Scalia is an ass-fucker
So yesterday, Antonin Scalia is speaking at NYU when a gay man, pissed off that Scalia went nutzoid supporting anti-sodomy laws that were struck down by the majority of the Supreme Court that happens to believe that consensual ass fucking, labia licking, and blow jobs are really not the province of government intervention, asks Scalia, "Do you sodomize your wife?" Because, you know, everyone needs the picture in their heads of Maureen Scalia with Big Tony's spicy sausage thrusting in and out of her mouth. But, really, and, c'mon, it's a totally legit question, since some of the laws Scalia supported had blanket bans on straight and gay sodomy. So, like, if Big Tony was munchin' on Maureen's kooz like a badger on a titmouse and Maureen started shriekin', "Suck my clit, you meatball of a man" a little too loud for the people of the Birmingham Marriott, the police might have been able to burst in and drag the future Chief Justice and the good Misses down to central lock-up, where, ironically, sodomy is the law of the land.(By Rude Pundit)
Scalia, a man who everyone says is noted for his sense of humor (and, boy, we got the joke on Bush v. Gore), responded to the student by saying that the question was unworthy of answer.
So let me get this straight (if you will).
When Scalia asks me if i have or have ever had buttsex that's a question vital to the interests of The State and Justice Scalia is on-record as saying it is an important question to pose to citizens of the United States of America. Not only that, but if i give the wrong answer he thinks i should be thrown in jail. When someone else asks Scalia if he has or has ever had buttsex that's "unworthy of answer".
I can only assume, Justice Scalia, that if i were convicted under some sort of sodomy law (which seems pretty unlikely, but it's a hypothetical so bear with me) and the case came up the the Supreme Court that i could plead not "innocent" or "guilty" but "the charges are unworthy of answer" and you, Justice Scalia, would suggest the case against me be dropped? To do otherwise suggests, to me, the true motive of your ruling: you like hitting The Queers.
Now, he would of course object to that characterization.
"Ah'm just a down-tah-earth Strict Constructionist, y'see. Ah don't rule whether it's a good law or a bad 'un. Ah just call 'em like the Constitution requires and there ain't no right tah privv-acy in the Constitution."
(Disclaimer: i don't think he has an accent like that. He might adopt one when responding to that question, though, in order to support his first sentence.)
But of course that's bullshit and he knows it. Amendment Nine to the rescue:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So tell me, again, Justice Scalia: are you not, by denying the Constitutional existence of non-enumerated rights, changing not the laws to fit your ideology but rather changing the Constitution of the United States of America to fit your ideology?
The other option (if it's not that he denies the Ninth Amendment) seems to be that he was trying to keep anti-gay, anti-sex laws on the books for his own partisan purposes.
I'm not sure which it was, but no matter what his answer he isn't given a free pass here. Equality under the law is not an non-enumerated right--rather, it is an enumerated right.
So, once again, Justice Scalia: have you ever sodomized your wife, or any other person? Specifically, have you done so in violation of sodomy laws? If you refuse to answer: can we assume you are entering a "No Contest" plea? Or do we have to assume "Not Guilty"? I'm a little unsure what the best approach would be. Perhaps you could offer some advice?