Philly diner’s ‘Antonin Scalia is a Douche’ brunch special sells out in record time
Source: Raw Story
Philly diners Antonin Scalia is a Douche brunch special sells out in record time
Joan Shipps
28 Jun 2015 at 21:42 ET
A Philadelphia diners topically titled menu items were such a hit with customers this weekend, the restaurant couldnt keep up with demand, the Billy Penn reports.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a legal right for all Americans, regardless of the couples gender composition. Justice Antonin Scalia was not happy with the decision, calling the ruling a threat to American democracy in his written dissent.
Friday is also the day Sams Morning Glory Diner comes up with the names of its weekly breakfast specials. This week, the Philadelphia restaurant put two new items on its menu, drawing inspiration from current events.
Antonin Scalia is a Douche, an egg dish with vegetables, cheese, and andouille sausage (for which there was enough meat to make 150 servings) sold out before 10 AM on Sunday. The Supreme Court Finally Got It Right quiches, available with or without prosciutto ham, were gone in less time than that.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/philly-diners-antonin-scalia-is-a-douche-brunch-special-sells-out-in-record-time/
merrily
(45,251 posts)The Court as a whole seldom gets anything right. Didn't in FDR's time and still doesn't.
One more partisan group we have to support. Only we can't vote them out every two, four or six years.
Thing is, the Framers did not know the nation would fall into the hands of one political party or THE other.
Then again. I can't fault them very much: Creating a perfect human institution is not possible.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Scalia wrote the Majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts. GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
KENNEDY, J., and THOMAS, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment (Both agreed that the clause was abused in this case, but said the courts could solve the problem of such abuse on their own and thus the Clause in question was NOT unconsitutional)
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Unlike other judicial mistakes that need correction, the error of having rejected a vagueness challenge manifests itself precisely in subsequent judicial decisions: the inability of later opinions to impart the predictability that the earlier opinion forecast. Here, the experience of the federal courts leaves no doubt about the unavoidable uncertainty and arbitrariness of adjudication under the residual clause. Even after Sykes tried to clarify the residual clauses meaning, the provision remains a judicial morass that defies systemic solution, a black hole of confusion and uncertainty that frustrates any effort to impart some sense of order and direction.....
We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitutions guarantee of due process. Our contrary holdings in James and Sykes are overruled. Todays decision does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Acts definition of a violent felony
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I hope they are referring to CU, but I highly doubt it. You'd think after they saw the results they might change their opinion. Unless they are bought and paid for just like the politicians.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)erlewyne
(1,115 posts)A week cannot start off better than this.
AwakeAtLast
(14,124 posts)Just picturing the face of the person it was named after --->
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Kber
(5,043 posts)or anything with "Scalia" in it either, for that matter.