From the Legal Mind of Alito


Guys, did you know that living Capodimonte figurine and SCOTUS Justice Sammie Alito was really into hot women behind bars action, er, pre-American legal theories? It’s true as this informative thread that Scissorhead Purplehead found:

We learn that Sir Matthew executed women for witchcraft and miscarriages, so this is of course pertinent our modern experience. Keep your magicks hidden ladies, or you are likely to be put on a scale with a duck:

But more to the point, requiring civil rights to be deeply rooted in history —as our man Sam says— is a way to say, if you have not always have civil rights, then you should never have them.

Trenton’s Torquemada, Sam Alito, is coming for everyone who is not straight, white, cisgendered, Christian, and male.

This entry was posted in Choice, Forced Birth, SCOTUS, War on Women. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to From the Legal Mind of Alito

  1. MDavis says:

    You left “property owner or titled” off that list.
    I wonder if “entitled” originally meant that the royalty had bestowed a title onto a person for services rendered. No wonder our modern U.S. royalty gets upset about SS “entitlements”. That’s for their club.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, among many other meanings, it also means bestowing title to an estate or other goods, which is where the more modern usage comes from.

      (Relevant to the OED link, I am currently reading “The Professor and the Madman” which is a nonfiction work about the creator of the OED and his relationship with one of the most prolific volunteer etymologists, who was a schizophrenic American Civil War officer and Doctor who was held in an English institution for the criminally insane for decades after murdering a stranger in the throes of a delusion.

      It’s an interesting book, but a warning: Winchester is deeply in love with his florid style, it’s sometimes a slog through a torrent of words where a stroll in a gentle creek would suffice.

      I first read his book “The Perfectionsists” which had some of the same, but considerably tamed down. Both recommended! )

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Two things:

    1) Last night Mrs Desertrat watched some of this coverage on tv and said “They’re going to end up forcimg me to take my name off our houses deed, aren’t they?”

    2) In an earlier post or comment which I cannot find atm, I believe TG mused “I wonder what Megan McArdle will have to say about this…”

    The hed to her “column” today:

    “Can women’s movement be as effective without word ‘women’?”

    In 1987, the National Women’s Law Center called the nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court ‘a particular threat to women’ because of his lack of deference to precedents such as Roe. Today, with Roe actually in danger, the organization warns that any justice who signs on to the leaked opinion ‘is fueling the harm and violence that will happen to people who become pregnant in this country.’

    Soooo referring to women as “people” harms the drive for women’s rights…as people! Gotcha.

    (She then goes on to arglebargle about that one time someone said ‘birthing person’ like it’s the only legally allowed way to say it.)

    I only wish I could be there when the leopards eat her face…

    Liked by 1 person

    • MDavis says:

      Does this “women =/= people” attitude violate the prohibition of discrimination based on gender?
      Crud, the whole anti-discrimination regulation structure is in danger, isn’t it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes.Again (and I am continuing to post this link everywhere,

        The animating principle of the Religious Right is and has always been Theocratic White Supremacy. Their Theology, not anyone else’s.

        All their Catholic, miscellaneous non-fundagelical, and minority fellow travelers are going to be so fucking surprised when the big celebration turns into the leopards eating their faces, too. It would almost be worth it to watch Ginni and Clarence when it happens to them.

        Theocracies are always “There can be only one!”

        (which is why Europe was racked with wars for centuries before the founding of the country. Hell, it happened in England within the lived memory of some of the Founder’s families. )

        Liked by 2 people

      • tengrain says:

        That is correct, MDavis. It all unravels.



        Liked by 1 person

      • Redhand says:

        It’s been years but I seem to recall a SCOTUS decision that said denial of employment-based maternity health benefits to female employees was not a gender-based form of discrimination because the plan was “gender-neutral.”

        And how was that possible, you may ask? Simple. The Court actually said that women were not discriminated against because there were two classes of people: pregnant people and non-pregnant people. Ergo, there was no discrimination against women.

        Again, if memory serves, this decision was authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist. I also recall that the decision was legislatively overruled by Congress. Alas, that was a simpler time.

        Being male, I dare wonder what it is about women that engenders (pun intended) such animosity among my fellow man? At bottom, (yes, pun intended again) I guess it is an inbred (three’s the charm) resentment at how damn attractive you are to some of us. But I’m not going to joke about misogyny. To me, it is one of the most despicable traits that men can have.

        Liked by 3 people

      • tengrain says:


        It’s actually simple: Ever since Eve ate the apple, Xristians have been hating The Skirts for being thrown out of Paradise.

        They never hate the serpent, but I always chalk that up to professional courtesy.



        Liked by 3 people

      • MDavis says:

        I will allege that this trumped up reason is distraction, projection or a scam.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ali redford says:

        As a woman who was 18 and considered an adult in the late 70s, I’ve always been of the thought that people is a great way to refer to women. Hell, it’s the best way to refer to all humans. Who should be equal. Dammit.

        I’m not starting with anyone here; I’m responding to the McArdle stuff. I’m older than she is, I think I know better about such things. Dammit again.

        This stuff comes, feeling like a punch in the stomach. Then when I get my air back, here’s another punch.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. roket says:

    So the target date for conservatives is now going back to 1713. I’m old enough to remember when it was 1950. Well, I suppose we should find comfort in knowing that they believe they can’t go back more than 6K years. If I had my druthers, I would rather go back to the time of the Mississippian Mound builders. Just a thought.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. H-Bob says:

    Why are you using a Alito’s picture from his Catholic confirmation ceremony ? Why not one showing the current crazy coot?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. annieasksyou says:

    A small irony in view of the mammoth implications ahead of us: The Supreme Court has been fortified against the potentially angry mobs (I’m figuring the “antifas” armed with Confederate flags in a rerun). And yet they had no trouble ruling against barriers protecting women who were entering health clinics from harassment or worse at the hands of anti-choice zealots. I think that was a violation of the First Amendment. The mind reels…

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.