Old Article

Here is an article I wrote a while ago regarding comments made by Anton Scalia to students at Harvard University.

It's a little older, and certainly not topical. I'm just curious if people think it works as a piece of humour.

Comments are appreciated and I hope I don't offend anybody with this.

Here is a link (I can't find the original) to a story that at least partially describes the background.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1317386,00.html

Just let me know if this should be in another forum.

(Note necessary for the article: I'm Canadian)

If one was to read into recent comments by Justice Anton Scalia to students at Harvard University - where he explained that he believes orgies "eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged" - you just might get the impression that the Supreme Court of the United States might be a little bit more of a hedonistic, Plato's Retreat kind of party than one would expect from an institution made up of old people in frumpy black robes. I mean, its not like the guy would joke about it right? Of course not.

Unfortunately, such comments from someone so highly placed in a legal system - even if not actually our own - creates a massive social policy hole that can't easily be filled with caulk or any other fantastic modern day sealant. Indeed, it's going to have to be filled with thought and covered with a thick layer of logic. After all, we don't know exactly what he is recommending and since his legal opinion can set down precedents for courts, doesn't it follow that his social opinions should help set down some social precedent? Man, I never thought that I'd really want to know what Sandra Day O'Connor and the other moderates thought of group sex.

Normally, Supreme court watchers and fans (popularly known as gavel heads, if by popular you mean I just made is up) are used to being shocked by candid way Scalia flaunts his deeply conservative position and ties to the current administration. Whether it be defending racial profiling, justifying bribe taking as free speech, refusing to say there is anything wrong with not excusing himself from a case involving Dick Cheney after spending a weekend fishing with, or simply ordering that police seize tapes of him giving talks, Scalia isn't exactly known for his timidity of speech. But still, a man of his judicial skill and reasoning clearly has chosen his words carefully here to transfer to the students a very specific idea here.

"I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged," are the words that Scalia used, according to the Harvard Crimson, when he tried to justify his questionable claim that his personal beliefs don't affecting his judgements.

This was an especially odd comment given that in the same evening he had ridiculed the European Court of Human Right's decision from 2000 that struck down British legislation that barred group gay sex for intruding on private life. But I guess that just shows us that he thinks British gays are plenty relaxed with each other as is.

Clearly, despite his apparent concerns over the aformentioned judicial activism, he's quite down with a different kind of ?'active' judiciary. Now I've seen plenty of movies and read plenty of books that make the suggestion that the rich and powerful engage in some kind of weird bacchanalian sexcapades behind closed doors. It's a fairly typical way for art house films to get some box office building nudity in as well as social commentary while maintaining some pretension cred by throwing in some Marx inspired notion of bourgeoisie wife swapping But is this kind of situation more than just some bad socialist metaphor? Scalia has planted the seed in my mind, unfortunately. Now all I can see when I close my eyes is his sweaty, flabby and pasty-white body rhythmically pound against Ruth Bader Ginsberg as she lays back with her legs on the headboard, and the mound of near dead flesh that is Rehnquist masturbates quietly in the corner.

Of course, this kind of ungodly union would explain how the judges keep working together despite their widely disparate views and more openly partisan court. After all, nothing eases things more than a good hate ****.

What is the lesson here? Should we, as future professionals, be having some kind of wild sex parties to ensure maximum networking? Or is that happening already and I just missed that booth on club day.

It's really too bad I didn't know about this before Justice Binnie came to speak to us last week as I could use some guidance from our courts. I mean, Scalia has laid down a sort of social precedent for lawyers south of the border to indulge in, but what about us? We need a reference. After all, he didn't seem all that put off by the dinner question.

Unfortunately that boat has sailed and instead all I'm left with is the confusion of seeing a very conservative justice break rank with his own war on human sexuality and open up a can of whoop ass on my preconceptions. Hopefully, he'll take some time to pause and explain his words of ?'wisdom' to use young aspiring lawyers so that we can suckle at the teat of knowledge…providing that knowledgable teat isn't in a room full of gay British men. Justice Scalia would hate that.