Gays can get married, but, the Constitution just doesn't apply. In 1789, gays did not exist. Neither did blacks. They were chattel after all. The Constitution is not a breathing or living document. It's not a dead one either. It is "enduring." Like the stench of sweat from a slave.

Heck, a fellow associate might have a view in opposition of his, but, let it be known, it was conjured from "applesauce." And he is respectful to his associates. It's just their opinions he doesn't respect. Because, they're wrong, and he's right. Abortions? Please, don't get him started. There's no right to privacy in the Constitution. Judges can't interpret a document to tune it to the changing times. But you can burn a flag. He would just torture the flag burner. More on that later.

Justice Scalia would never use his religion to design a brilliant post-hoc argument as a pretext to justify the "right" point of view. Please, visit him at a church, where he is happy to express his steadfast belief in his religion. Scalia is a phony, phony, asshole intellectual. The insults hurled at colleagues for generations to see cannot be masked and he should realize, perception is sometimes reality. However, it his is perception that is our reality. And it will be for decades if McCain is elected.

Hell, "We The People" did not mean women or African-Americans when it was written. To deny that fact is worse than "applesauce." It's like, prune-sauce. But we're all wrong, and he's right. Also, how do you exactly interpret the intentions of dead white guys period let alone dead white one's from a few centuries back. Was there one LSD euphoric wave of intent or was there a cacophony of politicians bickering. But he's right, there was only one "original intent" for politicians who NEVER have disputes. It's just tha 2008 is sooooo much different.

How dare Justice Scalia ever admit to being wrong. Why, an illogical argument and an "I'm right, you're wrong" is a sound defense. A right to privacy? Where "activist" judges found it exists in the "penumbras and emanations?" There are no such creatures in the Constitution? How can that be if the Constitution does not breathe and live? Strawman arguments do not exitst in Scalialand. Jusice O'Connor believed otherwise, yet, she makes, "absurd" arguments as well. He respected her. Just, he thought she was a fucking idiot. That's all.

Is there some lady named Miranda? Don't see it in the frozen corpse of a Constitution. DO YOU SEE THE WORDS, "YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT" IN THE CONSTITUTION? No. Fuck off. He's like Clarence Beaks.

"Torture is not punishment." The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause only covers punishment. So, torture is really terrific. And, it's ok to insult an elderly man when you oppose his views like Justice Stevens in the GTMO case. Maybe Scalia can invite him over for a beer afterwards. Why? Because he's right and everyone else is wrong. So is his beer. It's righter. Far to the right. It's so right it can't be wrong. There's wrong and then there's Scalia.

Women? Guffaw. You need to have a penis to be a person. Thus, women wouldn't be people if it weren't for those pesky legislators. Same with blacks. But their penises and vaginas don't count. Actually, in 1789, as Justice Ginsburg points out, there really was not a clear definition of the word, "people." It was clear to Scalia plain as day. People do not include those like him.

The series of 60 Minutes interviews are the single greatest reason to vote for Senator Obama. I hope Indecesion writes something better than my admitted drivel.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml

Allowing McCain to put 2 or 3 conservatives on the Court would be like getting kicked in the scrotum by a dominatrix with severe foot fungus…for life. (assuming you're not into that)