Does anyone else want to use a nail gun on their own head whenever someone says that Antonin Scalia was charming?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I want to use a nail gun on Scalia’s coffin.
Scalia is the best recent argument against your rule of politeness to the dead. He was an evil fuckhead whose death improves both the Supreme Court and the human race.
this was not supposed to be a reply to bob, of course I meant Booman’s rule of politeness.
With garlic-soaked wooden nails.
Or something more lethal on the TV set.
We can credit Elena Kagan to his influence, it would seem. How flattering it must have been for him to suggest her to Obama’s team.
Her Miranda agreement was a thing of wonder.
hmmm … i didn’t know that. Maybe I was a bit harsh on the guy. Nil nisi bonum, I should rmeember that.
I just come back with ah yes Scalia. I hope that he may be in heaven for 30 minutes before the devil knows he is dead. Just so he can see what he is missing and walk away.
I liked when he would bring up “rock music” in his hypotheticals. Like, “They might as well be listening to rock music!”
I also liked when he whispered to Jennifer Senior (during her excellent New York Magazine interview) that “the devil is real.”
When reporters asked about the possibilities of impropriety involving his going duck hunting with Cheney while the Supreme Court considered Cheney’s Energy Commission Task Force concealing its agenda, Scalia grinned and said “Quack, quack.”
A real prince of a guy.
“the devil is real.”
“duck hunting with Cheney”
Duh!
“The Devil is real.”
Yes, I agree with him there. I’ve seen enough evidence of it.
If anyone would know, would be Scalia.
I was on the treadmill this morning when Peggy Noonan began her heaping praise. I couldn’t change the channel fast enough.
If Scalia had ever gotten on a treadmill, we wouldn’t be in this excellent situation!
Too soon? LOL
Well, use a nail gun, yes…but not on my head!
the guardian couldn’t delete the comments fast enough from their fluff eulogy piece and had to close it down. it’s been a regular online festivus here in left blogistan. also too my heart is lifted somewhat.
The netnannies at the Guardian get the vapors at the notion that people crap, and that occasionally people have thoughts of anything other than unicorns and cherry pie. In short, it is the stupidest and most politically correct comment section in the universe. As such, it has no value whatsoever.
I never met the man. Maybe he was charming. Apparent;y Allen Dulles was charming when he wanted to be, which he often did.
But Scalia was a terrible supreme court justice, and I say that not because I disagreed with him on so many issues, but because he didn’t seem to make any distinction between justice and ideology, or between judgment and politics.
Most sociopaths are extremely charming, so no, it is very fitting.
Cruz is a sociopath. Trump is probably a sociopath. Scalia? I couldn’t say. But his heart was surely sclerotic. He never met an infringement on civil rights, an attack on human dignity, or a brute display of power by our social betters that he disapproved of.
This is delightful enough to improve my mental health:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debate-rips-open-gop-wounds-and-party-risks-tearing-itself-a
part/2016/02/14/886312c2-d334-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b
“The war in Iraq has been a disaster,” Trump said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It started the chain of events that leads now to the migration, maybe the destruction of Europe. [Bush] started the war in Iraq. Am I supposed to be a big fan?”
….
The escalating quarreling may increase the likelihood of a long, expensive and potentially futile effort to unite Republicans around the eventual nominee. The barbs at Saturday’s debate were ferocious and personal: Trump made fun of Bush’s mother and bickered with him over whether Bush had suggested that he would drop his pants and moon people (which he had); Rubio jabbed Cruz for not being fluent in Spanish; and they all seemed to call one another liars.
Pollster Frank Luntz, who for years has helped Republicans carefully calibrate their language to appeal to a broad range of voters, was aghast.
“If 10-year-old kids spoke to their teachers the way those candidates spoke to each other, those kids would be suspended,” he said. “There is no way that any independent observer can say the Republicans gained a single vote against the Democrats because of last night. If you’re honest and unbiased, the GOP lost votes last night.”
Might even help my cardiovascular system.
A lot of republicans seem to be personally charming. Its the sociopath in them
Evidently I’ve missed the boat entirely in this life: I’ve never met someone I would call ‘charming’, Is that something in the eye or the mind of the beholder, or do you have to be charming yourself to make that judgment? What a howler! And even if he was charming I can say with certainty that he wasn’t someone who spread happiness.
Speaking of obnoxious, the latest argument from Rep is that Schumer called for blocking all GW nominees back in ’07.
Well, as Hamlet observed “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Charm seems a quite subjective quality to me, and it’s simply hard to believe that Scalia possessed any real degree it. He was an arrogant egomaniac who reveled in presenting himself as the rude asshole that delighted in pissing off lib’ruls and defying “political correctness”, so where there was room for “charm” at the conference or dinner table is somewhat of a mystery.
Of course, his longtime friend and judicial colleague Ginsburg apparently loved him dearly, another of the mysteries of the universe, given the stories of Nino’s bullying of her. Has Sandra Day O’Connor, another of his personal targets, made a statement about his “charm” yet?
Anyway, it’s a staple of the useless corporate media to wax eloquent over the winning “personality” of the dearly departed elite, right at the time when a reflection on their record might be appropriate–i.e. when the public might actually be listening. This seems especially applicable to the heroes of the “conservative” movement, whose actual “accomplishments” have uniformly been a disaster to the Republic since the dawn of the Conservative Era. But they were “charming!!”
I don’t fucking care if St Scalia was “charming”, whatever the hell that even means to the writer. I cannot imagine that he was or could be, but so what. That is not really what matters when a member of the public is to contemplate him, although I guess this is what our useless media want to put into the heads of the rubes. We’ll see if the Dems play along with this image of smiling Uncle Nino, or if at some point the catastrophic record of Antonin Scalia and his phony, self-serving and hypocritical “method” of interpreting the constitution and laws becomes a topic of national discussion.
I trust you’re not holding your breath.
That’s VERY well observed (as in accurate, insightful, and well worth noting).