My first reaction was “oh no he didn’t” but yes, unfortunately Liddy did say this. The up side is his sexism isn’t veiled and open for defense, it’s right out there front and center.  Is it seriously his contention that women of child bearing years should not hold positions of importance and authority?

I think Giddy finds it upsetting that someone other than a white male has been nominated to the Supreme Court….his argument is that the Supreme Court isn’t intended to be a representative body.   Is there some law prohibiting it from being representative?  What does the Constitution say about the Supreme Court?

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.  SOURCE

I’ve done some research and so far I haven’t found anywhere in the Constitution or law that requires a Supreme Court Justice to meet any special qualifications.  The Constitution doesn’t even specify how many Justices there should be, (Congress has set the number of Justices at 9 but it wasn’t always so¹) much less what the make up of the court should be concerning age, sex, race, etc.  So what we have is nothing but Liddy’s  sexist and racist opinion that the court shouldn’t be representative.

G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: ‘Let’s Hope That The Key Conferences Aren’t When She’s Menstruating’

G. Gordon Liddy looking angryYesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:

LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.

Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:
LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.
Rest of Article

What possible reason could there be for the Supreme Court to consist of only white males?  What’s wrong with a representative court other than the fact it takes away the rights of white males to interpret law in a manner biased toward white males?

I knew that Liddy was an ex-con²  who capitalized on his notoriety, making one wonder why conservatives and Fox News find him a suitable commentator.  Why would anyone give any credence to this thug’s opinion much less listen to him on the airwaves?  Does he demonstrate the high moral values the conservatives are so proud of?

Liddy was convicted for his role in the Watergate break-in, for conspiracy in the Daniel Ellsberg case and for contempt of court, spending about four and a half years in prison. In 1986, a federal appeals court found Liddy liable for $20,499 in back taxes on Watergate slush-fund money, rejecting his claim that his benefits did not exceed $45,000. As one of the White House “plumbers,” Liddy spent about $300,000 engineering political dirty tricks and the Watergate break-in. SOURCE

Of course Liddy is entitled to his opinion as am I and my opinion of Liddy is he is a thug, a racist and a sexist pig.

¹ SOURCE
² SOURCE