ELECTION: Ethel, on Big Tony and the Supremes.
December 15, 2000 9:28 AM   Subscribe

ELECTION: Ethel, on Big Tony and the Supremes. If you're Republican, skip this link; I wouldn't want to be responsible for giving anyone apoplexy or popping anyone's anuerysm... :-)
posted by baylink (14 comments total)
Along the same lines is the enjoyable DrMike on Justice Thomas. (I can't get to the site to get the appropriate link -- traffic problems on the West Coast, or maybe just AOL.) There's a drawing that's practically guaranteed to make you blow your drink out through your nose.
posted by dhartung at 9:40 AM on December 15, 2000

Please. Satire is fine when it's funny, and political commentary is fine when it's objective and realistic. But this piece is pure mud-throwing... no consideration is given to the facts at all. The authors are not interested in the truth, they're interested in defaming certain Republicans. Dialog that promotes constructive debate, even strongly differing opinions, is one thing... this is something else entirely.
posted by gd779 at 10:00 AM on December 15, 2000

It's also a fairly distasteful piece of anti-Italian bigotry.

And it's not like Italians should think it's funny: they know (better than anyone else) that there's no "honor" in the mafia -- that the non-movie mafia are nothing more than a few hundred tarted-up street gangsters who victimize their own (other Italians / Italian Americans) more than anyone else ...

This is no different from suggesting that Jesse Jackson was nothing more than the head-OG-in charge and that the civil rights movement was just the Bloods and the Crips gone politics.

posted by MattD at 10:47 AM on December 15, 2000

Sounds to me like the same level of journalism as the Wall Street Journal editorials of the last eight years...
posted by wendell at 10:53 AM on December 15, 2000

I personally enjoyed the uncredited inclusion of the Stragelove closeup. Very nice choice, and having the editorial balls not to explain the picture at all appeals to me.

"If you didn't get the joke, it wasn't *for* you."
posted by baylink at 11:59 AM on December 15, 2000

"Earlier this year, Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice who now is all but serving as the attorney for George W. Bush, let it be known that if Democrats won the presidency, he'd quit the court."

I've never seen or heard this. Can't find anything to even back it up. I wouldn't dare call this journalism.
posted by Dr_Moreese at 1:26 PM on December 15, 2000

The Sunday April 2nd, 2000 Sun Times in Chicago had a headline that said Scalia was rumored to be planning to quit if Gore won. I only know this because one of my coworkers has the article clipped and hanging in her office.
posted by thirteen at 1:37 PM on December 15, 2000

Robert Novak also reported this.
posted by lescour at 1:38 PM on December 15, 2000

Let's investigate the other way as well. Did Ginsberg and the crew have political motives to dissent? Hmmmm. Funny how politics work both ways.
posted by girard31 at 2:14 PM on December 15, 2000

This is exactly what I hate about this election. Any time someone says something siding with one candidate over the other, I instantly think they have partisan reasons for saying it - doesn't matter if they're a politician, a commentator, or a judge. This election has left me even more cynical than usual.
posted by Aaaugh! at 2:26 PM on December 15, 2000

First, let's ignore the issues about whether the writer is PC or not. I am half-Italian, and I am not really offended, although I think his metaphor is weak, and brought attention to itself rather than elucidating the point.

One of his main points is that, according to the Supreme Court decision, we do not have the right to vote. According to them, this right is a privilege granted by the state legislature. To me, this is ridiculous.

If we have no constitutional right to vote, I think there needs to be an amendment added to the Constitution granting us that right. It's as important, if not more important than the other issues of the electoral college and flaws in the voting process that were brought up by this election.

Unfortunately, I think the American public may not care enough to get behind the issue since the new media focus will be on GW's first 100 days in office.
posted by timothompson at 2:48 PM on December 15, 2000

Under the "logic" expressed herein, every single Justice would have had to recuse themselves for conflict. I recall a few years back that Ginsburg was discussed as a possible Gore pick for Chief Justice. In light of Gore's likely alternatives, besides maybe Larry Tribe, it's not too unlikely. But we'll never see on Ethel a commentary on why Ginberg should have recused herself.

Regarding the right to vote in presidential elections, go back and read the opinion. While Scalia's concurrence on the grant of cert correctly notes that, under the original Constitutional scheme, electors were not necessarily chosen by popular vote - like Senators, most were directly appointed by state legislators - the final opinion clearly states that, once the legislature choose election as its means of appointing electors, the franchise is a fundamental right.

I cannot state this emphatically enough - unless they found a fundamental right to vote for President of the United States, equal protection would not have applied and the Supreme Court could not have ruled as it did. This opinion, contrary to the ravings of the left, was a preservation rather than an erosion of that fundamental right.
posted by mikewas at 3:43 PM on December 15, 2000

Aaaaugh! You can believe what I have to say about this, as I can’t stand Gore or Bush nor their politics or posturing, but followed this election closely for many reasons.

Here’s my impartial anaylsis:

« Gore screwed himself when he didn’t ask for a state-wide manual recount. He looked manipulative and set the tone for the legal battle. Had he asked for a state-wide recount the election would’ve been over weeks ago, as there wouldn’t have been a legal ground for Bush to sue.

« By fighting the recount Bush rekindled very partisan feelings in Democrats. To everyone who voted Gore, Bush looks like a Machiavellian aristocrat, fighting his way to the top without regard for voters’ rights.

« Florida should’ve been left to decide Florida’s election. Remember, the only ruling the Supreme Court gave in opposition to the Florida Supremes was that the last recount couldn’t continue, partially due to a lack of time. Had the Supremes not interfered time wouldn’t have been a problem.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 6:22 PM on December 15, 2000

It's plain as day that Scalia was carrying Bush family water. The argument in his brief that the "legitimacy" of a Bush presidency was threatened is blatantly partisan. The legitimacy of a Bush presidency is threatened by the fact that he got 300,000 fewer votes than Gore nationwide, and unknown fewer votes than Gore in Florida. Yes, the counted votes were slightly in his favor, but that's what this was all about, wasn't it?

Suddenly the conservative court finds reason to apply the equal protection statute, rather conveniently to elect a conservative president. They had little use for it before now.

It's all pretty disgusting.
posted by dhartung at 9:09 PM on December 15, 2000

« Older Even when it looks like it's over, it's not.   |   HP employee sucked out of plane Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments