२१ ऑक्टोबर, २०१४
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg owns a surprisingly large number of ‘Notorious RBG’ t-shirts."
And she is aware of people talking about her on the internet and that opera about her and Scalia. And there won't be "enough" women on the Supreme Court until there are 9. (Note to people who have trouble processing language: That doesn't mean we ought to be hoping for or trying to get 9 women on the Supreme Court. That means that there is no point at which anyone ought to say there are now "enough" women on the Supreme Court and another would be too many.)
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
"That means that there is no point at which anyone ought to say there are now "enough" women on the Supreme Court and another would be too many."
Can the same be true of whites? Males?
Finally, a white woman who appreciates a "black" joke about her. Good for her.
But, even if there are more women on the court, if they're as blind to racism as many are - yourself included, with all this talk of the "individual" hiding behind white supremacist institutions and systems that incarcerate one out of nine black men so their votes don't matter (or backing a smiling racist clown, like Scott Brown, as he tries to eliminate more in the most segregated place in America) - it won't mean shit.
The Civil Rights Movement made room for women and gays:
It's shameful those two groups can't get their heads out of their asses (or vaginas) long enough to return the favor,...
I'm thinking 9 would be evidence of disparate impact.
campy,
"Can the same be true of whites? Males?"
Yeah, after almost our entire history, can they hold forth for just *a little bit* longer?
It would be a travesty if they couldn't, huh? Slavery, Jim Crow, Dred Scott, mass incarcerations of blacks, no reparations, and on and on and on.
We've been doing so well under their "leadership"...
There will never be "enough" or "too many" women on the Court because no one should care what the gender of a Justice is. Only among the "identity politics" fetishists should we be tracking religions, races or genders of Supreme Court Justices.
It so happens that there's not a single protestant on the Court, despite protestants being the country's largest religious group. There are also four Jews on the Court, despite Jews making up less than 5% of the country. Should this matter? Only if you need boxes to check and don't care about relative merits.
On the other hand, complaining about the ideological balance on the Court is fair game. It certainly does matter to RBG's fans whether she's replaced with a Scalia clone or another Sotomayor.
And certain people wonder how she and Clarence Thomas get along.
Me, I'm just annoyed that despite all this discussion of the opera, no one bothered to name the composer or the librettist. Or the company producing it, for that matter.
I do not have trouble processing language, and your explanation makes no sense.
Saying that there won't be enough until there are nine implies that eight is not enough, but nine is. ( Yes, in pure logic such a statement could allow 9 to also not be enough, but pure logic is not how we process language. )
To judge the reasonableness of any claim about enough, you have to ask enough for what purpose?
So, for what purpose is nine women on the Supreme Court enough, but eight is not?
Just as long as they are not all "Wise Latinas".
And there won't be "enough" women on the Supreme Court until there are 9
Of course this is certainly true if they're looking to field a fast-pitch woman's softball team.
They should all be Jewish, then they would talk, talk, talk, never agree, and not issue any opinions.
Nine Jews = about twenty seven different opinions.
If Obama and Clinton are both appointed, who would get coffee for whom?
Ignorance is Bliss said: "I do not have trouble processing language, and your explanation makes no sense."
No, the explanation makes sense, but the phrase is purposely ambiguous. My guess it was thought cute because it would provoke just that sort of a reaction at which point someone can swoop in to "correct"...it's a game of NIGYSOB.
And obviously Ann also feels it is unclear because she had to write 2 sentences to clarify one. I am not one to needlessly simplify writing, but an unclear sentence is a poorly written sentence...especially when it appears to be loaded.
LYNNDH,
"Just as long as they are not all "Wise Latinas"."
I'll take nine wise latinas, over the history of stupid whites we've had, any day,...
I don't get it, and I don't have trouble that I know of processing English language.
Your parenthetical comment sounds like you're trying to be cool.
Could you explain what it means? If it means the obvious, don't bother.
Ignorance Is Bliss, you are certainly correct. The prof.'s portrayal of what a language-challenged person might think is actually a perfectly reasonable reading of the sentence, while her explanation is nonsense (privilege check: I am an editor and a pretty good one (former lawyer, didn't like litigation), though I'm not always scrupulously careful in my blog commenting).
However, the parentheses ("") are capable of doing some work here. I read the statement to mean that some will not be happy until every justice is a woman.
Okay, I read the article, and her quote rules out the possibility of nine not being enough.
So, for what purpose will 9 be enough. Certainly the implication when asking about the Supreme Court is enough for justice, or maybe the equal treatment of women.
I would certainly assume that this is intended as humorous, and/or as a way of saying that they're asking the wrong question. But that is impossible to confirm from the brief quote given. ( I can't watch the video now. )
Oh, so now Ginsberg is taunting feminists?
The good thing about really vague statements is that you can make almost anything of them. You can make them out to be the opposite of what they mean. Maybe you're being direct and accusatory; maybe you're being ironic.
That is not the kind of language I would expect from a high judge.
And by the way, I've heard so many NPR/other interviews lately wherein people say "well, women would make better members of Congress, because they're better than men at getting things done."
This is a virus. It's stupid and chauvinist. One should assume that when people say things like that often, they tend to mean what they say, mob-like.
I presume she hasn't bought them all herself, but has had them gifted to her.
Buying that many shirts would be weird.
As a one-time (Until retirement) licensed social worker, I wonder if she has such shirts as read:
I LOVE (Insert heart image) SENILE PSYCHOSIS"?
Ginsburg joined Breyer's dissent on D.C. vs Heller, which says, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house."
I don't believe Ginsburg is representative of all women. Most of the young women I encounter consider themselves liberal on most issues with the exception of the 2nd amendment.
The Savage Noble said...
No, the explanation makes sense, but the phrase is purposely ambiguous.
In what why do you think the phrase is ambiguous?
The Crack Emcee said...
I'll take nine wise latinas, over the history of stupid whites we've had, any day,...
That's an ignorant and bigoted comment.
She seems very old in that interview, but a nice old grandmother. Maybe she has always talked that way, lisping and chewing her words at the back of her clenched jaw.
I don't know if I've heard her talk when she was younger. Maybe it has always been thus.
I do like that she and Scalia are buddies -- that is a charming anecdote.
Sandra Day O'Connor set a high mark. I get the sense that the subsequent female justices are oblivious or, perhaps, even contemptuous of those qualities that distinguished her....If the opening act is Sinatra, better to be a comedian than Vic Damone.
I presume she hasn't bought them all herself, but has had them gifted to her.
Buying that many shirts would be weird.
I don't know, I would be tempted to buy one if I were her because that's pretty awesome but I don't know where you would wear it. For yardwork maybe?
Ignorance: Meaning that I can see how the given interpretation could be tortured out of that sentence; it's there but barely (if one takes it with the backdrop of context). That's why I say it is a loaded construction that allows that person to pounce on anyone that takes it at its very obvious but more "provocative" meaning.
SomeoneHasToSayIt,
"That's an ignorant and bigoted comment."
Dred Scott says it ain't,...
I would take 9 Clarence Thomas' over 9 women or 9 ignorant blacks with chips on their shoulders, like Crack, any day.
At least two of the women, on the court, are affirmative action hacks. Didn't it just come out that Kagan had worked for Clinton and tried to cover for him with the Paula Jones case?
Obama's people are Clinton's people. Hillary would be his third term. Remember that when you gripe about what he is doing.
It's not that I have trouble "processing" language, it's that I don't use a mill when I do.
Glad to join you and Alice in Wonderland any time.
tim maguire said However, the parentheses ("") are capable of doing some work here. I read the statement to mean that some will not be happy until every justice is a woman.
You may be right. You may be wrong. If Ginsburg means to say that, ("Her response, always", from the essay), why not say:
Some will not be happy until every justice is a woman.
Why not make that clear statement over and over again, when asked? Because that would be a clear statement that feminists would abhor, and people like me would applaud.
Annie,
"I would take 9 Clarence Thomas' over 9 women or 9 ignorant blacks with chips on their shoulders, like Crack, any day."
Yeah - 256 years of slavery, over a hundred of Jim Crow, racist housing policies, and all the rest - and this stupid slug thinks we should be happy.
I am so glad you're being defeated in my lifetime,...
The Crack Emcee said...
SomeoneHasToSayIt,
"That's an ignorant and bigoted comment."
Dred Scott says it ain't,..."
You know, you're right. I think we should jsut throw out all laws and court decisions related to blacks that were decided by whites. We can start with that dreadful Dred Scott decision...oh, but then, we would have to throw out Brown v board of education, and those three constitutional amendments, and the 1965 civil rights act.....Say Crack, have you thought this all the way through?
"Finally, a white woman who appreciates a "black" joke about her. Good for her."
Er no, It's a white liberal's idea of a "black" joke. You're such a Tom, Crack.
RecChief,
"oh, but then, we would have to throw out Brown v board of education, and those three constitutional amendments, and the 1965 civil rights act.....Say Crack, have you thought this all the way through?"
Oh yes - except what you say were "decided by whites" are cases I say were decided by Thurgood Marshall.
Just like blacks were freeing themselves BEFORE The Civil War.
Or blacks leading The Civil Rights Movement BEFORE whites got involved.
In other words, whites eventually co-signing our shit doesn't mean they get credit for it.
We did it.
Only white supremacy has allowed another narrative to be told,...
The Cracker Emcee,
"It's a white liberal's idea of a "black" joke. You're such a Tom, Crack."
Yeah - the Notorious BIG was white.
Y'all wouldn't know a Tom if he sat on the Supreme Court,...
Need some transgenders.
Bob Ellison said...
That is not the kind of language I would expect from a high judge.
Speaking of ambiguous phrases...what kind of judge, again?
I am genuinely curious to know how Prof. Althouse feels about what's become (or becoming) of her blog's comment section. Normally I would assume she'd dislike this, but after seeing her specifically promote certain persons and defend certain content/POVs (on the basis of their being unpopular, no less) I'm really not sure.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
I am genuinely curious to know how Prof. Althouse feels about what's become (or becoming) of her blog's comment section.
I don't want to put words into the professor's mouth, but I suspect she's willing to put up with you at least a bit longer.
I'll take nine wise latinas, over the history of stupid whites we've had, any day,...
Yes. Perfection is so elusive. It would be nice if the white guys would get it right once in awhile.
- Krumhorn
Krumhorn,
"Yes. Perfection is so elusive. It would be nice if the white guys would get it right once in awhile."
Nobody's looking for perfection, but just to get the big ones right - without prodding.
Dred Scott is the ultimate example of the problem,...
What a great blog.
Dred Scott is the ultimate example of the problem,..."
a court case from 1857.
Please list out for me the cases that SCOTUS has used the Dred Scott decision as precedent for either a majority opinion or a dissent in the last 50 years.
Dude, you've descended into parody, or did you just read about that case this week?
"Dred Scott is the ultimate example of the problem,..."
That's what happens when democrats get appointed to the court; decisions reached by what they want rather than by the letter of the law.
RecChief,
"Please list out for me the cases that SCOTUS has used the Dred Scott decision as precedent for either a majority opinion or a dissent in the last 50 years."
How many black lives were destroyed by that one decision while whites figured out their mistake is the question - and what compensation have whites ever made for those lives?
You're monsters,...
Fritz,
"That's what happens when democrats get appointed to the court; decisions reached by what they want rather than by the letter of the law."
And now it's the Republicans who are reviving the poll tax.
Still wanna try and convince us the racists didn't switch sides?
Good luck with that,...
Crack: "And now it's the Republicans who are reviving the poll tax."
LOL
Feel free to list the dollar amounts blacks will have to pay to be allowed to vote.
It is not possible to fix this crack-level of "macho response" stupidity.
Crack the moron: "Still wanna try and convince us the racists didn't switch sides?"
LOL
If the racists switched sides, why did it take 40 to 50 years for Republicans to take control of southern statehouses?
If your premise was correct, the change in power would have happened within a few years.
But it didn't.
Thus, your stupidity is put on full display again. Worse, it appears that you are proud of this ignorance.
Is it ok to hope for 0 women on the Supreme Court?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा