Scalia: Get off my lawn, Barry


Every time I hear wingers say that they love judicial restraint and hate judges who legislate from the bench I think ofBush v. Gore, which was perhaps the most overtly partisan opinion ever issued by the Supremes. We have a new entry in Justice Scalia’s lone wolf opinion/rant in the Arizona immigration case.

Nino’s mind is apparently boggled by the Obama administration. Guess it boggles easily but *my* mind is boggled by the ad hominem and intemperate language used by Scalia. The Supremes are most respected when they float loftily above the politics of the day but Scalia seems to have forgotten this. He’s also finally worn out his welcome among the“respectful disagreement” crowd.

Newt Gingrich has been described as a dumb person’s idea of a smart person. I’ve heard the same remark made about Antonin Scalia, and until today I would have said that was unfair. Scalia has always had a taste for over-the-top rhetorical flourishes, as well as an unnecessarily high opinion of his own intellect, but these weaknesses had to be balanced against … oh never mind, I can’t do this any longer.

Scalia, who 25 years ago had a certain gift for pointing out the blindness and hypocrisy of certain versions of limousine liberalism, has in his old age become an increasingly intolerant and intolerable blowhard: a pompous celebrant of his own virtue and rectitude, a purveyor of intemperate jeremiads against the degeneracy of the age, and now an author of hysterical diatribes against foreign invaders, who threaten all that is holy.

Nino is a crank who may eventually be found on his porch with a shotgun demanding that skateboard kids show him their papers. It’s quite revealing that his favorite hunting buddy is former Vice President Duce who was a cranky old man in utero

There was an urban myth that circulated at Tulane Law School when I went there in the late ’80’s. It involved Scalia and a liberal law professor who will remain nameless since I’m unsure as to whether or not the story is true. Once upon a time, Scalia lectured at Tulane Law’s Greek Isles summer course. The story goes that the professor in question got extraordinarily drunk one evening. (Not sure if Ouzo was the culprit but I haven’t touched the stuff since an episode in the Plaka eons ago.) The prof was seated next to the Justice and, well, tossed his cookies on Scalia’s lap. I’ve heard dozens of versions of what Scalia said at that point but this is my favorite: “You call this respectful disagreement?”

5 thoughts on “Scalia: Get off my lawn, Barry

  1. I don’t know which is worse, Scalia or Thomas. Heard from a friend of the husband’s who went to law school with someone who ended up clerking for Thomas. He’s just … well, how do I put this delicately? He’s not that bright. He’s just not. He’s actually an affront to the entire concept of the Supreme Court. His decisions aren’t based on any legal rationale, but are purely political exercises.
    This is what it’s come to. BTW if you haven’t readJames Fallows’ piece in the Atlantic it’s worth a look. The only thing sadder is that Fallows felt the need to rewrite his headline. Originally it used the word “coup” and … well, that must have hurt someone’s fee-fee’s. But after Bush v Gore we all said it was coup, us plebes out in the heartland. So don’t pussyfoot around it now, folks. There was a coup and this is the result.

  2. Thanks for the article and comment. I’m learning a lot.
    Even worse, I wonder if I dare draw a connection between the rancor of political debate, the loss of adult political debate up to and including Congress, the politicalization (?sic) of the court, the loss of respectful disagreement down to the hurtful disrespect of the kids on the bus which went viral last week. After all, who are their role models?

  3. It’s small comfort, but Scalia’s got to know his legacy will forever be defined as partisan hack. Which might not be justice, but it’s about as much as we can expect.
    Despite his bratty “get over it” remarks re: Bush v. Gore, Tony knows it’s a crap opinion — he says so in the first sentence — but it’s the one that will forever define him. And he knows it.
    Watching Roberts leapfrog into the Chief’s chair probably didn’t sit too well with him either.

  4. Aw fuckit. I just did a huge post for this place and dammit the thing just disappeared. I don’t have time to recreate it. I fucking hate TypePad with a passion.
    Anyway the gist of the piece was this excerpt from Krugman’s Conscience Of A Liberal, where he explains why health care reform is so important to liberals and why Republicans will be (and did) fight so hard to crush it:
    “There is, however, another important reason for healthcare reform. It’s the same reason movement conservatives were so anxious to kill Clinton’s plan.“That plan’s success,” said Kristol, “would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare state policy,” by which he really meant that universal healthcare would give new life to the New Deal idea that society should help its less fortunate members.
    “Indeed it would, and that’s a big argument in its favor. Universal healthcare could, in short, be to a new New Deal what Social Security was to the original.Both a crucially important program in its own right and a reaffirmation of the principal that we are our brother’s keeper.
    Partisan hacks like Scalia will contort themselves every which way to Friday to crush health care reform because they see it as a means of shredding the moral underpinnings of the New Deal. We’re not a Christian nation anymore, such as we ever were. The majority of the population is not in church on Sunday mornings hearing about how we’re supposed to help our neighbor. Those that aren’t at Wal-mart or Cracker Barrel or watching Fox Spews Sunday are in a mega-church hearing how God wants you to be rich and fuck everyone else.
    The legislative framework that is the New Deal no longer has a social construct understood by a majority of the population backing it up.

  5. scalia has always been a CATHOLIC patriarchal dipshit. the rite wing of the court has been FAR more activist judges. no restraint. he should have been borked.

Comments are closed.