Home > General > “Did I make you mad? Did I make you mad? Did I make you mad?

“Did I make you mad? Did I make you mad? Did I make you mad?

March 2nd, 2013

Politico.com:

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “a troll” on tonight’s edition of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

Maddow was referencing Justice Scalia’s declaration that the Voting Rights Act was evidence of the “perpetuation of racial entitlement,” a remark he made during a Wednesday’s hearing, at which Maddow was present.

Maddow took issue with Scalia’s suggestion that voting was something an individual was entitled to on the basis of his or her race.

“I think he knows how that sounds, and that’s the neat thing about being there in person, is you can see: Oh, actually, he’s a troll,” Maddow said to the applause of the studio audience.

“He knows it’s offensive. He knows he’s going to get a gasp from the court room, which he got. And he loves it,” Maddow continued. “He’s like the guy on your blog comment thread who is using the N-word — ‘Oh did I make you mad? Did I make you mad? Did I make you mad?’ — he’s like that.”

“When we’re all shocked that he said something so blatantly offensive about the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Act, he’s thinking: ‘Oh yeah, I did,'” Maddow said.

Some folks think Rachel was out of order for calling Justice Scalia a troll.  The question remains, however, is Scalia a troll?  Isn’t a troll someone who goes on blogs to make inflammatory remarks just to watch everyone else go ape-sh**?

Does Scalia make incendiary remarks just to watch the reaction?

BTW, Rachel did attend the Supreme Court session that heard the Voting Rights case.

Categories: General Tags:
  1. Starryflights
    March 3rd, 2013 at 00:11 | #1

    Rachel Maddow was or react. “Troll” accurately describes Scalia.

  2. kelly_3406
    March 3rd, 2013 at 07:40 | #2

    The issue is that liberals and conservatives tend to speak past one another. The Voting Rights Act “entitles” the Feds to meddle with voting laws of southern states. It was an important tool in the 60s and 70s, but it does infringe on federalism. Scalia believes that this infringement represents “a perpetuation of racial entitlement” because it continues on, despite no evidence of racial discrimination in state voting laws.

    Maddow, in her normal dense way of looking at things, can only imagine that a white Supreme Court conservative justice would be refering to voting itself as the racial entitlement in question. This kerfuffle speaks more to Maddow’s obsession with race and its use in politics than to what Scalia actually said.

    • March 3rd, 2013 at 11:32 | #3

      I don’t see voting as an entitlement, much less a racial entitlement.
      Why wouldn’t anyone think race if the term racial entitlement is used? That is hardly a stretch.

      There most certainly is still reason to keep the Voting Rights Act alive in places in the United States. In fact, Prince William County was just released. I am not sure that it should have been based on some things I know about.

    • March 3rd, 2013 at 11:34 | #4

      Kelly, would you think Maddow less dense if she were screaming and strewing spittle all over the place like Limbaugh? She is probably one of the most gentile news commentators in the business.

  3. Scout
    March 3rd, 2013 at 11:54 | #5

    I find Maddow off-puttingly supercilious in her speech inflections and delivery to the point that it often obscures fairly insightful observations that need to be made. But that’s a very subjective reaction and it may just be that I’m an old guy. She certainly is extremely prim and proper (and blindingly smart) compared to folks like Limbaugh and Hannity. Maddow’s group does a thorough job with their research most of the time and I give them full marks for that.

    • March 3rd, 2013 at 11:56 | #6

      I think she goes on too long, to the point I have caught my eyes glazing over. However, when she is wrong, she makes amends without prodding. I think that is a rare characteristic in her field.

      Yes, she is blindly smart. I enjoy watching her bartend. What a hobby.

  4. Scout
    March 3rd, 2013 at 16:29 | #7

    Leaving Scalia for a moment, I’d like to have a conversation about the concept of a “troll” (not in Norse folklore, but in a blog sense). It seems to be used when someone says something that is somewhat (or completely) counter the main drift of the flavor of the comments and posts. I really don’t get it. It seems that that is exactly what we want in this medium. Without an exchange of views, whatever is the point?

  5. March 3rd, 2013 at 19:35 | #8

    @Scout
    A troll isn’t someone that is saying something counter to the drift. It is someone that is making comments that are there just to be inflammatory without contributing to a conversation.

    Otherwise…. I’m a troll by your definition. And I don’t think I am nor is that my intention.
    I’m always countering the common thread here.

    • March 3rd, 2013 at 19:38 | #9

      Counter isn’t trolling. Saying things just to piss people off without merit is trolling, by my definition.

Comments are closed.