People Who Should Die, Part I (Roman numerals make things look serious!)

I don’t believe in assassinations, extrajudicial or state-sanctioned. Which has no bearing at all on whether or not the world would be a better place if certain people were to shuffle off this mortal coil and no longer burden the rest of us with their deleterious existence.

And a better world it would be indeed if the following people were no longer on it. Lets see how fun I can make this morbid topic!

(no particular order)

Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

Why: A truly repugnant individual on both a personal and professional level, Tony is the intellectual powerhouse (such as one exists) of the Court’s conservative wing and the standard-bearer of the regressive, inconsistent, grossly hypocritical and altogether absurd concept of “originalism,” supporters of which pridefully tout their slavish devotion to the text of the Constitution even as they base their interpretation of it upon arbitrary divinations into the minds of those who wrote it.

Much like the doddering simpleton who nominated him for the post, Ronald Reagan, Antonin Scalia’s America would be a fine place to live if you were a wealthy, white Christian male – all others need not apply to live in a land where abortion is illegal, minorities have no protections, local governments can regulate your behavior in the bedroom and the executive branch can exercise near-limitless power in the name of law enforcement.

Perhaps just as bad as the influence he exerts on society through his legal opinions (as well as those of his puppet, Clarence “Uncle” Thomas (who isn’t on this list only because I don’t wish death on the mentally disabled)) is the blatant disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty of his judicial philosophy. Scalia knows originalism is bullshit. For evidence of this, lets go to noted Antonin Scalia expert, Antonin Scalia:

I am confident that public flogging and handbranding would not be sustained by our courts, and any espousal of originalism as a practical theory of exegesis must somehow come to terms with that reality. One way of doing so, of course, would be to say that it was originally intended that the cruel and unusual punishment clause would have an evolving content — that “cruel and unusual” originally meant “cruel and unusual for the age in question” and not “cruel and unusual in 1791.” But to be faithful to originalist philosophy, one must not only say this but demonstrate it to be so on the basis of some textual or historical evidence. Perhaps the mere words “cruel and unusual” suggest an evolutionary intent more than other provisions of the Constitution, but that is far from clear; and I know of no historical evidence for that meaning. And if the faint-hearted originalist is willing simply to posit such an intent for the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, why not for the due process clause, the equal protection clause, the privileges and immunity clause, etc.? When one goes down that road, there is really no difference between the faint-hearted originalist and the moderate nonoriginalist, except that the former finds it comforting to make up (out of whole cloth) an original evolutionary intent, and the latter thinks that superfluous.

Apologies for the long quote (I don’t like reading the man’s pretty bile any more than you do) but I wanted to give him enough rope to hang himself with. The guy flat-out admits that in order for certain no-brainers to remain illegal (in this case public flogging and branding) judges have to interpret certain constitutional provisions in the context of today’s world, rather than just apply chapter and verse 1791-ian standards and concepts, as both Scalia and the less verbally sophisticated, retro-fetishist Tea Partiers love to bellow in praise of. Once you’ve conceded that, clinging to the “originalist” label is nothing more than political posturing and hackery.

For basing legal decisions on his own personal, stagnant, uncompassionate and bigoted worldview, for justifying those decisions with a duplicitous and/or misplaced but in either case nauseatingly pious idea of textual fidelity, for helping to impose at every twist and turn a toxic political agenda upon America, we’ll all be better off when Antonin Scalia is dead.

Prognosis: Looking good! Scalia will soon turn 75 and is really fucking fat (nothing says sexy like a second chin that’s bigger than your first), neither of which are known to be signs of continuing good health. Complicating things however is the need for him to die during a Democratic presidency, because as bad as he is, President Palin would just replace one fat fuck conservative with one of the others, and then we’d really be screwed.