Quantcast

«

»

Mar 13 2013

Wingnuts: Female Justices Rude to Scalia

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association joins the long list of fundamentalist Christian women who help keep women in their proper place (according to the Bible) in a discussion with Curt Levey about how the female Supreme Court justices are being rude to poor Justice Scalia by — gasp — interrupting him and disagreeing with him.

Rios: I read an article that Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, at least this article was intimating that they are behaving in a – these are my words – sort of rudely on the bench, to Scalia and to others, interrupting, speaking inappropriately. Have you observed that? Do you know what I’m talking about and is that true?

Levey: Um, yeah. I mean, you know, Scalia can give it out as well as take it, but yeah, Sotomayor has gone over the line a number of times. Most recently in the Voting Rights Act case, which was just last week, where, you know, Scalia had the nerve to speak the truth and refer to the Voting Rights Act as “racial preferences,” which of course is what it’s become by guaranteeing that there be minority districts formed, minority congressional districts. And, you know, Sotomayor sort of lost it when Obama [sic] said that, interrupted and you know, basically made fun of Scalia’s comment. So yeah, I think they have the right to be aggressive up there, but Sotomayor has occasionally, at least, stepped over the line.

Are you freaking serious? Scalia is renowned for talking over other justices and dominating the questioning during oral argument. He frequently will jump in and start arguing with an attorney he disagrees with before they can even finish their first sentence. And in the entire history of the court, no other justice has ever come close to the sheer vitriol with which Scalia treats his fellow justices, which has gotten much worse in the last decade or so. But to dare to interrupt him and disagree with him, if you’re a woman, just makes you uppity — at least to sexist jerks.

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Raging Bee

    Scalia can give it out as well as take it, but yeah, Sotomayor has gone over the line a number of times.

    So it’s perfectly okay for Scalia, but when a woman does the same thing, it’s “over the line.” What a perfect (if relatively minor) example of shameless reich-wing tribalistic hypocricy.

  2. 2
    Michael Heath

    Levey: Um, yeah. I mean, you know, Scalia can give it out as well as take it . . .

    Uh, no; he can’t take it. He instead avoids, denies, or misconstrues those critiques which hit bone.

  3. 3
    Scientismist

    Scalia had the nerve to speak the truth and refer to the Voting Rights Act as “racial preferences,” which of course is what it’s become by guaranteeing that there be minority districts formed, minority congressional districts.

    So it is “racial preference” that motivates republican-controlled legislatures to reapportion districts so that racial minorities are concentrated in specific districts, thus assuring that they are represented by a far lower percentage of congressmen than they represent as a percentage of voters statewide? Are these people (including Scalia) ignorant, or innumerate? Or is obscuring the goals of gerrymandering part of the plan?

  4. 4
    Modusoperandi

    And why aren’t the lady so-called “judges” at the ladies “judging” bench in the back with the rest of the United States Supreme Court Ladies Auxiliary, making snacks and fetching drinks for the menfolk, staying out of the way while the men talk about important things?

  5. 5
    Jordan Genso

    Scientismist

    So it is “racial preference” that motivates republican-controlled legislatures to reapportion districts so that racial minorities are concentrated in specific districts…

    Actually, I do think that is part of the Voting Rights Act, that prevents high-density areas of minorities (where they are therefore the majority) from being divided up into districts so that they are no longer the majority. I am not familiar with the exact details, so I could be wrong.

    The Republicans have learned how to account for that though when gerrymandering and now use it to their advantage when creating “blue sinks” and such.

  6. 6
    regexp

    No rational person could of listened to Sotomayor comments and stated she ‘lost it’ or stepped over the line in her comments.

  7. 7
    doublereed

    Actually I thought Justices being rude and severely disagreeable with each other is practically an American Tradition.

    Oh but not the ladies. The ladies need to be quiet and know when to sit down. Right.

  8. 8
    d.c.wilson

    If they could be like that nice Justice Thomas and sit quietly while the white men lead the discussion, amirite?

  9. 9
    sundoga

    Has anyone ever explained to these idiots what a frank and honest exchange of ideas is? It’s not supposed to be a polite discussion.

  10. 10
    frog

    sundoga, these people wouldn’t know a frank and honest exchange if it clubbed them over the head. “Why are you hitting me?” they would whine. “Stop hitting me!”

  11. 11
    dukeofomnium

    They say that Joseph McReynolds was so anti-semitic, even with his brother justices, that he wouldn’t even shake hands with the Jews. So Scalia’s spleen is not the pinnacle of SCOTUS nastiness. It’s still pretty good, though.

  12. 12
    Ichthyic

    is obscuring the goals of gerrymandering part of the plan?

    yes. the end goal of course to be the disenfranchisement of anyone who dares vote against long vested interests in those states.

    Hell, the lawyers arguing in favor of the status quo, should instead be arguing to EXTEND the amendment to ALL states in the US.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site