathers, wouldn't there would be nine Protestant men and no women?

        And doesn't it follow that either the Court doesn't reflect constitutional originalism in its make-up, or else originalism doesn't apply to our contemporary society?

        And if corporations are persons, why aren't any corporations on the Court or in Congress? Or are they?

  20. genxr

    This must be some of that great precedent-setting technique I read about. The typical ruling from this court goes like this:

    "The constitution is neither for nor against this, so in accordance we shall rule for what's behind Door #3, but explicitly exclude this ruling from applying to other similar, even identical situations. Neither should this ruling set any precedent or have any bearing on future cases. Good luck with that one, lower courts."

  21. Terry

    "You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. 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. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. 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."

    This whole quote will come as a surprise to Boehner and his friends who seem to be fetishizing the Constitution.

    1. undeterredbyreality

      Again, there's nothing in the Constitution about precedent, common law, or any of those other quaint notions about how the judicial system actually works.

    2. JoeMamased

      Oh bullshit, that decision was by radical commie leftist pinko Warren Burger.

      Y'know, of Bowers v. Hardwick ("homos are evil") fame.

  22. genxr

    "Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse."

    Woo-hoo! To celebrate this new ruling, I shall now run through the office slapping every female co-worker on the ass.

    1. prommie

      Its traditional to say "hey, sweet cheeks" when you do this. Then ask them to get you some coffee.

        1. NewtsChicknNeck

          damn, if i hadn't just shaved my pubes, they'd be finding coke cans all over downtown houston.

    2. mumbly_joe

      I'm pretty sure Justice Thomas echoes Scalia's opinion on this one matter, and not just because of the typical thing where he always does, anyway.

  23. ttommyunger

    Just when I think this knuckle-dragging bigot can't sink any lower he opens his piehole and drops a few more fathoms down his own shitmine. What a smug, fat little cocksucker he is. The Poster Boy for the unintended consequences of schoolyard bullying… You'll never get your lunch money back, Antonin, or your dignity.

    1. JustPixelz

      "… little cocksucker…"

      Do you mean he sucks little cocks? Or that he is little? Because under that black dress is a planetoid — let's call it "Ananus.

      1. ttommyunger

        I mean it in the most demeaning, humiliating sense. Apologies to the honorable, good homosexuals in my acquaintance.

  24. mrblifil

    It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

    Is "superannuated" some kind of crack about Clarence Thomas' dick?

    1. Rotundo_

      Chafed, blistered or callused would probably be more accurate. Between endless looping replays of Long Dong Silver (sounds like a North Korean missile no?) and mounting up his old ladies' thang, there has to be some serious wear and tear going on.

  25. Ducksworthy

    For the Orange Boner, originalism is a labor saving device. There is no need to interrupt his drinking to pass legislation because the Constitution contains all the legislation that will ever be needed.

  26. Missyb9479

    Look, if the Constitution had wanted the Supreme Court to declare if a law was constitutional or not they would have placed judicial review in Article 3. They didn't! So why don't you go back to hearing cases involving maritime law and ambassadors and STFU?

    1. genxr

      The only thing the Constitution really mandates is the Post Office, and even that was only the result of Ben Franklin's syphilis.

  27. Sue4466

    "You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box."

    Under his view, the rights of everyone except hetero men should be subject to the whims of the legislature or ballot box. This pretty much ignores the whole fucking point of the Constitution, which is to protect rights of everyone, not just those of sufficient popularity or population. That’s why we call them RIGHTS.

    It is scary that someone who pretends to be a keeper of the constitutional flame forgets the basic premise for having a Constitution in the first fucking place.

    1. genxr

      Sounds like the Constitution doesn't apply to anyone. You want everyone to wear their underwear on the outside? All you need is a legislature and a ballot box.

      1. SorosBot

        And it's not like Scalia's a hypocrite who has actually ruled more laws to be unconstitutional than the "liberal" centrists on the court or anything.

      2. Sue4466

        Absolutely. Because if the Constitution doesn't apply to everyone, then really it's just a nice list of privileges for certain men and not a founding document for a nation that is comprised of more than straight men. Under his reasoning, the Constitution becomes nothing more than another historical document that doesn't have much relevancy to a country that is supposed to be founded on equality, freedom, and democracy. We've never completely hit that mark, but at least we had this document and ideals to strive for and to offer minimal protection for everyone, not just the privileged.

  28. genxr

    The constitushun clearly says "person" which means it only applies to corporations, which are people. The 14th amendment says you cannot discriminate against any corporation run by white Christian straight men.

  29. V572625694

    Scalia says nobody ever voted for equal protection for wimmins. I don't remember voting for Nino. Did I miss that election?

  30. fuflans

    well i know for sure that ONE superannuated judge has been there too long imposing his demands on society.

  31. Gorillionaire

    Sure, Scalia. If the people vote to take drug addled tramp whore daughters of Supreme Court Justices and give them the keys to your house, town car and safety deposit boxes, there just ain't nothin you can do about it.

  32. DoktorZoom

    Off topic, but, hey, that douchebag captain of the USS Enterprise has been sacked. Picard, Kirk, and Pike can just quietly deny that any of their predecessors made raunchy videos.

    1. vulpes82

      Actually, I'd like to see Picard's high dudgeon at this disrespect to the dignity of the Enterprise name. He'd be quoting Shakespeare and displaying the quiet fury of a severely disappointed father and old what's-his-repressed-gay-face would slink away in shame and regret. Kirk, on the other hand, would take tips on his next joke log entry, and Pike would just keep beeping twice.

    2. GOPCrusher

      Wonder what kind of raunchy videos that they didn't show us that were broadcast on the Holodeck.

  33. JustPixelz

    "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

    The Constitution was pretty plain on this and yet Scalia found a way to declare Bush winner of 2000 election. Fortunately nothing bad happened.

    1. Sue4466

      Not to piss you off more, but did you read what he said about Bush v. Gore? in talking about how the Court is respected even when they issue opinions that raise "emotions," they still respect the Court's decisions "as they should." He then says the case that most comes to mind is Bush v. Gore. And how he's proud of how the Court's reputation survived that. Uh, no, it really didn't you pompous ass.

      Interestingly, he also says there was no way the Court could not take the case because it was "important." The fact that Bush didn't have standing–something every other case requires–doesn't matter to strict constructionist Scalia when cases are sufficiently "important." Separation of powers? bah. The case was "important"!

  34. SayItWithWookies

    It's an interesting brand of Constitutional originalism that professes that our founding document — a social contract based on the idea that everyone has every possible right and only gives up those few to the central government that enable it to function — suddenly must be changed to parcel out rights to people every time our myopic society finds out how discriminatory it's been. Oh, we've been keeping women from positions of responsibility because Thomas Jefferson didn't think they were smart enough to handle it? Well then — all we have to do is dig up the Founding Fathers and have them formally announce they were wrong.

    1. Katydid

      Hmm….founding dad Jefferson also thought white men get to rape black women. I don't recall an amendment saying that they don't. So according to Scalia's "logic…"

      I hate him with a burning passion that's really no good for me.

  35. MistaEko

    You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society.

    And with this rhetorical flourish, the tea party fell silent and health care remained the law of the land … any second now.

  36. widestanceroman

    Yo, Originalismo, STFU an' jus git my fawkun pizza heeuh beforuh it gits cold, OK? I ain't givin' no tip for no cold pizza, OK?

  37. problemwithcaring

    God, why am I torturing myself by water boarding weight loss shakes and exercising twice a day trying to stave off an untimely death brought on by early onset heart disease, when Justice Hamshank McPigistein over here swallows more dead fowl in a day than fell out of the sky in Arkansas last week and lives like he knows he will be around for another 50 years? Do Republicans make a pact with the Devil or something? Their souls for anus burgers?

    I guess what I am asking, God, is could You just off the motherfucker right now?

  38. SheriffRoscoe

    Poor Scalia and Alito. It must suck hard for them to know, deep in their originalist hearts, that the founding fathers never intended for men with last names ending in vowels to attain any position of authority in this anglo-saxon republic.

  39. LionelHutzEsq

    Clearly Scalia doesn't believe any of this. The Constitution says nothing about soulless demonic hell spawn, but name once that Scalia hasn't voted in favor of Dick Cheney.

  40. twoeightnine

    Does this mean that because the Second Amendment was written in 1791 that hunters and gangsters should only be allowed to use muskets and cannons?

    Because I'm all for that.

  41. Spenceredux

    You know, there is no explicit language in the constitution banning discrimination against guinea pope-worshiping dagos. So I guess if we want to pass the "Wop Control Act of 2011",
    Justice Scalia would have no objection as he is frog-marched to the internment camps.

  42. DaSandman

    That stupid little fuckball is the source of all our Present Difficulties. And those sins should be considered when he is judged by the Great Catholic Child Rapist in the sky.

  43. Badonkadonkette

    If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.

    Unfortunately we also have a thing called Scalia, who is a thing called "lazy, bigoted dickwad."

  44. NewtsChicknNeck

    i assume these quotes were taken from the scalia/bachmann constitutional workshop for kids who can't read good?

    although, i do agree with j. scalia that certain justices have been sitting on the bench far too long. how about this one-time rule applied only in this one case (ya' know, per curiam style like bush v. gore): anyone who: (a) has served 18 years or more or (b) was nominated by a guy whose son later became president shall retire immediately.

    i'll be sad to see scalia, kennedy, and thomas (our only two-time qualifier under the rule) check out, but i promise to throw them a bad-ass retirement party at ruth bader ginsberg's house.

      1. doloras

        The Second Commandment of Kibology clearly states: "Thou shalt not quote Monty Python unless thou art funnier than they were."

  45. Redhead

    And fetuses! Don't forget that the constitution protects fetuses from those evil baby-making machines (women) who are lazy and must be forced to continue with the baby-making, and from those evil gheys who want to corrupt the innocent fetuses with their lives of sin.

  46. NewtsChicknNeck

    and as Randy Newman once said,

    You know it kind of pisses me off
    That this Supreme Court is going to outlive me
    A couple of young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now, too
    But I defy you, anywhere in the world,
    To find me two Italians as tightassed as the two Italians we got
    And as for the brother, well
    Pluto's not a planet anymore either.

    viva la randy.

  47. DahBoner

    "If you want rights for women or non-heterosexuals, you’re going to have to have another civil war. "

    I think the United States of America can take on a few scrawny, nutcase SCOTUS justices with one hand tied behind our backs.

    GAME OVER.

  48. FlownOver

    "There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot."

    Preferably using either a shared needle or an RPG.

  49. Katydid

    Scalia on "vulgarity:"

    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.

    But the society this fuckwad moves in is composed of hypocritical liars who don't believe in the literal meaning of the 14th Amendment, don't believe in equality before the law or anything else, don't t believe innocence is a defense, believe corporations have rights, and on and on.

    Which, I ask you, is the real vulgarity?

  50. 102415

    This is just to deal with the whole let's get rid of the 14th Born Here Amendment and other tea bagger business. You got to keep moving around to follow these guys. That and he just might want to be President himself. No law that says he can't. I wouldn't put it past him after he screws up the rest of the laws for elections.

  51. deanbooth

    In 1871 Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to testify before Congress. She cited the 14th amendment's reference to citizens, and since, you know, women were citizens, they should be allowed to vote. Someone on the committee shouted "YOU LIE!" and they all went out to shoot some gay buffalo on the mall.

  52. DustBowlBlues

    James Randolph, chairman of the Committee on Detail that wrote the first draft of the constitution, on the Constitution's purpose:

    "To insert essential principle only, lest the operations of government be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events . . ."

    Since assault rifles aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights, I'm assuming Scalia takes the above goal in mind when he rules that the right of citizen militias to "keep and bear arms" needs to be read in the modern, NRA sense: the right of every man, woman and child in America to own as many weapons as they want and use them whenever and wherever they want and it doesn't matter what the "voters" decide, fuck them. The self-styled Strict Constructionists don't intend to let the citizenry make laws when it comes to guns, except to require every American to buy several and learn to shoot straight. Or crooked.

    Just fucking own weapons and fire them off whenever. This is what James Randolph meant, people. Ask Scalia.

  53. Trinket

    I don't get why everyone is so shocked by this. He's correct–in the USA, women are not equal to men. The Equal Rights Amendment would have taken care of that, but it wasn't ratified, remember?

    For fun, here's the text of that amendment, in its entirety:

    Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

    I agree that he's a total asshole for not seeing this as a problem.

  54. MiniMencken

    Does Scalia know that none of the Founding Fathers were loudmouth, wiseacre wops? Just curious.

  55. Neoyorquino

    Scalia's been banging his gavel too hard and too often. All the blood has rushed from his brain.

  56. glamourdammerung

    I am sure Scalia agrees that there is no Constitutional protection for "people" of Italian descent and folks that hung out with Robert Hanssen.

  57. BarackMyWorld

    Isn't this argument of his the reason they tried to pass the ERA? Didn't many conservative opponents of it say it was unnecessary because women were covered by the 14th Amendment?

  58. savethispatient

    Scalia needs to stop worrying his pretty little head about the constitution and get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.

  59. ShaveTheWhales

    Truly, it is only widespread respect for the Law of Unintended Consequences that keeps this motherfucker's head attached to his spine.

  60. Heq

    Just to be a dick I'll point out that he's actually correct here. I don't understand that the argument is never raised "The constitution in this case is incorrect" which seems to be the case.

    It's not his job to protect anyone, it's his job to rule on the law and the purpose of the law and in this case the timeframe of the law and the wording of the law seem to apply only to the concept of applications of the legal framework rather then the social framework. Furthermore women were not fully people under the law at that time, and thus would not have been intented to be covered by that statement.

    I don't know how yanks do law, but most places you don't get to stomp your feet and scream "But I want the law to say THIS" as an argument.

  61. Negropolis

    Always safer just to protect people who are like Antonin Scalia.

    You mean obese, greasy, aging guidos?

Comments are closed.