Most of us care far too much about what other people think of us; it's hard not to admire people who manage to give no shits at all about being popular, respected, well-liked, admired, and so on. Of course we all claim that we don't care what anyone else thinks, but on the inside…it matters. No one, for example, really wants to be known as the world's biggest asshole. At most, we want the cachet that comes from being hated by the right people.

I can't figure out if the right-wing voting bloc on the current Supreme Court is delusional or just the four coolest, most completely over-it dudes on the planet. It takes a special kind of not giving a shit to willingly play the role of the villain like this. I mean, they can't be delusional enough to think that in two or three decades people will be looking back and admiring the courageous stand they took against…the Voting Rights Act, or gay marriage, or child labor laws, or whatever puppy they decide to kick in a given term. Surely they have to know that when the movies are made, they're going to be the Bad Guys.

Scalia in particular has turned himself into Cruella DeVille over the last few years. Does he believe that future generations will look at him as a hero? I suppose some people will, in the same sense that some people look back at Madison Grant or George Wallace or Joseph McCarthy as heroes. But other than being a perennial favorite to neo-Birchers, evangelical extremists, and the White Power crowd, there won't be many tears shed for Antonin when he departs this mortal coil.

Maybe they already know this. I'm not going to lie – that's almost respectable, in a certain sense. If their beliefs are so strongly held that they're willing to accept their role as the Roger Taneys of the 21st Century, then if nothing else I admire their ability to remain almost completely unaffected by the judgment of others. They must have extremely high self esteem, or something. Maybe they just don't know a losing cause when they see one.

42 thoughts on “HISTORY WILL JUDGE ME”

  • Sorry Firebaggers, but if we hadn't elected our Closet Republican Fascist Dronemeister in 2008 and 2012 we wouldn't have gay marriage today. Or health insurance for millions of people.

    Call me an O-bot, but at least I'm also on the right side of history.

    Oh, what's that? Voting for the Green Party in 2012 would actually have turned President Romney into a firebrand for equal marriage? Do tell. . . .

    And it sounds like I'm gloating, well, I am — maybe you hate Obama, but SCOTUS picks are crucial for the day-in, day-out lives of average Americans who might happen to be gay or have cancer. Get over yourselves.

  • Have no fear. The Southern states will find a way to classify teh gays as… darker complected. So with the aid of Jim Crowe Jnr. it'll be business as usual ;)

  • @wetcasenents: Yeah, OK. But I can't help thinking of Animal Farm. When the other animals complained at the cruelty and ineptitude of the pigs, the pigs replied, "Surely you don't want Farmer Jones back?" The other animals agreed that no, they didn't want Farmer Jones back, and the pigs considered the matter settled and carried on as before.

    Obama was clearly better than Romney or McCain in many ways, and this is one of them. It doesn't mean that Obama is somehow above criticism.

  • I think these guys, and Scalia probably above all of them, deserve a lot of respect. I believe they can tell a losing game when they see it (Everyone reads Nate Silver, right?) but they stick to what they believe, and to what they think is Right for The Country.

    That's admirable, no less.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    What was surprising to me, was that the DOMA decision was broad enough so that while it allowed gay couples in states that already allow gay marriage to have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, it will probably eventually be used to force even the Reddest States to allow gay marriage.
    It may take awhile, though.

    Now, the question for gay people in those Red States, as with other minorities and young people, is, will those rights and privileges include the right to vote?

    We don't have a specific right to vote in our Constitution. Which makes what the 5 bigoted @$$holes on the SCOTUS, so heinous.

    What that @$$hole majority of the SCOTUS did in its VRA decision the other day, after all of the voter suppression efforts over the last few decades – and especially the last few years – is like saying that the laws over the last 50 years that prevented lumber companies from chopping down trees in the forest without pre-clearance, have done a great job!

    Such a great job, that we don't need those preclearance laws anymore!

    And that it doesn't matter that the companies have already started chopping down trees recently, hoping to sneak past that preclearance, and have marked others for future cutting, the overall forest looks fine! Terrific!
    So, the companies can go ahead and start chopping. And if they cut down trees that they shouldn't, well, that can be dealt with later.

    But you've got to admire those 5 SC Justices for their work ethic. After all, what were they put in those jobs on the SC to do, over the last 30 years?
    Well, nothing except decide in the favor of corporations over individuals, families, and the environment, and to slow down progress in any and every way possible.
    And you gotta admit – they've been doing a hell of a great job at that!

    In many parts of the country, long after they're gone, they will still be revered.
    In the Red States, next to the statues of Bobby Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest, they will gladly put up statues of that whack-a-doodle sociopath, Scalia; corporatists Alito and Roberts; and, to show that even in the Reddest of States, they are "Post Racial," they will also put up statues of that "Judas Goat," Clarence Thomas – just not close enough to O'l Bobby Lee and Nat, that it upsets their spirits.

    I'm sure that even Bobby Lee and Nat would not object if "Judas Goat" Clarence's statue is near them. After all, he was a good "House" one – and not one of "those" dirty, sweaty, "Field" ones.

    We'll have to work hard at out GOTV efforts for at least the next two elections, to overcome what the SCOTUS did the other day.
    But, like before, "We shall overcome."

  • I mean, they can't be delusional enough to think that in two or three decades people will be looking back and admiring the courageous stand they took against…the Voting Rights Act, or gay marriage, or child labor laws, or whatever puppy they decide to kick in a given term.

    Dude, what was that you were saying last year about how Supreme Court appointments are not a sexy enough reason for voters to get their asses to the polls and cast their ballots?

  • @wetcasenents: You make the best case for voting for Obama in 2012 and one of the primary reasons I voted for him.

    Scalia and Kennedy are 76 years old; keeping a Dem in the WH for the next several years offers the possibility of changing the ideological makeup of the Court from conservative to moderate/liberal for a generation.

    And that is reason enough.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    If any one, or more, of the 5 Reich Wingers on the SCOTUS either die, or retire, what makes you think that Republicans in the Senate will allow President Obama to replace him/them?

    If it's one of the more Liberal 4, then yeah – but they'll fight tooth and nail to make sure the replacement is as far from Liberal, as possible.

    The Republicans will leave the SC at 8, or 7, or 6, or whatever, hoping that a Republican will win the Presidency, and the Senate, in 2016 – and they can restock the SCOTUS, with more Corporate Fascist Christianista's.

    And the Democrats can scream "UP OR DOWN VOTE!" all they want, it will fall on deaf ears.
    Unless, of course, Harry Reid decides to eliminate the filibuster for nominations – but (maybe) leaves it intact for when bills are being discussed.

    And so far, all he's done is talks about it.
    And there are still enough old Democratic fools in the Senate, like Senator Levin, who'll block his attempts, even if he wanted to do just that.
    They did it earlier this year.

  • The desire to be liked by the people you want to be liked by is probably the strongest human imperative. So, yeah, even Scalia thinks about how future pseudo-intellectual asshats will applaud his principled asshattery. On the other hand it's possible that Thomas and Alito are either borderline personalities or just social morons.

  • I'm sure they think that history will reveal that they were right to do what they did, which is just one more thing they are wrong about.

    The SCOTUS is my single issue for voting in a National Election, since what they decide can be so much harder to undo than legislation.

  • I dunno about that. Kissinger is still adored by some despite being the biggest mass-murderer since Hitler. (Don't fucking call Godwin on me, you know it's true.)

  • Scalia actually cited Taney by name in his dissent! Not from Dred Scot, but frankly I'm not sure it matters. Taney, as far as I know, is generally regarded as a Jacksonian toady rather than a particularly capable jurist, although that may be because of the hit his reputation took with Dred Scot. But boy was Dred Scot a doozy, and boy are Scalia's dissents in these gay cases exploding pustules of bile. He was never very smart — merely shallowly erudite — but he has definitely slid rapidly down the hill in terms of coherence since at least 1996 when that Colorado case (Romer v. Evans?) first got him in a tizzy. Though the phrase is indicative of a hetero normativity that is terrified of homosexuality and forced to conceive of it in terms of rape, really there is no more satisfying image than Scalia, eating a dick and dying from it. Alito is no better, but Scalia enjoys confusing being a total flaming asshole spewing shit with being a lovable curmudgeon.

  • I don't buy the "they stood up for what they thought was right" argument.

    There's a quote in which Robert E. Lee describes slavery as "a necessary evil." He then self-righteously moans about how whites must "bear the cross of slavery" until Blacks are ready to survive without the blessing of slavery.

    Give me a break.

    When it comes time to decide the meaning right and wrong, a lot of people say this:

    The Bible claims that "right" means stoning homosexuals to death. It says that "right" is genocide. The people who follow the Bible teach their children hymns ("Joshua fought the battle of Jericho") to celebrate genocide.

    And I find that so compelling, SIGN ME UP. Clearly all this stuff about killing people is the most profound articulation of the fundamental moral code of the cosmos in all of human history.

    People make gods in their own image. Scalia hates homosexuals, so he builds an idol to match. He doesn't have a problem with mixed fabrics or shellfish, so he makes sure the idol matches there, too.

    If nine people tell you you're drunk, it might be time to lie down. Scalia has decided to keep on drinking. His consistency doesn't make him a hero. It makes him an alcoholic.

  • Xynzee, I'm curious.

    What do you make of conversion therapy to "cure" gays?

    You've said that homosexuality is a sin. You've indicated that, had you lived 3,000 years ago, you would have killed men for the "sin" of making love with their husbands.

    One might infer from this that, if there were a conversion therapy that actually worked, you would support it, just like, say, a cure for alcoholism.

    So what is your position on conversion therapy?

  • Well, but here's the thing: plenty of people DO like Scalia. Plenty of liberal attorneys like Scalia. I hear attorneys describe him and his opinions as brilliant constantly-and they also just chuckle and say "Oh, Tony just like controversy," or "Tony just likes to be noticed." The one thing I have noticed about attorneys (having worked as a paralegal for 23 years) is that they will put up with and tolerate the most egregious asshole lawyer out there if he or she happens to come up with some fab writing or arguments. Meh. Even Scalia's colleagues on the court have a good relationship with him.

    History, however, won't have such a good relationship with him.

  • As Mothra points out above, these guys get plenty of positive reinforcement where it counts; from their peers, and from others inside the insular social and professional bubble within which people like this spend their lives.

    They don't think of themselves as assholes, because nobody who counts is telling them that they are assholes. Their opinions are respected, and soberly discussed on all the political gasbag shows by all the Very Serious People. Why the hell should they care if a few grubby "voters" and commie bloggers don't like them?

  • History takes a while and the short attention span of the American public means that Bill Clinton is still lionized by the Dems despite his non veto of DOMA and his signing on to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The chickens have come home to roost on both but Bill is a "hero".

  • @c u n d: My expectation is that Scalia and Kennedy hang on through this presidency but retire during the next (Drop dead would work too but I won't hope for it…) by which point the president will not be Obama but will be Hillary, Martin O'Malley or some other less ethnic Democrat.

    Will the Republicans "allow" it, if they still reside in the minority? Well, hopefully by then, the filibuster/obstruction rules will have changed to allow simple minority votes in the Senate. But even if not, outright obstruction of SCOTUS appointees will result in a nuclear option of some sort.

    We can't expect to live under the tyranny of the minority in perpetuity, can we?

  • Monkey Business says:

    The nice thing about the Supreme Court is that it's justices are mortal.

    Scalia is 77. Kennedy is 76. Ginsburg is 80. Breyer is 74.

    This president and the next one could have the opportunity to ensconce thirty years of a liberal/moderate majority on the court. Nothing would warm my cold little heart quite like seeing Scalia be replaced by the Supreme Court's first openly gay justice.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    Sadly, that's up to the sad-sack Democrats. A lot of the current crop are used to being whipped, and out-maneuvered.

    But I do have hopes for the future.

    "Up"Chuck Schumer, corporate whore that he is, would be an upgrade over Reid.
    And Senators Brown, Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobacher, have guts, and are sharp as tacks.
    Same for some of the new Democrats in the House.

  • Scalia has, I imagine, incredibly high self-esteem. He may also be a literal sociopath. I had a Facebook "friend" yesterday, who is a evangelical type, post Scalia's dissent. some of his and some of my social conservative "friends" were delighted in how Scalia wouldn't bend in his opinion of gay marriage. It was depressing to see, but I think you are right about Scalia being seen as a hero to some lunatics in the future. Most reasonable people see McCarthy as a Red Menace shit-flinger, but other people probably think all of his witch-hunting was admirable instead of detestable and sadistic.

  • Most reasonable people see McCarthy as a Red Menace shit-flinger, but other people probably think all of his witch-hunting was admirable instead of detestable and sadistic.

    Yep. Ann Coulter wrote a book about that. I don't have that one, but I do have the one her buddy Michelle Malkin wrote about how the indiscriminate internment in the US for people of Japanese descent during WWII was entirely justified.

  • I think people like Scalia are getting enough ego-strokes by the rest of the cronies in the right wing Plutocracy that they really believe they're taking Brave, Principled Stands for Merka and God and Free Market Capitalism. There are enough Scaifes and Kochs and Art Popes to make Scalia feel like a goddamn hero that I can't imagine he gives a shit what liberal Hollywood will say in 20 years.

  • 100% of the people Scalia hangs out with think he's a hero, standing up against the gays and the darkies who want to take over Our Country. Why would he change?

    Seriously, and without the slightest amount of snark: if Scalia wrote a ruling in favor of gay rights or black people being allowed to vote, he'd become socially radioactive. Liberals would still hate him, and now conservatives would hate him too. Do you really expect him to do that to himself?

  • @xynzee

    "Have no fear. The Southern states will find a way to classify teh gays as… darker complected. So with the aid of Jim Crowe Jnr. it'll be business as usual ;)"

    There are 38 states that currently maintain 'one woman / one man' as the legal def of marriage. Traditionally, there are 16 states that are Southern or Border South States (being liberal here to make the math conservative). The math is 38 – 16 = 22

    Do those 22 non-Southern States get a pass from you?

    I think if you check the Census data there is a long term inflow of American Blacks to the 11 States we can strictly define as the South.

    Jim Crow (not Crowe) and Jr. have been dead for a long time. And I have no idea how that matches up with gays since it was de jure segregation that was the heart of ol' Jim.

    Do you expect GA to pass a freakin' LAW against LGBT people? Really? I need to smoke some of yours…


  • How many Supreme Court justices can you name from 30-40 years ago? Go out in the streets and ask anyone the same question. How many of them can name a current Supreme Court justice?

    Sure, the history books might judge them harshly, but if no one reads them who will give a rat's ass? Or, even better, the history books will whitewash the Court's decisions and talk about the "bold stances" that members took without ever mentioning what those stances were. All the Supreme Court decisions I can remember learning about (and I was homeschooled, so I don't remember learning about a lot of them) they talked about the issue and the decision without ever once mentioning the people involved in those decisions.

    @bb, we're still fighting the Civil War in the South. If we don't have Jim Crow, Jr yet, it's only because we're still working on the first one. As for net positive black migration to the South: we have jobs for now and a low cost of living, which tells me that minorities prioritize economic realities over "getting along with white people".

  • @ bb: you've been too quiet, missed you. :)
    That 'Bama county hadn't been trying to implement a relative of Ol' Jim that was thwarted by the DoJ now had they?

    Oh Anon, you're sooo cuuute! I almost want to pick you up, put you in my man bag and take you home. You can be my li'l attack chihuahua.

    Just one question. You are house broken? I don't want any stains on the carpet.

  • As for net positive black migration to the South: we have jobs for now and a low cost of living, which tells me that minorities prioritize economic realities over "getting along with white people".

    If minorities are coming to where the white people are, they have to "get along" with the white people, just as women are obliged to "get along" in the patriarchal, pro-rape culture in which we find ourselves. I think what you meant to say is that they prioritize economic realities over staying the hell away from the white people (and I'll betcha Trayvon Martin's dad has given at least some thought to whether he should have chosen the latter option).

  • Xynzee, how very Christian of you! I ask you a serious question, and, as usual, you insult me. I was seriously interested in your answer, but reluctant to ask. I know from your track record that given a choice, you'd rather insult me than talk about Jesus.

    It seems to me like a legitimate question. You believe homosexuality is a sin- a sin so bad that, at one time, the murder of homosexuals was praiseworthy. If you're ashamed of your beliefs, that's hardly my fault.

    Like I said- Christianity is dying. Surveys consistently show that Christianity is hemmorrhaging members because:

    1. People are turned off by the homophobia
    2. People are turned off by the fact that Christians don't stand up for what they believe in.

    So yeah, you might feel all snarky and cool about insulting me and dodging a serious conversation, but what have you gained? Are you really serving Christ?

  • Xynzee, thanks for proving me right, BTW.

    When last we spoke, you posted a long-winded, self-righteous sermon about how you care about me and are praying for me.

    I pointed out that your declaration was skin-deep. You don't mean any of that- it's just a pose, something Pharisees like you say to try to look good in public.

    And sure enough, it's evaporated as soon as it left your keyboard.

    For all your holier-than-thou declarations about how much compassion you feel for me, you've immediately gone back to insulting me.

    That's the problem, in a nutshell. You're empty. You don't believe in anything. To me, the bigotry of people like you is a matter of survival. To you, it's just a big game.

    No wonder you hate me so much. Around here, the key to getting along is to say how much you support gay rights. At church, you get along by being openly homophobic.

    My only sin is that I've breached the barrier. I've exposed both your faces to the same audience, by asking you to tell the folks at GnT what you profess when you're in church.

  • Xynzee's tired of your anti-Christian bigotry, Anon. Being tolerant of religion is letting religionists say shit like, "I hate the sin, not the sinner" without confronting them with the ethical bankruptcy and horrifying contradictions of their platitudes.

    He votes democratic, isn't that good enough? Stop being mean or he'll start concern trolling about how leftist atheists are such meanies and drive callow, craven Christians like himself to right-wing politics.

  • Anon: Yup. You've found me out. And again your logic is impeccable.

    Let's take a look at your "honest question" from a slightly different angle shall we.

    So Anon, as a Southerner. How do you feel about the evisceration of the VRA? I mean after all with your culture's history of enslavement and lynching of African Americans in the pre and post war era, you must feel some regret that you didn't get to participate in heinous acts from a mere 150yrs ago (could Treyvon be considered a modern lynching). We all know that *all* Southerners supported that peculiar institution of the South. As you are an atheist, that excludes you from being a Methodist and a participant in the Underground Railroad. So we must conclude you'd have fought to defend Dixie and slavery.

    There I've done it. I've exposed you as closeted supporter of slavery and lynchings.

    Go back, re-read your question. *That* was the question you asked me.

    Can you see how you immediately put people offside? We went through this last time.

    I'm giving you some tough love here. You *need* to stop doing that. You approach people with a different belief/opinion to you with a belief that they're arseholes. You then do/say something to them that pisses them off, and what do you know! Self-fulfilling prophecy! You did it to bb, you do it to me. How many people do you do this to?

    Now would you like to go back and reframe your original question?

  • @Bill:

    I don't think you quite understand the situation. This isn't about the *implications* of Xynzee's beliefs. I am not attributing positions to Xynzee simply because he is a Christian.

    I asked him a very specific question in another thread, and Xynzee answered.

    Xynzee has specifically stated that he believes the Levitical command to murder homosexuals comes from God, and he spoke at some length in support of it.

    Nonetheless, he supports gay rights within a legal context *in the present day*, even while explicitly maintaining that homosexuality is a sin so serious as to justify the murder of homosexuals. Not in the here or now, but, by Xynzee's explicit admission, in 1000 BC, just as I specified.

    I find that contradiction interesting, and I meet enough hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner types I wanted to explore further. Politically, I want to figure out where these people stand on the issues.

    @Xynzee: Well, it looks like the pendulum has swung back to the self-righteous act. First you insult me and make false accusations, then you assure me you're praying for me, then you insult me again, and now it's "tough love." No doubt you'll go back to insulting me tomorrow, if your past track record is any indication.

    But remember, always remember the eleventh commandment: Thou Shalt Never Apologize.

    Xynzee, the rather obvious problem with your bullshit argument is that I'm not attributing positions to you because you're a Christian. I'm attributing them to you *because you specifically voiced them.* To follow your analogy, you're not simply a Southerner. You're a Southerner who, when pressed, admitted that he thinks lynchings were a good idea in the 1920's, but aren't appropriate anymore.

    So I think my followup question is kind of an obvious one.

    But I'll rephrase it, as you asked:

    Given that in the other thread, you stated that homosexuality was a sin, and also said that God had ordered the murder of homosexuals in ancient Israel, and also explained at some length that you think this was a good thing because it demonstrated that God's law is harsh and his expectations are high…

    do you support conversion therapy?

  • Incidentally, Xynzee, let me reiterate a point from our last conversation:

    There's an easy way for you to win this, and there always has been. It goes like this:

    "Do you believe that Leviticus came from God?"

    "No, I do not."

    See how easy that would be? If your beliefs are respectable, then you don't have to worry about traps. I have no problem articulating *my* beliefs. I have nothing to be ashamed of.

    Even if I were acting in bad faith, it sure would pull the rug out from under me if you could actually prove that I was attributing beliefs to you that you don't hold.

    The problem is simple: you can't do it. You really do believe that God ordered the murder of homosexuals. So instead, we get all this weaselling, and insults, and claims that you're giving me "tough love."

    All your arguments against me would be a thousand times more powerful if you could just say that no, you don't hold any of the beliefs I am attacking. Your big analogy about Southerners and lynching would have been a winner if you could just say, "Yes, I am a Christian, but no, I do not believe Leviticus came from God. Kind of like how not all Southerners support lynching." But your whole argument is really weak when you have to dance around the fact that you're a Southerner AND you support lynching, metaphorically speaking.

    I really want to figure out what you believe, but you're so ashamed of your beliefs that it's a really unpleasant process.

    BTW, here's some tough love for you. Jesus said that when you do charity, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. So please, quit bragging about how you invited a lesbian couple to supper. JESUS TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THAT.

    Since you seem to be a little rusty on the New Testament, here's some more.

    When the Pharisees asked Jesus questions, did Jesus complain that they were acting in bad faith? Or did he pull the rug out from under them with the truth?

    When Peter denied his beliefs, was that presented as a good thing?

    Did Jesus say, "if you are ashamed of me, I will be proud of you in heaven?"

    When Jesus asked the Pharisees of John the Baptists' authority came from man or from God, was that a question asked in good faith? Or was it a horrible, shameful trick question?

    All I want is a straightforward answer, Xynzee. You've already said you support Leviticus, so please, Xynzee and Bill both, quit the bullshit about how I'm a horrible bigot putting words in your mouth. Now, please tell me whether you support conversion therapy. It's as simple as that. This whole conversation would be so much more pleasant if you didn't assume from the very start that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith. For that matter, if would be a lot easier if you just weren't ashamed of your Christianity.

  • Scalia is as admirable as Oswald's and James Earl Ray's marksmanship, or Goebbels' advertising savvy. Generating the legal destruction of the Voting Rights Act will be seen as George W. Bush's greatest historical legacy, just as Hitler's Genocide trumps even his conquest of France.

  • Is that part of the VRA that was called to sunset by the SCOTUS really the heart of the civil rights movement?

    Does the DOJ still need to approve STATE election policies and redistricting in the formerly offending states? I liken it to having martial law still in place after all the firebrands of insurrection have died in battle with the authorities or eventually died of old age and the troops are still there in in the business of nailing purse snatchers.

    What about that county in Alabamastan where my creepy ass cracker brothers are perpetrating ill toward the Black folks thereabouts on voting and other matters? Why, do tell, that is still against both State and Federal Law and the DOJ overseeing State election POLICY wouldn't and won't change that.

    Regardless of Ds or Rs in control, the Federales (establishment) loves to have the States beholden to them for whatever reason. This one was justified, but now its time has passed.

    Yeah, I'm sure we all (White Southrons) have the ghosts of George Wallace and Ross Barnett living within our souls just itchin' to get out and reinstitute the Old South. (dripping w/ sarcasm)

    Like, if true, that would work well with the pervasive Federal Government and the 24 hour 'news' cycle.


  • bb in Ga:

    Your argument would make more sense if Southern states were not chomping at the bits to impose new restrictions on voting clearly aimed at reducing voting by the wrong kind of people, if you'all know what Ah Mean?

    Texas was a member of the Great Lost Cause, after all.

    While sympathetic to the argument that the federal government is too big, States and local governments, especially (but by no means only) in the South, do NOT have a very enlightened history w/r/t racial justice.

  • Scalia, Uncle Clarence and Alito are more or less crackpots. Roberts, though he has his pet causes including the gutting of the VRA at least occasionally makes rulings that have a foundation in law, though I don't always agree. Kennedy is what he is. Sotomayor's dissent in Hollingsworth v. Perry is also a position I find legitimately interesting.

  • I suspect that they do not realize what foul human beings they will be remembered as for two reasons:

    1. They think the world will actually roll back to "the good old days" soon and stay there permanently.

    2. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus

  • Hello there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it's truly informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I'll appreciate if you continue this in future.
    Lots of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

Comments are closed.