Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
SEX MANIACS

Is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia A Sex Maniac?

The Atlantic‘s political columnist Michael Kinsley once famously quipped “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.” So now that everyone wants to know the truth about Elena Kagan’s sex life, Kinsley wants to learn more about the sex lives of all our Supreme Court Justices! Like Justice Antonin Scalia—he’s got nine kids. That that either means that his wife is incredibly fertile or that Scalia is an insatiable sexbot.

Kinsley wrote:

“Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say “normal,” as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian.

Let me be clear: the issue is not the fact that Scalia has chosen to have nine children. That is his personal business. The question is whether he is an extremist advocate of the so-called “Nine Children Agenda.” Can he deal open-mindedly with children’s issues when he has so many himself?…

Speculation is already rampant about why Scalia chose nine children over a more conventional lifestyle. Is he a sex maniac? That suspicion naturally arises. But perhaps once he started, he just never got around to stopping. Or maybe he just likes children. In recent days, Scalia’s friends have rushed to his defense, going out of their way to portray him as a model of sexual restraint. “Every Friday a bunch of us used to go down to this bar to pick up women,” one of his college roommates recalls. “We’d always ask Nino if he wanted to join us, but he always said he was too busy studying. Frankly, we thought he was gay.”

Dan Savage pointed out that Scalia has also been questioned about other “controversial sex practices”, like sodomizing his wife. Scalia’s Catholic so anal sex is really his only option if he wants to avoid having a tenth kid. However, he did write the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which means he’s also anti-sodomy (ie. no blowjobs or anal), so that tenth kid will probably arrive sooner than he thinks.

But the real sex maniacs of course are the ones who can’t seem to keep their minds out of Elena Kagan’s cooch. Honesty is great and all, but it’s obvious she’s never gonna talk about it, so how about we just get all her other non-answers from the Supreme Court hearing out of the way and be done with it?

Oh democracy!

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           May 20, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 7 Comments
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      Maybe he’s fucking one of his children.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lanjier
      Lanjier

      He is a religious extremist who believes contraception is anti-life. Catholic nonsense.

      May 20, 2010 at 12:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      “…by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court.” IS KINSLEY FUCKING KIDDING??? That old Mussolini worshipper has never failed to paint himself into untenable intellectual positions in his zeal to promote his medieval agenda.

      May 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GayGOP
      GayGOP

      Actually, that whole commentary re: Lawrence is incorrect. If people would actually take the time to read the dissent, they would note that Scalia never defended the States’ sodomy laws, only the right of the states to ban sodomy. Furthermore, he notes that because of that decision, community morality is no longer a licit justification for a law, which is a bad thing, or else we wouldn’t have such laws as smoking bans in some states.

      It would behoove people to actually read what Justice Scalia’s opinions actually say, before spouting off about the results. He cannot, as he, and 108 of the 110 people who held the position of Supreme Court Justice before and concurrent with him, would say, pay attention to the practical consequences of the law. That’s the legislature’s job. The courts can only apply and adjudicate the law. They cannot care about the consequences.

      May 20, 2010 at 9:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • biguy
      biguy

      Fuck Antonin Scalia, the Raich case is what cements his legacy as a hypocritical piece of shit.

      May 20, 2010 at 11:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      GayGOP I totally agree, people should do more reading and less commenting. And you are right also, the courts can only interpret the laws, not make them. Or they aren’t supposed to.

      However, where I disagree with you big time is when Scalia has the chance to interpret the law in the least restrictive, least punitive way, he seldom does.

      May 21, 2010 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      Justice Scalia is one who literally follows the whole “go forth, be fruitful and multiply” shebang. One of his sons is a Catholic priest so you know there’s no such discussion of sex Ed and use of contraceptives in that family.

      He plays himself as this strict constructionist jurist but practically all of his votes on the court are laced with his own narrow ideology.

      May 21, 2010 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.