In fact, according to this rigorous methodology, Scalia is exactly 19.25 times more uproarious than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He's also infinity times funnier than Clarence Thomas, who can't draw a single guffaw from the chamber – which has gotta be a pretty easy crowd, as expectations are low.
To be fair, Thomas's hands are tied: He can't use his really dynamite "Long Dong Silver" material, which is generally considered "Too Hot for C-Span." And the study didn't cover his behind-the-scenes hijinks, like leaving hairs on Sandra Day O'Connor's can of Mr. Pibb. That one really cracked up Souter.
But what makes Scalia so hilarious, anyway? Must be gems like this:
Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.
HAAHAAAhahahahhahahaaa! You kill me, Antonin!
— Red Panda, Black Comedian, Light Reading
...We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent." I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: there is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the [506 U.S. 390, 428] Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. ...
Later he nmakes the point that in such a case an executive pardon could prevent the executition so the issue should have no practical effect.
...With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today's opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon. ...