Scalia May Not Have Meant Armed ‘Revolt,’ But He Sure As Hell Knew Who Would Take It That Way
http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/scalia-may-not-have-meant-armed-revolt-but-he-sure-as-hell-knew-who-would-take-it-that-way/
Every day I hope today will be the day I wake up and read a headline that Justice Antonin Scalia has decided he’s done enough damage to society and it’s time to retire. Whether he’s willfully mistaking the morning after pill as an “abortifacient” or he’s ruling that corporations are people and the rich are entitled to buy their government because money is speech, Scalia is a curmudgeonly, pious, and backwards remnant of the Reagan era that simply must go. Alas, today wasn’t the day, and I have a sad feeling that old bastard is going to outlive us all. He’s like the cockroach of high justices.
When he’s not making life suck from his seat on the bench, he’s out giving speeches, riling up the conservatives with all kinds of insanely stupid notions, most recently he told a room full of college students that if rich people get tired of paying their taxes, they should “revolt.” Even though I despise the man for his wanton disregard for modernity, even I understand Justice Scalia wouldn’t be dumb enough to advocate armed revolt, but you can bet your ass he knew many who adore him would absolutely take it that way — and if he didn’t, then maybe he really is just plain ol’ dumb.
After watching the events of the last couple weeks play themselves out in Nevada, it’s very clear that there is a small but dangerous fringe faction of the right-wing that is not feeling any desire to play by the normal rules of our society. The armed morons that showed up to support a tax dodger continue to dodge is taxes clearly feel that the American Revolution wasn’t a one-time thing the Founders decided to go through in order to establish our country, but instead is some kind of template for shaping society. It’s 2014 and there are still assholes who think we should vote with bullets instead of ballots, and these same people idolize Justice Scalia for his stances he’s taken on everything from abortion to gun control.
How could Scalia not understand how dangerous it is to use rhetoric like “revolt” in his speeches? At the very least he could insert the word “peacefully” or “civilly” before the word “revolt,” but he didn’t do that. I maintain he let his phraseology be as vague as possible intentionally. The man obviously has a barge-sized ego and he knows the way to continue to ingratiate himself upon these backyard commandos and wannabe-patriots is to use 18th century rhetoric every chance he gets.
= new reply since forum marked as read
