Note to Alan Colmes: Questioning “judicial temperament” is not being sexist

A New York Times article on Obama’s SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor has Alan Colmes seeing red.

The headline: Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament

Apparently calling into question someone’s temperament is offensive to Colmes – if the person being questioned is a woman, anyway. He whined in response:

They’ve tried almost everything else; now they’re attacking Sonia Sotomayor on her “temperament”. The New York Times writes of her “blunt and testy side” as displayed during questioning in Arar v. Ashcroft, a case of a man who said the Bush administration sent him to Syria to be tortured.

[...]

So she is either strident, nasty, and intemperate, if you’re a conservative opposing her, or sharp, focused, and a well-prepared interlocutor, if you’re supporting her. Expect the word “temperamental” to be tossed around. But would they ever use that word about a male judge? Or is it that some just can’t handle being sharply questioned by a woman?

Alan, Google is your friend:

——– In one of the most emotional moments of the proceedings, Senator Heflin said that Judge Thomas’s attitude toward Professor Hill’s testimony raised questions of “judicial temperament.”

“Senator, there is a big difference between approaching a case objectively and watching yourself being lynched,” Judge Thomas said in one of a series of remarks denouncing the proceedings.- NYT article on Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, 10/12/1991

——- “In one telling moment, he strained both credulity and judicial temperament.” - NYT editorial on Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, 10/15/1991

—— Wiki’s Antonin Scalia page, complete with a section on … you guessed it, his “judicial temperament.”

—— Much more here.

You can quit pandering to women, now, Alan.

Sheesh. As if Colmes had any credibility on the issue of sexism, anyway.