Justice Scalia's Dissent On Gay Marriage: 'You Goddamn Hippies!'

Justice Antonin Scalia is real butthurt over marriage equality. His dissent has more shade than all seven seasons of Drag Race. And Drag U. Combined. Some of Scalia's dewdrops of wisdom:

I join the Chief Justice's opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy.

Okay, coming in a little hot.

Related | Marriage Equality is Legal Across the Nation

The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me.

Translation:

It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.

When you say "best"...

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion

Damn, Scalia! Now you're attacking your colleague's syntax?

'The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.' Really?

I'm pretty sure that "Really?" was originally:

Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Ah, Justice Antonin Scalia -- the real-life Eric Cartman.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.

All right, someone hold my earrings.

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag.

How's this one for ya?

The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

[[{"fid":"232561","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","field_folder[und]":"8704","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"sorry fortune cookie","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","media_title[und][0][value]":"","media_description[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und]":"","field_tags[und]":"","field_license[und]":"none"},"type":"media","attributes":{"alt":"sorry fortune cookie","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

Les Fabian Brathwaite -- sorry I'm not sorry.

[h/t: HuffPo]