Showing posts with label Scalia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scalia. Show all posts

Monday, November 18, 2013

Bill Maher Sums Up The ‘Problem With Today’s Conservatives’ In 5 Minutes

Bill Maher Sums Up The ‘Problem With Today’s Conservatives’ In 5 Minutes

Saturday, November 16, 2013

10 worst right-wing statements of the week — abortion typhoon edition

10 worst right-wing statements of the week — abortion typhoon edition

One Christian historian has decided women's rights around the world helped power deadly Typhoon Haiyan



10 worst right-wing statements of the week -- abortion typhoon edition
This image provided by NASA shows Typhoon Haiyan (Credit: AP/NASA)
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
AlterNet Rand Paul may have assumed the mantle of Wacko-in-Chief this week, but lots of lesser known right-wing nutjobs had banner weeks as well.
1. Christian historian: Abortions caused Typhoon Haiyan.
This might come as news to the grieving survivors of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines: the cause of the powerful storm was abortion. Not necessarily their abortions, but just the fact that anyone has abortions, especially legally, even though abortion is illegal in the Philippines. God is very, very pissed about that, and that’s why he sent a typhoon that killed all those Filipinos on its way to Vietnam. He’s vindictive like that. That is why he is causing all these very destructive and scary storms.
What is not causing any of this climatological havoc is global warming—not that it even exists. Burning fossil fuels is something God actually wants us to do more of. So goes the theory of Christian denialist, oops, we mean “historian” David Barton. The blanket explanation for all this “climate stuff that we can’t explain,” he said this week in a conversation with televangelist Kenneth Copeland, as well as murder and pedophilia, is legalized abortion. America voted for politicians who support abortion rights, and in doing so “opened the door to the curse.”
Here is the historical background. In the good old days, when America was first starting out, Barton explained that if there was really bad weather, leaders would “call for a national day of repentance, humiliation, fasting and prayer … and today we’re saying, ‘Oh no, it’s global warming.’”
That’s how we lost God’s protection. We chose to lose it. What did we expect?
2. Radio host Damon Bruce: Sports are set to the dial of men.
Sports are for men, and Richie Incognito is a man, acting manly in a man’s world. And if you don’t like it, ladies, you can lump it. That is the short version of a nine-minute tirade against women in sports this week by KNBR sports radio host Damon Bruce.
Bruce is mad at women because women are to blame for the suspension of Miami Dolphins guard Richie Incognito after his alleged (and apparently legendary) harassment, bullying and threats against teammate Jonathan Martin drove Martin from the team.

Here’s how the tirade starts:
“A lot of sports has lost its way and I’m gonna tell you, part of the reason is because we’ve got women giving us directions. For some of you, this is going to come across as very misogynistic. I don’t care, because I’m very right. I’m willing to share my sandbox, as long as you remember you’re in my box. I didn’t slip into your box….”
Allowing women to “slip into the box” of professional sports has pretty much ruined sports, Bruce thinks. It has feminized men and made it hard for men to bond the way they like to bond—by being assholes. That’s what Jonathan Martin didn’t understand. Incognito was trying to bond with him when he called him racial slurs and threatened to rape his sister.
Here’s Bruce’s sage advice to women sports journalists who can’t hack it: “If sports get too gruesome for you, go write a restaurant column. Go write a housekeeping column.”
Sweet of him to be concerned.
3. Rand Paul overtakes Ted Cruz as chief Republican wacko bird.
This is a tightly contested race—neck and neck. Lately, Texas Tea Partier Cruz has been relatively subdued since his widely ridiculed Obamacare filibuster which led to the widely reviled government shutdown.
So, Kentucky libertarian Paul was good enough to step into the breach to fulfill the role of what Senator John McCain coined as “chief of the wacko birds.” Paul has distinguished himself in the last week or so with his passionate defense, or is it ignorance, of plagiarism, challenging Rachel Maddow to a duel for repeatedly pointing out that he lifts passages from Wikipedia wholesale for speeches, articles, books, whatever. She’s impugning his honor by doing so, “spreading hate” on him. Besides libertarians don’t attribute stuff; that’s for big government suckers.
A plagiarism scandal, or multiple plagiarism scandals, need not be devastating. Hey, mistakes happen. Admit them and move on, we say. But no, Paul started talking “duel” during an interview with ABC’s “This Week.”
“If, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”
Note to Paul: Toto, you’re not in 19th-century Kentucky anymore.
4. Antonin Scalia brings up the devil in case about prayer.
It’s almost as if there’s a little red guy with horns and a tail sitting on the shoulder of the Supreme Court’s most verbose right-winger, making him say really off-the-wall things. Justice Antonin Scalia just keeps seeing the devil and his worshippers everywhere, bringing them up during oral arguments in a case about the constitutionality of legislative prayer. This, just weeks after a somewhat embarrassing interview in New York magazine in which he gleefully affirmed his belief in the Antichrist. And what’s wrong with that?
During this week’s case, fellow conservative jurist Samuel Alito was asking questions about whether any kind of prayer would be permissible before a legislative session, one that would not offend Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus.
“What about devil worshippers?” Scalia interjected. Laughter ensued. He’s such a card.
His larger point was that not letting people pray before legislative meetings deprives them of their religious freedom, and that it is impossible to design a prayer that satisfies all faiths—not to mention lack thereof.
“What is the equivalent of prayer for someone who is not religious?” Scalia asked. “There are many people who do not believe in God. … If you had an atheist [town] board, you would not have any prayer. I guarantee you.”
After all, who do you think makes people atheists? Guy with the horns, we’re talking to you.
5. Louie Gohmert: Shutdown was necessary to save people from Obamacare.
Two quick refreshers: 1) Obamacare is the “worst law known to man,” worse than slavery, Nuremberg laws, Indian removal act—you get the idea; and 2) Tea Partiers received a drubbing in this week’s election, but seem not to realize it.
Texas Tea Partier Louie Gohmert was out stumping this week, bizarrely bragging that the devastating shutdown was necessary because people would “suffer and potentially die” because of the Affordable Care Act. Yup, nothing kills people faster than health insurance. It is deadly stuff.
He made the statement at a nursing home in East Texas, where he hoped to scare the bejeezus out of seniors so they won’t sign up for the dreaded healthcare coverage. “Anybody that thinks the Affordable Care Act helps seniors doesn’t really understand what’s unaffordable to seniors,” Gohmert helpfully and misleadingly explained. “It makes most of the Medicare Advantage plans go up, but you’ve got to remember, Obamacare actually cut $716 billion from Medicare and seniors rely on Medicare.”
That, of course, is either a lie or make-believe, or both, but since when has that stopped the opponents of Obamacare?
6. Rep. Steve King knows personally—don’t ask him how—that Saddam Hussein purchased uranium from Niger.
Who can forget the fiction that fueled the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was building the bomb, and was ready to use all of it against us or Israel. He got his uranium from Niger, high-level intelligence said. President George Bush even said so in a speech.
Cut to a couple months after “Shock and Awe” and not even Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or President Bush was standing by that statement. They were misled by some bum intelligence. Sorry. Our bad.
But crazy Iowa Rep. Steve King still believes it because, as he said on Jan Mickelson’s radio show this week: “I have had hands-on evidence that what George Bush said in that State of the Union address was the truth.”
What Bush said was: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
When the claim unraveled, the Bush administration had to eat crow and admit the so-called intelligence was “bogus,” documents “forged.” Spokesman Ari Fleischer admitted the statement should never have found its way into the president’s speech. But nobody took the war back.
But King has “hands-on” knowledge. He just does.
7. Illinois Rep.: Marriage equality has nothing to do with rights; it’s about the Bible.
As the Illinois legislature began to debate whether to join the growing number of enlightened states that have legalized same-sex marriage, State Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Glen Carbon, pointed out that everyone has it bass-ackwards. Our nation was built on “the scriptures, then came the Constitution. Is that not right?”
It was, of course, a rhetorical question. “I think it is,” Kay continued. A brief course in American history could clear this up for the confused legislator, but never mind.
Kay is at a loss to understand why everyone keeps talking about human rights, and civil rights, and equal rights all the time when they talk about marriage equality. What do human rights have to do with a nation built on scripture? Who you gonna believe, that Constitution with its Bill of Rights written by men, or the word of God?
8. Larry Pratt: Trayvon Martin’s broken family is what killed him.
It’s never too late to pile more pain onto the grieving parents and loved ones of slain teenager Trayvon Martin. His killer is free, Trayvon has been blamed for his own death, and now, taking it one step further, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America has suggested that Martin’s dysfunctional family is responsible for the boy’s death.
That’s what he said in an interview with NewsMax’s Steve Malzberg this week: Trayvon Martin was killed because he had a “broken family.”
Who else can you blame? Triggerman, neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman was just lawfully “standing his ground” when he shot unarmed Martin. “Stand Your Ground” laws can’t be to blame because, as Sen. Ted Cruz explained to Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton in a Senate hearing on the controversial law, she’s just “mourning the loss of her son.” Stand-your-ground laws in fact “protect those in African-American communities,” he said.
Facts be damned, gun nuts and Tea Partiers agree. According to Right-Wing Watch, a recent “Tampa Bay Times analysis of stand-your-ground cases in Florida found substantial racial disparities in the application of the law, including that ‘people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time. A national study found a similar disparity.”
But, it’s Trayvon Martin’s family’s fault he’s dead. Probably his mother’s.
9. White, anti-LGBT Texan wins office by pretending to be black.
Dave Wilson, a Houston electrician, has become pretty adept at creating literature for the causes he believes in. While not rewiring people’s homes, he long pursued his sideline of mailing homophobic fliers to thousands of Houston voters attacking the city’s lesbian mayor Annise Parker. His argument is pretty simple. Open homosexuality is bad. It leads to extinction. (Closeted homosexuality, not so much.)
Recently, Wilson expanded his literary efforts into fiction, when he got himself elected to the Houston Community College Board of Trustees by out-and-out pretending to be someone else. He pretended to be a black man, defeating longtime incumbent Bruce Austin, who actually is black, in an overwhelmingly African-American district.
According to Right-Wing Watch, “Wilson’s campaign fliers were filled with black faces that he admits to simply pulling off of websites, along with captions such as ‘Please vote for our friend and neighbor Dave Wilson.’ Another flier announces that he was ‘Endorsed by Ron Wilson,’ which is the name of an African-American former state representative. Only by reading the fine print will voters discover that the ‘Ron Wilson’ who actually endorsed Dave is his cousin. The cousin lives in Iowa.”
Wilson is fine with this whole deception thing. After all, lying is what politicians do, he points out.
10. Nutjob former classmate of Obama reminisces about his cocaine-snorting, gay-hustling high school days.
Scott Lively’s “Defend The Family” website got a real scoop this week with an interview that nutjob preacher James David Manning conducted with Mia Marie Pope, who says—and why would we not believe her?—that she knew President Obama back in high school in Hawaii in the 1970s, when he was a foreigner (this is a birther website, after all) and a gay druggie.
“He very much was within sort of the gay community,” Pope claimed. “And we knew Barry as just common knowledge that girls were never anything that he ever was interested in … He would get with these older white gay men, and this is how we just pretty much had the impression that that’s how he was procuring his cocaine. In other words, he was having sex with these older white guys and that’s how he was getting this cocaine to be able to freebase.”
That clears a lot up.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Supreme Conflict

Supreme Conflict

Justice Clarence Thomas will headline a black tie fundraising dinner tomorrow evening for The Federalist Society, which describes itself as “a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.” Its purpose includes “reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.” Joining Justice Thomas onstage and as a speaker will be Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
By appearing, Justice Thomas and Judge Sykes will violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges – although the Code of Conduct does not bind the Supreme Court. More on that point later.
Today, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, Common Cause and the Alliance for Justice filed a formal complaint with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals against Judge Sykes and sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts requesting that the Supreme Court adopt a formal Code of Conduct.
At the outset, I should make it clear that there is no ethical lapse when Justices of the Supreme Court appear before legal organizations like the Federalist Society, irrespective of the organization’s ideological bent. If anything, members of the Court should be encouraged to engage with the public and legal organizations of all stripes, rather than remain cloistered and isolated from civil society.
The problem occurs when members of the judiciary – sworn arbiters of impartial justice – are featured as speakers at fundraisers that advance the private interests of their sponsors.
The Code of Conduct covers this concept. Specifically, Commentary to Canon 4(C) states that “[a] judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.”
The Federalist Society’s annual dinner coincides with its annual convention and is clearly a fundraiser. For at least the past two years, the dinner program booklet included a long listing of corporations and law firms that the Federalist Society “gratefully acknowledge[d]” for “their generous support of the annual dinner.” “Gold sponsors” in 2012 and 2011 included Chevron Corporation, Pfizer, and Verizon, while “silver sponsors” included Time Warner, Inc., Facebook and PepsiCo, Inc. While most of the convention takes place at the Mayflower Hotel, the separately ticketed annual dinner occurs at a much larger venue a couple of miles away.  It has been sold out for days. Attendees for the past few years have included more than 1,200 lawyers, lobbyists, Members of Congress and other guests. This year, the price of admission is $200.  Justice Thomas’ and Judge Sykes’ photographs appear on the website selling the tickets.
Justice Thomas has a long history of flouting the Code of Conduct. In 2011, on the very day that the Supreme Court met in conference to decide whether to hear the Affordable Care Act cases, he joined Justice Antonin Scalia in headlining the Federalist Society’s 2011 annual dinner. The event was billed as a “celebration of service” for their time on the bench.
Other justices have been featured guests and speakers at previous annual dinners. The 2012 fundraiser featured Justice Samuel Alito, 2011 featured Justice Thomas and Scalia, 2010 again featured Justice Scalia, and 2009 featured Justice Alito.
Justice Thomas has traveled on the Federalist Society’s dime, too. Four years ago, Justice Thomas disclosed that the Federalist Society reimbursed him for an all-expenses paid trip to Palm Springs, California for a “speech.” As the New York Times reported, Justice Thomas’s visit coincided with “a political retreat for wealthy conservatives” that was “organized by Charles and David Koch,” the billionaire industrialists and benefactors of libertarian causes, and took place over the same span of days. A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court confirmed that Justice Thomas made a “brief drop-by” at the Koch retreat “and had given a talk.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that the Federalist Society had “no meetings of its own at the venue,” and quoted the Society’s President Eugene Meyer as saying that they “‘knew the justices were going to be out there [in Palm Springs],’ and would be interested in hearing what they had to say.”
Common Cause asked the Federalist Society to disclose whether any separate Federalist Society events took place over those four days in 2008 in Palm Springs, but never received a response. (Justice Scalia also disclosed that the Federalist Society paid for his trip to the vicinity in California one year earlier. Think Progress released documents from Koch Industries about previous meetings, which advertised that they had “featured such notable leaders as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas”).
Justice Thomas also failed to disclose more than $680,000 that his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, received in compensation from the Heritage Foundation.  After Common Cause drew attention to this matter, he quickly amended several back-years of disclosure forms, blaming his mistake on a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, joined by 52 fellow Members of Congress, sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States, requesting a referral to the Attorney General for an investigation after it was learned that Ms. Thomas was paid $1.6 million during the years Justice Thomas checked the “none” box for spousal income on his annual forms.
Our highest court should meet the highest ethical standards.  Although the justices are the only judges not bound by a formal, transparent code of ethics, the Supreme Court has publicly agreed to abide by its principles and could formally adopt a transparent code at any time. Chief Justice John Roberts dedicated his 2011 Year-End Report to the topic, stating that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges “plays the same role” for the Supreme Court as it does for the rest of the federal judiciary. He wrote that “Members of the Court do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations” and “are all deeply committed to the common interest in preserving the Court’s vital role as an impartial tribunal governed by the rule of law.” Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer have said this, too.
Clearly, however, nothing has not stopped some members of the Court from repeatedly offending Canon 4(C)’s prohibition on headlining fundraisers for private organizations. And there’s nothing binding. That’s why we filed a formal complaint against Judge Sykes – who is bound by the Code – and a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, urging adoption of the Code.
Common Cause commends Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and Senators Murphy, Blumenthal and Whitehouse for their leadership on this issue. They have introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 – bicameral legislation that would require the Court to promulgate a code of ethics that includes the 5 canons of the Code of Conduct, with any amendments the Court determines to be appropriate. This is an important action showing that transparent ethics and accountability matter, and that the Supreme Court should be held to the same ethical standards as everyone else.
Our democracy will be stronger for it.
For more on Common Cause’s work on Supreme Court ethics, you will find more resources here and from the Alliance for Justice here

Monday, October 28, 2013

Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia

Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia 

 

ginni-cl_splitOn Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers proposed a law to establish a Code of Conduct  for the Supreme Court.
It’s surely to have Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia quaking in their Tea Party boots because it would mean they would actually have to be independent of political and other influences. They would also have to have the appearance of independence.  They would have to stay away from political activity. That part would be really hard.
As it stands, this law would help guarantee that Supreme Court Justices are held to the same ethical standards we expect of other judges.
Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, joined by Senators Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse, introduced the bill. It would make ethics mandatory, rather than an option left to the discretion of Justices like Thomas and Scalia.  It would mean all the Justices would have to live by the sort of ethical standards that Justice Kagan applied when she recused herself from Arizona’s ”papers please” law because she was Solicitor General at the time the Federal government filed suit. She did the same thing in 24 other cases  on the same grounds.
As Senator Blumenthal said:
This legislation’s goal is to preserve public trust and confidence – the lifeblood of the Supreme Court – after claims of questionable conduct by some Justices, No Justice, any more than a judge, should advance a partisan cause or sit on a case involving a personal friend or interest. There is no persuasive reason in law or logic why Supreme Court Justices should not be held to the same high standard as other federal judges.

The proposed law holds the Supreme Court to the same standards required of judges in the federal court system. Currently, Justices on the Supreme Court decide for themselves if they should recuse themselves from cases in which they may have a personal stake or in Thomas’ case, his wife has a political or financial stake as a holy roller in the Tea Party.
Justices Thomas and Scalia who attended a few partisan fundraisers also ruled in favor of the conservatives raising questions about their independence.  This was especially true in Citizens United because that ruling undid decades of established law.
Both of these actions violate the code of conduct already in place for Federal court judges.
We saw how well leaving Supreme court Justices to their own devices worked out when Justice Thomas ruled on the Affordable Care act, while his wife Ginni was  paid to lobby against the law.   The fact that Thomas “forgot” ,  to disclose Ginni’s income from lobbying against healthcare – even after she supposedly ceased lobbying against healthcare doesn’t help.  That would have been more than just an oops moment had there been a code of conduct for the Supreme Court. Thomas’  conflict of interest problmes are not restricted to benefits to Ginni.
Questions about Thomas and Scalia’s judicial independence are nothing new.  We saw it when both Supreme Court Justices attended a  Koch Brothers fundraiser in 2010 and the Federalist Society fundraiser  they attended in 2011, Thomas’ failure to disclose the sources Ginni’s income for six years also came out in 2011.    A code of ethics for the Supreme Court is a bill whose time came a few years ago and has increasing importance given Ginni Thomas’s involvement with Groundswell.
As noted by Media Matters,
The recent Groundswell memoranda obtained by David Corn of Mother Jones reveal that these conflicts are getting worse.
Ginni Thomas was the founder and leader of Liberty Central, a political nonprofit “dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist ‘tyranny’ of President Obama and Democrats in Congress.” The group was funded by Harlan Crow, frequent patron of the Thomas’ projects and causes and a financial supporter of right-wing campaigns such as the “swift boat” attacks on then-presidential candidate John Kerry and the advertising push to confirm President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. Crow also serves on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, whose Edward Blum brought the two most recent attacks on the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action before the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas favored Blum’s positions against progressive precedent on both civil rights issues.
Had Federal Court judges been as ethically challenged  as Clarence Thomas, they would have been forced to resign. Considering that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, it seems the bar for ethical standards should be the same as those for lower courts – if not higher.
If the Supreme Court had a code of conduct, Thomas would have had to recuse himself on several cases in which his wife’s high profile within the Tea Party would scream of bias.  Had he failed to do so, there would be a legal basis with teeth to seek Thomas’ resignation.  For Thomas and Scalia defenders  tempted to question the constitutionality of holding Supreme Court Justices to ethics, Article 3 of the constitution says justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour. If independence from pillow talk with a political lobbyist isn’t good behavior, I don’t know what is.
Let’s face it, if you are sleeping with someone within a political party whose agenda is to prevent certain classes of eligible voters from voting, the odds of forgetting that fact while considering the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act are zero – or at least it sure looks that way to any reasonable person.  The same holds true when you at least look like you might be having pillow talk with someone with a political stake in the Defense of Marriage Act.
One can point to Justice Kagan’s ethical standards as proof that Supreme Court Justices can and do take principles like judicial independence and the appearance of it seriously.  Then one is reminded of Justices Thomas and Scalia.
This law would address one of the many problems created by the sort of corruption that has become synonymous with the Republican Party and its puppet masters.  But then, that would mean doing something constructive and it would also mean that the separation of powers are in fact separate, rather than subject to pillow talk between one Supreme Court Justice and one member of the Groundswell propaganda alliance.
Image Mother Jones
Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia was written by Adalia Woodbury for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Saturday, August 3rd, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Scalia's Bizarro New York Interview, Presented By GIFs

Scalia's Bizarro New York Interview, Presented By GIFs

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks during a ceremony naming a courtroom at The John Marshall Law School after former Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg Friday, Sept. 28, 2012 in Chicago. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green) | AP

In a new far-reaching and very surprising interview, he said he hates the Internet, so Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will never see this coarsening of public discourse.
All of the quotes below are real.


All of the quotes below are real.
  • 1
    On The Constitution: "Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn’t change."
  • 2
    On Facebook: "I don't know why anyone would like to be 'friended' on the network."
  • 3
    On Feminism: "You can’t go to a movie—or watch a television show for that matter—without hearing the constant use of the F-word—including, you know, ladies using it."
  • 4
    On Gay Rights: "I’m not a hater of homosexuals at all."
  • 5
    On His Gay Friends: "I have friends that I know, or very much suspect, are homosexual. Everybody does."
  • 6
    On His Own Vocabulary: "Not at the ukase of a Supreme Court... U-K-A-S-E."
  • 7
    On The Devil: "[Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the Devil."
  • 8
    On The Devil, Again: "What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place."
  • 9
    Yep, Still More On The Devil: "You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil?"
  • 10
    On His TV Habits: "I don’t watch 'Homeland.' I don’t even know what 'Homeland' is. I watched one episode of—what is it? 'Duck Dynasty'?"
  • 11
    On His Favorite Comedian: "I loved Seinfeld. In fact, I got some CDs of Seinfeld. ­Seinfeld was hilarious. Oh, boy. The Nazi soup kitchen? No soup for you!"
  • 12
    On His Media Diet: "I read newspapers that I think are good newspapers, or if they’re not good, at least they don’t make me angry, okay?"