PONCE, Puerto Rico (Feb. 14) – People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn’t change with society are “idiots,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
This is the level to which some conservatives have descended. Insults against groups of people who simply disagree isn’t criticism, it’s intolerance.Theists are not idiots — they are simply wrong. Scalia is not an idiot, he’s an ass.
It reminds me of what Hunter S. Thompson once noted about Nixon:
“When he looks out of his windows at the protesters, he doesn’t see dissidents, he sees criminals”.
Scalia is a pompous ass who single handedly gave the presidency away to Bush. Talk about your “activist judges”.
Alex.
These kind of things no longer surprise me.
sigh…..
alexgator1:
Wow. I didn’t know that was possible. So, if he really did do that, why don’t ya suppose he didn’t just make himself president?
jcc
Would have been too obvious. Besides, it’s not a “for life” position.
jcc,
Justice Antonin Scalia was the author of the opinion granting G.W. Bush the presidency so yes he did in effect hand the presidency to Bush. Talk about your judicial activism. This is the same bastard who also bemoans “the tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government” which “derives its moral authority from God” and is the “minister of God” with powers of “revenge” and to “execute wrath.”
If that doesn’t chill you then nothing will. Welcome to the brave new world envisioned in “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
Alex.
“He said that, according to his judicial philosophy, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.” from the Washington Times about Scalia’s comments before the Federalist Society in PR.
Scalia has stated a lot about his judicial philosophy and he obviously a total liar. He completely rejected his entire judicial philosophy when he stopped the constitutionally mandated democratic counting of ballots in the 2000 election and intentionally appointed the person who later gave a job to his son and to Rehnquist’s daugther.
After that case, I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would pay any attention to what this immoral, unethical, corrupt, cheap suit politician has to say on any issue but especially on judicial ethics.
Either you have free speech or you don’t. Either you’re allowed to be as reprehensible as possible or you’re not. Freedom of speech is the last best effort.
Heads or tails? You picked heads I’m sorry you’re wrong it was tails. God or no God? You picked God I’m sorry you’re an idiot.
If luck is involved it’s ok to be wrong, it says nothing about your intelligence. If reasoning is involved and the question can be correctly answered by a 2-yr old child and you pick wrong you’re an idiot in my opinion.
I admit to being an idiot in some topics, some would say many topics, but the question does god exist is a no brainer.
Is someone who believes the Earth is flat wrong or an idiot? IDIOT
Is someone who believes in myths wrong or an idiot? IDIOT
Im not going to mention names because the IDIOTS might get their feelings hurt.
What I want to know is,
Do so-called ‘constitutional originalists’ believe we should revive public flogging, or that african americans should indeed be considered less than human, or that women should not have the right to vote, or that none of us should be allowed to vote for our own state senators?
And if the constitution is not supposed to be amendable, then why does it stipulate a procedure for future amendments? (actually, it stipulates two such procedures, but only one of them has ever been used)
And why should it be non-ammendable? Do they consider it ‘divinely inspired,’ like the Bible? America the beautiful, America the… miracle?
Idiots.
r4d,
With the way religion and rapid patriotism seem to go hand-in-hand lately, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Hmm, might be a new religion in the making.
The framers of the Constitution included stipulations for amendments because they were intelligent enough to realize that societies do, indeed, change with time, and the Constitution would have to change to accommodate new ideas.
Scalia is an idiot AND an ass.
Crap. I meant “raBid patriotism”, like foam-at-the-mouth, not “rapid.”
As a foreigner, I’m starting to wonder what the requirements for a travel-visa to the U.S. is gonna look like soon…
Article Primus:
“You will not be allowed entry if you have never screwed over a member of an indigenous tribe, “screwed” being understood as both literal and figurative.”
Article Secondus:
“You will not be allowed entry lest you vigorously applaud the deterioration of the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty (Guantanamo).”.
And so on…
I could keep writing these draconian measures down, but what’s the use?
Once, such thoughts were merely considered “ultra-left-wing fear mongering”…
Now, they’re right-wing policy!
There is, indeed, no such thing as paranoia: It Is Always Worse Than You Think.
What is left but laughter, tears
and rebellion/resignation?
Peachfuzz…
Though I agree with what you say,
I am vehemently opposed to the way you use the word “patriotism”.
YOU sound a helluva lot more patriotic than someone who just parrots the official line.
It is people who, like you, dares to question an abominable administration, who are the REAL patriots.
People who merely accept anything passed down by propaganda and eagerly goose-steps, are the “traitors”.
Keep on poking the bastards in their eyes.
HMDK,
Last tiem I checked there were already some odd things in there. They asked if I was a member of the Nazi party in Germany…. If I was or had ever been a member of a communist party….. and my personal favourite, if I had committed acts of moral turpitude. Such a question is actually impossible to answer objectively. Subjectively I can honestly say no, but who knows what the US govt regards as moral turpitude?
HMDK:
I am put in mind of the words of Thoreau, who said:
“A very few ? as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men ? serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.”
In short, there are those who best serve the state by opposing it.
Hairless,
Thanks for your kind words.
Alas, there are just so many fanatics to deal with. Or at least those who make displays -all the bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. And around here they’re usually also right-wing Christians. They don’t tolerate criticism of the U.S. well (but they’re getting more of it every day!) But you’re right, being a “bumper-sticker patriot” does not necessarily mean anything. That’s why I don’t have them. Maybe being “patriotic” and being a true “patriot” are actually two different things, and most people don’t realize it.
I wonder if “true patriots” are like “true Christians”?
reluctant,
Great Thoreau reference.
HEATHENZ SAID:
“Last tiem I checked there were already some odd things in there. They asked if I was a member of the Nazi party in Germany…. If I was or had ever been a member of a communist party….. and my personal favourite, if I had committed acts of moral turpitude. Such a question is actually impossible to answer objectively. Subjectively I can honestly say no, but who knows what the US govt regards as moral turpitude?
02/15/06 @ 14:54″.
Yeah! I remember those questions from when I visited New York years ago.
Which means they’re actually older than 9/11 and Das Fatherland Security.
Besides, such questions are assinine.
As if someone is going to say:
“Yeah, sure! ‘Course I’m a Nazi!”
They might as well have a check-box asking: Are You a Bad Guy?.
Idiocy prevails.
I thought that myself about the “moral turpitude” question.
Like someone is really going to write: “I am a torturer in my own country, in charge of gouging out eyes and cutting off hands.”
“Comment from: jcc [Member]
alexgator1:
Scalia is a pompous ass who single handedly gave the presidency away to Bush. Talk about your “activist judges”.
Wow. I didn’t know that was possible. So, if he really did do that, why don’t ya suppose he didn’t just make himself president?”
Because, jcc,
that even today, and even to vehement theorcratists, the U.S Constitution isn’t THAT prepared to roll over.
Peachy, exactly my point.
It’s laughably stupid.
I wonder what acts officially fall under the umbrella of “moral turpitude”? Moreover does the standard change over time?
When you think about it, it is rather an incidious clause. It can be used as a pretext to deport just about any visitor of immigrant.
“Tortured little kittens?” That’s moral turpitude!
“Cheated on you girlfriend in high school?” That’s now moral turpitude!
“Masturbated in private?” Deportation for you, you moral turpituder!
Where does it stop?
HeatheNZ… Where indeed!?!
The answer is that it probably won’t “stop”.
Once a society has slid so far down the slope, there’s little to do.
See, every time you utter the word “freedom” all the proponents will hear is: “treason”.
Like Bush sez: “Yoo ither a moohron hoo hate meh, or a moohroon hoo luvs meh!”.
Bullshit.
Nothing’s monochrome
lest you make a point of
interpreting it so.
Peach:
More likely, an “Information Extraction Spec_ialist.”
HMDK:
Well said.
Sadly , this could be a point in the visitor’s favour as I suspect the US has a growing need for experienced torturers.
HeateNZ… yeah… A job application
at the same time!
Two voices silenced with one form!
BONUS!
Just fer the increasingly worthless and frayed civilized record:
Anyone blaming me for rampant european anti-americanism will be promplty shipped to Guantanamo with no access to legal representation.
Nor will the Geneva convention apply.
Why?
Oh, because you’re disgusting and dangerous until proven guilty as an
acual enemy soldier.
The rule of law ought to also encompass those who MAKE them.
And they do, of course.
But mostly it’s a case of
“In name only”.
I have to say from the quote “Theists are not idiots — they are just wrong.”
Now, that is a major blanket statement because most of the theists I encounter are idiots, like this quote from one today “You aren’t part of any Athiest organization, because Atheists don’t exist.” Also, she said that to me in a room full of Atheists.
-J?r?me
I wish he would hit himself in the balls with his own gavel.