Conason rips Scalia

[DeclinetoState]

So Who Put the Temper
In Judicial Temperament?

Joe Conason

Antonin Scalia, the loudest mouth on the highest bench, has indulged himself again. The idol of the far right has provoked fresh doubts about his temperament—and this time, unfortunately, the rest of the world is likely to notice.

Surely as brilliant as his admirers claim, Justice Scalia’s intellect is too often overshadowed by aggressive bluster and rigid ideology. He suffers from an uncontrollable impulse to give insult and an insufficient respect for the opinions of others. Widely advertised as exceptionally smart, he sometimes does and says things that are extraordinarily stupid.

On March 26, after receiving communion at a special mass for politicians and lawyers in Boston’s Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Justice Scalia answered a reporter’s question with a rude hand gesture. Asked whether some Americans doubt his impartiality, he replied, “You know what I say to those people?” and then flicked his fingers under his chin, adding, “That’s Sicilian.”


More at http://www.observer.com/20060403/20060403_Joe_Conason_opinions_conason.asp

[ThomasMore]

Irony (noun): Joe Conason calling someone else a loudmouth.

[DoctorDoom]

Scalia is a US Supreme Court Justice. Conason is a third-rate columnist. Whose opinions count?

[Wyatt_Junker]

Let's translate Conason's crap one corn kernel at a time as we sift it gently through a screen door.


Surely as brilliant as his admirers claim, Justice Scalia’s intellect is too often overshadowed by aggressive bluster and rigid ideology.


So he should be non-aggressive and soft. And he should have zero ideology. He should be open-minded, tolerant, confused, uncertain as to what he believes. Far be it that we should have an ideologue. Instead, we should have someone devoid of ideas, neutral, perhaps a mental and emotional eunuch, someone pithed of all passion, their temporal lobes zapped by lasers.

And if it doesn't frighten you that someone at 65 has absolutely no opinions(if it were even possible), what should frighten you even more is that Joe Conason actually believes that's ideal. Judges should be mannequins, little china dolls stacked neatly on a child's shelf, probably virgins too. We wouldn't want to transmit any 'impurities' to a judge. Judges should all be quarantined from life, from all the great traditions of man, including the Constitution. They should be like naifs. Sea sponges absorbing everything yet retaining nothing, inhuman, unreactive and slightly retarded.

This is Joe's world of a utopian judiciary.


He suffers from an uncontrollable impulse to give insult and an insufficient respect for the opinions of others.


More of Joe's instruction(as spoken by Joe himself)...

*ahem*

'Do not insult anyone. It is not nice. It hurts people's feelings. Respect other people's opinions, ALWAYS. Even Charles Manson. He has feelings too.'


Widely advertised as exceptionally smart, he sometimes does and says things that are extraordinarily stupid.


I thought it wasn't nice to insult people. Wait a minute. That's incongruent, especially since this is the very insulting sentence that follows the one before that said it wasn't nice to insult anyone... and yet, he insults. Perhaps he doesn't really believe it isn't nice to insult anyone.


On March 26, after receiving communion at a special mass for politicians and lawyers in Boston’s Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Justice Scalia answered a reporter’s question with a rude hand gesture.


Joe's axiom...

'When you take communion, you need to become a pussy. It is imperative that after one follows religious instruction or training that they become compliant, are easy to push around and are easily controlled.'

So Joe has no problem ensuring other men transform themselves into pussies, but has no qualms about being a dick. The question now remains, 'who are the balls?' and 'does this make the Congress the tits?'

[DeclinetoState]

Scalia is a US Supreme Court Justice. Conason is a third-rate columnist. Whose opinions count?

The columnist for the news source that makes the NY Times look conservative and truthful by comparison, of course.

You have to learn to think like a <DEL>communist</DEL> <DEL>socialist</DEL> <DEL>leftist</DEL> <DEL>progressive</DEL> moderate.