(Untitled)

[aidaboi]

JUSTICE Scalia needs to be taken to a back alley, beaten with a stick, have his eyes scratched out by hookers with herpes, beaten some more with random peices of garbage, castrated with a jigsaw, tied to the end of a passing motor vehicle, beaten some more, bound, gagged, shot 17 times in the knee caps, drawn, disembowled, and then hurled from a

Comments

[imagine_it]

Might I inquire as to why you are so vehement about your anger towards this particular justice?

[aidaboi]

Scalia, along wiht Thomas And Renquist, voted down the desiscion to legalize sodomy in the states. He stated that it would "disrupt social structure" in place in the country and undermine laws against bigamy and adultery etc. what he failed to realize is that six outta ten people think that homesexuals should have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.But i just hate people who are so goddammned closed minded.

[thinwheats]

perhaps I'm just stupid, but please explain how he shows that sodomy (in the privacy of their own homes) undermines bigamy. Also, whatever happened to the right to privacy? Does this not apply. Fucking conservative prick thinks he can lord over everybody's goddam life b/c he's some fucking hotshot in the fucking supreme court. Someone should fuck him up the ass with anthrax on their dick.

[yourscaryfriend]

There is no direct right to privacy in the constitution. Privacy is derived from the 4th amendment (the unreasonable search clause). Conservatives claim that if a right is not clearly spelled out in the constitution, it is not a valid right. What Scalia is saying is that if the states may not regulate what two consenting adults decide to do with each other in private, then bigamy, adult incest, bestiality and adultery would fall under the same category. I disagree about the bestiality because there might be cruelty-to-animal laws that would apply. I also disagree with the bigamy part because bigamy implies an injured party (a spouse that is unaware of another marriage) But I think he's right about the rest. I think one can admit that Scalia is right and then say "so what?". The bottom line is that the government cannot show a valid interest in regulating these activities except for personal moral beliefs, and the Lawrence-vs-Texas decision states that moral belief is not a valid enough State interest to justify infringing on

[yourscaryfriend]

Scalia talks shit, but he LOST the decision. But I agree with you. Scalia (and Renquist, and Thomas) deserves bad shit