18 Comments
User's avatar
SullivanSt's avatar

3/5ths wasn't exactly <em>removed</em>, per se, but the "all other persons" category to which it applied was eliminated when Abe Lincoln shifted most of them into the "free Persons, excluding indians not taxed" category and the 13th Amendment completed the process and prohibited them from being moved back.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

He says that doesn't count because states are sovereign, independent nations derp.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

I'm guessing the proportion of the subset of the population which has "syzygy" in their productive vocabulary who are also Scrabble players (or I guess these days "Words with Friends", <em>as if there's a difference</em>) is quite high.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

Also that in light of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, Dred Scott is no longer controlling.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

Yes indeed:

“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

Expand full comment
Vienna Woods's avatar

You mean Viagra isn't a constitutional right?

Expand full comment
BarackMyWorld's avatar

Yeah, but...Originalism!

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

It's OK, he can still be the Original Asshole.

Expand full comment
𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

Their intellectual dishonesty is why they were appointed. It's a feature, not a bug.

For proof, note the 5-4 party-line decision that it's OK for billionaires to buy elections for Republicans, even in Montana. I have no doubt whatsover these fuckers would have voted the other way, if it was Democrats getting the billions.

I agree, they can't die or retire soon enough.

Expand full comment
𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

Wondering, or wishful thinking?

Expand full comment
𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

If nothing else, the man is consistent.

Expand full comment
𝔅𝔢𝔢𝔩𝔷𝔢𝔟𝔲𝔟𝔟𝔞's avatar

What makes you think he didn't? Have you checked out <a href="http:\/\/www.salon.com\/2012\/06\/13\/sheldon_adelson_big_money_bogeyman\/" target="_blank">Sheldon Adelson</a>, the guy Scalia just greenlighted for the purchase of elections?

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

No it's not wrong - I fervently wish that one day Scalia has a cilice-induced fever dream wherein his delusion of God tells him something that the God he should've been reading about in the New Testament might say, and in that epiphany he realizes the dreadful harm he's done and continues to do and does the honorable thing and retires immediately to go join a Benedictine monastery.

Look, mommy, no violence! ;)

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

Scalia's the biggest lover of the death penalty on the court, though, what with his fetish for still executing people who have subsequently proven their innocence.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

Not if they're campaign finance laws, obviously.

Expand full comment
BarackMyWorld's avatar

Someone remind him Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, please, before he decides to cite it next.

Expand full comment