Let's be honest -- Justice Antonin Scalia is never boring and never one to hold back on his opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia fondly remembers carrying a rifle around New York City as a boy and says outdoorsmen should attack the idea that guns are only used for crimes.

An avid outdoorsmen who's hunted with Vice President Dick Cheney, Scalia spoke Saturday at the National Wild Turkey Federation's annual convention.

"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.

"I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms," said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York City he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.

"I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle," he said. "Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?"

Scalia was criticized in 2004 for hunting ducks with Cheney while the Supreme Court was considering a case involving Cheney's energy task force. This month, a lawyer hunting with Cheney in Texas was wounded when he stepped in the way as Cheney fired at a bird.

The nonprofit turkey federation is dedicated to conserving wild turkeys and preserving hunting traditions.

Shoot one for me, Nino!

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

Doctors are refusing to participate in the execution of a prisoner following a federal judgeÂ’s absurd ruling that we have to show more consideration and compassion for a convicted murderer than he did for the teenager he raped and killed.

California indefinitely postponed the execution of a convicted murderer Tuesday in a dispute over lethal injection and the role of doctors in assisting it.

The execution of Michael Morales, 46, was delayed when two anesthesiologists who were scheduled to assist backed out at the last minute, citing ethical concerns after a court ordered them to intervene if Morales awoke during the procedure.

The doctors were asked to participate after a federal judge ruled last week that California's usual method of lethal injection "creates an undue risk" of "excessive pain." In a ruling that applies only to the current case, U.S. District Judge Jeremy D. Fogel required that either a doctor sedate Morales immediately before he is executed, or that the state substitute one drug for the three typically used.

Fogel's order on the single-drug option "specifically required that the lethal injection be completed by someone licensed by the state of California to inject medication intravenously," San Quentin Prison Warden Steven Ornoski said in a statement. ". . . The state cannot proceed with the execution under the conditions set by the court."

A corrections spokesman said: "The big kicker was 'inside,' and what doctor is going to want to go inside the death chamber?"

And so I repeat my suggestion for a better execution protocol – a lethal injection of lead, 9mm at a time, to the base of the brain. And lest there be any question of finding someone willing to carry out the procedure, I’ll gladly volunteer if California will supply a round-trip airline ticket – and I’m even willing to fly coach.

MORE AT This Blog Is Full Of Crap

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Of all the asinine rulings!

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that California must change its lethal injection method for an execution next week, saying the current mix of drugs may constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said he was concerned inmates are conscious and undergoing extreme pain during execution.

The usual lethal injection method involves giving a sedative, a paralyzing agent and then a heart-stopping drug. Fogel ordered the state to either have an expert present to ensure Michael Morales is unconscious from the sedative, or replace a three-drug mix with a lethal dose of barbiturate.

Morales is scheduled to be executed Feb. 21 for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in San Joaquin County 25 years ago.

His attorneys alleged a mistake in the sedation process might mean he would appear unconscious, but internally would succumb to excruciating pain.

This savage beat, stabbed, and raped a 17-year-old girl, Terri Winchell, 25 years ago. That he is still breathing is unconscionable, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to his victims family and friends, as well as to the taxpayers of the state of California. I frankly don't give a rat's ass if he suffers a little bit as the state of California sends him to Hell.

But judge, you really want a better procedure? Fine -- I've got a suggestion.

Inject lead, 9mm at a time, to the base of the skull until the rabid mutt stops breathing.

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

It may seem to be a truism, but the Constitution means what it says -- as understood at the time of its adoption. That is an argument that, sadly, has not been in vogue for some time among American liberals, who have come to believe that American courts constitute an ongoing Constitutional Convention that can simply change the Constitution without regard to precedent or the method of amendment outlined in the document itself.

Justice Antonin Scalia had a few choice words for those who hold to the latter view.

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution "as it was originally written and intended."

"Scalia does have a philosophy, it's called originalism," he said. "That's what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do," he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Boy, is the man ever right on this one. You have to be an idiot to believe that the institutions created by the Constitution have the power to redefine the meaning of the document itself. The notion of evolving standards means that the words of the Constitution mean nothing whatsoever -- or perhaps that the same words mean different things at different times. That notion is absurd.

And for anyone who disagrees, answer this simple question -- how many of you would be willing to take out a mortgage if the bank retained the right to change the terms and conditions at will and with no recourse on your part?

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Don Surber, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 05:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 4 kb.