Why Justice Scalia Was The Biggest Cock Block Of The 20th Century

Jay Cross
“Far worse looking people have done it. So why can’t I?” Jake is a 22-year-old delicious man candy originally from New York and currently living in Miami Beach attending law school. He graduated from the University of Florida in 2014 and used his degree to invest in a Toyota Prius. More information about his Prius can be found on his Instagram handle: “hotguyinaprius”. He drives an Uber part time because lawyers only get paid in movies. Jake doesn’t drink often, but when he does, he prefers it be consecutively for a potentially infinite duration. Jake often drinks.

Let’s just get this out of the way now so we can get to the fun stuff. Whether your feelings for Justice Scalia are sweet, salty or cyanide, one cannot possibly suggest that he did not support and defend, as the Constitutional Oath so requires, the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Evidenced by his (few) majority opinions and certainly by his dissents, Scalia was the most vivid and entertaining writer on the Court since his arrival in 1986. While he was so often standing on the wrong side of the law with some unequivocally dangerous beliefs, he never surrendered an opportunity to tell us how he felt in the most persuasive, colorful prose imaginable, while at the same time accusing us of being sodomy-craving homosexuals. Talk about talent.

Never go full scalia

Oh, “Justice” Scalia. What an impressive oxymoron you’ve been over the last 30 years. I remember meeting you my first year of law school. Oh no, not in person. It was me, four highlighters and 15 pages of you just chilling on a Friday night. You know, not getting laid and stuff.

Cool story bro

Between the amount of sex your lengthy dissents prevented 1L’s nationwide from having and your persistent efforts to limit intercourse to one hole and one hole only (lol, so boring), you were perhaps the biggest cock block of the late 20th century.

Borat never get this

But for those of you who are less familiar with Justice Scalia and therefore have likely spent less time touching yourself on the weekend, instead of, like, getting bottles with your best friends, vibing on faux leather couches and eating hors d’oeuvres with chicks, please allow this anti-gun, pro-choice, non-homophobic Jew to briefly educate you in the most biased way possible on everything Scalia.

How does Justice Scalia interpret the Constitution? How does he come to his decisions?

Scalia believes in an approach called “originalism,” which means that he takes the text of the Constitution and interprets it in the way he believes the original drafters intended. That’s right, so he believes that this document, that when written applied to four million people, should now apply in the exact same way to three hundred million people of all races, in a world where social and physical conditions are changing continuously.

Scalia 1L

 

For God’s sake, the founders never even contemplated condom flash drives or the selfie toaster. Those guys were completely unreliable.

decouvrez-le-seflie-toaster-890x395_c

 

Alright, cool. But did he really not like homosexuals, or was he just being silly?

I wouldn’t say that Scalia disliked homosexuals. He once said: “I have friends that I know, or very much suspect are homosexuals.” To be fair, Scalia made it very clear that he wasn’t concerned with the actual morality of homosexuality, but only where the constitution stands on the subject. However, some of his commentary might suggest he had a little bit of discomfort with the gays.

In Lawrence v. Texas, most famously, Scalia basically said that the existence of any ass sex is a “massive disruption to social order.” The Court agreed that “moral disapproval” is not enough to justify a law that discriminates certain persons.

But unfortunately it didn’t stop there. During oral arguments he, well, he sort of used a bad analogy in trying to make a point. Yeah umm, shit, well, in trying to illustrate the issue he started talking about flagpole sitting and how states used to have laws banning that. Just sort of a poor choice when the case entirely involves homosexual sodomy. Lol, you get it right? Because like a pole and..you know, pow pow pow. Anyways, moving on.

Okay, thanks. Now, I also know he got some heat from African Americans, what was that about?

It’s true, the only thing Scalia hates more than affirmative action is sodomy. Unfortunately Scalia has maintained a tenacious hostility to many victims of discrimination.

Alright, so, he sort of said something kind of bad in his defense to abolishing affirmative action laws. In Texas, Scalia said he was aware of some information that suggested affirmative action really isn’t always helpful since: “Most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re — that they’re being pushed ahead in — in classes that are too fast for them.”

Duuuuuude.

America

Okay, interesting. But what about this Roe v. Wade, abortion stuff?

Well, it seems to me that Scalia thinks that since our founding fathers didn’t go around having abortions that we shouldn’t have them either. He basically argued that having an abortion is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, since there is nothing in the Constitution about it and the traditions of American society has allowed for laws preventing abortions to be legally proscribed.

There are a lot of complex issues entangled in the abortion cases and Scalia has been very passionate about his opposition to the Roe v. Wade decision. He’s commented about this issue on a variety of occasions, but at the end of the day…

The Dude

So, I realize I haven’t given you much to like about Scalia. However, what I can say is that he was a firm believer in democracy. He believed that a lot of the issues presented to the Supreme Court involving social policy, morality and controversy should percolate through society and be judged by the people. In other words, if the people want something, they can achieve it through the legislative process, not the Supreme Court. But in reality, that doesn’t happen.

Scalia Vagina

The many criticisms aside, Scalia has certainly changed the way the public perceives the Supreme Court, the way Americans debate the constitution and the way lawyers craft legal arguments. For that he deserves great respect. But really, man? Flagpole sitters? Ai yai yai!

subscribe

SIGN ME UP