Orgy @ Justice Scalias' House! by Ghoulman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Orgy @ Justice Scalias' House!

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2004 06:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1800
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, October 1, 2004 9:54 AM

Justice Antonin Scalia, noted Opus Dai member (you can tell by the blood dripping from under his Pope John approved robes) shows how insane he is yet again. And he's a Supreme Court Judge why???

Oh yea, because GWB appointed him. I wonder why...

Orgies are the way to ease social tensions, claims US judge
Oliver Burkeman in New York
Friday October 1, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1317186,00.html
The Guardian

He is the conservative bastion of the US supreme court, a favourite of President Bush, and a hunting partner of the vice-president. He has argued vociferously against abortion rights, and in favour of anti-sodomy laws.

But it turns out that there is another side to Justice Antonin Scalia: he thinks Americans ought to be having more orgies.

Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

It seems unlikely that this is what President Bush meant when he promised to appoint more judges like Scalia to the court, should the opportunity arise. Crucially, Justice Scalia is one of the judges in favour of overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark judgment protecting abortion as a constitutional right.

One audience member also asked the judge "whether you have any gay friends, and, if not, whether you'd like to be my friend," the Harvard Crimson newspaper reported.

"I probably do have some gay friends, but I have never pressed the point," Justice Scalia responded. He offered no clue to the logic behind his claim that orgies eliminate social tensions.

Nobody asked him whether he was familiar with Rick Moody's novel The Ice Storm, turned into a movie by Ang Lee, which appeared to suggest the exact opposite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 10:36 AM

ARAWAEN

I think you mean GHWB appointed him.

And thanks for the disturbing image.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 11:56 AM

BIKISDAD

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I think you mean GHWB appointed him.

And thanks for the disturbing image.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

Yeah, that one confused me, too. GWB hasn't appointed anyone, has he (to the Supreme Court)? I don't remember when the last vacancy came up, but I'm sure it was when Clinton was still in office, wasn't it?

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 12:53 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Actually, I think Scalia is a Reagan appointee. *quick googling*. Yup. The current court has 1 Ford, 4 Reagans, 2 Bush Is, and 2 Clintons. Breyer was the last appointed in 1994.

*editted to add: Actually, Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee who was elevated to Chief by Reagan, so revise as appropriate.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 1:10 PM

BIKISDAD

Wow, good info. So, it's been ten years since a retirement. A couple of the justices are getting up there in years. The next prez will probably have to make an appointment or two.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 2:10 PM

SOUPCATCHER

I kind of went off on a tangent with this topic and turned it into a "research Friday" question

. The last time the Supreme Court had a majority appointed by a Democrat was in 1969. In 1970, when Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, the court shifted from 4Rep/5Dem to 5Rep/4Dem. Since then the balance has shifted increasingly to Republican nominees. In 1991, with the appointment of Clarence Thomas by Bush I, the make-up of the court was 8Rep/1Dem. The current state of 7Rep/2Dem has been in place since 1994. The two longest tenured justices, Rehnquist and Stevens, were appointed in 1972 and 1975 respectively.

I found it fascinating that Roe v Wade was argued before an Eisenhower/Nixon dominated court.

I've got to stop going off on these tangents...

*editted to add: I just can't stop. Eisenhower really had a profound impact on the Supreme Court. When he was sworn in the court had 4 justices appointed by Truman and 5 by Roosevelt. Eisenhower appointed 5 justices during his eight years in office. This majority would only hold until 1962 but the last Eisenhower appointee did not leave until 1990.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 2:42 PM

BIKISDAD

It's interesting that, even though the court is 7-2, as you said, the voting tends to be along the lines of 4 conservatives, 3 liberals, and 2 moderates. So the two moderates really dominate the court and are most often the deciding votes on partisan issues. That's actually a pretty good situation for us because it really prevents the extremists of either ilk from foisting their beliefs on the general populace. Hopefully, it will stay that way for awhile.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 6:00 PM

SUCCATASH

Oct 1,2004
Next President Could Get to Reshape Supreme Court
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=3&u=/nm/200410
01/pl_nm/campaign_court_dc

"Political and legal experts said the next president could make several appointments over the next four years and could shift the balance of power on the closely divided court, which generally has been controlled by a 5-4 conservative majority.

Bush has cited Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, widely regarded as two of the court's most conservative members, as models for his appointments.

In contrast, Kerry in a recent Time magazine interview cited his Senate vote to confirm Scalia as one of his regrets. Referring to the November election, Kerry said, "The Supreme Court of the United States is at stake."

Although no one knows for sure whether there will be any vacancies over the next four years, legal experts said the odds of a retirement appear to be increasing, given the advancing age of the three oldest justices."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 2, 2004 4:43 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ Thanks for adding that SUCCATASH, you're the best.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Actually, I think Scalia is a Reagan appointee. *quick googling*. Yup. The current court has 1 Ford, 4 Reagans, 2 Bush Is, and 2 Clintons. Breyer was the last appointed in 1994.

*editted to add: Actually, Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee who was elevated to Chief by Reagan, so revise as appropriate.
There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

AAAAAAAHHHIEEEEIIIEEEEE!!! I'm a screamer!

Thanks for looking that up (both I and ARAWAEN missed that, Oops!). When there is complete control of all three Estates it's important to know who the fascists are, and who appointed them. Having said that, it's shameful for the US to split thier courts into "left" and "right"... how about the truth? Why it's considered acceptable (or even sane!) by the leading elite of the US says more than I can write here. None of it good.

And it's Opus Dei (Ghoulman can't even spell, what a twit!)... which is an ultra scary religious order that Scalia and others are a part of. It involves mysterious ritual, the Pope, and blood sacrifice. Not kidding. And you thought the Terrorists were fanatical nut bars? Try your own Supreme Court America. Try.. the White House!!!

I'm still screaming, in fear an shock! AAARRGGG!!! Ok, going for coffee now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 2, 2004 5:10 AM

SERGEANTX

This article (the one posted at the top of this thread) says quite a lot about how the press has become so distracted and pandering that they've basically become irrelevant. If this wasn't meant as a joke, it should be considered as one.

These are the guys who rolled over after 9/11 and let the neo-facsists quietly usurp our government. They cheerfully offered up their services to propagandize the Iraq war and are only now are beginning to wake up (and at than, only a few of them).

No wonder the Daily Show has become the de-facto source for objective journalism.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 2, 2004 5:38 AM

TOMANTA

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Actually, I think Scalia is a Reagan appointee. *quick googling*. Yup. The current court has 1 Ford, 4 Reagans, 2 Bush Is, and 2 Clintons. Breyer was the last appointed in 1994.

*editted to add: Actually, Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee who was elevated to Chief by Reagan, so revise as appropriate.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

Actually, it's strikingly odd that there weren't one or two retirements last summer so that they would be sure a Republican would (for sure) get to make the reappointments.

Maybe something could be read into that... exactly what, I have no idea.

"FOX! Where the shit hits the fans." - Tim Minear

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 5:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

'Fraid the orgy's off. The Harvard Crimson apparently mis-quoted the Justice in a big way.

Here's Al Kamen's column from today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4520-2004Oct3.html

A Supremely Provocative Remark

The Harvard Crimson, arguably the nation's best college newspaper, raised many an eyebrow last week with an article saying that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia favored sexual orgies.

The newspaper quoted Scalia, speaking at a symposium Tuesday, as saying, "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tension and ought to be encouraged."

Nino? Who knew?

Turns out, though, Scalia didn't quite say that. A court spokesman said Friday the quote was "not only inaccurate but also taken out of context," a double whammy.

To set the stage, the Crimson reported that Scalia had ridiculed a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, striking down British law barring group gay sex on the grounds that the law intruded upon private life.

Scalia asked -- rhetorically -- how many individuals would have to be involved in a sex act for it to no longer qualify as "private."

"Presumably it is some number between five and the number of people required to fill the Coliseum," Scalia joked, according to the Crimson.

Someone in the audience asked Scalia "whether you have any gay friends, and -- if not -- whether you'd like to be my friend."

"I probably do have some gay friends," Scalia said. "I've never pressed the point." No answer to part two of that question.

But Scalia said his personal views on social issues have no bearing on his courtroom decisions.

No, he didn't quite say that "sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged." What he said was: "I even accept, for the sake of argument, for example, that sexual orgies . . . "

It was one of those "assuming arguendo" things that lawyers like to indulge in.

The Crimson, after reviewing the Kennedy School of Government's transcript, said it would issue a correction on Monday. The reporter didn't have a tape recorder, probably thinking back to a Scalia speech awhile back in Mississippi at which two reporters' tapes were confiscated.

"There had been a miscommunication on whether we could have a recorder," Crimson Managing Editor Elisabeth S. Theodore said. (Scalia's policy allows print reporters to use tape recorders to check accuracy.)

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 6:05 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Da Washinton Post:
But Scalia said his personal views on social issues have no bearing on his courtroom decisions.

HAHAHAHA!! Fuggin' right. Wow, what a liar.

Quote:
No, he didn't quite say that "sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged." What he said was: "I even accept, for the sake of argument, for example, that sexual orgies . . . "

Thanks Geezer.

Yea, this makes Scalia just as frightening! lol!

And what a terrible article, it doesn't even give a context to where this info was coming from. Who the hell is this mysterious "court spokesman"??? Is the Washington Post making things up again?

And my fav part... Scalia's policy allows print reporters to use tape recorders to check accuracy. ... As if he gets to decide. What a fascist! ALL reporters use tapes or notes. That's how they can back up thier stories accuracy! Wouldn't the Washington Post know this??? WTF!!!??!!

Sorry... the insanity is gettin' to me!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE