MyDD :: Is "Scalito" a Racial Slur?

Is "Scalito" a Racial Slur?

by Scott Shields, Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:36:33 AM EST

A quick check with my Italian-American wife (her maiden name is Martorano) elicited an eye roll and an "ugh." So the answer was a resounding 'no.' The idea that blending the names 'Scalia' and 'Alito' is somehow racist is so unquestionably stupid, I'd earlier decided not to even comment on it. But the more I thought about it, the more it irritated me and the more I felt I had to say something.

No matter what you think about Judges Scalia and Alito, the similarities are unavoidable. Both were born in Trenton, NJ to parents from Italy and grew up to be conservative judges. The 'Scalito' nickname has been floating around legal circles since 1992. Never before has anyone claimed it was racist.

The DNC has been using it in memos in part because the legal establishment and legal media have used in in damn near every profile they've run of Alito in the past decade. It also highlights an important point that the national GOP would never argue -- in fact, it's one they've made themselves -- that ideologically speaking, Alito is a judge in the mold of Scalia. The fact that both men are Italian has very little to do with it, outside of common vowel sounds in their surnames.

In order for 'Scalito' to qualify as a slur, it would have to incorporate an actual ethnic designation, which it obviously doesn't. 'Alitolian' maybe? That's not offensive so much as stupid and hard to pronounce. Honestly, I can't even figure one out. My brain is fortunately not wired that way.

But Rush Limbaugh's brain certainly is wired that way. He offers us a perfect example of a play-on-a-name nickname that absolutely is racist. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Limbaugh took to referring to New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin as 'Mayor Nayger', which is undeniably racist. It's a combination of 'Nagin' and... I don't really need to spell it out, do I? It's the man's name plus an ethnic slur. Now, that's racist.

So while I know I'll never reach Matt Drudge, I'm really furious that the reasonably intelligent Chris Matthews would pick this garbage up and run with it. Over at dKos, the Italian-American Hunter went berserk on Matthews for calling the 'Scalito' nickname "disgusting" and implying that it is in fact a racial slur based on nothing more than the talking points he got from Drudge (whom Matthews claims to hate, but gets stories from all the time). If I started referring to him as 'Frist Matthews,' would he also think that was an anti-white slur? Or would he recognize that I was making a clever joke about the habit of each to 'expertly' evaluate a situation without any first hand knowledge? Who knows.

The underlying hilarity of this is that of course the idiot right would think the nickname 'Scalito' is racist. Why is that? Only the idiot right would view Italians as a separate race from other, more WASPy Europeans like themselves.

Tags: Judges (all tags)

Permalink :: 34 Comments :: Post a Comment

I hope this makes a dent (none / 0)

in Matthews' credibility once and for all. He's now exposed as the rightwing shill that he is.

It seems he gave up the booze for another addiction: endlessly fellating Rove and the national Republicans.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:50:55 AM EST

Frist Matthews (none / 0)

I smell a new meme!

PrairieStateBlue - Open Source Politics (formerly SoapBlox/Chicago)

by ltsply2 on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 01:12:31 AM EST

It doesn't even make any logical sense (none / 0)

How is Scalito a racial slur when the point is that he is a clone of Scalia's idealogical views, not his ethinic background. This would be equavalent of someone coining a term if he were similar to Renqhist or OConnor. I suppose then the argument would be if he were more like O Connor that we are making an attack on women.

Don't let them do this again. they played these games with the THomas nomination. Call them on their shit.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:45:56 AM EST

We've fallen for it again (3.00 / 1)

It doesn't matter. The right has won again and knocked us off our game. Of course it doesn't make sense. They know that. They know Democrats weren't making an ethnic slur. But they also know that the media love petty controversy that they can distill into a 2-second story.

Scalito ethnic slur! Mathews outraged!

It's a story that makes Dems look bad and it can be told in two seconds. Therefore the media (TV media) will run with it. And since that is where most people get their news (most newspapers will stay away from this tripe), then a negative talking point will get out into the national ether. As a bonus, Democrats will be wasting their time defending themselves against this bogus charge instead of reminding all those suburban women that their birth control may be outlawed if Alito is confirmed.

We lost again. The more we talk about it, the more we lose.

by adamterando on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:33:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've fallen for it again (none / 0)

These bizarre claims of 'anti-Italian American bias' are going to backfire hard on the administration because it shows they have very little ground to actually defend the Alito nomination with substantive information. On day one, they screamed racism in a blatantly absurd way. What does that tell you about their confidence in their own argument?

Their goal here is to muddy the water with a thousand little complaints. If we want to actually defeat Alito while in the minority in the Senate, we need to knock down each and every one of them.

We can walk and chew gum (and talk about Strip Search Sammy and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc.) at the same time. To claim "we lost again" on the second day of a fight is really defeatist.

by Scott Shields on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:12:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've fallen for it again (none / 0)

But the problem is the public can't talk and chew gum at the same time....and if we want to win we have to stop expecting them to.

by aiko on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:21:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've fallen for it again (none / 0)

I agree with this. Rather than even dignifying the discussion- we need to start going whatever, what a fucking bunch of whinners. Don't dignify bullshit by pretending it's anything more than that. These long ass diaries on D Kos and here seem to miss that point- it's like trying to talk to a drunk man as though he's sober. People understand moves such as those by Reid today- because it says bring it bitch. I think Democrats need to learn how to get in the gutter more- although being smart and strategic about the street fighting is also part of it.

by bruh21 on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 02:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We've fallen for it again (none / 0)

I don't mean we lost the nomination fight. I mean in the day to day warfare we lost this day(s). We were put on the defensive, and even if we weren't, we're still talking about this. Someone upthread said we didn't create our own talking points. That's the point. Orrin Hatch got to say on NPR this morning that Democrats stand to lose the Italian-American vote because of this. No rebuttal. Nothing. They just let that stupid absurd quote stand as it was.

We lost because we did not have strong enough talking points (about Alito or any other repub crap) that would have made it neccessary for Hatch to be on the defensive.

That is why we lost.

by adamterando on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:04:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Typical Drudgery (none / 0)

This talking point has been bothering me all day. I've been hearing the charge that this somehow discriminates against italian-americans all day. But heres the thing: I have yet to see one explanation. Let alone, an explanation that makes sense.

But it really doesn't matter anymore because this BS Talking Point is DEAD. May its sheer stupidity end up biting them in the ass.

Armando of Daily Kos just proved the power of the blogosphere by stomping all over the scumbag Drudge.

If you don't know what I'm referring too, go here.

I'm a pretty moderate Democrat, and I'll say this: Alito MUST be defeated for the sake of the country. No one can call themselves a democrat and even consider voting for this fool.

Its time to unite and fight. Down with SCALITO!

by rapid response on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 03:30:31 AM EST

call him "Strip Search Sam" (none / 0)

in honor of his legal opinion that police are allowed to strip search 10 year old girls in their homes without prior authorization (the warrant in question covered only the dad and the house). This is a much more effective epithet than "Scalito" anyway.

See here for more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/1/2518/26452

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:27:16 AM EST

Nino (none / 0)

Isn't Scalia's real nickname "Nino"? That's a diminutive expression for a child. Is that a slur? I though adding an "O" just meant a diminitive, so calling Alito "Scalito" is a akin to saying little Scalia. Which for a younger conservative judge from New Jersey is, you know, true. I know this isn't perfect etmyology but my Grandmother came over from Sicily and did not speak much English but was fluent in cheek pinching.

Calling somebody "Little" or "Younger" is no slur. The Waner bros. played baseball and were called Big Poison and Little Poison. The fat kid in Eddie Murphy's The Nutty Professor was called "Little Hercules". Ben Gordon of the Chicago Bulls is sometimes called Ben Jordan as a tip to MJ. Is any of this bigoted? This is the biggest nothing controversy ever, it's amazing Matthews bit on this crap.

I think Matthews may have been exposed to some real slurs against Italians growing up Irish in Philly and is maybe oversensitive (or just a hack). But we have enough tensions in the world without some idiots trying paint the Italians as the Shia or Croats in an ethnic competition.

"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers

by joejoejoe on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:43:58 AM EST

Boycott Dominos Pizza and call 800 468 4726 (none / 0)

Boycott Dominos Pizza and call their corporate headquarters at 800-468-4726 and make the demand that George W Bush withdraw the nomination of Samuel Alito and nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court or that you will boycott Dominos pizza. Dominos pizza CEO David Brandon supports the antiabortion movement. Pass the word.

It appears time for an economic revolt against the companies that fund George W Bush and the Republican Party. Go call and email these companies and tell them you have had enough of the actions of the Republican Party and you will not take it anymore.

http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/petitions.htm

by maximus7 on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 05:43:49 AM EST

Why on earth are we even talking about this? (3.00 / 3)

Your points are good, Scott. But they sound so defensive. The only way to deal with this charge is to change the subject, not to fall into the tar trap of trying to defend oneself from a charge of being racially insensitive.

The fact is, there is nobody can say to someone else, you have no right to be offended. I may not be offended, you may not be offended, Hunter may not be offended--but is that really the point? We all know it's not possible to tell someone not to be offended.

I read those threads over on Kos. The people on that site blew it. They screwed up. They got all excited about this stupid nickname--as if using a nickname was equivalent to having a political position--and they go sloppy. They started making references to the Sopranos and the mafia. Now, anyone who starts talking about the mafia just because a person is Italian? I don't know if they're racist, but they are losers.

If someone started talking about money lending in a conversation about Joe Lieberman or about basketball and fried chicken in a conversation about Clarence Thomas--I mean, let's get real, here.

We blew it on this. Drudge threw a punch and it landed. Matthews may be a stooge on this one, but the only solution is stop repeating it and go after a real position on Alito--not some nickname that doesn't mean anything to anyone anyhow.

Let's talk about the fact that Sandra O'Connor's seat is a historic symbol of women finally gettin go on the Supreme Court, but that George Bush has sent two men to be confirmed inn that seat.

Let's talk about the fact that the Vice President's "boy Friday" has been charged with the crime of lying to hide the truth from a federal investigation, and the Vice President is lying to the public.

Let's talk about the Roe V Groody, where Justice Alito seems to be arguing that the 4th amendment does not apply if you want to strip search a child beyond the scope your warrant.

Let's talk about a President who stands up in front of the American people and says "Harriet Miers is the best there is, I stake my reputation on her." Then two days later pulls her for yet another Ivy League male nominee, without consulting anyone in Congress.

Let's talk about a President whose top advisor is tangled in the biggest national security scandal in history--at the center of a huge legal case involving the obstruction of justice--attempting to distract the American people with a rushed Supreme Court nominee.

Let's talk about any of this stuff, but let's not waste one more second defending ourselves against these nonsense charges.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 06:58:54 AM EST

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (none / 0)

do NOT forget that last week we found 100 top secret documents shuttled over to the phillipines. that in and of itself is the first major security breach of the white house in history.

think of it: thomas jefferson, with a brass lock and key did a better job than all of this biometric two factor identification up there..

there is something sinister afoot up there.
I for one want to see less halloween trick or treaters dressing up as dead soldiers.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (3.00 / 1)

If someone started talking about money lending in a conversation about Joe Lieberman or about basketball and fried chicken in a conversation about Clarence Thomas--I mean, let's get real, here.

That was the real point of the Mathews rant. In his eyes the combination of using the "Scalito" moniker in the introduction and then listing as the first (of 15) points against the guy the fact that back when he was a New Jersey prosecutor he badly bungled a major mafia case was a clear case of smearing a guy as mob just because he was Italian.

Fortunately we don't have to accept Mathews characterization of the document as being "disgusting" and "racist" because it has been posted here on a right wing sight that seemed to think seeing the whole thing supported Mathews claim.

Alito Is One of Bush's Most Likely Nominees

Samuel "Scalito" Alito Is on Bush's Short-List for Supreme Court, And Has Strong Ties to the Bush Administration. "Another leading ultra-conservative candidate is Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit, known by some as "Scalito" for his similarity to Scalia in temperament and ideology. A former federal prosecutor and U.S. attorney, Alito, 54, has strong ties to the administration, including to a number of former clerks who have worked for Bush." According to the Wall Street Journal, "Another rumored short-lister, Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, is considered a quiet and retiring member of one of the less-influential federal appeals courts. Still, his opinions have attracted notice, including a 1991 vote to uphold all restrictions to abortion in a Pennsylvania law, including a requirement that a woman inform her husband that she is seeking an abortion." [American Prospect, 1/12/05; Wall Street Journal, 6/23/05]

Alito Embarrassed Government by Failing to Obtain Crucial Mafia Conviction

U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying "You Can't Win Them All." Federal law enforcement agencies sustained a major rebuff in their anti-mafia campaign with the August 1988 acquittal of all 20 defendants accused of making up the entire membership of the Lucchese family in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. The verdict ended what was believed to be the nation's longest federal criminal trial and according to the Chicago Tribune, dealt the government a "stunning defeat." Samuel Alito, the US Attorney on the case, said, "Obviously we are disappointed but you realize you can't win them all." Alito also said he had no regrets about the prosecution but in the future would try to keep cases "as short and simple as possible." Alito continued, "I certainly don't feel embarrassed and I don't think we should feel embarrassed." [Guardian, 8/29/88; Chicago Tribune, 8/27/88; UPI, 8/26/88]

Alito Held that "States Rights" Trumps Family and Medical Leave Act and Gun Safety Laws

Alito Wrote Opinion Holding that Certain Provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act Was Overridden by State Law. Alito has sought to go even further than the current Supreme Court majority in several cases in restricting Congress' authority to protect Americans in the name of federalism and "states' rights." In Chittester v. Department of Community and Economic Development, he wrote an opinion holding that the 11th Amendment precluded state employees from suing for damages to enforce their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, a decision that was effectively reversed at least as to family leave by a 6-3 Supreme Court majority in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs in 2003. [Chittester v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 226 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2000)]

Alito Dissented from Decision Upholding Conviction Under Federal Gun Laws; Argued that Congress Had No Right to Enact the Law. Alito also dissented from a decision upholding a conviction under the federal law prohibiting the transfer or possession of machine guns, claiming that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to show that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to enact the law. [See United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)]

Alito Has Record of Hostility to Immigrants

Alito Authored Opinion Allowing Peremptory Challenges for Bilingual Jurors. According to the New Jersey Law Journal, "Excluding all Spanish speakers from a jury does not constitute bias if Spanish testimony at the trial will be translated into English, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The court's pro-prosecution ruling, in Pemberthy v. Beyer" reversed the district court's ruling that Latinos were systematically excluded from the state jury in the defendant's drug-distribution conspiracy trial--which would violate strictures against peremptory challenges based on race or ethnicity. "The prosecution argued that the challenges were not against Hispanics but against five Spanish speakers... The three-judge appeals panel agreed with the prosecutor. In the March 16 opinion, Judge Samuel Alito wrote that the equal protection clause does not prohibit a trial attorney from making such peremptory challenges." [New Jersey Law Journal, 4/4/94; Pemberthy v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 857 (1994)]

Alito Ignored Immigrant's Claim that He Was Persecuted in Home Nation. Alito has dissented in a number of other immigrant rights cases, leading to significant criticism by his judicial colleagues. For example, in Dia v. Ashcroft, Alito dissented from a ruling that an immigration judge should reconsider an immigrant's claim that he would be persecuted if returned to his home country; the majority specifically noted that Alito's dissent would effectively eliminate the requirement of substantial evidence in such cases in a way that "guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003)]

Alito Supported Harsh Penalties Against Immigrants. In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, Alito argued in dissent that an immigrant's filing of a false tax return should be considered an aggravated felony requiring removal, which the majority explained was simply "speculation" and contradicted "well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 218 (3d Cir.2004)]

But in support of putting that old mistake as a prosecutor first, that was the first talking point for Alito in the Bush talking points. This is what DNC Chair Howard Dean had to say about the document on to Chris on Hardball last night:

Matthews: Somebody in the Democratic party is putting out an attack sheet on this new Justice for the Supreme Court, Sam Alito, and the first attack is that he was lenient on the mob back in an '88 case. He let the Lucchesi family get off. It says he's an embarrassment to the government. And here's a guy who's been tough on crime--why start off on that issue?

Howard: Well, first of all, I didn't put it out, but somebody did, so let's all be responsible for it.

Matthews: It was put out by the Democrats.

Dean: The President put out a sheet this morning of Republican talking points. One of the things he said was that Judge Alito was a spectacular prosecutor. Well, it turns out he wasn't so spectacular and he lost some important cases. And one in which, in that particular case, those guys--20 of them--all got off, without even putting up a defense witness. So at least in that particular case that's an example--

Matthews: What about the Genovese case a year later where he won the conviction, put three big guys away, including the top guy in New Jersey--

Dean: I think it's great, all I'm trying to say is this guy isn't the best prosecutor since sliced bread. Look--

Matthews: You don't sense a little ethnic aspect to this, the fact that he's Italian-American and they nailed him, the number one issue against this guy, that he's weak on the mob. You don't see that, huh?

Dean: No, I'll tell you what the number one issue--

Matthews: I think everybody else does. I see it--

Dean: The number one issue I worry a lot about is, first of all, we have a very weak president, who is letting the right wing make judicial selections. Second of all, we have a president who didn't keep his word and fire Karl Rove as he promised he would. two years ago when he said he'd fire anybody who leaked. Well, the special prosecutor identified Official A who leaked, and that was Karl Rove. He may not be indicted, but what is going on is unethical. Third of all, I am concerned about Judge Alito's record. Judge Alito in one case said that Congress did not have the right to regulate the sale of machine guns. I think that's a mistake.

by Fred in Vermont on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:03:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (none / 0)

The issue for Democrats is this: while 'Scalito' is not itself a racist term or ethnic slur, for some reason, the discussion of Alito's nomination brought out a mass of one-liner 'gooombah' jokes, references to the mafia, and to the Sopranos. That simply did not happen with other nominees. I don't know where the hell it's coming from or why. So, we got caught being sloppy. That's all. If a Jew had been nominated and suddenly everyone started talking about hooked noses and money lending, or if another African American had been nominated and everyone suddenly started talking about step and fetchit and slavery, well, that would be the same kind of problem.

It's unfortunate. This Alito event seems to have elicited--on both sides--the idea that it's OK to talk about the Italian stuff in this context. And Drudge was the first to use it for political gain. We can either keep giving him points on this, or we can move on.

(Aside: Thanks for pulling together those quotes from Matthews....How did you do that with those inset boxes? I like that layout alot...)

by Jeffrey Feldman on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:13:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (none / 0)

The issue for Democrats is this: while 'Scalito' is not itself a racist term or ethnic slur, for some reason, the discussion of Alito's nomination brought out a mass of one-liner 'gooombah' jokes, references to the mafia, and to the Sopranos. That simply did not happen with other nominees. I don't know where the hell it's coming from or why. So, we got caught being sloppy.

As many e-mail lists as I'm on, not once did I hear a single "goombah" joke or Sopranos/mafia reference coming from anyone, much less a Democrat. So I strongly reject your comment that "we got caught being sloppy."

Now back to your original question, as to why I'd even post on this. If it was Drudge, I'd ignore it. If it was Drudge and RedState, I'd ignore it. If it was Drudge and RedState and Malkin and even Fox News, I'd ignore it. But there is absolutely no reason this crap should be making it to anyone at NBC -- not Scarborough, not Crowley, not Matthews, not anyone. I'm not defending myself. I'm not defending anybody. There's nothing to 'defend.' I'm attacking.

To the extent that I feel the need to defend anything, it's pointing out the fact that Alito screwed up a mob case. The point there is not that he went easy on Italians. You can't swing a dead cat in New Jersey/New York/Philadelphia without hitting Italian Americans, in the courts, in law enforcement, in government, in business, in academics, and yeah, also in crime. The point is that ALITO BOTCHED A CASE. As Fred pointed out, this shows that he's not the mastermind prosecutor the administration is making him out to be.

For Matthews to ask why that would be the first charge against him while he's "a guy who's been tough on crime" shows that Matthews' political brain has turned to mush. You attack people on their strengths. There's no point attacking weaknesses, because they're already weak. That's why Rove & Co. made Vietnam and military issues the centerpiece of their attacks against Kerry. Bush wants to claim Alito's great because he was an effective prosecutor? Here's evidence that he's wrong.

by Scott Shields on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (none / 0)

I think we are missing the boat. It was time to change the subject yesterday. When will we learn to create our own talking points?

In order to create 'extrodinary circumstances' to justify a filibuster we have to prove this guy will over turn ROE and will restrict abortion at every opoortuntiy.

This has to be about abortion period. It is not extraordinary for a conservative prez to nominate a conservative judge when he has 55 yes votes in the Senate. He can even lose 4 votes and still win.

In order to maintain 41 or 42 votes for filibuster this has to be about abortion period. The country has to get worried that something may change -- something big may change in their lives and their children's lives--if this guy gets in.

His mother said it: Of course he is against abortion. find more quotes like that and run with it.

by aiko on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:19:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (none / 0)

I don't know I think pointing out that he doesn't think Congress has a right to regulate machine guns, that he is for strip-searches of 10-year-old girls points, and that he ruled against the FMLA points out what an extremist he is as well.

He isn't just a right-wing nutbar on abortion, he is a right-wing 'Constitution-in-exile' nutbar period.

I'm sure Bush probably could have found an even more extreme Judge than Alito but he would have had to work at it.

by ces on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (none / 0)

These 'goombah' jokes and Godfather references came up alot, yesterday, on Kos. Like I said, I don't know why it happened, but it did. It was very noticeable. So, while I know for a fact that 'Scalito' is not a racist slur (it's just Italian for 'little Scalia'), this word--somehow--tapped into people's need to tell certain ethnically tinged jokes. I was ready to say something, yesterday, then this whole Matthews mess broke.

But I appreciate what your saying and trying to do here. Attack is good, I can see that. But I think--with all due respect to Bob Brigham and his great effort--that we should immediately stop using the word 'Scalito.' It is not helpful. It seems to be getting the Progressive left off target, pulling them away from talking about the threat to the Constitution posed by Alito, and leading them down a blind alley of name calling, poisoned by this wierd dynamic with the Italian jokes.

Instead, like you say, let's just hit Alito very hard on the very issues we're talking about here: failure as a prosecutor, activism vis-a-vis undermining the 4th Amendment, and the belief that women should live their lives the permission of men. I'm with you 100% on that.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:51:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why on earth are we even talking about this? (none / 0)

Yikes. Fair enough on the 'goombah' jokes. That's utter bullshit. I didn't realize they were hitting the comments at some of the blogs. It's so lame and really counterproductive. When I got married, I heard more than my fair share of "so now you're in The Family" jokes. Yuk, yuk. I don't find them offensive so much as I do stupid.

My wife's family makes jokes about Italian stereotypes. Just a minute ago, I made a joke with a fellow Irish American (jeez, I've never referred to myself as such) about whiskey. Again, yuk, yuk. Well over half of the joke is that these jokes are so lame to us, based on outmoded stereotypes.

For reasons totally unrelated to ethnicity, I agree that 'Scalito' is dumb. Before he was even nominated, I think I referred to it as "too cute" or "too clever" or something like that. What worries me is that the more we identify him with Scalia, the more people will think, "well, if Scalia was approved, why not Alito?"

And like you wrote, those are the questions we really need to have answers for.

by Scott Shields on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Matthews is a GOP water carrier (none / 0)

Sure he gets sideways with them from time to time. The war in Iraq is a great example. But 9 times out of 10 he is pimping for the republicans. He almost swoons when he talks about Auh-nuld, or Dubya, and he would French kiss Rudy if given the chance.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 09:03:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

may not be a racial slur (none / 0)

but it sure as hell does sound like some kind of childhood disease..

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:41:52 AM EST

Chris Matthew's is (none / 0)

a horse's ass. Or at least the right side of one. It's now at the point where I can't watch him, anymore than I can look at dirt drudge's web site. I say you fight the urge to comment on this type of crap and address the real issue of keeping Alito off of the SC.

Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.

by blogus on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:56:28 AM EST

The fact that you are even asking is a problem (none / 0)

Why ask? Why are we talking about this??

The Dems are pitiful. There is no chohesion, no message, they all come out and say something different.

Why is it so difficult for 45 Senators to speak with one voice? OK go with 35. Why is it so difficult for 35 Senators to speak with one voice? It would be powerful in the press, in the blogs and in 2006.

I am disgusted.

Every blog could put Ailot's mothers quote as a permanent banner headline.

"Of course he is against abortion!"

Talking point: Alito will vote to overturn ROE.

We don't need to talk about a whole lot more. Get that in peolpe's minds. Stop with the hysteria.

simple period. after a dozen years of watching the rethugs spin we still can't get it right. go ahead talk about matthews all you want he was just trying to rehabilitate his lefty image from smashing liby/rove/vp last week. you could expect it. and by the way it worked. i am sick of being a democrat.

by aiko on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:56:40 AM EST

Re: The fact that you are even asking is a problem (3.00 / 1)

Well let me tell you what its like to be an indpendent.

I usually wake up screaming every morning at 5 am, and I'm in the office by 6.

I have lots of friends who don't like me because I'm not a democrat, and lots of friends who don't like me because I am not a republican.

I'm on two mailing lists that both try to get me to sign petitions without thinking about it. I think yesterday I was supposed to jump for joy and sign a letter to my senator supporting Scalito without even reading over his record.

And if god forbid I'd ever want to run for city council or something, I'd have plenty of enemies on both sides of the fence.

I look at huge, 10,000 page bills constantly being re-introduced like Cornyn's bill that sanctions mercury in philadelphia coal burning plants - as part of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts..

I wonder.

Guys like John McCain make it through to me, but no one ever touched my soul like Howard Dean. I can still see him in his kitchen, reading the new york times and just saying to himself WTF is going on - and finally saying, ok fine - lets go change this. And to some extent he did.

But in the end, you're like someone swimming in a pool that gets their head pushed down under water and that hand keeps slamming you under water so you can't breathe.

You fight, but only to try to keep yourself alive. In the end, its like a non stop series of shocks to the system. The democrats cannot adopt a platform of reform because they are bound to a series of what they consider indispensible relationships with unions, and certain groups that claim to be kingmakers.

And in so doing, they have crowned america's first king, well enough. They are quiet on key issues, they don't take chances. The democrats suck.

But the Republicans have gone over to the effing crazies. They have become a slightly insane version of a bad b-rated slasher movie, cutting big pieces of America apart and feeding like vampires on the people - all the while growing this huge amorphous blob of corporations that are now fully in control. Not even a little bit out of power. They are dissolving every good thing about America.

So given the choice, Its better to be an indepedent standing near the democrats. Its just that you're going to do all of the work without any of the fun.

On the other hand, if the democrats actually started moving forward like Dean - then we'll be in good shape and you can party like a savage.

So don't despair. Whatever your troubles are, mine as an independent are much worse.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ethnic slurs against italian americans? (3.00 / 0)

what is this, 1935? I have a long, blatantly italian last name, and I'm from atlanta georgia, and if I've ever been the subject of "ethnic insensitivity," i guess i missed it.

could it be that Scalia and Alito are somewhat easy to combine?

i don't think we should be defensive about this, we should mock it visciously. it is a truly hilarious attack on democrats. and i thought republicans hated political correctness? talk about eye-rolling PC nonsense.

by snaktime on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 09:27:04 AM EST

racist? BWAHAHAHAHA! (3.00 / 1)

that's fucking hilarious. this italian-american votes a big fat no to the racist charge. i remember having a good laugh when i first heard of this smear yesterday.

oh and BTW, the REPUBLICANS are the ones who first coined the term "scalito". here's a quick search of lexis:

"Among the most conservative of the new crop, according to lawyers who practice before the circuit, is Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., former U.S. attorney for New Jersey and a former assistant solicitor general in the Reagan administration. Judge Alito is described by lawyers as exceptionally bright, but much more of an ideologue than most of his colleagues. It's a trait that has led some to nickname him `Scalito,' after the acerbic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia." [National Law Journal, 12/7/92, emphasis added]
"In a Bush presidency: Michael Luttig, 45, a federal appeals court judge in Alexandria, Va.; Emilio Garza, 52, a Hispanic on the Fifth Circuit appellate court in San Antonio; Edith Jones, 51, a federal appellate judge in Houston known for her pro-death-penalty views; and Samuel A. Alito Jr., 50, a federal appellate judge in Newark, N.J., whose conservative pedigree earned him the nickname `Scalito.'" [U.S. News & World Report, 5/15/00, emphasis added]
"Samuel A. Alito Jr., named to the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals by Bush's father. Well-known in conservative legal circles, he is sometimes called `Scalito' for the similarities between his views and those of Scalia." [Associated Press, 9/21/02, emphasis added]
"Other possibilities, officials say, include Judge Alito, who was a clerk for Justice Scalia and is nicknamed Scalito by some lawyers but who is seen as a far less confrontational figure." [New York Times, 12/27/02, emphasis added]
"Some lawyers have a nickname for federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito Jr. that captures two things at once - his particular brand of legal conservatism and a recognition that his credentials are strong enough to put him on any Republican president's short-list for the U.S. Supreme Court. They call the judge `Scalito.' Roughly translated, the nickname means "Little Scalia," suggesting that Alito, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has modeled himself after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia." [Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 3/10/03, emphasis added]
"Samuel Alito Jr., a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. He is nicknamed `Scalito' because he has views like Scalia."[Associated Press, 1/21/05, emphasis added]
"In some ways, the Marcavage controversy recalls a 2001 ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that is sure to be dusted off by journalists if its author, Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., is nominated to the high court by Bush. Alito -- dubbed `Scalito' by detractors because of his supposed affinity with Justice Scalia -- is on most short lists of potential Bush appointees." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/14/05, emphasis added]

DRUDGE IS A DUMBASS.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 10:54:48 AM EST

It's a portmanteau (3.00 / 1)

It's not a racist slur. It's a portmanteau, a word formed by combining parts of two other words which have an overlap in their spelling and, sometimes, a related meaning. "Spork" from spoon and fork and "televangelist" from television and evangelist are examples. Scalito is a particularly good portmanteau, because not only does it combine the two names, but it ends in "-ito" which is a diminutive suffix. Thus, Scalito really does mean "little Scalia". It's perfect and not at all racist.

by edgeplot on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:09:21 AM EST

Reasonably intelligent? (3.00 / 1)

Why on earth do you give Tweety credit for being "reasonably intelligent"? He's so stupid that he got smoked by Howard Dean on a pro-choice question and Tweety was so stupid he didn't even know he sounded like a fool.

Transcript:

MATTHEWS: But the Democratic Party are a pro-choice party, period?

DEAN: The government...

(Matthews interrupts Dean's response)

MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is a pro-choice party?

DEAN: No. My party respects everybody's views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of people's personal lives.

MATTHEWS: But you are a pro-choice party? Are you not? You sound like you're against ever being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?

DEAN: I'm not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a for a long time with pro-life Democrats.

MATTHEWS: This is the complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican Party, because of its record, supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?

DEAN: The position we support is a woman has the right to make -- and a family has the right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.

MATTHEWS: That's pro-choice.

DEAN: A woman and a family have a right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That's our position.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate from the phrase pro-choice?

DEAN: Because I think it's often misused. If you're pro-choice, it implies you're not pro-life. That's not true. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government should...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN: I believe that the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is a pro-choice position.

DEAN: The party believes the government does not belong in personal...

(Tweety interrupts Dean's response)

MATTHEWS: I'm learning things here about the hesitancy I didn't know about before. We'll be right back with Howard Dean.

DEAN: You know what you're learning...

(Tweety interrupts Dean's response}

MATTHEWS: Now, you're getting hesitant on the war and hesitant on abortion rights. It's very hard to get clarity from your party.

As much as I would have like to see Dean challenge Tweety to a duel, he stuck to his guns and refused to play the false dichotomy game that Matthews tried to interject.

Universal health care is pro-life. A living wage is pro-life. The Family Leave Act that Scalito opposed is pro-life. Social Security is pro-life. Food Stamps and Medicare are pro-life. Medicaid is pro-life. Conservatives and Republicans are not pro-life.

I'll be watching to see how many times Tweety interupts Mehlman the next time he's on and if Tweety tells Mehlman" it is very hard to get clarity from your party" after Mehlman dodges every question on Flamegate, WMD and every other question under the sun.

Tweety recently said that Hillary comes off like a witch (rhymes with bitch) and was a number one cheerleader in the M$M "Who can tell the biggest lie that make Al Gore look like a liar" contest.

A Chris Matthews search at Media Matters has 346 hits.

CHRIS MATTHEWS IS A REICH WINGNUT DUMBASS

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:27:51 AM EST

Re: Reasonably intelligent? (none / 0)

I'm not saying that Matthews hasn't turned into a parrot of right-wing talking points -- that's basically all he does nowadays. I'm saying he's reasonably intelligent. Hell, Karl Rove is very intelligent. That doesn't make him any more acceptable as a human being.

Point being, the ethnic slur angle on this whole thing is soooo stupid, even by Matthews' already low standards.

by Scott Shields on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:50:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rovian Swift boat forgery (none / 0)

This whole mafia case "talking points list" sounds like pure Rovian bullshit to me. This forgery... er... umm... document... does not fit in at all with the Democratic game plan for nailing Alito but it fits in completely with the Republican talking points we've already been hearing about oppossition to Alito being an ethnic thing.

This is pure rovian bullshit and tweety is a rovian shill.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 11:42:35 AM EST

Accuracy Is Main Problem (2.00 / 2)

Whether "Scalito" is an ethnic slur is a 1-day story of little consequence. However, the real problem is that it isn't a very accurate reference, and has been used mostly by lazy journalists & commentators. To the extent that Alito's opponents have suggested his similarity to Scalia is a basis for opposition, that position is undermined if it's demonstrated that Alito is considerably different than Scalia.

Those that practice before or cover the 3rd Circuit don't seem to accept the Scalia comparison:

http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid =1130765715807&t=LawArticle

http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid =1130765715053&t=LawArticle

http://bluemassgroup.typepad.com/blue_mass_group/2005/10/katherine_kate_.html

Alito's support by Democratic & non-partisan lawyers & judges is somewhat like that for John Roberts. Another similarity to the Roberts nomination is that some of the "talking points" describing his rulings are rather distorted or simplistic versions of his rulings. That may make opponents feel good now, but if the points don't hold up during the hearings they're actually counter-productive. My sense that as people are reading the cases, the prospects of a filibuster are decreasing considerably.

If Alito comes across at the hearings as more similar to Roberts than Scalia, his confirmation is a done deal. Right now, I think that's how it is most likely to play out.

by SLinVA on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 02:18:14 PM EST

Maryland (none / 0)

Can someone explain to me why Maryland, a very BLUE state is leaning toward a GOP senator? WTF is up with that?

by yitbos96bb on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 01:58:32 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.