15 Comments
User's avatar
JustPixelz: IV%'er's avatar

And by coincidence Clarence Thomas has a book on the same subject coming out at the same time. And -- SURPRISE -- Thomas completely agrees with Scalia. He even uses the same words.

SullivanSt's avatar

<blockquote>if a nigger wants it, then it ain't constitutional.</blockquote>

Ah yes, the White Supremacy Clause.

SullivanSt's avatar

Neither. Scalia's actively harmful, not just ugly.

schmannity's avatar

It's worse than that; the rape of a 223 year old.

SullivanSt's avatar

Well, the thing he considers to be of utmost merit is whatever result he wanted in the first place.

BarackMyWorld's avatar

I wish him no physical harm, but when I look at Scalia I do think "Surely this man cannot live forever."

SullivanSt's avatar

<blockquote>his newfound hatred of Federal power.</blockquote>

Gee, I wonder if that had anything to do with the increase in Presidential melanin content between <em>Gonzales v Raich</em> and now...

Dashboard Buddha's avatar

It will just seem like forever.

schmannity's avatar

Mein Kampf? Bad example.

schmannity's avatar

He took the words right out of Clarence Thomas' mouth.

schmannity's avatar

This is great news. My breakfast sausage didn't have the same flavor without human thumbs.

schmannity's avatar

Which clause covers hoverounds?

schmannity's avatar

Bye Bye Civil Rights Act of 1964.