I’ve written about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before, and labeled him a judicial hypocrite. That hypocrisy was apparent in his opinions on two recent Supreme Court cases.

On Monday, Justice Scalia signed on to the Court’s majority decision to strike down some provisions of the Voting Rights Act. By ‘signed on’ I mean he didn’t write an individual opinion, he simply signed the ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices always have the right to write a concurring opinion (if they agree with the majority ruling, but for somewhat different legal reasons) or a dissenting opinion. Signing the majority opinion indicates agreement with the ruling and the legal reasoning underlying it.

Why is that important? Because in overturning sections of the Voting Rights Act, the Court was overruling an act of Congress passed in 1965 and re-authorized in 2006. Justice Scalia apparently had no problem with overturning legislation that’s been in effect for nearly half a century.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in. The very next day Scalia issued an excoriating dissent in the case that overturned elements of the Defense of Marriage Act. In his dissent, Scalia wrote:

“We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation […] That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive.”

Got that? On Monday he essentially agreed the Court could assert judicial supremacy over Congress by kicking the Voting Rights Act to the curb. On Tuesday he argued the Court can’t assert that supremacy in regard to DOMA. And he apparently sees no inconsistency in those two positions. That would be shocking in any other Supreme Court Justice, but Scalia has always shown a willingness to ignore his previous judicial positions in order to attain the ideological outcome he believes is ‘correct.’

I dislike Antonin Scalia as a judge and as a person — but there’s no denying he’s a brilliant rhetorician. In his bombastic and vitriolic dissent of the DOMA case, he made one prescient observation. He wrote:

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition…. No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”

And he’s right. He’s an asshole about it, of course. He apparently fails to see any irony when he suggests the people who consider gay folks to be ‘enemies of human decency’ could be labeled the enemies of human decency. But he’s absolutely right. Proponents of marriage equality will challenge the law in every state that denies same-sex couples the ability to marry.

Scalia was equally right a decade ago in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down the sodomy law of Texas. That effectively invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal throughout the United States. In his dissent in Lawrence, Scalia wrote:

“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?'”

There you have Justice Antonin Scalia in a nutshell. He believes ‘moral disapprobation’ should be a determining factor in what behaviors are considered legal or illegal. He’s not burdened by consistency in his judicial opinions. He mocks the people who disagree with him. He’s exceedingly intelligent.

And he’s right — about this, at least. What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? None, Justice Scalia. There’s no justification at all.

This is Barry West. He’s one of the County Commissioners of Coffee County, Tennessee. He’s also an asshole. He may or may not be a racist — I don’t know. But he’s most definitely an asshole.

Coffee County Commissioner Barry West (asshole)

Why do I think he’s an asshole? Because of the photograph below. Let me be clear; Barry West didn’t create that photograph. That’s not him in the photograph. He simply posted the photo on his Facebook page. He’s an asshole because he thinks pointing a firearm at Muslims is amusing.

When a local newspaper asked him if he was prejudiced against Muslims, Barry said “I’m prejudiced against anyone who’s trying to tear down this country, Muslims, Mexicans, anybody.” He didn’t explain why he thinks Muslims and Mexicans are trying to tear down this country, but maybe the reporter didn’t ask him. And really, that doesn’t matter.

Predictably, Barry West caught a HUGE amount of shit from people who found this photo offensive and decided Barry was an asshole. He removed the photo from his Facebook page eventually, but that doesn’t make him any less of an asshole. It just makes him an asshole who’s embarrassed to be recognized as an asshole.

Muslims, of course, were particularly offended. It’s important to remember that a lot of mosques and Islamic centers in Tennessee have been the target of arson and vandalism over the past half decade. Just a couple of years ago in Murfreesboro, Tennessee (in a county that adjoins Coffee County), residents attempted to prevent the construction of a mosque by every means possible, legal and illegal. They tied it up in zoning hearings, they filed frivolous lawsuits, there were numerous incidents of vandalism, and eventually an arson attack on the construction site. All that in a city with 140 Christian churches and only one mosque. So the concern of Tennessee Muslims was understandable.

But here’s the thing about Barry West: he has the perfect right to be an asshole. He has the right to post photographs other folks (including me) see as offensive and racist. I totally defend his right to be an asshole. The Constitution of the United States expressly protects his right to be an asshole and say stupid and offensive things. That’s why I’m talking about Barry West. It’s also why Bill Killian was talking about Barry West.

U.S. Attorney Bill Killian

Bill Killian is the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Tonight he’s speaking at a seminar sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee. In recent days, though, Killian spoke to the news media about Barry West and the photo. He said, “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.” He also said, “If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?” And then Killian added that one of his purposes in addressing the subject was to:

“…to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

And that has set off a conservative shitstorm. A lot of conservative Christians seem to think any statement defending the civil rights of Muslims is somehow a threat against Christian conservatives. Politico.com proclaimed Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished. Well, no, the Feds didn’t suggest that at all. Breitbart.com says Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be a Criminal Action Under Federal Civil Rights Laws. Well, no, it’s not a criminal action. GatewayPundit says Obama DOJ: Trashing Islam on Social Media Will Have Legal Repercussions. Well, no, there won’t be any legal repercussions. And my absolute favorite — one conservative blogger, in a post entitled Tomorrow the DOJ Plans to Repeal the First Amendment, wrote this:

Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee will start educating people about the repeal of the First Amendment, only he want call it that…  Instead he’s going to tell us if you criticize Murdering Islamic Terrorists, the DOJ might decide you’re violating their Civil Rights.

All this faux outrage (remember, Attorney Killian hasn’t even spoken at the seminar yet) is intended to do three things. First, it’s meant to make bigots feel justified in their bigotry. Second, it’s meant to change the subject from the actual verbal assaults against Muslims to imaginary assaults against bigots. And third, it’s meant to fuel the paranoid delusions of white Christian bigots.

So what did Killian really mean when he mentioned ‘what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are’? He meant this:

People are free to hate, as long as they don’t act on it. Hateful statements directed at another will be used as evidence in a hate crime.

So Killian was, in effect, saying Barry West is free to be an asshole and say hateful things (and post hateful photographs on Facebook — so long as Facebook allows it), but if he’s ever accused of a hate crime, those hateful things might be used as evidence against him.

Some day I’m going to do some research and try to figure out at what point conservatives became such whiny little crybabies.