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

[No Elephants]

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 “couldn’t handle” reading The Washington Post and the New York Times because of their alleged liberal bias.

“Ok, look, I’m a comedian,” Proops said. “I have no responsibility to the public. I’m 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 don’t go, ‘Oh my god!’”


You can’t read the New York Times because it upsets you too much and you’re a justice?” he continued. “How narrow is you f*cking purview?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/greg-proops-tears-apart-antonin-scalia-for-being-unable-to-read-the-new-york-times/

[No Elephants]

1. Candidly, it appears that I did want to brag. I just didn't want to admit to bragging.

I cannot tell a lie.

Well, not for long.

[Enthusiast]

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.

[No Elephants]

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.

[Enthusiast]

4. And look at the far reaching consequences of those 5 to 4 decisions.

These are nation changing decisions.

[No Elephants]

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.

[No Elephants]

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.

[Enthusiast]

7. Thomas is an

insult to the memory of Thurgood Marshall.

[No Elephants]

8. Could not agree more. Marshall was a towering giant. Thomas is an ewwww.

The two are not even in the same universe.