Fat Tony goes down

The green light for gay marriage doesn't mean Fat Tony has to suck a bag of dicks. But he probably should anyway.

The green light for gay marriage doesn’t mean Fat Tony has to suck a bag of dicks. But he probably should anyway.

A few metric shit-tons of comedic hay have been baled from Fat Tony Scalia’s jabbering over the Supremes’ decision on gay marriage.

The bit of blithering outrage that I found most telling was: “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.”

Ho, ho, etc. Fat Tony has heard so many people call him brilliant for so long that he’s come to believe he’s the sun at the center of our judicial galaxy around which the rest of us must revolve, like it or not.

Well, count me among the rogue planetoids chuckling as Fat Tony’s light went out on Friday. There’s something deeply satisfiying about watching a guy who thinks he should win everything just by being present and accounted for rolling in DFL.

Tags: ,

20 Responses to “Fat Tony goes down”

  1. Steve O Says:

    Smarts come in all forms. And Fat Tony is high on the list of folks who can babble at length in complete sentences without coming up for air. But he’s one of those guys who sounds persuasive live but whose arguments completely unravel when you write them down and map them out.

    Originalism, eg, briefs well but fails every sort of mathematical or quantifiable scrutiny. It’s based on the presumption that we can look back 238 years and examine the minds of former legislators with more accuracy than the simple process of thinking in real time.

    Tony-boy has been shown time and time again to argue one way to get to a predetermined endpoint but to argue the exact opposite when he needs to go a different direction.

    Crazy thing is, he’s been there forever, and his dissents and barbs are well known, but he doesn’t have a single decision where everyone says, yep, that’s the best way to sum it up. In 30 years, he’ll be remembered as a whining agitator, not a prescient legal mind.

    • Pat O'Brien Says:

      Steve, that was a good comment. I was more inclined to tell Tony to go piss up a rope.

    • khal spencer Says:

      Word, Steve. Tony fails the test of judicial impartiality, class, decency in defeat, and as you say argues from either side of the “originalism” depending on what he wants.

      Didn’t agree with John Roberts, but at least he made a dignified dissent.

      • Steve O Says:

        For a guy claiming to be conservative and subscribing to originalism, you’d think he’d do a better job keeping “stuff he likes” from “stuff that’s right.” That’s his biggest weakness. When he doesn’t like something, all reason exits his brain bucket.

  2. Libby Says:

    Patrick, you called it!
    Thanks for the link.

  3. Ryan Says:

    He’s the Newt Gingrich of the Judicial system….. and I don’t mean that in a complimentary way

  4. Mike Frye Says:

    Next question, does he ride a bicycle? I think that its a good idea that folks can marry who that want and that the benefits can go to their significant others. I am of a minority on that opinion though. and last time I checked this is still a democracy.

    Calling the opposition stupid and making fun of them because their overweight only makes you look bad. (Tip O’Neill never looked like a Triathlete to me buy the way)

  5. Mike Frye Says:

    You both have a point. I think that if you can convince folks to go to the polls and vote for a “new” marriage act than the problem will be solved on its own.(In my state its already the law)

    • Patrick O'Grady Says:

      No need. It’s the law of the land. Your land, my land, everybody’s land. When the Supremes speak, that’s all she wrote, Hoss:

      Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

      There will be bureaucratic foot-dragging, and I believe at least one state is refusing to grant marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight. Look for religious-liberty arguments, too, especially when it comes to providing business services to gays who plan to marry.

      But according to the Supremes, it’s all marriage now. Even for Adam and Steve.

    • khal spencer Says:

      Mike, I am afraid that if we put various questions of marriage or any other civil right to a vote, we would come away sadly disappointed in our Republic. One reason I have a personal interest in this topic is that I have been blessed with family members, students, and colleagues who are gay and who put up with a world of shit because of it. That’s just wrong. So many legal issues are tied up in marriage that it is hard to preserve equal protection without this step.

      Second reason is that prior to Loving vs. Virginia, my wife and I would have been tossed in jail in several of the fifty states**. People are strange, as Jim Morrison would say.

      ** http://www.labikes.blogspot.com/2015/06/finally-you-can-ride-that-tandem-of.html

  6. Larry T. Says:

    When the Supremes make a decision you like it’s always “justice was done” but when they don’t it’s “those damn activist judges legislating from the bench”. We gotta hope the Dems win the next election for prez so when these old farts retire or kick the bucket they can be replaced with more left-leaning folks. Sadly, it’s no less political at SCOTUS than anywhere else.

    • khal spencer Says:

      I’d be happy for some justices on the bench who were simply careful to interpret the law dispassionately rather than as Steve says accurately, letting reason exit the brain bucket when one’s own pet issue comes up.

      Trouble is, with the Senate as dysfunctional as it is, trying to get anyone who is not willing to pass a litmus test for some issue or other through the process will be a struggle.

  7. khal spencer Says:

    By the way, in case anyone is still following this. Our neighbors, Bill and Shirley, just got back from taking care of Bill’s elderly mom in Stillwater, OK. Someone is passing out leaflets, claiming to be the Traditional Knights of the KKK, warning miscegenators that they better watch out:

    “The pamphlets quoted the Bible as forbidding “race mixing” and described white women who bear mixed race children or adopt them as “filthy white whores” and “pieces of dung”. “We know who your race mixing whores and sympathizers are…we have been watching you…” —as reported in the Stillwater News Press, Tuesday, June 23, 2015.

    You just can’t cure stupid….

    • Steve O Says:

      Again, we’ve got Christianity vs Old Testamentarianism. Two totally different religions. Funny that the latter is convinced it’s the former. But it’s funny that hundred of millions of us think macdonalds is food.

  8. Ira Says:

    We’ve had same sex marriage in Canada for ten years now, and I can honestly say I haven’t noticed one bit of difference. It would be interesting in five or ten years from now to ask the naysayers in US what changes this decision made to their lives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: