lying sack of shit

Lying sack-o-shit or just plain senile. Maybe a case can be made for impeachment.

@DElurker: By the Teabagger House? Not very likely.

In other news, santorum sweeps Kansas.

@Benedick: Lube for everyone!

It’s a santorum whirlwind.

Do we think this ridiculous assertion reveals an unconscious unease and need to revise the facts? If he has come to believe this does it mean that he feels he did something wrong? Subconsciously? Could it be conscience, doctor? What do you think?

I’m just yanking facts out of my ass, you understand, but it is a striking statement.

@Benedick: A conscience? Scalia? You are adorable.

@Benedick:
I agree with Mistress Cynica. You are cute to assume he has a conscience.

I agree with Bloggy’s premise that Scalia is a lying sack of shit. I’ve heard similar crap from my housemate who has issues with lying.

The Biggest Stupidest Bald Faced Lie My Housemate Has ever told me… He claimed got a scholarship from the same university I went to. An engineering scholarship, but he didn’t go because he couldn’t for some reason. My alma mater doesn’t give out scholarships to anyone (the two guys I knew who got them were in the top 25 of my graduating class.) In the same breath he utters that he isn’t good at math. FYI, engineering is all math. He doesn’t remember that I heard his original story was regarding a local technical college (which is way different.)

At the time I didn’t call him out on it. I mean, who gives a fuck about it? Now, after the insanity I’ve gone through with him I’m not so sure. I guess I’m no better than C fucking NN.

@ManchuCandidate: Best lie I ever heard of: Golf scholarship from the University of Phoenix (from Deadspin).

@ManchuCandidate: That’s kind of what I have in mind. The fact that he would revise history demonstrates unease with the facts. We knew an anglo-Indian actor in London who claimed an elaborate biography that included an aristocratic background, palaces, a degree from Oxford, and all kinds of stuff. He married a very beautiful and rather original actress who starred in a couple of very successful TV series. When she divorced him it was revealed that none of his biography was true. Which to me indicated that he was so uneasy/ashamed of being a wog (which was clearly what he thought of himself) that he became the person he thought he needed to be. Or, another example of the scar that reveals the wound, the obsession among gay men of being ‘straight-acting’ reveals the contempt in which they hold themselves. So I wonder if Scalia’s extraordinary remark can be read as an unconscious indicator of his unease with that notorious decision.

Of course it could also be an indicator of the extent of his corruption. And yes, perhaps, ‘conscience’ is pushing the envelop a tad.

@Benedick:
That makes more sense. My housemate does have an unease with facts especially when the truth makes him less than “good” and lies a lot to make himself better than he actually was.

Sir Ben Kingsley???

@redmanlaw:
Ha.

@ManchuCandidate: No no no. His name wouldn’t mean anything. He was almost going to have a career at one point.

Only funny thing about BK is that insists that everyone on set/stage call him Sir Ben which Is Not Done.

@Benedick:
Just a guess based on what I knew of sir benny’s bio.

@Benedick: There is a lot of support for what you say. Not because the court effectively appointed Shrub president. He’s proud of that.

Rather, his problem is with the reasoning he used to do it. I don’t want to get too far in the weeds with this. However, his opinion found a right under the Equal Protection Clause for “equal treatment” in ballot recounts. In his mind, this justified tossing out the partial recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court – an unprecedented interference in State election procedures.

His problem was that, if he really meant this, it would have created a broad Federal constitutional protection for fair elections. This would 1) strengthen evil Federal power and 2) give the powerless (read poor people) a tool to challenge voting procedures that disenfranchise them.

To avoid this, his opinion contains extraordinary language saying, in effect, these rules are for this decision only – don’t use this case for any other purpose. That is the definition of unprincipled judicial decision making, and why he is uncomfortable with his own decision.

@Walking Still: That caveat remains the most egregious piece of judicial chicanery I’ve ever seen – and I’ve argued in front of New York City judges.

@Benedick: Makes me want to watch Sexy Beast again … love that movie.

@Walking Still: Warning – opinion of a HS graduate.

My impression at the time was that they knew this was a bogus decision, they just could not abide by Gore being the president. They even added that it was a one time only decision or some such bs. Nothing that I have read since has changed that impression.

@blogenfreude: @DElurker: I agree with both of you. The intellectual dishonesty and obvious political motives are appalling.

It’s tempting to call it the most vile Supreme Court decision, but it probably ranks behind denying human rights to blacks (Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson) and allowing concentration camps for Japanese (Korematsu).

@Walking Still: My GF is Japanese, and we’ve had that discussion many times – she had no idea of the vile filth we promulgated against the Japanese as a race. She did, however, remember the bombs and the concentration camps. WWII is not as black and white as our collective memory paints it.

@Walking Still: As I like to remind folks, the lone dissenter in Plessy, John Marshall Harlan, was a Kentuckian. He also, as I recently learned from a second cousin who lives outside Lexington, dissented in Berea College v. Kentucky, which led to the forcible segregation of Berea after decades of integrated education.

@mellbell: He did Kentucky proud.

IIRC, his grandson, Justice John Marshall Harlan II, considered his grandfather’s dissent in Plessy to be one of the Court’s shining moments. The grandson was pretty damn conservative, but he was a lot more principled than Scalia and his stooges.

@blogenfreude: New documentary coming out on Japanese internment camp in Santa Fe:

The Santa Fe camp was located at the current site of the Casa Solana neighborhood, north of West Alameda Street, at what had been a Civilian Conservation Corps camp. A marker at Franklin S. Ortiz Park refers to the presence of the camp and notes: “Many of the men held here without due process were religious leaders, fishermen, businessmen, farmers and others removed from their communities … yet, many of the internees had relatives who served with distinction in the American Armed Forces in Europe and the Pacific. This marker is placed here as a reminder that history is a valuable teacher only if we do not forget our past.”

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Documentary-honors-prisoners-of-Santa-Fe-World-War-II-internmen