Here's what Scalia said:  "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles...He saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?  Say that criminal law is against him?  You have a right to a jury trial?  Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?  I don't think so.  So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes.  And ought we believe in these absolutes."

Scalia shows in his remarks that he has not the slightest understanding that what he's talking about is pure fiction.  He's making statements as if they were fact.  He's talking about it as if it were real.  Here's that disconnect of Republicans who are unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction.  The Republicans are selective in picking the fiction they want to support their ideology.  They only pick the fiction that fits, rejecting everything else.  If you use reality to base your ideology on, you don't get to pick and choose.  There's only one reality.

Scalia asks is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?  Well, no, because Jack Bauer is a fictional character.  He doesn't exist.  Be hard to convict a figment of someone's imagination.  Here, Scalia goes to the fourth level of fiction by speculating about what a fictional jury would do in a fictional case about a fictional person.  He doesn't understand that it's pointless to speculate about fiction.  It's not real.  The scary thing is that Scalia takes this speculation about fiction with him to the bench to dispense his version of fictional justice.

Scalia says that if the criminal law is against Jack Bauer, do we believe in these absolutes, meaning the law.  You don't believe in absolutes.  You can't.  Absolutes exist whether you believe in them or not, just as the law exists whether Scalia believes in it or not.

A judge is obligated to dispense justice.  A good definition of justice is a feature of your word processor.  It's right margin justify.  It means to even thing up.  Everyone gets their just reward and just punishment.  Justice can only be found by considering the facts, all of the facts and only the facts.  Contrary to Scalia, justice cannot be found by applying fiction to a factual case.

We've had George Bush telling us about fictional weapons of mass destruction, fictional nuclear programs, fictional ties to 9/11, fictional ties to al Queda in Iraq, all to preserve his tenacious toe-hold on his fictional Presidency.

There was a fictional second-rate actor, Republican Ronald Reagan, who played the fictional role of Republican governor and Republican president.  There is a fictional, second-rate actor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who plays the role of a fictional Republican governor.  There's fictional, too low to rate, Republican George Bush, a fictional impostor playing the role of a fictional actor playing the role of a fictional Republican President.  Another second-rate fictional actor, Republican Fred Thompson, wants to play the role of a fictional Republican President.  More Republican actors.  More fiction.  Again.

Fiction has a new synonym:  Republican.

And now, we have a Supreme Court judge who prefers to use his beliefs instead of knowledge about the law and base his reasoning on fiction instead of fact to make his decisions about what's just.

We can use Scalia's method of using fiction to sort things out.  The inscription on the pediment of the Supreme Court building reads:  Equal Justice Under Law.  With Scalia on the bench, it would more accurately read:  Abandon hope all ye who enter here.  Of course, that was Dante's fictional inscription over the gates of Hell.  But, using Scalia's reasoning, it's appropriate.