“This is Islamophobic. American Justices or lawmakers advancing U.S laws subjecting women to the cruelty of Christian extremism doctrine has nothing to do with Muslims. Leave us out of it.” – Rep. Ilhan Omar wrote in response to the now-deleted tweet.
There is backfiring. And then there is the type of epic backfiring that happened to a self-described “investigative journalist” Thursday after he attempted to dunk on the five conservative Supreme Court Justices who – if the draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that was leaked to to the media last week holds – appear poised to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
David Cay Johnston, whose 50-year+ CV includes investigative tax reporting stints at the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Reuters among other left-wing news outlets, boasts of being a Pulitzer prize winner and a “Syracuse U law lecturer.” He’s written multiple books highly critical of former President Donald Trump, and his Twitter page is filled with exactly the type of mindless, insipid woke dogma you might expect to find from a leftist in response to the SCOTUS leak, like this:
Smart political cartoon: pic.twitter.com/naJfDzvLqC
— David Cay Johnston (@DavidCayJ) May 14, 2022
“Justice” Alito, advocate for an actual witch hunter, speaks: pic.twitter.com/vnphHmsF72
— David Cay Johnston (@DavidCayJ) May 14, 2022
But Johnston’s attempts at being cutesy boomeranged on him in a big way Thursday after he shared an altered photo of the Supreme Court Justices with the three female Justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Amy Coney Barrett – all wearing burkas.
In a since-deleted tweet that initially went viral, he called it “brilliant political art”:
Tweet deleted after wokesters did their thing, but you know what they say about the Internet being forever … pic.twitter.com/CsWbjmpkS6
— Sister Toldjah 😁 (@sistertoldjah) May 14, 2022
At some point after he posted the tweet, he began getting criticism over it from his fellow wokesters who didn’t appreciate him correlating allegedly oppressive actions like overturning Roe v. Wade to Islam.
He tried posting an explainer in another now-deleted tweet:
“Many commenting here miss the point of this political art. Its not about Islam. It’s about nominally Christian justices who don’t get the 14th or 19th Amendments and cite a witch hunter in the draft opinion. And yes I’m aware of Islamic law, which I’ve studied.”
But it didn’t do him any good. The accusations of “Islamophobia” piled up from a number of prominent Twitter blue checks on the left, including – most notably – anti-Semitic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.):
This is Islamophobic.
American Justices or lawmakers advancing U.S laws subjecting women to the cruelty of Christian extremism doctrine has nothing to do with Muslims.
Leave us out of it.
Lets call out Christian religious extremists who are violating our constitutional rights. https://t.co/X8T6afvVOV
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) May 13, 2022
Every conservative judge on SCOTUS is a Christian. But the ache to drag Islam into everything, to use it as inherently a bad thing, a radical thing – is a liberal favorite. This is on your Christian Evangelicals, it has nothing to do w/Muslims. This is bigoted political art. https://t.co/wf2LXW5mbz
— Sana Saeed (@SanaSaeed) May 12, 2022
No, its racist deflection. What's happening with SCOTUS has its roots in the American right, not in the Muslim world. https://t.co/rgg9Z3iy3z
— Shahed Amanullah (@shahed) May 12, 2022
This is racist and Islamophobic. None of the justices are Muslim. You can criticize them without suggesting what they’re doing is bad bc it’s akin to your fucked up view of Islam https://t.co/H1Zfpmetfe
— Reina Sultan (she/her)-email in bio (@SultanReina) May 12, 2022
This isn’t brilliant political art. It’s bigoted racist deflection. Stop blaming Muslims or Islam for America’s right wing pseudo-Christian extremism. Own this yourself. And stop demonizing Muslim women.
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) May 12, 2022
This white male Islamophobe has won a Pulitzer Prize. https://t.co/fMHqp8ojHd
— saira rao (@sairasameerarao) May 12, 2022
This is extremely islamophobic. White people have to stop pretending that whiteness and Christianity aren’t the primary stakeholders in the oppression of women in U.S.
— Frederick "Pre-order Patriarchy Blues" Joseph (@FredTJoseph) May 12, 2022
As a religion professor, I'm telling you this is anti-Muslim.
— Nyasha Junior (@NyashaJunior) May 12, 2022
This is disgusting. So we're fighting the taking of women's rights AND fascism by being Islamophobic, Xenophobic, racist and ignorant???
David needs a fucking clue. Does anyone how one he can borrow? https://t.co/TXHX0vnZ1i
— K (Nova's Version) 🏳️⚧️💜 SCI-FI WRITER (@DoctorRamerSoon) May 13, 2022
I don't love this, considering what I hear from Muslim American women is that wearing a niqab is their personal choice, not a patriarchal requirement.
— Tara K (@pennyfore) May 12, 2022
When Johnston was asked later why he deleted it, he said it was because it offended so many people who he claims misinterpreted him. He then inartfully explained that he wished he’d found a meme of the female Justices in “Margaret Atwood attire”:
A number of people were offended by the photo because they interpreted differently than I did so out of respect for them I deleted it. Where did I had found a photo of the women justices in Margaret Atwood attire.
— David Cay Johnston (@DavidCayJ) May 13, 2022
But even that explanation didn’t work:
Now babbling incoherently. No, 'wishing' (?) you'd found different art dressing the female justices just shows how clueless he is. It's the 5 fascists who require satirical address, not treating Kagan, Sotomayor and ACB equally. https://t.co/PHgRcQNj4S
— Vid Hardt (@vid_hardt) May 13, 2022
Not sure if all this qualifies as another instance of “go woke, go broke,” but radical leftists trying to out-woke each other while dog-piling on another one sure is entertaining to watch.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.