Friday, April 22, 2005

Scalia: "Is it Hot in Herrre?"

Clandestine blogging from work once again - and yes, once again my brain is feeling a bit mushy.

Last week Supreme Courtier Antonin Scalia accepted an invitaton from some heady NYU Law students to come speak at their annual forum. After rocking through an exhilarating set titled “Judiciary Activism, Fuck Yeah,” Scalia came out for an encore and to take some queries from his adoring fans.
Scalia: Yes you in the back holding the Chihuahua.
Law school student Eric Berndt: Hey guy. For the pleasure of the audience could you slowly and sensually explain your dissent from the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003?
AS: Huh? The what? What the fuck did you say to me?
EB: My cell phone is ringing but I’ll ignore it. You know, that decision to strike down the nation’s sodomy laws and…
AS: Oh yeah, no, you mean the “Assfucking Addendum.” Yeah, you know we all have been hammered and put it in the wrong hole to mixed results but I don’t want to have to think about David Bowie and Mick Jagger giving each other colostomies.
EB: I see, well, I practiced this in the mirror this morning…(drumroll)…Do you sodomize your wife? (gasps and giggles abound save Scalia)
AS: (winks to wife Maureen who was in attendance) Eww. No way. There is poop in there.

I think both conservatives and liberals need to be more cognizant of the dangers of taking unfiltered questions from college kids. When Howard Dean came here to Tulane, College Republicans hurled strange taunts at him like: “How much money do you donate to children,” and “You promised not to make fun of the president and now you are being mean.” There is certainly always the possibility of taking a pie in the face as well. Judge Scalia learned this valuable lesson from that delicious NYU queer this week. The trick is a little bit of savvy profiling when calling on a student for questions. A tip for those like Scalia attending University forums. Chihuahua, lisp, murse, capris = yella-belly NYU liberal; No friends, halitosis, folded-up newspaper, paranoia, fake glasses = College Republican; Sense of humor, delightful mischief, narcolepsy, lasagna = Garfield the Cat.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence case is completely merited and justifiable. The statutes in question arguably do not violate the 14th amendment in regards to Equal Protection. Furthermore, in regards to the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment - Scalia was more concerned with not reserving more rights not specified by the constitution. The only means by which such a law could be invalidaded is by regarding homosexual sodomy as a fundamental right. The reason Scalia is averse to ascribing new rights is that upon doing so, one takes an issue that should be a political discussion and instead turns the issue into a civil war.

Scalia is not against homosexuals, as is mentioned in the dissenting statement. One of the hypocrisies he points out is that when people tried to overturn Roe v. Wade the justices dealt with the issue in a strict manner (as is appropriate to overturn such a precadent). However, a rational basis review was used to overturn Bowers in the decision of Lawrence v. Texas.

Scalia wants consistency and points out that it is not the supreme court's role to legislate. His rationalle for dissenting deals with maintaing the integrity and purpose of the court.

4:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Blog Directory Add Your Blog