Posts
WASHINGTON- Supreme Court observers have expressed concern in recent weeks that the high court’s most eccentric member, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, may finally have gone off the deep end. Scalia, long regarded as a defiant constructionist and something of an anachronism for modern times, lost the support of much of his remaining contingency when he penned a dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which legal scholars have called, “completely devoid of any cogent legal analysis.”
Topping the list of critics’ complaints about Scalia’s opinion was the fact that he drew an extended analogy between the case’s First Amendment free speech components, and the folksy witticism, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Along this line of reasoning, Scalia argued that any individual or institution which seeks to make campaign contributions must sit through a timeshare presentation of proportional length in order to air their advertisements, or else purchase 10 regular Quiznos subs at regular price before receiving an advertising slot of equal or lesser value. The Court’s six member majority voiced its disapproval for Scalia’s line of analogous reasoning in Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion, which characterized the dissent as, “worthless Dago drivel, unbecoming of our chambers.”
Scalia earlier drew the attention of skeptics during oral arguments last week, when Justice Samuel Alito had to repeatedly remind him that the Supreme Court was not bound by the precedent of Murphy’s Law. While hearing the arguments from an attorney in a medical malpractice case, Scalia persistently and pointedly inquired as to whether the plaintiff should have foreseen that her plastic surgery consent would have covered the possibility that her chart would be switched and she would be given a hysterectomy, simply because “anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” When informed that Murphy’s Law was not an actual piece of legislation, Scalia acted befuddled, and asked whether it might have been passed recent in Nevada, or if there was some jurisdictional confusion about the case.
Scalia also demonstrated questionable legal rationale at a recent speech given during the convocation at American University in Washington, DC. At the speech, Scalia took up the controversial subject of gun control, where he pointed out that his strict constructionist style of Constitutional interpretation led him to reason that the framers of the Constitution inte
nded that the Second Amendment would preserve an absolute right of gun ownership. When asked how he knew this precept to be the framers’ intent, Scalia angrily insisted that he had discerned the information directly from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison over a bottle of whiskey in Constitution Hall after he used his super powers to fly backward around the Earth several times, creating a time travel effect- just like in Superman 3.[RIGHT- Scalia explains why the Eighth Commandment is his favorite to an empty library.]
Mark Sterling, a professor of psychology at Horace Lake Community College, said that Scalia’s erratic behavior is not out of line with the way many celebrities act after spending a substantial amount of time in the public eye. “When one perceives that the world revolves around him, that deep-seated, routine narcissism becomes part of his reality,” Sterling said. “Scalia shows the tell-tale sign of not being able to hold a conversation that does not revolve around the topic of the Great Antonin Scalia. His affliction is not at all uncommon among powerful males, as the same traits can be seen in Kim Jong-Il, Idi Amin, and Lance Armstrong.”
Scalia’s behavior has grown progressively more disturbing. A few months ago, he began citing precedent from Night Court, various Sherlock Holmes novels, and Paula Deen’s Down Home Cookbook in his opinions. More recently, aids have expressed concern about his new habit of wearing garter belts on the bench and swallowing a handful of prescription painkillers and Adderall before writing. Additionally, Scalia ignited a media storm weeks ago when he accidentally CC’d several reporters on an email sent to Democratic leader Howard Dean, in which he asked the former presidential candidate if he would be interested in a “romantic weekend getaway in my ass.” Scalia’s representative promptly claimed that the email was a misunderstanding, and that Dean was the one who was a fag, while Scalia loves the pussy.
Recently, Scalia’s behavior has devolved even further into petty and childish attacks aimed at the other members of the court. After Justice John Paul Stevens accused Scalia of engaging in irresponsible jurisprudence for ruling against a party because, “his attorney is Mexican, and everybody knows I hate Mexicans,” Scalia began endlessly pestering Stevens. His antics have ranged from sending him links to scat porn websites to flinging spitballs at Stevens during oral argumentation. Court historians have called the episode, “regrettable” and “one of the five or six most childish things we have seen in this courtroom in the last century.”
When asked if he was concerned by Scalia’s behavior, President Obama expressed a calm demeanor. “Justice Scalia is another in the long line of conservatives who were relegated to the lunatic fringe when a black man was finally elected President,” Obama said. “Plus, the way he lives, I don’t suppose he will last too much longer. I have death by prostate cancer in August of 2012 in the White House office pool.”
