Dopamine Profile: Antonin Scalia, Troll on the Bench, Justice for Sale

by Charles Lyell on March 31, 2013

It’s not nice to make fun of anyone’s physical appearance but in the case of Justice Antonin Scalia, his troll-like appearance is a key factor responsible for turning a goofy outsider into one of the world’s most dangerous attention and esteem addicts. Little Tony provides a frightening example of how dopamine addiction turns losers into easy prey for dopamine dealers who know how to provide what addicts’ crave.

As noted in a previous post, an estimated one third of students fall into a low-status group made of adolescents who spend their formative years feeling like “losers,” “rejects,” “misfits,” and/or “outcasts.” Children are cruel and boys who look like trolls get bullied, ostracized, taunted, and traumatized. Traumatized children deal with the severe dopamine deprivation, resulting from low self-esteem, in a few  ways. Studies show that significant numbers of self-described outcasts compensate by retreating into delusional non-realities.

Scalia’s painful childhood turned an insecure adolescent into a driven overachiever who used his intelligence to con himself into believing he was an erudite, gutsy, little charmer. Like all dopamine addicts, Scalia is in the dark when it comes to understanding the links between his addictions to power, approval, and esteem and the venality responsible for his rise to power.

Judging from current events it appears Antonin has always been a sucker for power brokers who understand insecure boys will do anything for the big boys’ attention and acceptance. As the records show, the big boys know what they’re doing. When they needed Scalia’s vote to steal an election, Tony came through. The possibility he was involved in a criminal act doesn’t stop the judge from deflecting questions about his lack of ethics with a haughty, “Get over it!” One can only imagine Scalia’s reaction to an equally obnoxious defendant who responded to one of his questions with a nasty, “Get over it!”

In 2003 Scalia vacationed with Dick Cheney at the V.P.’s hunting lodge. The freebee occurred shortly after the high court agreed to adjudicate an appeal involving Cheney. Federal statutes state “any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned,” but according to Scalia, “I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned.”

Talk about delusion. The judge should have stopped at “I don’t think.” Addicts excel at not thinking about their addictions. It doesn’t take a whole lot of smarts to figure out Scalia had a vested interest in not thinking about how he wouldn’t have been invited if Cheney suspected he was ethical enough to recuse himself. Instead of risking the dopamine withdrawal of admitting the bonding experience was an egregious example of quid pro quo, the justice blew a bonus dopamine hit up his fat butt by giving himself credit for possessing an overabundance of impeccable impartiality — a quality he totally lacks. Then the desperate outsider voted the way he knew he’d better vote if he wanted to get invited back.

More recently, Scalia was proud to showcase how pathetic he really is when he agreed to speak at “invitation only” events sponsored by Koch industries, a private company whose officials are actively involved in undermining the constitution of the United States.

On separate occasions, Charles Koch publicly “wined and dined” his chubby lackey. The improper courtship fueled speculation about whether the clearly illegal events were payback for past favors or down payments for upcoming votes. Scalia seems incapable of understanding he was being seduced by super-addicts who are experts at taking advantage of desperate, insecure, minority-group outsiders who will do anything to earn the acceptance of the very types who made him feel like a loser, outsider, and nobody in the first place.

An aware, honest, ethical jurist would have set a proper example by declining the inappropriate invitations. A semi-aware, semi-honest, semi-ethical jurist would have, at the very least, recused himself from voting on matters that benefited the reprobates bribing him. Instead, Scalia provides a frightening example of how dopamine addiction keeps addicts locked in denial about their desperate need to feed an insatiable addiction to dopamine. In selling his vote for a few pats on the head, a powerful dopamine addict compromised the dignity of the Supreme Court and handed the super-addicts a windfall victory with the infamous Citizens United case.

Did Scalia really believe corporations are entitled to free speech? Did he realize that he was helping unethical, immoral, inhumane, super-wealthy super-addicts to corrupt the dopamine addicts in congress? Did he consider the possibility that he might one day be viewed as a venal and corrupt man who sold precious votes for pennies on the billions? Did he care that he was helping super-addicts destroy the country that made it possible for a troll to pretend he was an equal of the puppet masters pulling his strings?

Do junkies care about being denounced for stealing from families, friends, and strangers? Do oxycontin addicts think about the repercussions of robbing pharmacies and killing pharmacists to feed their dopamine-induced cravings?

As Scalia shows, addicts are addicts, and addicts only care about protecting and triggering dopamine flow.

Be Sociable, Share!

Discussion

Comments are closed.


Barnes and Noble Amazon