Words are a Tricky Thing

Words are a tricky Thing

Words are a tricky thing in today’s world. If you’re a conservative, words can destroy you. If you’re a liberal, you can say just about anything you want with no backlash. It’s called Moral Relativism and it’s going to be the end of our great Republic.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is under fire for this comment:

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”

WordsOn the surface, which, unfortunately, is as deep as low information dimwits dare to swim, this sounds extremely racist. Which is why I’m so surprised to see some of my more intelligent friends, but not so much the high ranking political figures, making this into something it’s not.

The congressional black caucus, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, as well as most liberals are chiming in on the “opinion” of Justice Scalia. Most of the media outlets are wasting the time of readers by reporting the rhetoric of the critics while ignoring the context of Scalia’s words. Anyone surprised? Anyone care about context?

As a seeker of truth, I’m always more interested in context than headlines. I don’t understand how anyone can simply read a headline and believe they know what’s going on.

Scalia’s comments were made during ORAL ARGUMENTS of “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin”, a case being heard by the SCOTUS to decide whether race-conscious admissions should be upheld at Texas’s flagship university. Scalia was responding to a “Friend of the Court brief” referring to a study written by Richard Sander and published in a 2004 Stanford Law Review. Source Link

Did you get any of that? Scalia was questioning the validity of a brief during oral arguments. This was NOT an opinion. It was a question relevant to the case before the SCOTUS, specific to a brief that was filed by the litigants.

Does that matter to Harry Reid? Apparently not. Dingy Harry had this to say:

“These ideas that he pronounced yesterday are racist in application. It is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench on the nation’s highest court.”

Dingy Harry, in his comments, used the word “Racist” four times.

Does context matter to Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus? He said:

“Justice Scalia’s comments were disgusting, inaccurate, and insulting to African Americans, and his statements undervalue the historic achievements we have made.”

John Lewis, a civil rights leader, said Scalia’s comments remind him of the kinds of justifications politicians used to segregate schools in the 1950s.

“His suggestion that African Americans would fare better at schools that are “less advanced” or on a “slow-track” remind me of the kind of prejudice that led to separate and unequal school systems–a policy the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional decades ago,”

And for the Grand Slam, Nancy Pelosi weighs in and hits the IDIOT ball out of the park:

“It’s such an indication of the lack of appreciation for the people of our country. It is indicative of why they make the decisions they do but it has no place on the court or in our country.”

Does context matter to the scum rag, politico.com? Not in the least. All the quotes above are from one politico story. The story doesn’t even mention the brief Scalia was referring to. Imagine that. Read more

A quick search on Google for “scalia racial comment” gives a clear view that most media outlets don’t care about finding truth. Headlines, political correctness, and traffic … which translates to MONEY … are what motivates the people who have a responsibility to find the truth and report it. Where are the real journalists today? Only one link on the first page actually reported the correct context of Scalia’s comments. ONLY ONE!

Remember that Scalia is a JUDGE. He is not a politician setting public policy. He is simply a man seated on the highest court in the land, there to do a job. That job is to find truth by asking questions, probing the petitioners, all of which is designed to poke holes in arguments given. Scalia did his job and did it extremely well. He earned his money on this case.

The criticism he is getting says a lot about our system of government, and it’s not a happy moment in our history. When a lawyer can’t question litigants without being demonized, our legal system won’t survive long. Attorneys have long had to defend positions that utterly disgust them on a personal level. It’s our judicial system and was designed to be this way.

“The American republic will survive the tenure of contemptible opportunists such as Harry Reid only as long as they are seen for what they are. But if Reid’s attitude prevails? As it stands, there exists a wall of separation between a person’s official government duties and his many private desires“. — Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer for National Review. Read more

Find us on Facebook.

[Total: 1    Average: 4/5]

About Layne Mangum

I'm a white, old, man who will not succumb to the political gerrymandering of our great American political system. I'm conservative. I'm traditional. I'm no where in the vicinity of your lefty version of how I should or should not talk. I tell it like it is, from my point of view. If you have a different view, make a comment and let's discuss it rationally. If you start calling names, your comments will NOT be published. Keep it civil or stay away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.