Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Ask Newt!

How do you pick an impartial Supreme Court justice? Let's ask Newt! He's the white-haired guy up there with Mrs. Newt III.

I thought I had seen Mrs. Newt before and it turns out she was in show business. Here's a clip from her old show:

Newt, being a man of the future, is a Twitter who last week tweeted a suggestion that Ms. Sotomayor was a racist because she suggested that the experiences of a Latina woman might make her a better judge than a white dude like Newt, which made Newt cranky.

Of course, Newt conveniently ignored the rest of Sotomayor's comments:

"...until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case...we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group...”

Wow, that sounds pretty open-minded for a bigot.

And I have to wonder just how much her critics would complain if she'd said, "I would hope that a wise southern woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

Or, "I would hope that a wise Christian woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion..."

I doubt if Newt's tweet would have been in such a twist.

But Newt has backed away from his original twat. Today he said that Sotomayor's judicial rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than that other stuff. Then, being incapable of undicklike behavior, even in apology, he added that her comments, not her judicial decisions but her off- the-bench remarks "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system — that everyone is equal before the law."

HA! See how he did that? This punchline is from Newt Gingrich, no stranger to irony.

I love Sonia Sotomayor, not because I know anything about her, but because her nomination has inspired this unending and unintentional hilarity from wingnuts. Like the guy who thought Sotomayor's food choices might disqualify her as a judge (too gassy?), or convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy hoping that no decisions would have to be made while Ms. Sotomayor was menstruating.

I think that last was an intentional joke, but who can tell?

This slapstick logic is nothing new, of course. We've always been able to count on the right wing for political moments more in tune with America's Funniest Home Videos.

Remember when Gingrich tried to kick Bill Clinton in the balls over a blow job and instead fell on his own philandering fat ass? Wasn't that great? Don't you wish you could see it again in slow motion?

Meanwhile, back in the Senate where actual elected Republicans opine, Jeff Sessions (R-Peckerwood) said he was still concerned that Sotomayor's earlier remark might reveal her to be a (gasp) human being.

Sessions, wringing his hands, said that Sotomayor's comments suggested "...that a judge should not aspire to be objective since that's impossible to do. It's inevitable that your personal views would affect your decision-making. And to me, that's directly contrary to our great history of blind justice in America."

I remind you that Senator Sessions is from Alabama. Ala-freakin'-bama.

Really, you can't make this shit up.

No comments: