Antonin Scalia concerned himself heavily with matters of the law. And his vision was such that he thought the only way to interpret the law of the land was in the language and style of “originalism,” defined as follows. ” In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that views the Constitution’s meaning as fixed as of the time of enactment. The originalist enterprise, then, is a quest to determine the meaning of the utterances, the meaning of which cannot change except through formal amendment.”

In this respect, Justice (and we use the term loosely) Antonin Scalia was a man who used the very methods of the Devil, the original originalist. Just consider this rather legal discussion between Satan and Eve in the Book of Genesis.

“3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

² The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³ but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Satan took what God originally said and turned it into a legal argument for the ideology he most want to convey. That is, Satan twisted God’s words into a legal argument that produced, of all things, Original Sin.

So we see that the line of thought composed from originalism is a massive deception. It purports to represent the truth, but in fact, turns the truth inside out. The same is true of biblical literalism, which is the originalism of the Bible. That’s how we get a faith in conflict with scientific fact, and denial as a proposition for all of politics.

The Devil Incarnate

And that is why Antonin Scalia was, in all his jurisdiction, actually in league with the devil. He was even happy to execute people and condemn them to death on basis of a solid argument, rather than truth. Here’s what he said about the matter of innocence proven after a court’s initial conviction: “[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” 

Put another way, his devilish attitude becomes even stouter in its angry desire for control over all things living or dead. Said Scalia, another form: “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”

Special place in hell

There really should be a special place in hell for men like that. He was a dismissive sonofabitch, who thought nothing of letting people die if it rid society of what he considered surplus population. “The fact that juries continue to sentence mentally retarded offenders to death for extreme crimes shows that society’s moral outrage sometimes demands execution of retarded offenders.”

His achingly painful arguments could defy not only fact, but protect treasured fictions as well. “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

That is the neo-conservative ideal that the “ends justifies the means” in a nutshell. Privacy before justice.

That brand of thinking can be used to justify all kinds of evil activity: from pedophilia to military grade weaponry stashed for terrorist purposes. But then, what’s a little child buggery or murderous threats to the populace if twisted horny old men and angry domestic terrorists spitting out manifestos can’t enjoy their free speech?

Which means that…Antonin Scalia, you were an evil bastard.

It also held true in the case of Citizens United, where he agreed with a ruling that granted personhood for corporations. Hey Scalia: If individual rights were so important to you, then why hand them over wholesale to soulless entities designed merely for the profit of shareholders? And then why grant these faceless organizations control over the personal politics of a nation? That is what you and your conservative cohorts did. And you would laugh at anyone who questioned you.

Torturous logic

Scalia also seemed to embrace the use of torture. “Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?”

Should Scalia then forget that none other than Jesus Christ was considered a terrorist? And that before he was crucified, Roman soldiers were given free reign to mock, beat, flog and torture the man Christians call the Son of God?

Jesus Christ was clearly innocent of all crimes but political prejudice, yet Antonin Scalia would have gleefully justified those acts of violence against him if it aimed to “bring out the truth.” And Pontius Pilate was quoted in the Gospel as saying, “What is truth?”

Even Mick Jagger pointed out this irony in his song Sympathy for the Devil. One can actually imagine Justice Scalia serving as Procurator in this scenario:

And I was ’round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

These are the sins of originalism, the ideology where it is easy to coalesce evil intents with justice, and call it truth. Justice Antonin Scalia believed that the argument for originalism, which as we’ve seen is evil incarnate, trumps all other brands of thought.

He will now have plenty of time to consider the portent of his opinions as he happily burns in hell for eternity. That’s the only place he could go if what the Bible says the devil is true. Enjoy the fire, Antonin. Because you’ve earned it.

Share this blog to your Social Media. Tell the truth about how this man thought and acted.