Something I don't understand.

About a hundred years ago, our nation faced a major change: the women's suffrage movement. This movement argued that women were just as human, just as intelligent, and just as capable of rational thought as men, and that they were just as deserving of the natural human rights that'd just been granted to Negros. Until the suffrage laws were passed, women were basically chattel: they belonged to their fathers until they were married, then they belonged to their husbands. At no time did they have any rights that the men in their lives didn't permit. That included owning property, making (and keeping) her own money, suing and being sued in a court of law, bringing an abusive husband up on charges, and most definitely political speech.

That is no longer the case, and has not been since the nineteenth amendment was ratified. Because, once that passed, women were able to lobby and vote for laws that permitted them other rights.

I guess that must have changed at some point when we weren't looking, because there's no other explanation for this.

Seriously, with the passage of laws granting women the same legal rights as men, and preventing men from silencing their wives on political topics, how can being someone's wife curtail her right to free speech? I don't care if her husband is on the Supreme Court--she has the same rights to speak her mind and beliefs as anyone else.

And, if they're arguing that a woman who is not on the court will be able to politicize the whole court, tilting the whole court in favor of the Tea Party movement (which, to be frank, it should have been in the first place), then that means that the leftist members of the court don't have a brain amongst the lot of them.

Besides. The political hazing surrounding Supreme Court Justice Thomas's investiture did far more to polarize the court than his wife's activism could possibly do.