Sam, you ought to thank Harriet Miers for making this possible.
Does the statute cover depictions of violence against Vulcans?
– Justice Sonia Sotomayor, asking whether video violence against “an image of a human being” could be extended to human-like figures, during oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association.
After Her Larry King Interview, We See Why Lillian McEwen Can’t Sell Her Memoirs About Clarence ThomasBy Elie Mystal
I wasn’t able to catch Larry King’s interview with Clarence Thomas’s ex-girlfriend, Lillian McEwen. I had prior commitments (how ’bout them Cowboys). But after reading reports all morning, I can see why her memoirs are stuck in the “manuscript” stage. There doesn’t seem to be any “there” there.
Perhaps the most interesting thing we learned is that Lillian McEwen would rather date a raving, porn-obsessed alcoholic than an angry, black conservative. Don’t get me wrong, I feel precisely the same way. But if this is all the “dirt” she’s got on Thomas, then it’s difficult to see how this materially impacts our understanding of the man.
And that’s assuming that everything she said is true….
Payback may be a bitch, but she rarely moves so swiftly. As we just mentioned in Fame Brief, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is fielding more allegations about his sexual preferences today, after former girlfriend Lillian McEwen made some “explosive” statements to the Washington Post about her time with the Supreme Court justice.
I put “explosive” in scare quotes, because really all we’re learning from McEwen is that Justice Thomas likes (or liked, she dated him a long time ago) boobs and porn. Is that really such a big deal? Hey, quick question: Would you rather be reading this article about Clarence Thomas and Lillian McEwen right now, or doing something that involved boobs and porn? I know what my answer is. But like most of you, apparently watching boobs and porn is “FROWNED UPON in this ESTABLISHMENT.”
But does enjoying (sorry, allegedly enjoying) the mystifying undulations of the opposite sex make Clarence Thomas unfit to sit on the high court?
By now it’s ancient news that Virginia “Ginni” Thomas — wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, Tea Party-er, and Heritage Club Foundation member — lost her damn mind and called Anita Hill. Many news outlets have speculated as to what in God’s name could possibly have motivated Ginni to “reach across the airwaves and the years” and ask for an apology, like some creepy ex-boyfriend from high school who hasn’t moved on.
I’ve compiled a list of sung and unsung theories of the phone call and included a reader poll, so that we as a community can determine what really happened, record it in Wikipedia, and get on with our lives. Because, as Ginni herself might say, this is America. And majority rules….
Ginni Thomas Sets the Bar for the Most Bizarre Thing Ever Done by the Spouse of a Sitting Supreme Court JusticeBy Elie Mystal
As I tweeted last night, and we mentioned in Morning Docket earlier today, this Ginni Thomas story is the most ridiculous thing ever. In case you’ve been excommunicated from the internet all day, here’s what happened.
Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, called up Anita Hill — the woman Justice Thomas allegedly sexually harassed — and asked her to apologize. According to a statement released by Ms. Thomas, she called Hill to “extend an olive branch.”
I’ve got lots and lots of jokes about this — most of which are unfit for publication (trust me, you do not want me to go there). So instead of taking pot shots that would range from soft drink preferences to the state of interracial dating and marriage, let’s just ask this simple question:
What was she thinking?
Here’s a fun little judicial sight-ation from the weekend. On Saturday night, at around 9 p.m., Justice Elena Kagan was spotted in the elevator of the luxury apartment building in downtown D.C. that she calls home.
According to our tipster, Justice Kagan was wearing “mom jeans.” And carrying a pizza.
The 112th justice of the United States Supreme Court, carrying her own pizza? This is a scandal of the highest order.
A few years ago, we were traumatized by the sight of then-Judge Michael Chertoff carrying his own takeout lunch (see here, item #4). But he was a mere circuit judge, and Elena Kagan is a Supreme Court justice.
Shouldn’t Justice Kagan have one of her clerks deliver pizza to her on Saturday night? It diminishes the dignity of the entire federal judiciary to know that an associate justice of the Supreme Court has to fetch her own pizza.
So, let’s get to the important part: What brand of pizza does Her Honor favor?
Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell may not be a witch, but she won’t be mistaken for a legal scholar either. In last night’s debate, when asked by moderator Nancy Karibjanian to name a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees, O’Donnell came up empty. After Karibjanian noted the important responsibility that senators have to vote on appointments to the Supreme Court, this exchange ensued:
KARIBJANIAN: What opinions of late that have come from our high court do you most object to?
O’DONNELL: Oh, gosh, um…. Give me a specific one, I’m sorry.
KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can’t, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.
O’DONNELL: Um, I’m very sorry…. Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot. I’ll put it up on my website, I promise you.
Maybe this Mama Grizzly needs to crawl back to the den and curl up with some slip opinions?
But wait! We offer a defense of O’Donnell, who partially redeemed her initial flub, plus video — after the jump.