Actual t-shirt. . .

seen at the Crystal City Metro station around 8:30 p.m. Wednesday.

It reads:


Okay, I am no constitutional scholar (just ask Prof. Goldberger), but I’m fairly sure the Framers didn’t call each other “homeboy.” However, attendees at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were not allowed to talk about their internal deliberations, so we can’t completely be certain that term wasn’t thrown around. Okay, yeah, now that I think about it, I could see William Paterson of New Jersey, maybe, just maybe, calling William Churchill Houston, also of New Jersey, his homey. 

That was probably better than James Madison and Edmund Randolph calling each other “fluffledodger,” which was a popular term at the time.

Here is an example of more Scalia swag:


This is the “What Would Scalia Do?” maternity T-shirt. And what would he do? Well, obviously you are going to have to have that kid, whether you like it or not, lady. (Joking. We joke here.)


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Actual t-shirt. . .

  1. Saqib Ali

    Obviously the person who designed the “What would Scalia shirt” has NOT read the “Planned Parenthood Of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al., Petitioners, V. Robert P. Casey, et al., etc., 1992” opinion.

    It is not about what Justice Scalia would do, it is about whether abortion is a liberty that is protected by the Constitution of the United States:

    That is, quite simply, the issue in this case: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a “liberty” in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected – because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Petitioners, v. Robert P. CASEY, et al., etc., 505 U.S. 833 (The Supreme Court June 29, 1992).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s