Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

No Justins, No Peace

I really should read my own blog.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

We’ll be taking my thoughts and prayers to the ballot box.

A consequence of cucumbers

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

American History and Black History Cannot Be Separated

Thanks for reminding me that Van Jones needs to be slapped.

I was promised a recession.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Great wingnut headlines

Great wingnut headlines

by | 59 Comments

This post is in: 

Stuart Taylor ups the ante on the “nine-zip” meme with his headline:

Justices Reject Sotomayor Position 9-0 — But Bigger Battles Loom

To give you an idea of how crazy this “nine-zip” stuff is, George Will, of all people, describes the decision as depressingly narrow.

A few questions about Stuart Taylor:

(1) Why does the National Journal — a publication I have great respect for in general — publish his crap?

(2) Why is his blog called “The Ninth Justice”? Don’t we already have nine justices? Shouldn’t it be called “The Tenth Justice”?

Reader Interactions

59Comments

  2. 2.

    cleek

    Why does the National Journal—a publication I have great respect for in general—publish his crap?

    the bigger question is: how you can respect a publication which you know publishes crap ?

    to do so is to commit treason against reason.

  3. 3.

    DougJ

    to do so is to commit treason against reason.

    Ha!

    Seriously, though, the Ron Brownstein column there is the best political column anywhere.

  4. 4.

    KevinNYC

    I was going to dump on Taylor that this proves his bias, however, perhaps he didn’t write the headline. He doesn’t say 9-0 explicitly in the column.

  6. 6.

    MattF

    Maybe I’m thinking of a different guy… but wasn’t Taylor at least sort-of-rational, once upon a time? I think there’s a ‘stages of wingnut evolution’ schema with lots of branches and loops– some leading back to reality, some not.

  7. 7.

    Allan

    If I get out of moderation over there, I pointed out how we owe Stu a debt of gratitude for teaching us all how to parrot Rush Limbaugh talking points while sounding somewhat credible.

    Barack Obama’s election was unanimous! Granted, 40 something percent of voters expressed their support for Obama by voting for McCain, but they were clearly sending a message to Obama that if he failed to deliver on his agenda, they were willing to vote for the Republican in 2012.

  9. 9.

    bayville

    Literary gymnastics starring Stuart Taylor.
    Headline:

    Justices Reject Sotomayor Position 9-0 — But Bigger Battles Loom

    Lede:

    The Supreme Court’s predictable 5-4 vote to reverse the decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and two federal appeals court colleagues against 17 white (and one Hispanic) plaintiffs in the now-famous New Haven, Conn., firefighters decision does not by itself prove that the Sotomayor position was unreasonable.

    (my italics)

    Prediction?

    This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: “Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed… opinion” by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.

    (my italics)

    Obligatory MLK quote misapplied:

    The broader questions lying behind the New Haven case are whether this nation will ever get beyond racial preferences and quotas such as those encouraged by both the Sotomayor and the Ginsburg positions, and whether it will ever realize Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a nation where people are judged not by the color of their skins, but by the content of their characters.

  10. 10.

    jacy

    Using reality-based math just gives away what an elitist you are.

    Why let a little counting get in the way of a perfectly factless meme?

  12. 12.

    kay

    It’s so disgusting, this glee at their stupid, trumped-up “win” over Sotomayor.
    Christ. Talk about pathetic, and completely classless. If they’re crowing about this, it’s probably an indication that the win/loss record isn’t stellar.
    I noticed after Bush v Gore that conservative lawyers were graceless, ungenerous crowing winners. Turns out, they’re also bitter and vindictive losers.
    Enjoy the 24 hour media win, boys. You know in your hearts it’s hollow.

  13. 13.

    Mike G

    Why does the National Journal—a publication I have great respect for in general—publish his crap?

    Why would you have any respect for the Repig propaganda rag that every few years conveniently produces a ‘survey’ showing that whoever the Dem presidential candidate is, is the “most liberal in the Senate”.

    In 2004, Kerry was “the most liberal senator”. During the 2008 Dem primary season, Hillary was “the most liberal senator”. Once Obama took the nomination, Obama was suddenly “the most liberal senator”. Funny how several other surveys showed him as 40th or so on the liberal scale.

  14. 14.

    Face

    Don’t we already have nine justices?

    Broads dont count, unless it’s for cooking, cleaning and sex purposes.

    So unless Ginsberg is teabagging Scalia, they count 8.

  17. 17.

    chopper

    This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: “Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed established-law-and-Supreme-Court-precedent-based… opinion” by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.

    fixed. seriously, does anybody in the pundit/blogger class understand anything about the way the court system operates? why am i asking questions to which i already know the answer?

  18. 18.

    chopper

    @Face:

    So unless Ginsberg is teabagging Scalia, they count 8.

    that’s going to replace the shark in my nightmares.

  20. 20.

    SpotWeld

    Why is his blog called “The Ninth Justice”?

    Maybe he’s a closest Whovian and that’s the name of his fan character?

  21. 21.

    John PM

    So unless Ginsberg is teabagging Scalia, they count 8.

    I believe that is Thomas’ job.

  22. 22.

    kay

    Nothing but class, on the right. Any imagined endorsement of their pet theories is cause for breaking out the champagne, and demeaning the ever-expanding ranks of the “opposition”.
    You showed her. You betcha.

  23. 23.

    Martin

    Damn liberal media with their 9-zip bullshit, spinning in favor of the racist chica. The true decision was effectively 17-zip and I only an idiot needs to be explained why.

  24. 24.

    sugarbiscuit

    It’s called the Ninth Justice because it is apparently (from the subheading “News and Analysis to Fill the Supreme Court”) dedicated to covering SCOTUS nominees. I don’t know if this column gets moth-balled between nominations or whatever, but clearly there is a rational basis for calling it the 9th Justice.

  25. 25.

    LD50

    I think they should just go full metal wingnut and claim the decision was 12-0. Hell, 25-0!

    I mean, why not?

  27. 27.

    Punchy

    OT:

    I want to know if Cole is still feeling that he was being “genuine” after seeing this.

    Family valuz, bitch3s.

  28. 28.

    MikeJ

    Apparently there were five meetings in the last year, including “two multi-night stays” in New York. That’s the first time he’s admitted to trysts on U.S. soil.

    On US soil? Geez, get a room.

  31. 31.

    RememberNovember

    they have it wrong, it was OVER 9000 to zero…..

    it’s like trade chat in Wow or other mmo’s…rampant stupidity and ejaculatory incuriousity.

  32. 32.

    DougJ

    There is no cannibalism in the Royal Navy.

    Don’t talk to me about naval traditions. It’s all rum, sodomy, and the lash.

  33. 33.

    anonevent

    I think it’s time we impeached Alito, then. Not only was he overruled four times by the person he replaced, but O’Connor even rebuked him directly. Clearly this shows that he is unfit to be a justice.

  34. 34.

    Dennis-SGMM

    There have been a total of 110 Supreme Court Justices. So, it should be 110-0 because we all know that they would have all voted to overturn Sotomayor.

  35. 35.

    The Moar You Know

    So unless Ginsberg is teabagging Scalia

    @Face: Jesus Christ, I think I need to go home and hide under the covers after reading that.

  36. 36.

    PGE

    Wingulary Update:
    Digby has a link to Special Ed at Hot Air saying the coup in Honduras is more of a “military impeachment”. Wow. Just wow.

  37. 37.

    Sinister eyebrow

    9th Justice = the tiebreaker on an otherwise evenly divided Court, i.e. the deciding vote.

    So, not nearly as clever or amusing as I bet was originally intended.

  39. 39.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    @Punchy:

    Okay so Sanford originally said four times, now it’s up to seven…. if he just adds two more, does that make it “nine-zips”?

  40. 40.

    Zifnab

    @Sinister eyebrow:

    9th Justice = the tiebreaker on an otherwise evenly divided Court, i.e. the deciding vote.

    Isn’t the ninth justice Kennedy? And Sotomayor is replacing Souter. It’s a silly argument because the balance of the court has leaned right for over a decade now, and this really won’t change a thing. Should Thomas or Kennedy bite it, perhaps we’ll see a more intense debate. But it’s hard to see the GOP caring about a liberal justice being replaced by another liberal justice, except to score cheap political points. :-p

  41. 41.

    Cat Lady

    DougJ, can you just please start another Sanford thread? We’re going that way anyway.

    Oh, and gnomedad FTW.

  42. 42.

    KG

    @17: if they ever took the time to understand how the legal system worked, they wouldn’t be able to spin legal decisions into political issues. And it would mean that they’d have to read a shit ton of precedent just to have a basic understanding of what is going on in that one particular case. Because it’s not like the trial attorneys didn’t live with these cases for a year or three, and the attorney at the court of appeal didn’t live with it for another year, and the attorneys at the Supreme Court didn’t live with it for another year. No, it happens just like it does on Boston Legal, you’re in and out of court in 30 minutes, and you just go in and make shit up.

    (side note: as an attorney, there are some days when I really wish the practice of law was more like Boston Legal)

  43. 43.

    KG

    @39: yeah, and Stevens (age 89) is the most likely next to go (of course, they’ve been saying that about him since Clinton’s second term). Then I would put money on Ginsburg (76), Scalia (73), and Kennedy (72) as looking to move on. But then again, Ginsburg and Scalia seem to truly enjoy their jobs. The amazing thing is that Thomas is only 61, so he could be on the Court for a long time still to come.

  44. 44.

    steve s

    @cleek: BTW Cleek, thanks for your script. Amazing how much Brick Oven Tard likes to talk about pie now. He’s really obsessed.

  45. 45.

    The Other Steve

    @PGE: “Digby has a link to Special Ed at Hot Air saying the coup in Honduras is more of a “military impeachment”. Wow. Just wow.”

    He backtracks though and admits it is a Coup.

  46. 46.

    ricky

    I guess they think the Supreme Court is like the Super Bowl. Even if you win by one point, you still “totally” win the game.

    Given eight years of Bush, they “totally” do.

  48. 48.

    Ash Can

    @Xanthippas:

    Even if you win by one point, you still “totally” win the game.

    Five to four is a screaming line drive in the box score.

  49. 49.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    And here come the supremes…. he’s good enough, he’s smart enough, he’s…..

    Minnesota Supremes rule unanimously for Al Franken.

    For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. 32 Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/06/court_rules_for_franken.php?ref=fpblg

  50. 50.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    Minnesota Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Al Franken!

    “For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. 32 Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.”

    Hooray for Al!

  57. 57.

    Al Swearengen

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

    Bottom of page 4:
    “KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opin-ion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined.”

    Looks like 5-4 on the important point, the OPINION. These dumb, sick fucks will ignore the meaning of opinion for partisan points.

  58. 58.

    Screamin' Demon

    Why is his blog called “The Ninth Justice”?

    Because he received an “Epic Fail” on his report card in first grade arithmetic.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks