I ya gotta be a loon....

[pecunium]

I am glad I happen to be this one:


Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.


On the other hand... this loon Scalia on orgies and the 17th amendment (no, I'm not kidding)

Comments

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

I see nothing wrong with orgies. That said, if I were a Supreme Court Justice speaking in front of students at Harvard, I wouldn't consider it appropriate to say that orgies should be encouraged. It's not my place, and not appropriate for a judge, much less a Supreme Court Justice, to do.

Now, if I were ever named a Supreme Court Justice, and if I were asked directly "Didn't you attend an orgy once?", I would matter-of-factly explain the circumstances... but I *STILL* wouldn't feel compelled to advocate for orgies as a way of reducing social tensions. It *STILL* wouldn't be appropriate behavior...

Far less appropriate than this, for example:

"(Masturbation) is a part of human sexuality, and it's a part of something that perhaps should be taught -- perhaps even as part of our sex ed. Curriculum." - Jocelyn Elders, former US Surgeon General Resigned over remark.

Really, it's a pretty amazingly out-of-touch statement for Scalia to make, especially considering his constituency.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

His what? I realise he has a corps of people who look to him to defend the way they see the world, but he isn't up for election (if he really screwed up, like handing an election to someone for partisan reasons, he might have to face impeachment and removal, but that isn't likely... he has such a strong and inflexible understanding of the role and limits of the judiciary that his personal opinions, or friendships, would never be allowed to influence his Opinions.

Never.

TK

[insomnia.livejournal.com]

He's not up for election, certainly. That said, his social circle is very conservative.

I don't think it can categorically be said that his view of the role and limits of the judiciary is completely uneffected by his personal feelings, politics, opinions, or friendships are completely unable to effect his decisions.

For instance, in the famous ruling in Florida, Scalia arguably should have recused himself. One of his sons was the law partner of Ted Olsen, who was representing George Bush in the case, and the other son was a partner in the law firm representing George Bush in the Florida case that the Supreme Court was ruling on. Both sons were involved with the only two law firms representing Bush in these cases. and there was the Cheney issue... and numerous other issues over the years.

Never is an awfully certain word to say about a human being.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I need to start using sarcams tags.

Scalia's entire holding in Bush v. Gore is diametrically opposed to his (longstanding) writings, speakings and utterances (to include previous decisions of the Supreme Court). His willingness to hear Bush v Gore on the grounds of equal protection was a huge red flag (combined with the Court creating the pretext, it not being present in the pleadings) we had strong indication that this case was not going to be heard on it's merits.

If anyone doubted it was a low and filty business the declared lack of precedentiary standing for the decision put the last nail in the coffin.

TK