Is There Any Doubt ScAlito Is An Extremist?

Here's some ScAlito language to ponder:

[Plaintiff's] brief never asserts that his work environment was one that a reasonable, non-retarded person would find hostile or abusive.

Pretty interesting in that the plaintiff, a man with a subaverage IQ, presented, via his attorneys, allegations that:

a co-worker attempted to push a broomstick into [plaintiff's] behind as other staff watched.

among other similar allegations. ADDED: Here's a link to the EEOC brief in support of the plaintiff's claim.

Now Right Wing shills like Stuart Taylor will tell you that ScAlito was just enforcing a procedural rule about proper appellate argument. But Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice points out that Alito's strict enforcement of the appellate rules of procedure is quite selective. See, when ScAlito saw the chance to impose the death penalty, the  failure of Pennsylvania prosecutors to raise an argument was excused by ScAlito. Luckily, two Reagan-appointed Justices were not as bloodthirsty as ScAlito. They wrote in response to ScAlito's dissent:

Where the State has never raised the issue at all, . . . [were we to] rais[e] the issue [ourselves] we [would] come dangerously close to acting as advocates for the State rather than impartial magistrates.

ADDED: A Link to Smith v. Horn.

Impartial? Honest? Fair? None of those words comes to mind when you think of ScAlito.

In fact, the word that is flashing in my mind right now is "nonretarded." What kind of judge would write that?

See also Seth Rosenthal in The Nation.