The Word - Original Spin
Stephen Colbert got his digs on Supreme Court Justice and Constitutional "originalist" Antonin Scalia in his Word segment as only he can.
You know what else is insane folks? All the special rights minorities are asking for these days. Gay Americans want the right to be married in California. Mexican Americans want the right to drive through Arizona. And Muslim Americans want the right to be Muslims.
But if we keep giving the rights, there will be fewer rights left for us. That’s just mad. Well luckily there is a way to preserve our rights and it brings us to tonight’s Word—Original Spin.
Folks, these bogus rights are being dished out by activist judges who claim the Constitution is a "living document" that's transformed every time society shifts its views on an issue, like gay rights, or how many fifths of me a black person is worth.
To them, it just magically changes, as if James Madison wrote the Constitution on an Etch A Sketch. But I say... I say a document should never change its meaning unless it's your health insurance policy and you just got sick.
Now Supreme Court and shaved walrus Antonin Scalia agrees with me on this. He's what's called a Constitutional originalist saying "I interpret (the Constitution) the say it was understood by society at the time."
I've always said a good Supreme Court Justice is a Constitutional scholar first... a time traveling mind reader second. And as an originalist Scalia argues that the idea that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment protects women’s' rights is a "modern invention" because he says in 1868 when it was written "Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination."
Evidentially back then women hadn't been invented yet. Plus the 14th Amendment was created to protect the rights of newly freed slaves. That's why it strictly limits equal protection under the law to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."
So all Scalia is saying is that women aren't persons. [...]
And gays, you don't have any protections from sexual discrimination either. Back in the 1860's there were no gay people.
well, he and his writers. So many levels of satire and yet the points get slammed outta the park!
What Walt Said! 5 minutes of monologue and a "mere comedian" slices up a pretentious blowhard jurist. Take note, Democrats and progressives (please?)
If anyone wonders why I always say I heart Colbert, just watch this video. No one does this sort of comedy better. The irony he calls out in this piece is priceless.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I love Jon Stewart, but I adore Colbert.....but he better be careful criticizing the thin-skinned Scalia....he's liable to find a horse's head in his bed someday soon.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
Fellatio from horses should be an impeachable offense
Don't ya think?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
founders likely never figured that an Italian-American would be on the Supreme Court.
He's a puppet of the Vatican, and reflects their 8th century attitudes.
He said "That's just MATH."
What else could you say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRLuED57a6Y
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
This is absolutely the best take down of the "originalist" fallacy that I think I have ever seen. It's so simple in it's logic that it makes me wonder if anyone ever bothered to debate Scalia before.
Speaking of the Citizens United ruling. . . Was treating a piece of paper like a person protected by the bill of rights something they were thinking about when they wrote the 14th amendment?
Funny how Scalia's rulings seem to involve mental and legal gymnastics revolving around his own ideology. What's that called again? There's a term for it. . . it's right on the tip of my tongue.
The term is...
"Shitforbrainslyinghypocriticalconservativebigot"
That's the best answer yet. With his views of the Constitution he should be impeached. There should be term limits for the Supremes since as they get older they get senile like Scalia, not all of them, just the repugs. Most of them shouldn't even be on the court.
or even "Sociopath", these days, it goes as "Conservative".
. . . judicial activism?
Living document or interpretive.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Get out the semi and the come-along so we can pull Scalia's head out of his rectum. Cousin Abe was advocating votes for women by 1850, and not too much later, presidential candidate Victoria Woodhull (antique lovers can reference "The Devil in the Guise of A Woman") was advocating total social equality and, a premature milennialist, free love/sex for women.
He needs to be accessing source documents, popular culture ephemera, and not revisionist textbooks that only Harvard or Vandy students can afford.
Gotta love the Colbert Report!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
since the vast majority of 14th Amendment cases since 1868 have been on behalf of corporations instead of persons, I suggest that Mr. Colbert do a follow-up on this Word comment to include that other massive constitutional inconsistency on Scalia's part. Using the 14th Am. to create and extend corprate personhood is about as activist as it gets
Study the symptoms not the virus...
You missed the best joke.
To be perfectly honest, my issue with 'Originalists' is two-fold.
A: As a concept it defenestrates the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Except the entire concept of Originalism is a statement that there was nothing they missed right there at the time, therefore the 9th amendment must not mean anything, because if it meant anything they would have included it, right?
B: I've met about as many 'originalists' that believe in the word for word Constitution as I have 'fundamentalists' that believe in the word for word Bible. I.E. . . None.
Oh, lots of people that believe the word for word when the words support their prejudices, but the amount of amazing scholarship that redefines words when it doesn't is amazing. Scalia has never said word one against the definition of corporations as people, or guns in careful consideration of the words "Well-Regulated Militia", or a dozen other expansions of powers and protections that he happens to like. It exactly parrallels people that believe the KJV bible is the one true version, right till you get to absolutes like "Thou shalt not Kill", when they're suddenly linguistic scholars going back to Hebrew root words and translation errors.
So, yeah, it's the same BS.
I've argued for years conservatives try to adapt the usage of Soli Scriptura to the Constitution, but in scalia's case it wouldn't be the King James Version, but the Douay-Rheims or the earlier Vulgate.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Comments are closed on this entry