Reply With Quote
Wow, we really are Rome!
As long as sex is between a man and a women, it's all fair game for Scalia...
Orgies are the way to ease social tensions, claims US judge
Oliver Burkeman in New York
The Guardian, Friday 1 October 2004 18.59 EDT
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...oliverburkeman<snip>
He is the conservative bastion of the US supreme court, a favourite of President Bush, and a hunting partner of the vice-president. He has argued vociferously against abortion rights, and in favour of anti-sodomy laws.
But it turns out that there is another side to Justice Antonin Scalia: he thinks Americans ought to be having more orgies.
Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."
It seems unlikely that this is what President Bush meant when he promised to appoint more judges like Scalia to the court, should the opportunity arise. Crucially, Justice Scalia is one of the judges in favour of overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark judgment protecting abortion as a cons utional right.
One audience member also asked the judge "whether you have any gay friends, and, if not, whether you'd like to be my friend," the Harvard Crimson newspaper reported.
"I probably do have some gay friends, but I have never pressed the point," Justice Scalia responded. He offered no clue to the logic behind his claim that orgies eliminate social tensions.
<snip>
Wow, we really are Rome!
I think this may be the first time I have ever agreed with Sandusky errr I mean Scalia.
JINO Scalia, the guy is a sicko.
and of course, he's a hero to Repugs. He's THEIR MAN, their sociopathic JINO pervert
Anyone care to reconcile an opposition to sodomy with support for orgies?
You just need to make sure that the lights are on.
Man Law dictates that every sexual encounter must involve a vagina to penis ratio of at least 1.0.
But no anuses (anuii?) allowed anywhere?
Apparently not. Not saying that makes any sense, but then the whole concept of trying to legislate what consenting adults do in their bedrooms doesn't make any either.
And no mouths? I heard BJ's were considered sodomy too?
That's kind of my point. If the opposition to sodomy is that it is "unnatural" and against the moral teachings of the bible (assuming this is an argument put forth by the "our country was founded on the bible" crowd)... then orgies wouldn't appear to jive either.
The possibility of BJ's is one reason that anuii are left out of the equation.
If is opposition is based on biblical moral teachings, then yes. But I thought that the "justification" (or excuse if that's how you want to look at it) was that sodomy presented a health risk. If Scalia thinks that buttsex presents an undue health risk that vagsex doesn't, and if Scalia's concept of an orgy is one where there's no buttsex going on, then it seems to me like he's got a logically consistent arguement that is based on a false premise of buttsex presenting a health risk that vagsex doesn't.
Wouldn't vagsex with multiple partners on the same occasion present a health risk?
In my opinion: Yes.
In Scalia's opinion: ???
There's a flow chart to be constructed from this.
I aint gonna do it.
There's a flow chart to be constructed from this.
I aint gonna do it.
I may have led myself into deeper waters than I should have, seeing as how the list of things I'm not an expert on include the law, sodomy, orgies, comparitive health risks between different types of intercourse, and Justice Scalia's moral compass.
you lie!
i may have led myself into deeper waters than i should have, seeing as how the list of things i'm not an expert on include the law, sodomy, orgies, comparitive health risks between different types of intercourse, and justice scalia's moral compass.
Don't make me flowchart!
I may have led myself into deeper waters than I should have, seeing as how the list of things I'm not an expert on include the law, sodomy, orgies, comparitive health risks between different types of intercourse, and Justice Scalia's moral compass.
win.
LOL...
Hail Hussain Caesar...
Justice Scalia Must Resign
He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician - and that’s the problem.
So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.
Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.
“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”
What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.
http://readersupportednews.org/opini...ia-must-resign
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
