The Media's 'Real Women' at the Supreme Court
The Washington Post is apoplectic.
In a front page story about a new Supreme Court decision involving birth control and Wheaton College, a conservative Christian school, the Post story by Robert Barnes began this way: “The three female justices of the Supreme Court sharply rebuked their colleagues Thursday for siding with a Christian college in the latest battle over providing women with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, saying the court was retreating from assurances offered only days ago.”
What is the Post trying to communicate here? Every conservative in the land gets it. This Supreme Court majority is not composed of five Justices. It is composed of five men. And these male jackasses have just made a decision they aren’t qualified to make because they are men. Worse still, four of the five are white men.
And standing up to them were three brave women Justices. Women -- make that Real Women -- who are enraged at their male colleagues because, don’t you know, these insufferable male jackasses don’t have a clue about what it is to be a woman.
But what if this story were slightly different? Let’s assume that the majority opinion was written by five women. Let’s, for the sake of the argument, give all these five women law degrees from Harvard and Yale. With a boatload of prestigious legal credentials between the five. Let’s give them each a name (and yes, I realize some of the people named here are not lawyers, but let’s pretend.) Now the Justices writing the majority opinion are named Justice Michele Bachmann, Justice Charmaine Yoest, Justice Sarah Palin, Justice Virginia Thomas and Justice Nikki Haley.
Lawyer or not, each of these women are in fact conservative., and prominently so. Yoest in particular has been very much out front for decades with her leadership in the pro-life movement. She was front and center outside the Supreme Court when the Hobby Lobby victory was announced.
So if this latest decision on Wheaton, not to mention the earlier decision on Hobby Lobby, had emerged from a Court with a majority of five women…five conservative women….would the Washington Post have begun their story this way?
“The five female justices of the Supreme Court sharply rebuked their colleagues Thursday for not siding with a Christian college in the latest battle over providing women with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, saying the colleagues were retreating from the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty.”
The answer, of course, is no. Actually, the answer is: “Are you kidding?!!!!”
The reason, of course, is that in the eyes of liberals -- and most particularly the liberal media -- if you aren’t a liberal than you really aren’t a woman. Or an African-American. Or a Latino.
The actual Washington Post story on Wheaton, as quoted above, is telling its readers that the decision is offensive because it is an insult to women. And those three brave female Justices -- not just Justices, mind you, but “female justices” -- are enraged on behalf of women everywhere. The war on women reaches the Supreme Court.
Understand this and it tells you all you need to know about the liberal media’s vicious treatment - and vicious is the word for it - of any prominent conservative woman. Recall this Newsweek cover of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann? Bearing the title "The Queen of Rage"? The photograph deliberately designed to make a smart, intelligent woman look like a wacko?
Or, Newsweek again, the same stunt with Sarah Palin. Using a photograph of Palin in running shorts (the photo was taken from the magazine Runner's World that illustrated an article on fitness) and bearing the title and subtitle: "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She’s Bad News for the GOP - and For Everybody Else, Too." (Even feminists defended Palin on this one.)
Contrast the media treatment of Bachmann and Palin with this Hillary Clinton cover, also from Newsweek. There is a dignified Hillary in a dignified blue suit, arms purposefully crossed, the title and subtitle proclaiming: "Hillary’s War: How’s She’s Shattering Glass Ceilings Everywhere."
Or contrast with this Time cover, with an artistically enhanced, smiling, dignified and robed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the cover proclaiming: "Latina Justice: Will Sonia Sotomayor Change the Court?"
(Don't ask about what cover Time gave Clarence Thomas.) Simply put? If you’re a liberal woman, you will be presented in the media as God’s gift to humanity. Hailed and worshiped as the representative of all women everywhere. If you are a conservative woman, the liberal media will portray you as a nut or a problem, a source of mockery, scorn and ridicule.
This is, let’s be plain, the politics of hate as played out by the media.
You must support abortion or you’re not really a woman. Because, don’t you know, every woman supports abortion. The inconvenient fact that there are women aplenty who not only don’t support abortion but in fact support very little else on the liberal agenda makes no difference.
Conservative women…..like conservative blacks and Latinos….are seen as a threat. If there’s one thing Palin, Bachmann, Clarence Thomas, Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada and Ted Cruz among others have in common beside their conservative principles it is the furious anger of the liberal media at their very existence. Minorities and women are supposed to be liberal because…well…just because!
If - God forbid! - you are not only a conservative woman but a conservative black woman - then Katie bar the door! Just ask Deneen Borelli, the conservative activist who is that especially threatening-to-liberals combination of a conservative black woman. Deneen writes about her experiences in her book Blacklash. The brutal treatment she is regularly dished is astonishing. The worst language, the N-word and more.
And so on…and on…it goes. The media relentlessly portraying three specific liberals on the Supreme Court of the United States not as what they really are when it comes to the law: liberals. No, they are portrayed by gender - as women. And for a reason. For The New York Times
the story began “In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices….”. Over at the liberal Talking Points Memo, the headline screamed:
3 Female Justices Dissent In First Post-Hobby Lobby Contraception Case
At the Huffington Post, it was put this way: “At oral arguments in March, the women Supreme Court justices grilled Hobby Lobby's lawyer…..” USA Today wrote “The court's liberal bloc, including its three female justices, denounced the decision…”
Get the message? Hobby Lobby and Wheaton are bad decisions because…especially because…”three female Justices” said so. These “three female Justices” are women. Not liberals first, you understand. No, no, NO! These are WOMEN! Get it?! Real Women.
And no, silly, a conservative woman isn’t really a woman. Why? Because the liberal media says so.