We’re kicking off Giving Tuesday early this year! Your donation today will be matched up to $10K, doubling your impact! If you donate $50 today, the Reader will receive $100.

The Reader is now a community-funded nonprofit newsroom. Can we count on your support to help keep us publishing?

  • AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
  • Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia has been catching it for the blithe inconsistency of the reasoning he exhibited last week in two high-profile Supreme Court rulings. Dissenting from the court’s 5-4 decision to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Scalia accused the majority of “legalistic argle-bargle,” which Eric Zorn would explain is a kissing cousin to “crinkie-winkie,” and which I bet Scalia used for the satisfaction of knowing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, would have to look it up to find out how insulted he should feel.

What Congress has decreed let no judge put asunder. “We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation,” Scalia argued. Doing so “is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere ‘primary’ in its role.”