[Lookwell!]

I don't really have much to add to most of the topics on MPC, nancyboy and other regular posters are far more articulate on political and sociological issues than I could ever hope to be. I do, however, enjoy hearing opinions from this end on issues facing the world today that will never ever be discussed because it is simply taboo to even broach the subject, ie race and IQ differences, jewish influence, populist politics etc. Most people IN REAL LIFE will not discuss it with you because there's probably no real way to bring it up

"Hey, so, I was thinking about why Jews tend to have a disproportiona-"
"NO THEY DONT THATS RACIST DEBATING STATUS REVOKED "

One such issue I've thought of in passing, usually when a woman has talked to me about politics, is what has happened to political discourse and politics in general since they got the vote. I have never known a woman to be at all aware of the consquences of most votable issues- taxes and social issues like drug legalization for example- rather, they tend to make a split "well i feel this way so here is why im voting for him and god himself couldn't change my mind" decisions (not to say most of the idiot class doesn't vote this way too, ie populists) but I've never known a man to earnestly vote for someone because "he's p. cute" (actual overheard conversation (really)) or "it's time for a change" or "there are too many men in politics, it is good that women get positions too" or what have you.

And I've never known a female politician to be anything but insufferable, shrill, wholly and often visually repulsive, ready to drop the "THIS IS OFFENSIVE TO ___________" hammer at the slightest provocation. The ones who enjoy a long tenure are largely unrecognizable as female by that point, rather they fit better the part of the spinster second grade teacher who always sneered and looked down her glasses at children and enjoyed her position of authority a little too much, treating every kid like a total abject moron every time he so much as doodled in the margin, you know that tone, that patronizing "im not your mother but by god ill treat you like my disappointing child and dont think you'll ever be as good as sally over there" etc.

Anyway like I've said I'm not one very much to be able to contribute to the board but I do love reading the intelligent and real talking posts here without someone needing to post about how hard their dead gay thermite shoulders are and 12 gimmicks posting "888". My questions again are how has suffrage shaped politics and whats the end result of letting women vote and pursue politics, beyond the obvious everyone has to watch what they say about everything now like a group of schoolboys within earshot of the nun at school

[BushrodButtram]

My spergy take on this is that women, speaking very generally, are more conformist and more risk-averse than men. Or you could say they are less confrontational and less thrill-seeking, whatever. There's some real psychological evidence for this, and no doubt we could make up various entertaining evo-bio fairy tales explaining it.

So, in a work situation, women are more likely to be stuffy, uncreative, and process-oriented than men. That's probably valuable in some jobs and damaging in others.

I think sex-segregated workplaces would be a very good thing.

[PLEASUREMAN]

BushrodButtram, 30 January 2010 - 11:35 AM:

My spergy take on this is that women, speaking very generally, are more conformist and more risk-averse than men. Or you could say they are less confrontational and less thrill-seeking, whatever. There's some real psychological evidence for this, and no doubt we could make up various entertaining evo-bio fairy tales explaining it.

So, in a work situation, women are more likely to be stuffy, uncreative, and process-oriented than men. That's probably valuable in some jobs and damaging in others.

I think sex-segregated workplaces would be a very good thing.

I pretty much agree with these statements 100%; on the last point I can see room for exceptional women working alongside men but it is difficult to crack the door open so that you don't let in a flood of women who end up changing the entire workplace culture, as we see today. Things get unstable when the balance shifts to more than 10% women (in equivalent positions) because women behave very differently, especially to each other, when the number gets much higher--this figure is a gross estimate of course. One of the reasons I believe that early female pioneers in various fields are easily accepted is that the work culture is still male-dominated and these are the women who can succeed in that environment.

There is a post on Nikki Finke's site about some very low percentage of (picked up) new pilots written by women, and the comments are filled with angst over prejudice against women, even though the majority of the decision makers were women (cue complaints that "even women are sexist"). Women in television development have essentially driven male-appealing concepts and series to near extinction, so the networks are probably overcompensating by looking for male writers to reel in more men with boob jokes and slob humor (too bad Hollywood culture in general drives away well-adjusted men so there really is no place to go for the material they want).

Women are very process-oriented at work because their biological role is to be supportive and nurturing and organized, which is a general truth that excludes only a tiny percentage of outliers (who seem to be constitutionally more like men). Women talk of pursuing career and not being "just housewives", but when they get married and especially when they have kids they look to a husband to provide for the family and will not respect a man who is not capable of meeting those expectations. Those who don't subordinate career often have personal issues relating to their fathers, and/or they experience a great deal of guilt and anxiety about it which betrays their biological imperative buried underneath lifelong socialization as "modern woman".

Much of the time though this conversation stalls out because people who are resistant to exploring pronounced sex differences cannot get past the tiny percentage of outliers. We are very bad at extrapolating and dealing with scale, so we ignore the fact that outside our personal acquaintance virtually the only women we hear about are outliers. This situation, abetted by mass media, distorts our perception--it makes women look far more aggressive and ambitious and masculine than they really are.

Therefore we ignore the fact, underscored by countless surveys and polls, that a large gulf exists between women and men, and particularly single women and married men (married women blatantly emulate the views of their husbands). That it is in fact impossible to make both groups happy because they hold incompatible views of government, and that any compromise will do little to reduce the tension between the two. What makes this more difficult to talk about is that political discourse is shaped to a great degree by female outliers, who refuse to accept the premise that they are fundamentally different from most women.

This brings up another point, which is that when women reach a certain equilibrium, in the workplace, among the voting public, in the media, etc., they force changes that also change the type of man who succeeds in those settings. Thus the male executive, the male politician, the male creative is a different type than he was before this change. Upon reaching this equilibrium, women demand consensus, insulation from competition, passivity, in short the maternalization of their environment. They also act in a concerted and typically female way against men (and women) whose views are incompatible with these demands, and do what women do best: keep such people estranged from their "community".

In Western culture this equilibrium has had a marked effect on men, and is responsible for the manchild, the nerd, the metrosexual/hiptster, and of course the modern politician (modeled after local news anchors: sexless, benign, and unctuous). I expect the elevation of homosexuals is related to this change--who is less threatening to a female-oriented status quo than a feminized male? You see it in the boyish faces (and narcissistically sculpted bodies) of the latest generation of male movie actors.

This is only scratching the surface, and probably isn't saying much that anyone here hasn't already thought about. I have no idea what we can do about it.

[BushrodButtram]

Another issue is that women (broadly speaking, um,) really like institutional security. Not that men don't, but women are much less likely to work in unpleasant environments or to act entrepreneurially.

My sister is a chem engineer. She was recruited pretty hard by a coal company because her profile (high-level sports) suggested she could handle working on a mine site. She did a co-op with them and they threw money at her because she was the only woman engineer who could hack it there - she told me the only other women there were a few on the kitchen staff. The company was pathetically happy to tick the diversity box with someone who wasn't going to be a complete loss.

So long as there's a danger and unpleasantness premium on wages, there'll be a sex gap, as one can't help but think contemplating female garbagepeople, oilpeople, and linepeople.

[antistoic]

PLEASUREMAN:

This brings up another point, which is that when women reach a certain equilibrium, in the workplace, among the voting public, in the media, etc., they force changes that also change the type of man who succeeds in those settings. Thus the male executive, the male politician, the male creative is a different type than he was before this change. Upon reaching this equilibrium, women demand consensus, insulation from competition, passivity, in short the maternalization of their environment. They also act in a concerted and typically female way against men (and women) whose views are incompatible with these demands, and do what women do best: keep such people estranged from their "community".

In Western culture this equilibrium has had a marked effect on men, and is responsible for the manchild, the nerd, the metrosexual/hiptster, and of course the modern politician (modeled after local news anchors: sexless, benign, and unctuous). I expect the elevation of homosexuals is related to this change--who is less threatening to a female-oriented status quo than a feminized male? You see it in the boyish faces (and narcissistically sculpted bodies) of the latest generation of male movie actors.

These are all very good points, and I mostly agree. There's another mostly-ignored aspect to our society's gender confusion, however, and that's the ongoing masculinization of women. Shrill feminist androgynes like Andrea Dworkin have been agitating a 'transvaluation of all [feminine] values' for decades; where once quintessentially feminine traits such as passiveness, compassion, softness, grace, and outstanding beauty were encouraged among women, the modern woman is aggressive, 'strong', selfish, and uncaring about appearances. Far from trumpeting feminity, feminists are in effect masculinizing women, making them into inferior men. This is especially obvious in personal relationships - it's now common for women to act offended if you expect them to dress nicely and 'doll themselves up' for their men, and they pretend to be aloof and uninterested in terror of showing 'weakness' and admitting to themselves that, yes, they need a man, or at least if they don't want to become 40-something spinsters with 12 cats and a dusty, useless womb. This isn't normal, nor is it the general case in countries outside of North America and a few countries in Western Europe. It's not entirely the fault of the feminists, either; relatively male-dominated Hollywood has glorified viragoes and 'strong women' for years (Thurman's character in 'Kill Bill' is the archetype here).

In short, if men are becoming less masculine, I think it's also true, although perhaps to a lesser extent, that women are becoming less feminine. Despite the acheivements of feminists, femininity - true feminity - remains perhaps even less valued than before. And maybe this is partly what's driving the 'feminization' of men - robbed of their complementary role in society and in their personal lives as masculine partners to the feminine by masculinized women, they revert to feminine behavior to compensate, or else embrace a hyper-masculinized fratboy mentality (which is just as contemptible, and perhaps even more so).

It's important, also, to note that political misogyny - women are stupid, evil, weak, senseless, immoral, greedy, etc - is just as degenerate as radical feminism, because both pervert and despise the natural complementary relationship of man to woman. With exceptions, Woman preserves, improves, repairs, and maintains the created order of Man and his God. Men may more often be 'idea-men' and great thinkers, but a civilization without idea-men and great thinkers can survive. A civilization without anyone devoted to its upkeep and regeneration cannot, and it is the woman that provides this role. Those who point to the relative rarity of female authors, poets, scientists, philosophers, artists, etc. as evidence of female inferiority are missing this point.

I'm also not so sure that nerds are a consequence of feminizing trends...many researchers have noted that the traits that typify 'spectrum disorders' - perverse literal-mindedness, an obsession with objects and lists, poor social skills - are pathological exaggerations of male traits.


As for women's suffrage, I agree that it's always been a bad idea. After suffrage, but before the pernicious influence of feminism, women merely copied their husband's ballots - which rendered their newfound political 'freedom' moot. Now they follow the general trend of modern society in voting their emotional preferences, which isn't healthy either. The proper model of women's civic role and participation in wider society is the one that has been followed for centuries and reflects, again, the complementary unity of feminine and masculine - men in the public sphere, women in the private sphere.

This post has been edited by mlad: 30 January 2010 - 09:26 PM

[PLEASUREMAN]

Very well stated. It is the introduction of women into male spheres that has corrupted the feminine. The image of "female" virtue held up by Tarantino and Cameron is a man with breasts. There really are no women in their movies. You don't have to dig very far beneath the surface of their films to see a pathological, masochistic element as well, although their rejection of feminine virtues may have more to do with the fact that both of them are trapped in adolescence. Cameron of course styles himself a feminist.

The nerd is effeminate insofar as he is passive and emotionally unstable relative to other men--note that nerds are the most avid worshippers of the man with breasts psuedo-woman. I think stating that they have exaggerated male traits (I think I know what you are talking about, in terms of brain function) is misleading, the same is sometimes said of hypersexual gay men. I would say that nerds are imbalanced men, and that the imbalance happens to make them much less aggressive which would not be an exaggerated male trait.

While the female ideal has become masculinized to a huge degree (already the man with breasts is a cliche in entertainment), I don't know of many women aside from extreme outliers who actually conform to it, and in fact this ideal is primarily intended for male nerds. The virago super-competitive athlete is present in some sports but it's rather obvious that promiscuous use of HGH is behind that. I do grant that women are not as feminine as back when flattering dresses and skirts and pantyhose were the norm (days greatly missed). But that is more do to the demands of modern life and the consequent adoption of casual dress. On the other hand, manners which accentuate feminine grace have fallen away--there is an androgyny to the social behavior of men and women which you allude to.

I also believe that when men behave and dress in more traditionally masculine ways, women naturally follow suit (in complementary fashion)--in most matters, women follow men's lead.

However the media tends to overstate the situation; there is every reason to believe that there are still many millions of American women who prefer more traditional feminine roles, and that feminists represent a small and unrepresentative minority (dominated of course by Jewish feminists, whose intellectual pretensions often make them shrewish as well). We know that Hollywood under-serves many markets and leaves money on the table due to its distaste for Christians and traditionalists. My guess is that women, despite all the rom-coms and chick flicks, are also an under-served market, because the men and women in the biz are so abnormal that they can't relate to the majority of women.

Quote

As for women's suffrage, I agree that it's always been a bad idea. After suffrage, but before the pernicious influence of feminism, women merely copied their husband's ballots - which rendered their newfound political 'freedom' moot. Now they follow the general trend of modern society in voting their emotional preferences, which isn't healthy either. The proper model of women's civic role and participation in wider society is the one that has been followed for centuries and reflects, again, the complementary unity of feminine and masculine - men in the public sphere, women in the private sphere.

It will be a struggle to move back to that arrangement, but a very worthwhile struggle as it involves the most profound area of human happiness.

[Türschloss]

John Lott has a section in his newest book about the effect of female suffrage on government. Some states or territories gave women the vote earlier than others. Among those that did, government spending per person rose at a rate faster than that among those that didn't. It is easy to see how those who worship at the alter of the Busybody State are keen on female suffrage. For the rest of us, less so.

Times have changed, but female voting patterns haven't. It's no accident that Switzerland is known for modest government ... and arriving late to the Votes for Women party.

Regarding women in the workplace, the feminization of the legal profession is perhaps the most pernicious.

[oni]

It's hardly scientific but PBS has a great reality show House series (1900s House, Frontier House, Colonial House) where modern families have to go back and live the way people would have 100 or 200 years ago. It usually takes about three days before modern women start complaining that they have to do all the work and advocating for women's rights, even when the men's work is dangerous or physically demanding. After two weeks they quit going to church and after three weeks they are running around in what our ancestors would have considered underwear (although it is still much more modest than what people wear nowadays).

The best example of this is Texas Ranch House: the ranch 'owner's' wife takes over more and more of the decision making, they start doing things as a 'team', and everyone who disagrees with their method is 'evil' or 'has a dark place in his heart'. (The implication that disagreement isn't normal but actually part of some kind of psychological inadequacy would probably not have occurred to our ancestors.) Eventually the guys who have been doing all the work -- the ranch hands -- walk off the job in unity leaving the hen-pecked owner with his wife, spoiled daughters and entitled 'girl of all work' to fail and possibly die the next year.

Quote

It's not entirely the fault of the feminists, either; relatively male-dominated Hollywood has glorified viragoes and 'strong women' for years (Thurman's character in 'Kill Bill' is the archetype here).

Tarantino has a well-known foot fetish, one of the horrifying bits of Kill Bill was the scene where he focuses on Thurman's feet for several minutes -- they look like a man's feet, they are not feminine in any way.

[PLEASUREMAN]

oni, 31 January 2010 - 07:46 PM:

Tarantino has a well-known foot fetish, one of the horrifying bits of Kill Bill was the scene where he focuses on Thurman's feet for several minutes -- they look like a man's feet, they are not feminine in any way.

fuck you those feet are so sexy

[Bibles 'n Guns]

Quote

It's hardly scientific but PBS has a great reality show House series (1900s House, Frontier House, Colonial House) where modern families have to go back and live the way people would have 100 or 200 years ago. It usually takes about three days before modern women start complaining that they have to do all the work and advocating for women's rights, even when the men's work is dangerous or physically demanding. After two weeks they quit going to church and after three weeks they are running around in what our ancestors would have considered underwear (although it is still much more modest than what people wear nowadays).

The best example of this is Texas Ranch House: the ranch 'owner's' wife takes over more and more of the decision making, they start doing things as a 'team', and everyone who disagrees with their method is 'evil' or 'has a dark place in his heart'. (The implication that disagreement isn't normal but actually part of some kind of psychological inadequacy would probably not have occurred to our ancestors.) Eventually the guys who have been doing all the work -- the ranch hands -- walk off the job in unity leaving the hen-pecked owner with his wife, spoiled daughters and entitled 'girl of all work' to fail and possibly die the next year.

Women a century ago were raised to different standards and had never known anything like the level of wealth and comfort we have today. Southern belles from rich planter families were really the only ones that resembled the spoiled princesses of the modern era. During the Civil War women were left in charge of the farms and plantations because they were mature and responsible enough to handle it in a crisis, and the overseers and foremen would have helped. There were also documented incidents of women attacking Union fortified positions in Georgia and skewering soldiers with kitchen implements until they were finally brought down after being dealt several knife, bayonet and gunshot wounds. Imagine a modern middle class woman doing that.

And needless to say a real Texas rancher would never have let himself get whipped like that.

This post has been edited by Bibles 'n Guns: 31 January 2010 - 08:40 PM

[Muswell Hillbilly]

Quote

Regarding women in the workplace, the feminization of the legal profession is perhaps the most pernicious.

I'm still flabbergasted that feminine pronouns have replaced male as the default in legal writing. No matter how many times I read it in treatises, opinions, etc., every single time, it still strikes me as incredibly jarring.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Muswell Hillbilly, 31 January 2010 - 11:18 PM:

Quote

Regarding women in the workplace, the feminization of the legal profession is perhaps the most pernicious.

I'm still flabbergasted that feminine pronouns have replaced male as the default in legal writing. No matter how many times I read it in treatises, opinions, etc., every single time, it still strikes me as incredibly jarring.

It's monumentally stupid and I can't honestly even blame the feminists for this because it's the faggot liberal males who enable it. I still use the generic masculine singular where it sounds good, the plural often doesn't sound right or worse it sounds like you are deliberately avoiding mentioning someone's sex out of fear of causing offense.

There's also the use of "gender" instead of "sex", another truly pusillanimous bit of faggotry from people who apparently think the fatct that human beings are divided into two sexes (three if you count Michelle Obama) is inherently offensive and hateful. I am aware of the thin grounds on which liberals justify use of the word "gender" to describe anything normal about people, what I am referring to is the use of "gender" when "sex" is clearly the only logical meaning. It's a notable part of our modern neurotic society, seeing as how we have made sexual ideas and come-ons central to popular culture.

What can you do, I carry the flag for non-faggy behavior in everyday life, but mostly this means I do nothing because the PC are always careful to choose when and where to act like pissy children. Such as at a workplace where people will feel inhibited from doing anything (a whole other subject but white collar workplaces play a huge role in turning ordinary men into shoe-staring pussies).

[BushrodButtram]

I read someplace that Ginsburg's secretary invented "gender" as a synonym for "sex," while Ginsburg was still a practicing lawyer, to save her the embarrassment of having to say "sex" constantly in oral argumen--- oh SHIT

[PLEASUREMAN]

BushrodButtram, 01 February 2010 - 09:19 AM:

I read someplace that Ginsburg's secretary invented "gender" as a synonym for "sex," while Ginsburg was still a practicing lawyer, to save her the embarrassment of having to say "sex" constantly in oral argumen--- oh SHIT

Ginsburg and Sotomayor stand proud as the dumbest Supreme Court Justices since at least Thurgood Marshall.

[BushrodButtram]

PLEASUREMAN, 01 February 2010 - 09:24 AM:

BushrodButtram, 01 February 2010 - 09:19 AM:

I read someplace that Ginsburg's secretary invented "gender" as a synonym for "sex," while Ginsburg was still a practicing lawyer, to save her the embarrassment of having to say "sex" constantly in oral argumen--- oh SHIT

Ginsburg and Sotomayor stand proud as the dumbest Supreme Court Justices since at least Thurgood Marshall.

I have no idea if Ginsburg is dumb, but she did manage to graduate #1 in her class at Columbia Law (after transferring out of Harvard b/c her husband got first a job in NYC, then cancer.) I always thought she was an ideologue, not dumb.

As for the Wise Latina, her Princeton summa was political bullshit and her Yale admission isn't dispositive since it was obviously tainted by AA. On the other hand, there are a number of lackluster justices both on and recently off the Court. O'Connor would be my dimbulb pick but really none of them are awful.

Sotomayor's profile looks a lot like Alito's. On the other hand, Alito got there without AA.

[Weird Koops]

PLEASUREMAN, 01 February 2010 - 09:24 AM:

BushrodButtram, 01 February 2010 - 09:19 AM:

I read someplace that Ginsburg's secretary invented "gender" as a synonym for "sex," while Ginsburg was still a practicing lawyer, to save her the embarrassment of having to say "sex" constantly in oral argumen--- oh SHIT

Ginsburg and Sotomayor stand proud as the dumbest Supreme Court Justices since at least Thurgood Marshall.

That reminds me, I've always wondered why you're such a fan of Clarence Thomas.

[PLEASUREMAN]

BushrodButtram, 01 February 2010 - 10:22 AM:

I have no idea if Ginsburg is dumb, but she did manage to graduate #1 in her class at Columbia Law (after transferring out of Harvard b/c her husband got first a job in NYC, then cancer.) I always thought she was an ideologue, not dumb.

As for the Wise Latina, her Princeton summa was political bullshit and her Yale admission isn't dispositive since it was obviously tainted by AA. On the other hand, there are a number of lackluster justices both on and recently off the Court. O'Connor would be my dimbulb pick but really none of them are awful.

Sotomayor's profile looks a lot like Alito's. On the other hand, Alito got there without AA.

O'Connor was terrible. Plainly not up to the task of forging sound jurisprudence (not a question of her ideology but of her carelessness). Ginsburg's lack of wattage shows in her opinions. Souter or Stevens can manage an intellectual justification of their partisan version of Constitutional Law, whereas Ginsburg does pratfalls and doesn't notice. Stevens should be dropping dead any day now, hopefully he will hang in there because God only knows whom Barry will pick to top Sotomayor.

I think even conservatives are largely in denial about how much of a difference affirmative action makes. It really is a booster seat for mediocrities. How many women in the country would, on the merits, make it to that level? Practically none, they would be out-competed by high achieving men. But with the right profs and a useful ethnicity there's no stopping a dingbat like Sotomayor.

health surface, 01 February 2010 - 11:06 AM:

That reminds me, I've always wondered why you're such a fan of Clarence Thomas.

I've read his opinions and find them impressive both in temperament and reasoning.

[BushrodButtram]

Race AA is horrifying. I don't know what the numbers are like in other areas, but in law school, being black is worth about 10 LSAT points (out of 61, the range is 120-180.) That's about 1 sd. Only about 30 of the 3000 scores over 170 go to blacks each year; you need about 170 to get into one of the top 10 schools. In effect, blacks need a 160 rather than a 170 to be competitive; that's 80th percentile vs. 98th, a huge gap in function, one would think.

The counterpoint is that 'blacks are not failing in inordinate numbers,' but that sounds suspicious to me; you never see any on law review or graduating with high honors.

On the other hand, I had one black prof for a business law class who was really first-rate and knew her stuff inside out. She kind of represented the "Nixon" AA POV to me: that AA is necessary to some extent because, without it, even talented minority students wouldn't make it to top schools. Of course, that was probably more true in 1972 than in 2010.

[PLEASUREMAN]

BushrodButtram, 01 February 2010 - 01:39 PM:

Race AA is horrifying. I don't know what the numbers are like in other areas, but in law school, being black is worth about 10 LSAT points (out of 61, the range is 120-180.) That's about 1 sd. Only about 30 of the 3000 scores over 170 go to blacks each year; you need about 170 to get into one of the top 10 schools. In effect, blacks need a 160 rather than a 170 to be competitive; that's 80th percentile vs. 98th, a huge gap in function, one would think.

The counterpoint is that 'blacks are not failing in inordinate numbers,' but that sounds suspicious to me; you never see any on law review or graduating with high honors.

On the other hand, I had one black prof for a business law class who was really first-rate and knew her stuff inside out. She kind of represented the "Nixon" AA POV to me: that AA is necessary to some extent because, without it, even talented minority students wouldn't make it to top schools. Of course, that was probably more true in 1972 than in 2010.

I think I've said this at some point before, but the only purpose of affirmative action is to protect the status of middle class blacks. Without it their offspring will regress toward the mean and end up working in a call center or bagging groceries (while lawyer dad gets weepy drunk). Blacks who can make it through college (most can't) can enjoy a sizable salary bump in corporate America. Would like to see a study on how much money AA gets them vs. an equally skilled white or Asian. I'll bet it's huge.

[Pangur]

"Souter or Stevens can manage an intellectual justification of their partisan version of Constitutional Law, whereas Ginsburg does pratfalls and doesn't notice."

One of the more intellectually disillusioning periods in my life was when I took Constitutional Law. I had no idea what a bunch of hacks occupied (and occupy) those seats. I also had no idea of the sheer amount of bullshit that these same hacks would employ to justify their ends. In between emanating penumbras and other insane justifications for shit the judiciary shouldn't get their grubby paws onto, it was thoroughly demoralizing.

My favorite current justice? Scalia. It has been a while since I've read a full opinion by him (for a laugh check out his concurrence in "Citizens United" for sheer hilarity) . . . but my impression in school was that he was at least more consistent than your average weasel on the court.