I suspect National Review was just using a Constitutional rightwing outrage essay template/mad lib and plugged Sotomayor and this case's names into it.
51 years of on-point and paralleling Supreme Court precedent is somehow "legally illiterate" because it doesn't support their idiotic conclusion.
Then again, this is the National Review we are talking about. They get lost trying to follow an episode of "Perry Mason".
So they are saying that when you try to take diversity into account, you get Sonia Sotomayor being all 'Rican up in your courthouse? Well, then, let's have more of it, assholes!
Can we get a ballot initiative that removes the word "Supreme" from the description of the Roberts court, or at least requires that it always appear in scare quotes?
I suspect National Review was just using a Constitutional rightwing outrage essay template/mad lib and plugged Sotomayor and this case's names into it.
Surprised the NR pulled its punches and didn't point out that Sotomayor is the real racist here.
51 years of on-point and paralleling Supreme Court precedent is somehow "legally illiterate" because it doesn't support their idiotic conclusion.
Then again, this is the National Review we are talking about. They get lost trying to follow an episode of "Perry Mason".
Well at least Scalia's legally literate. In twelfth century canon law, that is.
So they are saying that when you try to take diversity into account, you get Sonia Sotomayor being all 'Rican up in your courthouse? Well, then, let's have more of it, assholes!
Can we get a ballot initiative that removes the word "Supreme" from the description of the Roberts court, or at least requires that it always appear in scare quotes?