Antonin Scalia Doesn't Give a Damn About Your Little Problems:
There are few things in this world that are surely going to happen, but one that you can make book on is that Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia will die, probably in the next few years, statistics being what they are and Scalia being 76 years old and so overstuffed with anger and hatred - sorry, "animus," as he would say in the dickiest way possible - that his poisoned heart will probably explode. Hopefully while he's sodomizing his hand while watching morbidly obese ass spank porn, something titled Five-Hundred Pounds of Grey, perhaps.
And when Scalia does choke on his own bile and die, the Rude Pundit wants to get all the queers he knows, every leather bear and feather twink, every chopped-haired dyke and short-skirted femme, and everyone in between, and have a great big orgy at that bastard's wake. One great, big sodomy fest, right in front of his corpse, hell, right on top of the body in the casket, the blissful acts of cocks sucked in willing mouths, of strap-ons thrust into wet pussies, of asses filled and unfilled, over and over, celebrating that, at last, one of the last symbols of generational intolerance is gonna be put into the ground, sticky with sex and semen from the joyful fucking, from the perverted fucking, from the loving fucking, all the fucking that he would find repulsive. Now that's what you'd call "justice."
For, truly, there is nothing that Scalia offers this nation of any use. He demonstrated that at Princeton this week when he responded to student Duncan Hosie, who had asked Scalia to comment on the judge's comparing gay sex with murder and bestiality. Snarked Big Tony, "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against these other things? Of course we can. I don’t apologize for the things I raised." Then, having compared "homosexuality" to murder, Scalia said, "I’m not comparing homosexuality to murder. I’m comparing the principle that a society may not adopt moral sanctions, moral views, against certain conduct. I’m comparing that with respect to murder and that with respect to homosexuality." He said that this was a reductio ad absurdum argument he was making.
Now, the Rude Pundit's not a fancy Supreme Court Justice. He's just a small-town, country professor. But he's pretty sure that you only use reduce an argument to the absurd if you have contempt for the very thing that is being argued and for those who are arguing it. Here's an example: Antonin Scalia is like a living dinosaur; sure, it's interesting to contemplate, but a dinosaur has no place in the modern world. It's better off extinct.
Scalia also said that he didn't give much of a thought for the Bill of Rights, that it was an "afterthought" by the writers of the Constitution, and that "Every tinhorned dictator in the world has a bill of rights." So we have a Supreme Court Justice who admits that he thinks the amendments to the Constitution are useless and he derided the idea of a "living constitution." All of which is quite odd, considering that Article V of the Constitution is about how to amend the thing, which means that the founders believed that it was a document that could be revised and changed, that, in fact, it ought to be, as times changed. They gave the Constitution its pulse. Scalia believes it was stillborn.
Yeah, Scalia will die someday. He'll never retire because what the fuck would he do with all the anger he has towards this nation? Take it out on his begonias? On the kids on his lawn? But the nation has sped by Antonin Scalia. As he wheezes his rage into the setting sun, everything he has done will surely be undone.