How Liberals Support Women, As Seen Around The Blogosphere
John Roberts is Bush’s nominee for SCOTUS, and the reaction from the Kos Kidz is predictable…
“If Bush appoints a man to O'Connor's seat it would be an affront to anyone who cares about the rights and interests of women. Since it seems highly unlikely that he will appoint a woman to replace Chief Justice Rhenquist, Bush's appointment of a man tonight will send an unmistakable message to America's women: You're on your own.”
"Remember that the subtext of Rove's leaking Plame is "what a sissy boy this Wilson is to let his wife get him a gig." That's how they think. Oh, they might think it's good PR for Laura to tell a few jokes about Dubya at the annual media whores dinner, but when it gets down to crunch time -- you know, when men make Big Decisions -- they're not going to depend on women. Ask Santorum what women are good for. Laura Bush publicly calling for him to nominate a woman probably eliminated any chance that he would do so."
To these people, it’s all about the legal abortion, and the concept that only people from your demographic group can support you. The concept that a judge should rule fairly, regardless of race, gender or other classification seems beyond their ken.
I don’t spend more than an hour a day viewing Kos and other liberal sites, because I already have high blood pressure. But I find it interesting that the same liberals who claim women will suffer if a man gets O'Connor's seat aren’t absolutely howling at the abuses of women in Islamic society. Here’s a good example from Ace, where a woman who was raped is told by a Sharia court that she must now divorce her husband and marry her rapist. Numerous examples of attempted and actual honor killings, in Michigan, Sweden, Berlin , Zambia (attempted to kill the wife and actually killed the hen :-) ), Turkey and Rochester.
In a similar example, liberals are all for increased aid to Africa which most often ends up in some dictators Swiss bank account, but when it comes to stopping Muslim enslavement – yes, enslavement! - and genocide of Africans, they are
surprisingly quiet. Slavery is happening in the United States also. The same people who were horrified at Abu Ghraib seem happy to overlook murder and slavery, even when it occurs in America, as long as people deemed to be in a protected class do it. Just imagine the media melt-down if a minority-race homosexual murdered their converted radical Islamist family member. I can see the headline now: "Human Found Dead." But, hey, as long as we have a "diverse" SCOTUS, that's all that matters.
Posted by Laura Curtis at July 19, 2005 09:33 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/994
|# July 20th, 2005 9:03 PM james|
|you point out kos and the libs, but people like althouse also sound like complete retards on this.
Professor Althouse, are you as a woman disappointed that President Bush did not nominate a woman to replace Justice O'Connor?
'i want to see more people that look like me on the court, regardless of their qualifications. affirmative action, baby! im ok with the fact that bush is trying to make it look like he isn't doing affirmative action by (quote) "giving the impression of picking the best person for the job."
could you be any more wishy-washy? ok, professor althouse, whatever. you're read by "both sides of the aisle" not because you're "middle of the road" but instead because you have no actual concrete opinions on most anything.
|# July 21st, 2005 9:09 AM Lorraine|
|"But, hey, as long as we have a "diverse" SCOTUS, that's all that matters."
Strangely...I don't feel as lonely and regretful as I should.
Oh no! It's a white male! How threatening.
WHATEVER, you leftists! Give me a break.
|# July 21st, 2005 10:17 AM Laura|
|Lorraine, I enjoyed your post on this, and I certainly share your frustration with the pigeonholing that seems to encompass American politics these days.
Not to mention the complete lack of understanding of our governmental system... A friend of mine told me she was watching some guy being interviewed on the Today show, and he actually said in reference to the lack of info on Roberts something like, "We need to know more about this guy before we let him get on the Supreme Court and start creating law." And nobody reacted to that statement, found it surprising or objectionable.