Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, March 25, 2019

Justice Scalia Takes His Mouth Out For Some Exercise

Justice Scalia Takes His Mouth Out For Some Exercise

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 0

49 responses to “Justice Scalia Takes His Mouth Out For Some Exercise”

  1. So the GOP is still not believing that they lost very dismally. Well , if they continue behaving like this they will have the same fate in 2016.

    • schatter003 says:

      Its never too early to start trying to loose the next election…

    • bcass1947 says:

      2014!!! The next election for some of Congress and the Senate is 2014 guys and gals. Gotta know this stuff. We will desperately be needed to make the Koch Brothers spend millions in a losing proposition. We need to shake the very foundation of Boener’s brain and let the door hit him in the butt on the way out. We have to support AG Eric Holden in his investigation into States fixing state elections by redistricting. Before you know it 2014 will be here. The more Democrats that are elected the faster Our Country, that’s right the United States of America that belongs to We The People will climb out of the hole the Neoclowns have dug for us and prove to the world they caused the mess along with their world hungry wealthy asses. Let’s get it on!!!

    • CPANewYork says:


  2. donbronkema1 says:

    There’s a sub-section for him in the new DSM-V.

  3. He is suppose to be a smart man, if this is one of America’s best, we are in big trouble.

  4. This guy is like your old cranky uncle who doesn’t know when to shut up….too bad he’s a SC Judge

  5. AlexF says:

    He should be in the NUT house not the supreme court.

  6. CJG69 says:

    Along with Thomas . he is the absolute worse of the justices…..he is too partisan to be a fair judge!
    I am hoping he and his ilke will soon be gone and we get more fair and balance ones to replace them from Pres Obama.

    • Michtex says:

      You want liberals, right? Yes that will work just fine. NOT.

      • CJG69 says:

        I just do not care for his views that is true , he is not balanced and neither is Thomas . Roberts is a conserative judge and althought I do not like all discisions he is more fair and balanced than Scalia . We do not need a partisan court, especially one as out spoken as Scalia . These are 9 people that speak for all of us and all our views . The worse thing to happen would be for them all to be partisan one way of the other. I blieve Obama would be more fair and balanced in his appointments than if we had Romney as POTUS.
        That is my opinion and like you have a right to mine as you do yours! Have a very Merry Christmas!

      • bartskibeat says:

        It is mind numbing; what has been taking place in America over the past couple of decades, as regards the essential compromises & cooperation between people of almost all ideologies, left & right. The use of falsehoods, slander, & innuendo has become so commonplace with many calling themselves true conservatives; influential & respected men of history like Ronald Reagan & Barry Goldwater wouldn’t recognize the land of the free & the home of the brave. Nothing does more to damage America;s image abroad & ergo, it’s economics; than using routinely such tactics that have always been part of religious & political tyrannies.
        Both sides of the arguments & issues made the USA the greatest & most successful experiment in human history. Liberals created the freedom concepts enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, & the US Constitution. Liberals got women the right to vote, got African-Americans the right to vote, & ended racial segregation. Liberals created Social Security, & lifted millions of elderly out of poverty. Liberals passed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Acts, & the Clean Air & Clean Water Acts. Conservatives opposed every one of these measures.
        Freedom of religion is an essential component of liberty. The Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock fame; did indeed flee Britain seeking the freedom to practice their faith unhindered. And, they found such freedom in …Holland. But the Netherlands had freedom of religion for all belief systems, & they were not about to tolerate that. So, they headed for the New World, & the early history of many religious groups on US soil was rather appalling. Liberal & conservative thinkers working together, created the liberties that since Independence; has been emulated & sought after by people around the world. Those types that are so ideologically engrained with crap that disparages the liberty & diversity of Americans & westerners in general; gave us the crime against good & decent people, & registered forever their disrespect for humanity with the tragic events of 9/11, (which , BTW, involved the murder in ONE day, of people from 83 different countries.)
        I wonder how many people risk life & limb to sneak across borders to live, work, & pursue prosperity in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, etcetera, etcetera?

  7. howa4x says:

    He should be recused for making predicial statements on an issue before the court. That is standard judicial procedure. If he were honest he would do it himself, but he is an idiologue bent on stamping a right wing agenda into law. He is also doing this based on religious grounds. This is all about the bible promoting one man/woman, but in the old testement King Solomon had 140 wives so if we are going to have a debate on religion then this is an issue. Problem is we have a seperation of church and state and if Scalia is a strict constructionist so he should be saying that the case will be decieded on the merits. Real conservatives are always yelling about too much government intervention in their lives, well isn’t having the government telling you who you can marry the ultimate intervention. This is why conservatives are hypocrites.

    • Elliot J. Stamler says:

      You are one million percent right. J. Scalia has repeatedly crossed the line in actions and statements that indicate prejudice and a political view-such as addressing (to rapturous applause) the Federalist Society. The latter is a respectable legal body but it is ideological and Republican…it has an agenda and it is as improper for Scalia to be addressing it as it would be for J. Ginsberg for example to address the ACLU (which she once represented as counsel.)

  8. Fred_Furrer says:

    One likes to think that Judges are the best of us, the wise ones, the ones who can see what will lead to a better future. Unfortunately, this is not true.

  9. iheardu2 says:

    Antonin Scalia has perfected a stance to never answer any questions but rather pose questions to questions. THEN, vote subjectively on all issues presented to the court.

    • ObozoMustGo says:

      Hey moron…. Did you post that seriously? Hellllllooooooo!!!! McFly….. Is there anyone in there???? Justices are supposed to ask questions of the litigants. That’s what they do, stupid! What kind of idiot are you? You have to be dumb a box of rocks to make that statement. And the dope that “liked” your post is more stupid than you.

      Have a nice day, and remain oblivious!

      “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

      • patuxant says:

        Tell that to Michelle Bachmann, OB1!

        • ObozoMustGo says:

          Hi Puxy! I hope this day finds you well. Not sure I get the reference to MB, though.

          Have a great day!

          “An author is a fool who, not content with boring those he lives with, insists on boring future generations.” – Charles de Montesquieu

          • patuxant says:

            Just ignore me. Some inane remarks she made in the last 24 hrs and something your cartoon said just had me connect the two. Hope all is well.

          • metrognome3830 says:

            Oh, apparently you somehow missed commenting on the Michelle Bachmann story. That’s OK, I’m sure it would be difficult to defend her. I’m thinking of removing all references to being a former Minnesotan, thanks to M.B.

            BTW, are we going to be enlightened by more original OMG quotes? That one is very good. It could be applied to many people of all political persuasions. I can see why patuxant may have associated your quote with Michelle B.

            As to your de Montesquieu quote: Is Chuck an author? Or a critic? You know what they say about critics.

            We’ll talk later, OMG. Have a great evening!

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Metro… you should Google Charles de Montesquieu and learn. He was a very influential thinker and philosopher in his day. Look him up. You will learn something of value.

            Have a nice day, Metro!

            “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” — Charles de Montesquieu

  10. bcass1947 says:

    Scalia is still fascinated by the legend IN HIS OWN MIND of himself. The man who is the smartest, brightest most rightious American ever. Pass the toilet paper. I just S_ _t my pants. It all added up to the same thing. I would love to see this man get busted for picking up a hooker or something. In other words seeing his real human side similar to blowing his friends face off with a shotgun. Another inch over maybe and the man woulda coulda shoulda retired. At least it was in my prayers. If that’s what it takes to move these dogs I’m game.

  11. Cris Smith says:

    COLLEEN KLEMP you very correct this guy is a shame to the ITALIANS

    • Elliot J. Stamler says:

      C’mon…first he is not the only ultra-conservative Italian-American and there are many very liberal Italian-Americans such as my own state’s Governors Cuomo and Cuomo. His ethnicity is neither a shame nor a plaudit…his presence on the court for obvious reasons is a source of ethnic pride to Italian-Americans and that is understandable. I know many black folks who strongly disagree with J. Thomas but it’s not the duty of the latter to go along with the majority of people in his own particular race. I disagree strongly most of the time with Scalia and Thomas but neither is a disgrace to their heritage.

  12. Hillbilly says:

    Scalia is the best argument to change the Constitution so Supreme Court Justices or any Federal judge aren’t appointed to serve for life. They should serve no more than 5 years and we get new supreme court justices and may even end up with ones that do base their decisions on the Constitution and not on their religious or party beliefs as Scalia does. Also they won’t meet with people like the Koch brothers to plan strategies for their political party as Scalia does.

    • Elliot J. Stamler says:

      No-I strongly disagree. You can’t preserve the independence of the judiciary by making them subject to terms and certainly not five-year terms. The only remedy for bad Federal judges is to have appointed more good Federal judges. Court packing is a bad idea-bad under FDR and bad when proposed now usually by conservatives (although not, Hillbilly, in your instance.)

  13. As they would say back in the old neighborhood in NYC, MARONE! this clown is stungatz!

  14. jstsyn says:

    The man should be impeached. Term limits need to be seriously considered.

  15. ObozoMustGo says:

    And now…. the REAL Cartoon of the Day!

    [click image to enlarge]

    Have a nice day!

    “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

    • metrognome3830 says:

      And it would be great if we still had a democracy. We don’t even have a decent form of Capitalism. In a capitalist society, the means of production are owned by the capitalist. Under Socialism the means of production is owned by the government. But what do we have when the means of production and the government are owned by the capitalists? The answer is coming soon to a country very near you.

      But, until then, OMG, have a great day!

      • ObozoMustGo says:

        Metro… your question brings up an interesting point, but you’ve got it backwards. The fact is that while production is mostly owned by what you call “the capitalists”, the reality is that the capitalists are controlled by the government to a degree that we have never before seen. What so many of you guys on the left do not understand is that the vast majority of business people want nothing to do with the government. But the more the government seeks to control business, the more business people feel the need to influence government by incenting politicians (giving them money) to be on their side. This is actually a form of fascism. You don’t think with the stroke of a pen that a president can authorize the take over of a company and throw out 200 years of contract law by screwing over people that have an interest in the company? Ohhh….. wait….. that has happened, hasn’t it? So don’t kid yourself, Metro. And don’t buy off on that leftist crap about business controlling politicians. It’s a lie. The guy that controls the tanks and fighter jets and the soldiers controls the game, my friend. Don’t be so naive. The only solution to this mess is more freedom and less government. You want business out of government? It will never happen because business people are citizens just you and they are entitled to a voice. But the only way you can limit the control of money is to limit the influence of the government. Do you understand this, Metro? When there’s not much to get from government, there’s no reason to buy them off. Get it? The funny thing is that you guys on the left complain about the current situation of capitalists controlling government and in the same breath scream for more government. It’s mind boggling how the mind of the left works. Really mind boggling.

        Have a great weekend, Metro! Take Mrs. Metro out for dinner tomorrow.

        “I don’t give people hell. I give them the truth and they just think it’s hell.” — Harry Truman

        • metrognome3830 says:

          Well, that’s an interesting twist on the situation. But a twist it is. I don’t believe you have anything but a little anecdotal evidence that government controls business. They have been working in tandem for many decades. I would say that it can only be a matter of perception as to who is controlling whom. What I do know is that there is no upside to the situation for the rest of us.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            And this is why I say that a Constitutionally limited government, a small government with very little involvement, is the only way to stop the corruption. The fact is that we can differ on who controls whom, but in the end, it’s a moot point because it does not change the fact that corruption is there. Maximum freedom is always the best solution.

            See you next week, Metro. You’r keeping me from my Friday beers after work with the guys now!!! 🙂

            Have a great weekend. Tell Mrs. Metro I send my regards and a Merry Christmas for her.

            “Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.” – Mark Twain

      • ObozoMustGo says:

        Oh…. one other point Metro. What do you call the labor unions stranglehold on the DemonRAT party? Are they the “capitalists” to which you refer?

        • metrognome3830 says:

          Now I’m sure you know better than that. My question is legitimate. How would you legitimately classify a labor group as “capitalist.” There is no denying that we are a capitalist society. And our Free Market went down the tubes with the Industrial Revolution. Way back when I was just a kid.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Metro… I thought you were 10 years or so into your career already during the industrial revolution???? My bad! Sorry!!! 🙂

            Here’s a good thing to ponder, Metro. Does the labor union act in a manner in which they believe they are working for their best interests? No need for you to answer. Of course they do. Do politicians act in a manner that is in their best interests? Of course they do. My point in asking these questions is to clearly show you that everyone always will act in their own best interests. And that, my friend, IS the hallmark of capitalism. It’s human nature and nothing you do, no laws you pass, will ever change human nature. And therefore, yes, labor unions are capitalists. Without question. They just like rigging the game with politicians to whom they can launder money… namely the entire DemonRAT party.

            Gotta run, my friend! Have a great weekend!

            “No man’s life, liberty, or property is in so much danger as when the legislature is in session.” – Mark Twain

      • ObozoMustGo says:

        Metro, funny how we were on this topic and I found this article in a newsletter that just arrived in my inbox. It’s a good read about the coziness between industry and government.

        The Government-Industry Revolving Door
        By Sheldon Richman
        Friday, December 14, 2012

        This little item in Politico might have gone unnoticed if not for the sharp eye of blogger Glenn Greenwald:

        Elizabeth Fowler is leaving the White House for a senior-level position leading “global health policy” at Johnson & Johnson’s government affairs and policy group.

        Why should anyone care? Because it’s the latest lesson in how government actually works, showing that the real political world bears almost no resemblance to the one portrayed in the textbooks. Our children are taught (as we were) that government officials are uniquely public spirited, with both the requisite motivation and knowledge to act exclusively for the general welfare. But in the real world, as the Public Choice school of political economy teaches, “public servants” are no less motivated by self-interest (career, influence, and prestige) than anyone else. The difference is that they spend other people’s money, which they obtain by force (also known as taxation). That difference distorts the normal incentives of the private sector, where people must please willing consumers in order to prosper (unless they get their hands on political power).

        What’s to be learned from the Elizabeth Fowler story? As Greenwald notes, Fowler spent time in the White House “oversee[ing] implementation of Obamacare…. She then became Special Assistant to the President for Healthcare and Economic Policy at the National Economic Council.”

        So she’s moving from Obama administration point person on health policy to Johnson & Johnson. As the National Center for Public Policy Research noted, “Johnson & Johnson is a member of the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Through its contributions to PhRMA, Johnson & Johnson directly supported the passage of ObamaCare.”

        As we all know, Obamacare mandates that virtually everyone must be a customer of a health insurance company, whose policies cover not only physician and hospital services, but pharmaceutical drugs too.

        This is only the tip of the Fowler iceberg. Her involvement in Obamacare did not begin with her jobs in the administration. Before going to the White House to carry out the law, she worked in Congress, where she played a key role in formulating the complicated legislation. Specifically, Fowler was the chief health policy staffer for Sen. Max Baucus, whose Senate Finance Committee generated the bill that became Obamacare. As Marcy Wheeler pointed out three years ago, “It’s actually Liz Fowler’s health care plan (if you open the document and look under document properties, it lists her as author).” Wheeler quoted Politico: “If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer.”

        Okay, so what? Well, the plot thickens—for we must ask what Fowler was doing before she went to work for Baucus. And the answer is: She was vice president for public policy and external affairs (also known as lobbying) at WellPoint Inc., which according to Wikipedia is “the largest managed health care, for-profit company in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.” Greenwald adds, “Before going to WellPoint, as well as after, Fowler had worked as Baucus’ top health care aide. And when that health care bill was drafted, the person whom Fowler replaced as chief health counsel in Baucus’ office, Michelle Easton, was lobbying for WellPoint as a principal at Tarplin, Downs, and Young.” This all appears quite cozy.

        As the writing of the health care bill was underway, WellPoint (and other insurers) expressed concern that Obamacare would include a “public-option,” or government-run insurance plan, to compete with them. In the end, the bill that Fowler drafted did not include that option. Coincidence? (This is not the say that a public option is a good idea, but only that the law ended up with a mandate to buy coverage from a private insurer.)

        No wonder Wheeler dubbed Obamacare “The Max Baucus WellPoint/Liz Fowler Plan.”

        The Fowler case may be especially flagrant, but it’s not unusual.Bill Moyers reports that hundreds of health care lobbyists used to work in Congress.

        Nor is this unique to the health care industry. The revolving door that is so plain in Fowler’s case can also be found between the U.S. government and the banking industry, as well as other major industries. Personnel readily go back and forth between an industry’s lobbying arm and the relevant congressional committees or White House offices.

        This phenomenon is sometimes called “regulatory capture” and is associated with the late Nobel Prize-winning economic George Stigler of the University of Chicago. Related to Public Choice theory, regulatory capture arises because the producers in a particular industry constitute a relatively concentrated and well-organized group, each member of which stands a great deal to gain from influencing, if not outright shaping, legislation and regulatory rule-writing. In contrast, the members of the larger public have many more-pressing day-to-day concerns than any particular bill or regulation and therefore no incentive to monitor the esoteric goings-on Washington. What’s more, while each member of a regulated industry stands to gain immensely from successful lobbying, each member of the public pays only a small amount for any specific government action, further diminishing the incentive to engage in counter-lobbying. (The aggregate cost of all government action, of course, is huge.)

        Also promoting regulatory capture is the fact that industry personnel have technical expertise that regulators will want access in doing their jobs; this facilitates contact between regulators and the regulated that tends to skew the rule writing. Further, the judgment of a regulatory agency or congressional committee staff member could be shaped by his or her wish to work for the regulated industry after retiring from government work. A lobbyist once employed by an agency or committee has obvious attraction for an industry.

        This not to say that it would be preferable for regulators to be ignorant of and antagonistic to the industry they monitor. Neither friendly nor hostile regulation is good or necessary. Government regulation is premised on the fallacy that freed markets would be unregulated. But this is patently false. The very idea of a market entails regulation by market forces as an inherent characteristic, and that sort of regulation is superior in every way to bureaucratic regulation. (See my “Regulation Red Herring.”)

        The Fowler story, like hundreds of other similar stories, should be a lesson to those who look to government to rid the marketplace of abuses. In thinking about what institutions best serve the public, we must take care to compare realistic alternatives. A government devoid of the perverse incentives described here is not one of our options. To think otherwise is to commit what economist Harold Demsetz calls the “nirvana fallacy.” As Demsetz put it: ”

        The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing “imperfect” institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

        In other words, it is illegitimate to posit an all-knowing benevolent government regulator as an answer to economic problems. The advocate of regulation must be specific not only about how the regulatory agency would obtain the knowledge necessary for achieving the public’s true interest, but also about the incentives it would have to do so. If the regulation advocate cannot provide realistic details, we have been given no reason to believe that government can solve any problem better than the market.

        We can take this a step further. When we examine the problems that are addressed by government regulators, we invariably find that they have their roots in earlier government anti-competitive interventions. Free competition is the best protector of consumers and workers. So before considering new regulations or agencies as solutions to problems, let’s first look for the ways government has suppressed free competition. I predict that finding the culprit interventions won’t be difficult.

        Have a nice weekend, Metro! Merry Christmas

        “Societies biggest failure is it has allowed authority to be its truth; and prevented truth from being its authority.” — Mobius Nemesis

        • metrognome3830 says:

          Interesting article, OMG. Most of what Mr. Richman says is true. Actually, all of what he says is true. But I would like to see more discussion on why government regulation comes about. We know it is often restrictive, not only on business but on everyone. Air travel has gone from being a pleasant experience to a royal pain in the ass because of a couple of nuts with shoe bombs or exploding underwear. What’s the correct answer to thwarting the threat? When a corporation crosses the line into illegal territory and costs a lot of people their life savings, what is the proper response? Mr. Richman is probably right that the government may not be the best regulatory agency. So what is the answer? Do we (and I think we are rapidly getting to this point) just not trust any business man/woman. Do we just quit flying? Is the average consumer of business products and services sophisticated enough to distinguish when they are being scammed? Remember, these people discussed in the article go back and forth from the corporations to the government and vice versa. They are the lobbyists that advocate for the corporation, or, conversely the government official/politician who has been successfully lobbied by the lobbyists. So who is truly running things? Are the corporations running the government? Or is the government over-regulating the corporations. I will still give the win to the corporate team. That’s where the money is and in these times, money is power.

          “An honest politician is one who when he is bought will stay bought.” – Simon Cameron

          And a Very Merry Christmas to you and the whole OMG family!

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Hi Metro. It’s a tough question, my friend. It is. Sort of reminds me of the chicken or the egg debate, right. But in this case, I think I’m right when I give the edge to the government controlling things. After all, they have the power of the police and military, the IRS and courts. They use that power as the sort of “don’t eff with me buddy” message that is there, but unspoken. I can assure you that business guys want nothing to do with politicians if they don’t get anything from it. And there is my point. Make the federal government waaaayyyyy smaller and get it out of most of what it does. Then the business guys won’t have any reason to try to buy politicians because the politicians have nothing to do with them. Get it? More freedom is always the best solution to any problem. And, no I don’t think everyone else is too stupid to make their own decisions or is so dumb that they can be taken advantage of by “greedy evil” corporations. Besides, we already have laws in place that address the problems of a company or person harming another through criminal and civil courts. People have just become so brainwashed into believing in the need for government to protect them or take care of them, it’s amazing. We’ve nearly lost our fiercely independent culture as each generation increasingly grows up with government almost central to their lives like a “God” who takes care of them. And a lot of those knuckleheads post on here too, Metro. If you read their comments, you know who they are.

            Anyway, going away to the Southeast for my older son’s hockey tournament this weekend. I’ve been all over the earth this year……. twice it seems. But it’s fun. See you next week, my friend.

            Merry Christmas and thanks for the well wishes. Back at ya, buddy! 🙂

            “Air travel has gone from being a pleasant experience to a royal pain in the ass because of a couple of nuts with shoe bombs or exploding underwear.” — metrognome3830

  16. patuxant says:

    I would bet my SS check on it. This guy has a lot of nasty dirt in his closet. Too much fits the self-righteous profile.

  17. iheardu2 says:

    Scalia’s interview on Piers Morgan on July 18, 2012, never really answer a question.

    Name calling evidently is your prowess.

    Reply to OBOZO

  18. Agreed – Scalia and Thomas are the WORST possible examples of justice and fairness – and to be members of the Supreme Court is a huge national tragedy and embarrassment.

  19. E.l. Evans says:

    He is at least predictable and his stupid stand is based on some misconstrued ideas. However, get ready for him being there for a long time.

  20. denvecsr says:

    Where’s your balance of justice Scalia? How dare you call yourself a Supreme Court Justice.

  21. ChristineIam says:

    He makes a mockery of the SCOTUS. He needs to go – and soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.