Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't want to brag, but I was ahead of Proops in tearing apart Scalia for

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-16-13 04:18 AM
Original message
I don't want to brag, but I was ahead of Proops in tearing apart Scalia for
not being able to read the New York Times.

But, I am not funny.


But seriously, folks, good on Proops. It is downright embarrassing, not to mention shameful, that a Supreme Court Justice admits that any viewpoint other than his own makes him so furious that he cannot tolerate it. And doesn't even get how badly he befouled himself professionally with the comment,


Greg Proops tears apart Antonin Scalia for being unable to read the New York Times

By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:04 EDT

Comedian Greg Proops lampooned Antonin Scalia on Monday, making fun of the Supreme Court justice for completely refusing to read liberal newspapers and believing in the Devil.

During an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Proops noted that Scalia had told New York magazine that he couldnt handle reading The Washington Post and the New York Times because of their alleged liberal bias.

Ok, look, Im a comedian, Proops said. I have no responsibility to the public. Im not holding a sinecured position where I am adjudicating of f*cking matters of grave national importance every day of my life and writing opinions and being a deciding vote on a f*cking panel of nine people who were hand chosen by psychopaths and yet I have the catholicity of taste to f*cking watch Fox News every once and awhile, and I dont go, Oh my god!


You cant read the New York Times because it upsets you too much and youre a justice? he continued. How narrow is you f*cking purview?


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/greg-proops-tears...
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-16-13 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Candidly, it appears that I did want to brag. I just didn't want to admit to bragging.
Edited on Wed Oct-16-13 04:22 AM by No Elephants
I cannot tell a lie.

Well, not for long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-16-13 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yup. Scalia is deep inside the far right bubble
of intolerance and ignorance. And he is a supreme court justice! I guess he's no worse than Clarence Thomas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-16-13 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The Supreme Court may always have been political. If so, I was
unaware, except that I suspected the Court that kept declaring New Deal measures unconstitutional. I suspected it when it declared everything unconstitutional and I also suspected it when it started declaring everything constitutional, after FDR scared it. Holding that the federal government had Constitutional authority under the interstate commerce clause to regulate a man growing vegetables on his property for consumption by his own family was a bridge too far for me.

Aside from that, I thought the Supreme Court was relatively apolitical. Maybe because some Justices nominated by Republican Presidents made decisions that would be considered relatively liberal--e.g., Warren, Stevens, sometimes Kennedy, sometimes Souter, etc.

But, this Court has made me lose respect for the SCOTUS. All the 5-4 decisions make it relatively clear that it is just another political body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-17-13 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. And look at the far reaching consequences of those 5 to 4 decisions.
These are nation changing decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-22-13 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I could live with that, if I thought they were objective decisions, rather than
just another layer of bs partisan politics.

At this point, I have little to no respect left for any of the three branches of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-20-13 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Clarence the Silent usually votes with Scalia. Is that coincidence, or
does Thomas believe that Scalia is the one to follow?

Don't know, but I don't believe that Thomas is considered a great thinker. I think the ABA scored him pretty low, though not as low as the Republicans expected, or as low as I would have scored him. His academic and legal career before the SCOTUS was relatively undistinguished, IMO.


I think Republicans felt that they had to replace Thurgood Marshall with an African American and did not, at that time, have many African Americans to choose from. They have more now, but, then, an African American Republican with legal training was a pretty rare thing.

I also believe that his Senate confirmation was one of the examples that more or less proved definitively that legislators could care less how many calls they get from the general public. They got so many calls from women after Anita Hill testified, it was not funny. And, as I said, his resume was not especially distinguished, nor was his ABA rating. They could easily, and very legitimately, have withheld confirmation and made Bush nominate someone else. But, obviously, the die had been cast. They put that poor woman thru that debacle for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-22-13 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thomas is an
insult to the memory of Thurgood Marshall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-22-13 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Could not agree more. Marshall was a towering giant. Thomas is an ewwww.
The two are not even in the same universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC