Redstate

Proving the Refreshments Right, One Liberal at a Time

By Leon H Wolf Posted in Law — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Earlier today, when I wrote this, I was under the impression that the story in question was merely the misguided brainfart of an isolated individual. It appears, however, that I was wrong, very wrong.

More ridiculous outrage below the fold...

CNN was first on this. Notice that they specifically left out the exchange between Crooks and CJ Roberts which sets this whole thing up. That exchange, for purposes of a refresher, went as follows:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But there is no supervised release of people outside the United States.

MR. CROOKS: There is no supervision of people outside the United States, Mr. Chief Justice, but he is still subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court and still subject to the conditions of supervised release that are not dependent upon supervision.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Like what?

MR. CROOKS: For example, he should not use alcohol, he should not associate with persons.

Get it? Scalia is not making a remark about refraining from alcohol out of the clear blue sky, as though he harbors some insidious belief about the drinking habits of Mexicans. The lawyer for the defendants in question specifically brought up the point that they were not supposed to be drinking. It is also important to understand that the context here is that the lawyer for the deported Mexican nationals was making the patently ridiculous claim that his clients were still subject to United States jurisdiction, because pursuant to the terms of their deportation hearings, they were not supposed to be drinking alcohol. In response to this, Scalia said:

SCALIA:...the doctrine of standing is more than an exercise in the conceivable. … Nobody thinks your client is really, you know, abstaining from tequila down in Mexico because he is on supervised release in the United States.

Get that? Scalia isn't saying that Mexicans can't stop drinking, he's saying that it's ridiculous toa ssume that these people, who have been summarily deported, and for all they know are never coming back to the United States, are somehow abstaining from alcohol because of a court order issued by a court of another country. Jeez, even Dahlia Lithwick got that. The CNN reporter conveniently did not, and made it seem as though Scalia just made up this alcohol stuff out of the blue:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Justice Antonin Scalia opened the Supreme Court's new term Tuesday by questioning whether a man deported to Mexico after a drug conviction would be "abstaining from tequila" for fear of violating his U.S. parole terms.

...

"No one thinks your client is abstaining from tequila for fear of being deported," he said. Supervision "is impossible once he leaves the country," he added. "This is an ingenious exercise of the conceivable."

Again, once we have the entire context, we are left with a bunch of people complaining that Scalia inferred that Tequila was Mexican alcohol. As I explained earlier today, I can't fathom a more idiotic basis for outrage since the defining characteristic of Tequila (as distinguished from Mezcal) is its Mexican origin. Never fear, you can always find folks to support the narrative, no matter how foolish it makes them sound:

During oral arguments Tuesday in an immigrants' rights case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a reference to one of the parties, a Mexican man who has been deported back to his country, as someone unlikely to keep from drinking tequila on the chance he could return to the United States.

The comment raised eyebrows in the audience and offended some who were told about the remark afterward on the grounds that it perpetuates stereotypes about Mexicans. Lawyers directly involved in the case could not be reached or declined to comment publicly.

...

Carlos Ortiz, former president of the Hispanic National Bar Association, was not in the audience but reacted strongly when told of the comment. "Justice Scalia is supposed to be very smart, but anyone who is supposed to be so smart would not and should not say something that insensitive. It is a really terrible comment, and he should be called on it."

Ortiz, who has long lobbied for the appointment of a Hispanic justice and more Hispanic law clerks to the high court, added, "This is the kind of incident that makes it so clear that the Court needs more diversity."

Scalia declined to comment on his remark.

This article also declined to include the highly relevant exchange between Roberts and Crooks. It also fails to include any explanation whatsoever for why Hispanics should be offended by someone suggesting that Tequila might be in Mexico (the only place it can be produced), or why "diversity" on the court would change the intractable fact that Tequila is necessarily a Mexican drink. It's racist, and they're outraged, and don't ask any futher questions.

It's all part of The Narrative, and The Narrative is true.

*