Antonin Scalia, one of the most evil piles of pig excrement ever to sit on the United States Supreme Court, is dead. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. The boy had nothing but sneering contempt for the Constitution and for everyone who isn’t obscenely wealthy, and wasted no opportunity to rewrite our nation’s highest law to suit his depraved ideology.

Lest anyone dares deify this subhuman degenerate, let’s go over some of his greater outrages.

When in 2003 the Supreme Court shot down a Texas anti-sodomy law, Scalia decried the majority decision, lamenting that anything lawful when the Constitution was written had to be lawful now, and if it wasn’t around when the Constitution was written, it couldn’t therefore be legal. That didn’t stop Scalia from supporting the abuse of heat-sensing technology, tasers, tanks, and other modern technology not around in those days when misused by law enforcement to infringe on people’s civil liberties.

In 2014 Scalia gleefully lied in claiming that the Constitution permits the use of torture — it doesn’t, by the way, but expressly forbids it — strongly implying that although the 8th amendment forbids it as punishment, it’s perfectly legal for those not charged or convicted of any crime.

When the Supreme Court shot down bans on same-sex marriage last year, Scalia again expressed his contempt for the Constitution, specifically, the 14th amendment thereto, to press his hatred of LGBT citizens. The majority rightly ruled that “The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other.” But Scalia, ever the bigot, whined that “[w]hen the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.”

Here is Section One of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in case you were wondering what it entails.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This means that the right to marry shall not be denied to one or more groups of people simply because another group doesn’t want them to have it.

But don’t tell that to the ghost of Antonin Scalia, who wrote in the last paragraph of his hate-ridden, incoherent diatribe:

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

What he was arguing is that the decisions of the Supreme Court are only relevant so long as they are in line with his bigoted, corporate-favoring philosophy. Any other decision? Well, so argued Scalia, let the court try to enforce it. Talk about hubris!

But the “funneh” doesn’t stop there. If only! Scalia’s diseased thinking extended to full support for executing innocent people even when there is ample evidence to prove their convictions were based on false or dubious testimony and/or evidence.

“This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent,” Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent of the Court’s order for a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. “Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”

So don’t get railroaded by the state, ladies and gentlemen. No thanks to Scalia and his ilk, even if you’re wrongly convicted you may still be executed despite having proven your innocence because, well, fuck you that’s why.

And for all his blather about respecting the right of the people to vote same-sex marriage out of existence in a given state, that only applies to white people. Scalia didn’t support the right of Blacks, Hispanics, or any other non-white citizen to cast a ballot.

There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyers’ lounge, where audio of the oral argument is pumped in for members of the Supreme Court bar, when Justice Antonin Scalia offered his assessment of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. He called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

The comment came as part of a larger riff on a comment Scalia made the last time the landmark voting law was before the justices. Noting the fact that the Voting Rights Act reauthorization passed 98-0 when it was before the Senate in 2006, Scalia claimed four years ago that this unopposed vote actually undermines the law: “The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.”

That was an unusual comment when it was made, but Scalia’s expansion on it today raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes. Scalia noted when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, it passed over 19 dissenters. In subsequent reauthorizations, the number of dissenters diminished, until it passed the Senate without dissent seven years ago. Scalia’s comments suggested that this occurred, not because of a growing national consensus that racial disenfranchisement is unacceptable, but because lawmakers are too afraid to be tarred as racists. His inflammatory claim that the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement” came close to the end of a long statement on why he found a landmark law preventing race discrimination in voting to be suspicious.

Oh, and let’s not forget his position in the Citizens United case, which basically decreed that our government is for sale to the highest bidder and we plebeians need not apply.

Those are just some of the more egregious sins Scalia committed while alive and on the bench. He violated the Constitution when it suited his purposes and only pretended to care about it when other judges, not he, decided that it should apply to everyone. How many millions of lives were ruined because of his depraved actions as a lawyer and a judge? We may never know. But one thing is certain: the world, and the United States, will be better off without his loathsome presence.