Althouse: "Retire to the dirt, usurper of American freedom."

March 10, 2012

"Retire to the dirt, usurper of American freedom."

Sign at a protest before a speech by Justice Antonin Scalia at Wesleyan University.

63 comments:

Methadras said...: Leftards on parade. Ignorance without forethought. Outrage without purpose. Phoney indignation minus the clarity. Sloganeering without substance. Winning.; 3/10/12, 7:27 PM
Humperdink said...: Didn't call him a slut, so it's cool.; 3/10/12, 7:27 PM
shiloh said...: Scalia is a firm believer in free speech so not to worry Althouse.; 3/10/12, 7:27 PM
Mark O said...: The usurper? What is this, the middle ages? How dare you deny me the freedom to get free stuff?; 3/10/12, 7:29 PM
Petunia said...: Guess I'm part of the 1% who can name all nine SCOTUS justices. Plus all seven Wisconsin justices. I expect my fortress of solitude will be picketed tomorrow.

Methadras, you put it perfectly. The only thing that would have made them look even more idiotic is a mic check.; 3/10/12, 7:33 PM
rcocean said...: I wish Scalia wouldn't run around making speeches. And that goes for the others. He's not a Pol. He wasn't elected and he doesn't make public policy.

Seriously, one of these days a conservative SCOTUS judge will be wounded or killed in a left-wing assassination attempt.

Its a good think Roe v. Wade wasn't overturned, I'm afraid of the what the left might do if it ever was.; 3/10/12, 7:35 PM
traditionalguy said...: The next signs will call him a Cuntservative.; 3/10/12, 7:38 PM
Methadras said...: rcocean said...

Its a good think Roe v. Wade wasn't overturned, I'm afraid of the what the left might do if it ever was.

That's a laugh. Leftards already believe its not an issue to kill life as it starts and in many instances when it's already out of the womb. Urkel is on record for supporting botched infanticide, so killing a SCOTUS Supreme is different how?; 3/10/12, 7:40 PM
Gene said...: "Retire to the dirt, usurper of American freedom."

Man, that's the most clunky, tin-eared epithet I've ever read.

What does "retire to the dirt" mean anyway? To the grave? Is the protester urging him to die?; 3/10/12, 7:51 PM
David said...: My Alma Mater.

There have been months of urging by a small group (about 15 students) for massive disruptive protests. This was all they got.; 3/10/12, 7:58 PM
rhhardin said...: Imus gets that all the time from his staff.; 3/10/12, 8:00 PM
Simon said...: How does one "usurp" a freedom?; 3/10/12, 8:03 PM
ThreeSheets said...: This must be some of that "new civility" I keep hearing about.; 3/10/12, 8:14 PM
sakredkow said...: What does "retire to the dirt" mean anyway? To the grave? Is the protester urging him to die?

That would seem to be the case Gene.; 3/10/12, 8:14 PM
jeff said...: What freedom did he unsurp?; 3/10/12, 8:15 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: I often say the very same thing to my boss.

"Retire to the dirt!" I say, "usurper of what's left of my lunch hour!"

At least I probably will say that some day.; 3/10/12, 8:30 PM
sakredkow said...: That's good Tyrone. I'd like to try it myself.

It's really a great invocation or incantation or...something!

You have to say it in a W.C. Fields voice to get the full effect of course.; 3/10/12, 8:32 PM
DADvocate said...: What idiots. Accusing Scalia of usurping freedom because he protected freedom of speech.; 3/10/12, 8:36 PM
sakredkow said...: Scalia did protect freedom of speech. For the corps. Let's show our gratitude and move on.; 3/10/12, 8:46 PM
Tim said...: phx said...

"Scalia did protect freedom of speech. For the corps. Let's show our gratitude and move on."

...and labor unions, too.

Liberals forget to mention that too, always.

It isn't like labor unions aren't the top all-time donors to, unsurprisingly, Democrats.; 3/10/12, 8:55 PM
Tim said...: How many liberals would accept unions being prohibited from making donations to the Democrats in exchange for corporations being prohibited from making any donations at all?

I'm betting the answer lies between zero and one.; 3/10/12, 8:59 PM
sakredkow said...: Labor unions and corps can spend all they want to influence the political process. Let us be grateful. No usurpers of American freedom found here boys. Let's move on.; 3/10/12, 9:00 PM
Tim said...: Although, to be fair, Republicans and conservatives have come to realize the Democrats and Liberals have a Brezhnevian doctrine approach, in which "what's good for us Democrats and Liberals is fair and proper; that which is good for Republicans and Democrats is unfair and improper, even if they are the same things.

The comparison between Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh illustrates this point, perfectly.; 3/10/12, 9:04 PM
jeff said...: "Labor unions and corps can spend all they want to influence the political process."

What? Damn first amendment isn't conditional on who phx approves of? Stupid dead white founding father guys. If only they had included a exclusion somewhere in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." for groups phx feels the Constitution doesn't apply to. Cheer up dude, maybe you will get some judges in there that are willing to tweak it a bit.; 3/10/12, 9:05 PM
Tim said...: phx said...

"Labor unions and corps can spend all they want to influence the political process. Let us be grateful. No usurpers of American freedom found here boys. Let's move on."

Notwithstanding phx's obvious sarcasm, no Democrat would accept prohibitions on Labor donations if that was the price to prohibit corporate donations.; 3/10/12, 9:07 PM
Tim said...: Notwithstanding the fact the First Amendment was properly applied to Citizens United.; 3/10/12, 9:08 PM
Alex said...: phx - why should corporations have any limits?; 3/10/12, 9:09 PM
sakredkow said...: Well...I don't want to say that's the reason one of the weakest presidents in the modern age is probably going to win reelection ...it's not of course. Oh, there are so many reasons it seems to me.; 3/10/12, 9:09 PM
sakredkow said...: Alex I only think they should have limits if the Supreme Court says they should. End of story.; 3/10/12, 9:10 PM
Alex said...: phx - so whatever the SCOTUS says makes it right? You have no morals of your own?; 3/10/12, 9:12 PM
sakredkow said...: Alex first and foremost the SC makes that decision. I abide by its rulings, at least so far, in my lifetime.
Of course I have morals of my own.; 3/10/12, 9:14 PM
edutcher said...: And they keep trying to tell us how superior they are.

These are the people and philosophy that people like shiloh and phx support.

Tells you a lot.; 3/10/12, 9:14 PM
sakredkow said...: The SC doesn't make morals. It makes law. I suppose it upholds or strikes down law.
IANAL so you can call me naive.; 3/10/12, 9:15 PM
sakredkow said...: @educther Ed It's not that I'm superior to you. It's that EVERYBODY is superior to you. :); 3/10/12, 9:20 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/10/12, 9:23 PM
Alex said...: phx - the law of the land does not make it moral.; 3/10/12, 9:27 PM
sakredkow said...: I never said it makes it moral Alex. I believe you did.

phx - so whatever the SCOTUS says makes it right? You have no morals of your own? - Alex; 3/10/12, 9:29 PM
sakredkow said...: I said I abide by it.; 3/10/12, 9:30 PM
Alex said...: phx - did you abide by Bush v Gore?; 3/10/12, 9:32 PM
sakredkow said...: Yes I did Alex. There's no appealing the Supreme Court. That's why it's "Supreme" I assume.

Just correct me though anytime.; 3/10/12, 9:33 PM
edutcher said...: phx said...

@educther Ed It's not that I'm
superior to you. It's that EVERYBODY is superior to you. :)

Cute.

Of course, if it were true, phx wouldn't have to lie all the time.

But, then, he can't even spell my name when it's written right in front of him/her/it.

The SC doesn't make morals. It makes law.

No, Congress makes law. SCOTUS renders decisions on court cases, and those decisions have the weight of law.

Big difference.; 3/10/12, 9:35 PM
Alex said...: I believe edtucher just pwned phx.; 3/10/12, 9:37 PM
Simon said...: phx said...
"The SC doesn't make morals. It makes law. I suppose it upholds or strikes down law. "

To the extent that we're not talking about common law, if the court's making law, it's doing something wrong (and in common law, we used to say that the court was discovering the law, case by case). Anyway, in terms of measuring statutes against the constitution, the best way to think about it is that the court is deciding whether a given statute is or is not law. The law is the sum of the Constitution and the statute books; sometimes that means that a statute isn't law.; 3/10/12, 9:38 PM
sakredkow said...: Of course, if it were true, phx wouldn't have to lie all the time.

How does it follow, logically, that given everybody is superior to edutcher, I don't have to lie all the time?

I say even though everybody is superior to eddutcher, I may still have to lie at least from time to time.; 3/10/12, 9:40 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Phx - The New York Times is a corporation, do you think the government should have the right to tell the NYT what it may or may not publish?; 3/10/12, 9:40 PM
sakredkow said...: Maguro no I don't think that.; 3/10/12, 9:42 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Then you have no beef with the Citizens United decision.; 3/10/12, 9:45 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/10/12, 9:48 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Oh look, some college kids learned some new words.; 3/10/12, 9:53 PM
sakredkow said...: I'm not beefing. I'm waiting for Obama to make his next appointments to the SC; 3/10/12, 9:54 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: That would be a good place to sell steaming burritos wrapped in foil from a picnic cooler. Hot medium or mild bean or beef they're all the same thing, at $5.00 apiece you could hustle some sweet cash. They do that around here.; 3/10/12, 9:56 PM
KCFleming said...: Re: "Usurper":

That "Word Of The Day" calendar from the folks at Xmas really came in handy after all.

Tomorrow?
Vaginismus!; 3/10/12, 10:00 PM
Emil Blatz said...: My, that was rude.

Scalia is the man!; 3/10/12, 10:07 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Somebody clear something up for me. Is that sign referring to Antonin Scalia or William Scalia?Somebody call Judge Flanagan; 3/10/12, 10:11 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: The argument against extending free speech protection to corporations is that we need to give the politicians the power to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't, so that we can get money out of politics. Pretty much self-refuting.; 3/10/12, 10:20 PM
Mike said...: Why one might think that someone who'd carry a sign like that "retire to the dirt" was just an ignorant slut.; 3/10/12, 10:38 PM
Gary Rosen said...: I hope Scalia will be getting a call soon from Obama. I hate to think how upsetting that sign would be to Sasha and Malia.; 3/11/12, 12:48 AM
edutcher said...: phx said...

Of course, if it were true, phx wouldn't have to lie all the time.

How does it follow, logically, that given everybody is superior to edutcher, I don't have to lie all the time?

I say even though everybody is superior to eddutcher, I may still have to lie at least from time to time.

Moron has yet to offer proof beyond his/her/its pathetic say-so that anyone is superior to me, let alone he/she/it.

Fundamental flaw.; 3/11/12, 5:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Somebody clear something up for me. Is that sign referring to Antonin Scalia or William Scalia?Somebody call Judge Flanagan

Tommy Flanagan got appointed Judge? Good Lord, what is our nation coming to?; 3/11/12, 6:49 AM
Steve Koch said...: phx,

Weren't you claiming that you aren't a dem? That is one of your lies, right? Could you explain why you pretended not to be a dem? What purpose did that serve?; 3/11/12, 11:10 AM
sakredkow said...: Steve when did I claim this?; 3/11/12, 12:11 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/11/12, 6:17 PM
Peter said...: jeff said...
"Labor unions and corps can spend all they want to influence the political process."

But at least one can choose to not do business with a corporation- for any reason, or no reason.

But refusing to financially support a union can cost you your job.; 3/12/12, 8:44 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)