Roberts to Overturn Marbury v. Madison?

Middle aged white guys are high fiving each other in the hallways this AM.

Hooray.

Looks like the rollback of affirmative action is starting with the Supreme Court.

Still, it could be worse.

bc

Joel is already up in arms, I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! You once proclaimed you are not a flaming liberial, just smoldering, well I can see the smoke from half way across the country.

Joel is already up in arms, I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! You once proclaimed you are not a flaming liberal, just smoldering, well I can see the smoke from half way across the country.

Joel is already up in arms, I'm shocked, SHOCKED!!! You once proclaimed you are not a flaming liberal, just smoldering, well I can see the smoke from half way across the country.

posting and spelling problems this morning

Awesome entry... one of the your best.

At last! Another underrepresented minority will get it's place in the sun. That would be the Harvard educated high priced white corporate lawyers who toe the Republican line. Whew, that was close. Well at least we won't be hearing about lynchings this time around.

Thanks Joel..the best analysis of this nomination I've read today. This is just what the country needs, a judge with the unique perspective of a conservative white man.

Since a number of my ancestors were signers of the Magna Carta, as well as the evil John I, I might as well jump in with both feet.

I just wish Supreme Court nominees were not so slick and polished, with all the right credentials and the right pedigree, attending the right schools, joining the right societies and clubs, with the best of well-connected friends.

I wish the nominee(s) could experience the tougher aspects of existence, see and be acquainted with life on its seamier side--much like former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, who attended the same Bakersfield, Calif. high school that I did, although in Warren's day it was known as Kern County Union High School.

Warren had rabbits, chickens, dog and eagle which he kept as pets. He rode his burro in the nearby hills, hunted, fished, and swam. In grammar school he worked a number of jobs. In summer he chopped and delivered ice. All year round, with a pony and a cart, he delivered the Los Angeles Herald in the mornings and the Bakersfield Californian in the afternoons. By the time he was 12, he worked in a bakery, drove a mule-drawn grocery wagon, and distributed circus handbills.

In high school, he worked part-time as a freight hustler, farmhand and railway mechanic's helper. During the summer when he was 15, he was a Southern Pacific "call boy." He worked 12 hours a day, six days a week, for 22 cents an hour, checking the train schedule lists and rounding up the crews in East Bakersfield before the trains departed. On his bicycle he tracked down the engineers, firemen and brakemen wherever they happened to be: in dilapidated furnished rooms; in saloons; in the middle of games at the poker, crap and blackjack tables; and even abed in the brothel's of Bakersfield's red-light district, Jap Alley. During his 17th summer, Earl was also a brakeman on a freight train out of Balersfield. This put him in touch with laboring conditions, and with people who were injured in rail accidents.

This intimate knowledge of life should be the stuff that Supreme Court justices are made of.

In one of the Post articles this morning, not only did it talk about his J-centered family, it also said that he mows his own 1.25 million dollar lawn and only orders chocolate chip ice cream. He must like making the easy decisions. "So John, about Roe v. Wade, what can I get for ya?" "I'll go with Scalia, no sprinkles."

I love how the Post only has two cases listed under Roberts' "Key Decisions." 1. The case of the 12 year old who was arrested for eating on the metro. 2. A dissent by Roberts on the case of the California toads. Wow, I am now throughly convinced he is the man for the job! [Insert sarcastic tone here] He has demonstrated he can really handle the tough cases!

I just think Bush is trying to soften up the opposition with this nominee so he can use his next one to nominate Roy Moore. I mean, we need to make sure we're upholding the correct law: God's law.

What's a Constitution?

The minute I heard about the appointment last night one of my first thoughts was, "This will be on the Achenblog tomorrow."

I've always been against [insert-letter-here]-intensive families. Letter-intensive families are kind of like incest. With all those similar lettered names interacting together, they're bound to get a little less intelligent each time they recite the names of the family.

Without O'Connor on the Court, I'm not feeling any less represented than I felt yesterday. The lack of women isn't really bothering me. But, if Roe is overturned I'll kick someone. I'm not all for abortion or anything, but in some cases (rape or the life of mother or child is in danger) it's nice to have there without having to deal with tons of red tape. I wouldn't consider it in other circumstances, though. The only thing I would like to see in regards to Roe is a law requiring minors to have parental permission (34 states have it but I think all need it). If they're "responsible" enough to have sex and risk getting pregnant, then they should be responsible enough to own up to it.

I heartily agree with linda loomis - but disagree that it is only supreme court nominees that should have had such experience - what kind of man would W have been if he had not been handed an oil refinery on a silver platter? All men/women that strive to be leaders should know the lives of the folks they want to be leaders of.

Thanks for just about the worst analysis of last night's nomination I have read to date. You're blowing this way out of proportion and making unjustified claims. Without a doubt this nomination process should not be a rubber stamp, but Bush certainly suprised me with this reasonable selection. Based on Bush's past behavior and his desire to spend his "political capital," I was expecting a completely irrational right-wing nutcase. Instead, he selected a highly intelligent, open-minded, rational, conservative leaning nominee that based his decisions/opinions on facts, not agendas. What did you expect him to nominate? A Liberal? Roberts is not O'Connor, but he's closer than I ever expected given the current political climate.

Anyone want to put up the capital for a coat hanger company? Guaranteed to be ridiculously profitable by its third year.

I'm off to Costco to buy some milk, bread, and TP.

Joel, I normally love reading your commentary, but today's item was very unreasonable. Why must the Supreme Court be perfectly representative of the people? (Plus, there are only 9 justices - you cannot capture the diversity of America in that body). What's more important is to actually nominate the best person for the job.

Given Shrub's other judicial appointments as well the article about the judges from the 5th Circuit in yesterday's Post and some of the wacko if not anti-constitutional ideas they embrace, I am breathing a sigh of relief. This nomination puts the Dems in an interesting situation - they may actually have to behave like grownups and may actually gain some respect if they ask tough questions but avoid the reflexive preening which tends to be the substitute for political discourse today.

In 1903, 22 cents an hour wouldnt be such a horror for a twelve year old:

http://eh.net/hmit/compare/

$4.57 using the Consumer Price Index
$3.90 using the GDP deflator
$21.49 using the unskilled wage
$29.26 using the GDP per capita
$105.43 using the relative share of GDP

Joel, I, for one, was also looking forward to the anger-over-nomination overload. It's like, where's my bursting veins and heightened blood pressure? What a rip off.

Although, for some of you folks screaming reasonable out there, you should check Roberts' record on human rights, which certainly leaves something to be desired.

"All this stuff is so obvious I don't get why it's not in the paper."

The obvious stuff is NEVER in the paper.
A person could figure out the meaning of life and it wouldn't be in the paper.

Sometimes I worry that people take my comments more seriously than they should. Please, please, don't make me start inserting little winky emoticons.

Achenfan: and some $12 pants, a few buy-one-get-one-free DVDs, a couple of cows, a giant jar of pickles and one box with 47 cake mixes in it because, as we've already established, you can't go to Costco and buy on bread, milk, and TP. Have fun.

I worry that I am the only person who understands my writing. And even I find a lot of it really enigmatic, and often unintelligible.

Oh, please, please, no winky emoticons! People would take your comments just as seriously, and you'd get people writing in to point out your incorrect usage of semicolons and parentheses.

From what I've read, Roberts' court desisions have been thoughtful and logical, with little to no political overtones. Regardless of which way he leans, doesn't that seem like an ideal quality for a Supreme Court justice?

Actually, Sara, during a storm like this, we have to focus on the bare essentials -- there's no room for frivolities like DVDs and $12 pants.

I saw this on our site, a comment from a reader who posted a reaction to Roberts:

"What I found amusing was the hate mongers on the left were printing in mass thier objections to Edith Clements before the announcement was made. Then they had to scramble to start thier hate campaign against Roberts and the venom was spewing within the hour. At least they are efficient at getting their message out. But in the end it does not matter; Bush could have brought back Thomas Jefferson and they would still find fault."

I think T.J. would have to face some tough questions, yes.

jw: Yeah he seems pretty solid, if perhaps without much of a appellate track record to examine and analyze. I'm sure he'll sail through the confirmation and then we can just see how he does. He could be just about anything, from a Souter to a Scalia, we don't know.

I'm not taking you seriously at all, joel.

NO WORRIES THERE, BUDDY.:)

(see? emoticons look silly)

I am posting from the Java House bureau of the blog. Should probably go to work. Sigh. I have to start doing real journalism again. Pretty soon I may get mighty scarce on this blog, and then God help you all.

Joel, don't worry, I got it. I think that maybe it was just a little to subtly tongue-in-cheek for general consumption. I thought it was hilarious how at first glance it's written so reasonably, but so irrational under the surface. That's a very difficult thing to do, I would thing. you should be pleased that you tricked some people, I thought that was what you were going for.

How can appointing a judge who looks to uphold the original intent of the framers of the Constitution take us back to the dark ages? Our Constitution is the most enlightened document ever written relating to government! You are going to look so ridiculously foolish when President Bush finishes his second term and moves on to private life, but perhaps no one will remember what you said because your words are so easily discounted.

I usually try to do it the other way around: Surface irrationality and deep inner logic.

what's reasonable about politics?

and what's a non-political member of the judiciary?

i don't get it. (insert: winky emoticon)

You would think I do it on purpose, but you'd be wrong. Need. More. Coffee.

Dear Cathy R: This is definitely Discount Journalism. Bargains galore. And I hate it when I look not only foolish but ridiculously foolish.

Please, no winky emoticons. Explaining sarcasim is like saying 'you had to be there'. Well I wasn't there so why did you tell me. I thought your post had an element of Monty Python in it. They would never explain a joke for good reason, explaining it ruins the effect.

I'm afraid people will take this too seriously and then we'll all be saying, "Tut tut, it looks like a RobertsStorm." People are going to declare Joel crazy and with flaming liberal tendencies and rush to Roberts aid because he's a very decent guy. And even though he grew up privileged, he still seems pretty down to earth.

See above. Honestly, Joel isn't the one who's looking foolish here.

Achenfan, but a couple of cows and 47 cake mixes in a box aren't necessarily frivolities. Especially during a storm such as this. You know, food storage and whatnot.

"And even though he grew up privileged, he still seems pretty down to earth."

what does that mean?

how is a $1.25 million plot of land "down to earth"? does that mean he's closer to the earth because he owns more of it?

(insert: winky emoticon)

Ha! Sara, I love the gratuitous Pooh reference.

Joel:
I love your writting. PLEASE no winkies Please...you make me think and question and most of all smile while I am trying to keep my business moving forward, employees, working, clients happy and not think about 9|11 that happened three blocks away. The mass death in Iraq, the lies we tell each other, and fact Lance is the man.

I did LOL at Joel's blog this AM, and looked forward to all the "Joel, you ignorant slut." commentary. So far, I'm not dissapointed.

The Washington Post.
If you don't get it, you don't get it.

bc

The blog is linked on the homepage, with the heading, "John G. Roberts: Prince of Darkness." This stinks of shameless self-promotion and cloud seeding.

got my second "sign this petition" e-mail opposing roberts a few seconds ago.

the evil über-liberal forces are hard at work!

muahahahaha

Ok...to the idiots...recognize humor when you see it please.

Achenbach: great post!

On the nominee: Good lord! Helloooo Whitey McWhiterson! I think only I am whiter than this dude...and that's only because he had makeup. While I agree you can't represent the whole of American diversity on a 9-judge panel; you can at least represent SOME of it. Geez...you have seven rich white guys, one of a different race and one woman. That's not even an attempt at representation; it's a laughable farce.

Can ya' tell I'm not thrilled about this? Some on here are right; it could be worse, but it could also be immensely better.

Wow, too many tie-ins here: buying emergency supplies at Costco for the RobertsStorm, discount journalism . . . we are all way too clever for our own good.

Prince of Darkness? Oh, the Pooh reference was needed. Not only a comparison to Satan, but also to Ozzy Osbourne. Joel, you're a comment whore!

On the liberal lameness scale, moaning as many here have been doing about the fact that the nominee is white, male, and has graduated from elite (read highly competitive) school is about a 6 out of 10--lame but not hysterically so. Joel's cheeky response is cuter than it is funny but I think a sign that he couldn't think of anything real to complain about. Won't be long though, I'm sure.

Achenfan, that's why there are only 15 of us who understood this post. That's why we are a club. With sub-clubs. Like the SCC, which jw has already opened this morning with his "I would thing." statement. Now we're all free to acknowledge our typos and hate ourselves.

Ok, I've got 11:15 in the pool to see when the Achencellerator gets to 100 particles, er, comments.

Any other takers?

bc
PS Remember, the Observer does influence the experiment.

This columnist is an idiot....I will not waste my time reading his column again.

This columnist is an idiot....I will not waste my time reading his column again.

This poster is an idiot...I will not waste my time reading her posts...twice...again.

(someone had to do it)

Out here in San Francisco, people were protesting Bush's appointment -- BEFORE it was announced.

The local news interviewed someone who was sincerely going on and on about rights being in jeopardy and then made the mistake of saying "whoever Bush nominates." There's rationale politics.

I don't know enough about this guy. Yes, he's Harvard educated, but he worked his way through college, which is a little different than Kerry or Bush, isn't it?

"I know a worse one."

-- Gene Wilder, in "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (1971)

*rational* not rationale. Sorry folks.

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I think that a Supreme Court appointment (it is an APPOINTMENT and not a NOMINATION, right?) should have nothing to do with diversity, or social background, or gender. In fact, I think it's a detriment. Appointing a justice because they will look out for blacks, or gays, or women...that's kind of missing the point of the Court. The only thing I want them looking out for is the Constitution.

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE TADPOLES?!

OK, got that out of my system. Whew.

It could be a lot worse. This is about the best that I expected to feasibly happen, frankly. I'm hoping that Justice R turns out to be fairminded, thoughtful, and all that stuff, rather than a cloaked extremist of either flavor. (Personally, I don't mind a little of my flavor of extremism, but that never goes over big for the other half of the country... and I guess he is supposed to excercise jurisprudence over us all. Hmpf.)

Why I laugh?

Famous words by Homer...

Simpson that is.
You know when things get so ridiculously out of control you can't help but laugh? One of those moments.

Keep those shrimp ice! We can put them out at America's farewell party

"As far as whether we're just living in a great big holodeck, I think this is a serious philosophical question that we don't necessarily have a good answer to, because we are always the observer in science."

-- Andrew B. Newburg, M.D., in "What the Bleep Do We Know?!"

Is that a topee adorning Roberts' forehead or is it a cowpie?
Alan

The most depressing thing about Roberts is that he is 50. His philosophy and ideology will affect SCOTUS decisions for decades to come.

Er. . .toupee
Alan

On an unrelated topic. I got yet another scam mailing today with the promise to pay me $3 million if I only send in a twenty dollar registration.

The principal these scams operate on is so annoying. Say you get one out of ten people you mail to, to reply with money. It doesn't even have to be people who are fooled. Someone could mail in with the idea, 'it's only twenty dollars, what do I care?'. Well you mail to 10,000 people, ten percent respond with money, that's $20,000 with little to no work involved.

Does anyone know, are these scam mailers ever prosecuted for fraud?

I wonder if there is some sort of statistic out there that tells us the frequency in which, when political pressure is taken away (i.e., given lifetime oppointments or retired completely) political figures with more extremist views (left of right) swing back towards the center or to the other side? That would be interesting to know. Then we could handicap him, like a horse race or something.

Okay. This has to be said because this is when things start getting ridiculous:

If you have to resort to attacking the man's hair, just don't say anything.

Pro or anti Roberts? Depends on what you fear or want most. Personally, I want less abortion but not its total abolition, more protection against terrorists and against business malpractice. No gay marriage but no anti-gay activity. No help for the Christian Fascists who want to evangelize this nation. I'll therefore have to wait and see about Roberts.

I say attack the man's hair. Our nation's leaders these days seem to show a total lack of style. It's disgraceful..... of course, John Bolton's piece is much worse, of course..

Go white boy, go white boy, go!

Well norman you don't have to have a gay marriage... you have that right

I know that the FBI routinely investigates fraud involving pyramid schemes, but I think they focus more on the $20,000 ones than on the $20 ones.

John Bolton's hairpiece is a completely different story. That is blatantly horrible. I realize this is a hypocritical statement.

Well, the only thing that you forgot was that he will also declare all International Treaties void and declare the US detached from the rest of the world.

My routine response to the "no gay marriage" folks is that since I'm Catholic, all you people married by the JOP or on the beach or in Vegas (or in a Baptist ceremony...hahaha!) are still living in sin anyway. That either really pisses them off or shuts them up. Either way I get to have fun.

Aw, c'mon jw, don't you think that we should redo the Constitution of the Supreme Court, completely divided along ethinc and gender backgrounds, according to population percentage (unforunately, sexual preference doesn't appear to be in the Constitution)?

There could be special elections where all people of hispanic origin vote for their SC Justice(s), ditto African Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasian Americans, etc., so that everybody is represented (sounds familiar, no?), in the right ratio. Perhaps there would be special seats for men and women as well. The seats change as the demographics our country shift according the Census results, and the sitting President would nominate potential justices for each of the seats for vote by each ethnic group.

Eveybody's represented, everybody's happy, right?

bc

"Bush could have brought back Thomas Jefferson and they would still find fault."

Well, yeah. A back-from-the-dead Supreme Court justice would be a bit controversial.

No, I think we NEED to talk about the man's hair; in fact, the hair of all the SC members. As a folically- challenged individual, I am tired of the blatant discrimination that occurs against bald jurists. And don't talk to me about Rehnquist, Brennan, etc. - if you have an AARP card, chances are, your hair is gone. And Scalia has that faded widow's peak thing going on, so don't bring that stuff in here.

I fully expect Sen. Leahy to be all over this topic.

Either that was sarcastic bc or you watch too much Star Trek. I have not quite figured it out yet. What's the fun of everybody being happy, pissed off people make the best comedians.

"Summer just got duller"? Don't forget Rovegate, Joel! We don't *have* to fall for the bait and blot out every other past crime of the Bush administration in our obsession with his (big surprise!) nomination of a conservative to the Supreme Court.

If it's apocalyptics you like, let's see what happens when Rove and Libby are indicted and do plea-bargains in return for ratting out their bosses. Woooeee!

(It could happen!)

How do you spell diversion: R-O-B-E-R-T-S.

(check uot the front pages of the leading print media,no ROVE,no more)

None of you understand what is really going on. It's all about me, Moi Moi. See, Pres. W. does the things he does for personal reasons and he likes to keep his personal reasons personal, see? Wait, I haven't explained anything yet. The reason Pres. W. chose Roberts is because he hates me, Moi Moi, and he has set his second term sights on my personal destruction and misery. See, I told you it was personal. Why Roberts, you ask? Because Roberts is the Anti-Moi Moi. What is an Anti-Moi Moi you ask? Well, remember the movie Dirty Harry? Roberts is Clint Eastwood and Moi Moi, (that's Me), is the deranged radical left wing serial liberal. Now I am going to have to pay some street thug to beat me up and go testify before Congress that Roberts did it because he hates liberals. Being Moi Moi is hard, tough work. See? No, well, I didn't expect you to, but you will. Oh yes, my prettys, you will. Ahhhhh Hah Hah Hah. AHHHHHHHH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH...

. . . . .

i'm calling for a ban on all heterosexual marriages. they are a farce.

secret, undisclosed sources tell me that most women want to kill their husbands, anyway.

I think you may be on to something, Posted by: |

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

the ummmmmmmmm was to Moi Moi...

Yes we may want to kill them, but only intermittently.

I wish he had nominated a woman. But give the guy a chance. Also, those who took Joel's comments too seriously don't really understand Joel's writing. I especially liked the wedding cake comment!

I guess I am getting up there, but I'm not cigarette.

Would you have the courage to say this to a gay military person returning from war, putting his or her life on the line to protect your freedom? Norman

The Supreme Court. Could you find a group of people less in touch with society than it stands currently?

This is the group who decided that it was just fine and dandy for mayors and city councils to take away family homes in order to increase the local tax base. To me, this is up there with the most unAmerican decisions of modern time. Imagine what the current San Diego cadre or a Barry admin could pull off with this kind of usurping power.

I know, there are important social decisions to be made that are on the chopping block, etc. But could you really swing things anymore toward LooneyLand City Central than the group who made this domain decision?

It would be incredibly interesting to me to know Roberts' position on the whole WalmartNation decision.

The National Organization for Women has topped itself with its description of Roberts as "anti- anti-woman."

"Throughout his 26-year career, John G. Roberts has continually supported and promoted an anti- anti-woman, anti-civil rights, and anti-worker agenda."

C'mon now, who'd ya think W was going to nominate??? Hillary Clinton? Of course he was going to nominate someone who will (probably) view things in a similar vein, just as BC nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Souter....oh, wait....he didn't do Souter.....

roberts is like über-anti-women, to the infinity-ith degree. TOTALLY.

i hate NOW...and i'm a feminist. ugh, what is the world coming to?

next on achenblog; moi moi goes off the deep end, compares self to clint eastwood movie villian. liberals everywhere are scratching their heads.

I'm going to give Moi Moi the benefit of the doubt and propose that Moi Moi's post may not be as crazy as it sounds. Now, some of my OWN posts over the past few months have been pretty "out there," and I continue to be amazed by how infrequently someone will call me on them. OK, I once suggested that Jennifer Aniston had something in common with Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry, in that all three women have had their personal lives splattered over the front pages of tabloids, and someone said that Kidman and Berry didn't have a smelly rodent's bottom to do with the Aniston/Pitt situation (I'm paraphrasing). And I once commented on a performance artist outside the Corcoran who was learning to get by with less, and someone told me to stop dreaming. (The poster thought the performance artist deserved to have a copy of "Walden" thrown at her.) But other than that, I find I can pretty much say all kinds of crazy stuff and people just let it go. So maybe I'll give some of these tolerance credits I've accrued to Moi Moi.

LP, too late.

can we lay off all the references to the man's family? it's fine to trash his views and comment about his judicial decisions, but lets not get nasty about his personal life. just because the pols in washington do it doesn't mean we have to.

as for the comments about his upbringing. since when did it become a necessity for a leader to be from the people to understand the people? i don't recall j. f. kerry ever worked on a farm a day in his life. dean, i recall, decided he had too much of a new england upbringing (between his private schools and live-in nannies) that he "escaped" by going skiing out west (yeah like your average joe can afford ski equipment).

i didn't once see anyone here complain about kerry or dean, or any of the other countless white rich liberals.

stick to the issues.

as for his short stint on the bench. you don't even need to be a judge to be qualified as a supreme. members of the supremes in the past have all come from different legal backgrounds. so do your homework if you're going to comment about his "qualifications".

and achenbach, as for your ranting and raving of the end of the world as we know it, give me a break. bush could have nominated a partisan judge out to destroy the constitution. it's his nominee and he can do what he wants. if i remember correctly ginsburg was overwhelmingly confirmed by both sides even though the republicans knew what her views were. they didnt' choose to obstruct or filibuster (which they had the numbers for) clinton's right to choose his supremes nominee.

roberts is well respected in the legal community here in dc as someone who is brilliant and fair. he doesn't prejudge and doesn't insert his personal bias into a case. that to me sounds like pretty good traits to have for a judge. liberal and conservative lawyers alike all praise him as someone of great integrity. in fact, over a hundred prominent attorneys in dc, including many from the clinton and carter administrations, signed a letter advocating for his nomination to the high court.

so why don't all of you just relax. this will be a long process. more info is going to come out on him and i hope you will all take the time to formulate your opinions on the merits and not on some panic blog written here today. kind of disapointing joel.

Yes, but what if the hair attacks you first? Then it becomes a matter of obligation to protect the public from further hair attacks doesn't it?

One of the funniest essays since Jonathon Swift.

I choked on my coffee when I read the bit about overturning Marbury versus Madison.

Thanks for a great column.

I think it's time we started speculating about those people who can't seem to read satire and understand that it's humor. Where do you think they live/what do they do for a living? And why do they still have the perspective of something that just crawled from under a rock when they have access to computers and the internet? My guess is that they are all working for Fox News. Over there the jokes must start with "Knock Knock..."

relax? what would we blog about if we relaxed?

I once heard that there are people out there who read Weingarten's column every week, claim to love it, and don't realize it's a humor column. I'd really love to get inside these people's heads. Actually, maybe not.

This didn't seem like a "panic blog" to me. This seemed like a thoroughly thought out, well planned satirical blog. But maybe we're all dumb and Jay is the smart one here. Hopefully we'll know soon.

Regarding letter-intensive families, my brother and I are J- names, as was one of our cats. We learned to respond to a mishmash of our names. It definitely annoyed the cat.

Seems to me that although the sentiment is real, Joel is using a little tongue-in-cheek action in this post. It's hilarious. Love his column in National Geographic, too. White guys are definitely high-fiving each other in the office right now. Even Laura Bush's opinion doesn't count to Pres. Bush, apparently.

I wish I could take credit for this one:

Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

humor mix with wit is fun to read. humor with no substance is less than desirable.

sienfeld: funny and witty even though the show had no point to it. that was the joke.

ren and stimpy: plain stupid humor. no brains behind it.

today's blog: lacks any wit or brains. hides the author's lack of brains and intellignece behind "satire" and "humor"

Moi Moi,
I am so glad you have joined us. Please stick around. I'm a dog person, too.

Well, Joel, looking on the bright side, at least you have been successful at HIDING your "lack of brains." ;) :) ;-)

In response to Toad Hall: actually if you look around this administration the white lawyer is a minority. There are more Hispanics in the cabinet then whites not to mention the apointment of the first black SOS to be followed by the first Black woman SOS to be followed by the first hispanic attorney general to be followed by the first hispanic treasury secretary.

LP - did my scratching head "ummmm" have a liberal lean to it? i'm not really a liberal or as my uber-conservative boss likes to call me "a liberal weeenie" (amongst other things) - i don't think of myself as a bleeding heart liberal - i'm a femenist and pro-choice but i'm against hand-outs to any shmo that wants welfare and doesn't want to work...

In response to Linda Loomis...Clearence Thomas wasnt feed with a silver spoon.

Marbury vs. Madison: it is true that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. This was entirely a coup d'etat by the Court. But good conservative doctrine (not radical originist doctrine) keeps what is and tries to make minor changes when absolutely necessary. In other words, you repair, you do not tear down and rebuild.

If a returning gay soldier told me he felt he deserved to have a gay marriage I would tell him to do back to Iraq where they would give him what he needed right away.

Let's face it, folks. Clarance Thomas got confirmed because he played the race card.

In his comments on yesterday's poll, Gene Weingarten lamented that a sense of irony would be a terrible thing to lose. It appears that some of those who read Joel's original essay this morning suffered from a telling lack of the irony gene. Then again, maybe irony is not genetic, but acquired through diligent study of the masters and mistresses of irony? Like Elvira.

For now, I'm going to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt. Until I find a reason not to. I am adamantly pro-choice, pro gay-marriage, basically liberal on social issues.

But irregardless brought up that property rights case that has not sat well with me. O'Connor was in the dissenting group on that, I know. I can't remember how everyone voted, but I think it was 6-3 and the liberal justices are who swung it in favor of limiting property rights. This is SO wrong. Property rights are the basis of every healthy economy. Many economists will argue that lack of strong property rights is the reason developing countries have trouble. I was in the Peace Corps and know there is some truth to that, though there are many other issues at work. Anyway, there should be very little fudging on interpreting property rights other than to the benefit of the owner and the liberals on the SC let the public down on this.

oh, and i'm pro-gay marriage as well... hmmm maybe i am a bleeding heart liberal (who can't spell feminist)...
and jay - get over yourself - all the rest of us get the joke - maybe it's *you* who are wanting in the brain dept or at least the humour dept!

Jay said, "...members of the supremes in the past have all come from different legal backgrounds."

Yeah, like Diana Ross!

Mo - I don't think there's any party that has "and let us dole out welfare to schmoes that don't want to work." As for your ummmmm having a liberal bent to it, i don't know, did it?

LP - well - me being as narcissistic as i am thought the "liberals scratching their heads" was directed at my ummmm....

jw, I was looking for the right Diana Ross reference, but I just couldn't do it justice. Good job. I was hoping someone would pick up the ball I just let roll past me.

although a lot of the posts are from the same people and are unrelated to the original blog, I think the amount of comments must be a record.

LB, nope. RoveStorm received over 700. I don't know that we'll ever get THERE again. And that was with most of us sheltering under the green grass blog while Googlers went at it in the Rove blog.

Norman, you're not sending these comments from a small cabin in Montana are you?

Not by a long-shot...the original RoveStorm was up to 800-something, I think.

Did anyone else notice the spontaneous eloquence of Roberts last night as contrasted against our prepared-statement-reading President?

Isn't it too bad we have a President who cannot string together two coherent sentences without a script?

clarence thomas, condi rice, al gonzales, calos gutierrez, mel martinez, alfonzo jackson, elaine chao, rod paige, colin powell and conservatives did not grow up with spoons in their mouths.

many consertives all have similar backgrounds. the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives don't look at the rich and despise them for their wealth. if they got it from hard work, they good for them. if they got it from ill-gotten gains, then they will be squared with their maker. either way, they don't concern us. liberals on the other hand look at the rich and want the money for themselves and to build some kind of utopia. i don't mind making an ideal world where poverty is eliminated. just don't take something that doesn't belong to you to create it.

people like thomas, rice, chao are merely the tip of the iceberg of successful conservatives who rose above their obstabcles in live and strived despite of them. for that, they get branded as somehow traitors to their race. as if we're supposed to all think the same or something. liberals are always talking about diversity. but balk when it comes to diversity of thought. they get scared when someone doesn't think they same way they do. that to me sounds like orthodoxy and not liberalism.

I know this is off the topic,
but James Doohan has passed away. Beam him up.

Long after the list of Supreme Court Justices falls by the wayside in memory, except for history classes, his name and fame will live on.

I'm not sure what that says about our culture, but to be remebered as a morality tale's deus ex machina 'Scotty Beam me up' is not a bad way to be rememberd.

Jay: please don't try to insult Joel's brains or 'intellignece'...especially by misspelling intelligence. Of course, on this blog, writing without capitalizing your sentences is also a mortal sin; so don't do that either. In closing, if you don't understand the humor and all of these other people do; it probably speaks more to your 'intellignece' than the author's.

Merci, TA.

Habemus Nominatam! This whole appointment process seems like the Washington version of Vatican watching (Joel - feel free to use that alliteration)- only that no one needs to die first (could still happen though, and it'll all start again). What a spectacle! There are only few countries and institutions were this is possible, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Wow, I have a meeting, go to lunch, and look at the chain reaction in here.

Dawaldog - you're right on both counts, but I'll admit I was thinking of Iraq a little bit when I wrote that bit about a revised process for selecting SC Justices. I think TA would agree with me if I suggested that it looked like Roberts were wearing a well behaved Tribble on his head.

Posted by:
yea, we know that the only reason we're still alive is to move heavy objects, take out trash, mow lawns, and scoop litterboxes. And serve as objects of ridicule behind our backs (this is easy since we're so oblivious to... damn near everything).

Finally - Dreamer, O Queen, how could you subscribe to Posted by:'s position?

We like you "out there" - I'm out there on Tempel-1, too..

bc

we in the legal community have a running joke about the high court. we call them the supremes. maybe you all didn't get the joke? and i thought this was a humorous bunch.

Mr. Achenbach: You've done it. You've written the perfect stealth article appropriate to the topic of the newest stealth candidate. It was coded so only intelligent liberals could understand it. Very shrewd, indeed.

We get the message. We will obey.

jay, we just took your humor and added to it. When you come here and obviously take something truthfully that is meant to be satirical and then try to backpedal on that by saying, "Well, I just thought it lacked wit," then of course we're going to use your joke to make a joke. Let me guess, we lack wit as well?

Hey, CowTown, I'm not liberal. I'm conservative and I got it. [insert sad emoticon here] And laughed, too. [insert "lol" here]

Eww...I feel dirty just alluding to the emoticons.

Really, if anyone reading this blog hasn't figured out you have to do it with tongue firmly implanted in cheek, then there's not much help for them.

I just heard word from a friend of mine, the DNC is definitely already mobilizing for a fight and hitting up its donors^H^H^H^H base.

Hmm.

Jimmy Doohan passing away, Tribblehead Roberts being nominated to the SC within 12 hours of each other.

Coincidence?

bc

Any nominee that Ann Coulter opposes has got to be a good one.

writing is writing. "mortal sin" to not capitalize? what is this, grammar school? and i was told you guys are a relaxed bunch. and please recognize the difference b/n mispellings and typos.

Aren't lawyers supposed to, ah, be good at writing?

i'm not going to take any of the star trek bait.

I can see what you folks are trying to do.

but............

RIP James Doohan >

Don't worry, bc, I'm no man-hater. I guess I just pondered Posted by: |'s comment in a be-open-to-everything kind of way. Marriage IS a strange institution, when you think about it -- so often people end up with the person they just happen to be dating when they are of a marriageable age, often when they're so young they don't yet know who they are or what they stand for. I don't think I'd ever actually kill my husband, although sometimes I get a little tired of washing his socks -- especially on those days when the Calibi-Yau aliens aren't co-operating.

jay is obviously new here. He doesn't realize how nit-picky we are about grammar and writing. And only 13-year-olds don't capitalize, you have to admit that jay.

Ha! LP.

This will date me (as young, which isn't bad), but who did James Doohan play? Is he Scotty?

I'm aware that Clarence Thomas wasn't fed from a silver spoon. But then neither did Earl Warren attend La Lumiere in Laporte.

John G. Roberts Jr.? Who the heck is John G. Roberts Jr.? According to the NYT, the ultimate capital insider. A man with very little paper trail. The confirmation process will be an interesting one.

I retract my earlier comment about only intelligent liberals getting Joel's joke. Only intelligent people got the joke. My apologies, Sara.

I share your distain for emoticons. I urge a constitutional amendment banishing them from the electronic superhighway.

I used to do wedding photographer, and, personally, I think marriage is just fine but WEDDINGS should be outlawed. It should something you should just have to go to the dmv for, or something equally heinous, so you really have to want it in order to do it.

No apologies needed, CowTown. I took no offense.

And I disagree LP. I look forward to a big white dress and presents and cake someday.

i mean wedding photography....

sorry

margaret dumond didn't get groucho marx, either.

this guy does not fit my definition of moderate....

how big?

"You are going to look so ridiculously foolish when... [blah blah blah]"

Is satire something that escapes the uber right? I'd try explaining "tongue in cheek," but I'm afraid they'd send Pat Robertson after me...

That's just it. It shouldnt be about cake or presents or dresses - but that's all it is these days. Of course, I don't want to make generalizations, I'm sure there are exceptions. If you took away the huge torturous party to begin with, I think a lot less folks would dive into bad relationships.

Yes, Sara. Doohan played Scotty.

Dreamer, good points about marriage. I'm advising my daughters that I think 30 may be a good age to _start_ considering marriage.

My wife wants to kill me every so often. Since I take out the trash, I generally
have indicators as to when that's likely to happen.

Here's what I can tell you about what your husband may be thinking:

bc
PS Please note that I resisted using the word "periodic" in that second-to last paragraph.

I still disagree. It shouldn't FOCUS on cake and presents and dresses, but all that adds to the celebration of the uniting of the couple. Marriage should be special, so special circumstances are called for. But I do agree that many are too excited to have that excuse to party hearty, so they dive into bad relationships. If you have a healthy outlook, the extras like the dress are really great.

I knew some of the regulars here would get around to race and gender after a lot of yipping and yapping.

Some of you actually thought Joel was serious until you read a few paragraphs.

Time to roll out the gender genie and clean things up here. [sound of i n c o m i n g.......]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. The best marriages I have seen had dispensed with the fancy-schmancy ceremonies in the beginning. And I'm probably a little scarred from to many bitchy brides and over-the-top receptions where no one had any funny.

any FUN - geez, sorry

See, bc, I have my own theory about the "every so often" thing. Women may get those anger surges once a month (although I've noticed that they generally don't occur in a vacuum), but for men, those hormones are raging *all month long!* (sounds like a Lionel Ritchie song).
I like to call it TS. Or TBS -- testy-boy syndrome.
[insert joke tag and lots of smiley emoticons here]

Maybe when we transcend our biology and colonize Tempel-1, we will also transcend these bothersome syndromes.

jimbo,
hear! hear! (Ok, it's my turn to be grammar-challenged. Is it hear! hear! or here! here!? or heer! heer! or kpthear! ktphear!?

asian conservative: no insult to your people, but Elaine Chao does not belong in the same category as Condi Rice or Colin Powell. She was the head of two of my former employers and the woman is yahoo.

Melvin is back! And he remembered about the gender genie!

Not true, Sara. Those who don't capitalize are now nearing the end of their teenage days: the favorite amongst 13 year olds is replacing letters for no good reason. For example, bye becomes "bai," hello becomes "h3llo" and so on.

I saw my younger sister typing "bai" once. It nearly made me cry.

Sorry, the woman is A yahoo. I hadn't planned on joining the SCC?, but I guess I'm in good company.

TA:
It's "Hear! Hear!" (as in, listen, listen, not as in lobster here)

I have always thought the no-gay marriage thing boiled down to a very simple principle.

If marriage is a religious institution and gay marriage 'ruins the sanctity' of that religion. Then marriage by it's nature should not be recognized by the government as a defining characteristic of the people.

There is this little concept called separation of church and state that is one of the foundations of this country.

If marriage is a activity sanctioned and recognized by our government then they need to follow their own non-discrimination requirements.

As for abortion, that too boils down to something pretty simple to me. I don't think anyone else should have more control over my body than me.

- yea turn the Hubble Telescope to the left, that's me waiving from the horizon...

Oh goodness, Melvin is back. And he's only mildly insulting the TSA-15. Melvin, do you have a fever?

no, I think it is "Bi-... for some very close to this blog.

I'm confused: Is the uppercase Melvin the same Melvin as the lowercase melvin?

yYes

Mon Dieu, I can't get it together today. I didn't mean to say the TSA-15. That, of course, means I said "the" twice. As Sara would say, I am scum.

I am a conservative and I want to say that the statements by "asian conservative" have problems.

I especially take issue with the following:

"i don't mind making an ideal world where poverty is eliminated. just don't take something that doesn't belong to you to create it."

First off, let me rant and rave AGAIN about the WalmartNation decision by the conservative Supremes. The fundamental principle of the decision was that government take over of individual property was Greatly expanded. This decision, led by the drum beating "conservatives" of the Court so flies in the face of what "asian conservative" writes above that it boggles the mind how anyone supporting the decision could ever claim to be "conservative" again. Along those lines, the incessant draconian expansion of federal authority in this administration similarly flies in the face of this supposed "conservative" doctrine.

While I affirm this point of view, it is ridiculous to believe that the movement calling itself "conservative" in this country even resembles a conservative movement. And don't get me started on the Christian Conservatives. I am a Christian. I am a Conservative. They are neither.

Especially the conservative christian movement. The fundamental tenent of christianity is the manner in which humans treat other humans, especially those in need. The entire belief system is based on

Be careful about using French terms... I hear the language will be outlawed soon.

you said it, I didn't. vat is the TSA-15 anyway? the first group of 15 baggage inspectors who grope you?

You know what bugs me? When people call Counting Crows THE Counting Crows.

I once went to concert with THE Counting Cows. Does that count?

oops. Hit "Post" midthought. I meant to basically say that the fundamental belief of Christianity is that we are essentially judged by how we act in "love" (the verb) towards our neighbors and enemies. How anyone claiming to be a Christian can support the ideals espoused by the "conservative" movement as it has been coopted is beyond me.

I think I have stumbled into a chat room

IT'd be nice if this chat would automatically update itself... my computer's not too happy about all the refreshing.

poops. Hit "Post" no-thought. I meant to basically say that the fundamental belief of TSA-15 people is that we are essentially judged by how we act in "msnarfingg" (the verb) towards our neighbors and enemies. How anyone claiming to be a religious person of any stripe can support the ideals espoused by the "Bush" movement as it has been drivelized is beyond you, but not me. Yes?

I don't know about Counting Crows vs. THE Counting Crows, but I do know that after seeing them in concert at Merryweather last summer, I started referring to Adam Duritz as THE Pineapple.

Irregardless, I share your pain. The New London Eminent Domain case is tough because of its harsh result. But let's get some perspective. Who do we want deciding whether a particular eminent domain action involves "blighted" property, or what kind of "public use" is permissible, the federal courts, or the local political process? I choose the local political process, even though it means you sometimes get anomolous results (like from the City of New London). It's easier to recall members of the Board of Selectmen than to impeach Supreme Court justices.

Mmelvin: Allow me to introduce myself as the geek who goes back to previous blog entries to cut and paste things that might be of interest or relevance to current discussions. (I'm also the grammar geek.)
Here is the history of TSA-15:
Joel once said, "Ideally the blog will have only about 15 readers, but very intellectual, refined, sensitive readers between the ages of 18 and 35 and with large amounts of disposable income."
NOTE: Remember Joel's tongue-in-cheek approach, i.e., don't take this statement literally or personally.

Sorry, I mean Melvinn. (I'm really going to have my work cut out for me if you keep changing the spelling of your name. Oh well, I was looking for a new challenge.)

Sacre bleu! Juste-milieu--j's suis, j'y reste!

Just adding to Tom fan's explanation:
TSA-15 stands for The Select Audience of Fifteen.

Dreamer, you're right about men's hormone surges.

The cycle runs anywhere from 3 days to a week. The cycle can be variable, depending on conditions.

There's a funny bit in Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" where a man charts his productivity levels...

Actually, as long as the apogees and perigees are not too dramatic, I rather like some of those things about human biology.

At least we won't be bored out there.

bc

I'm between the ages of 18 and 35... and I cried in "Hannibal" when Lecter cut off his hand as to not hurt Clarise... I'm halfway there!

A French typo:
Sacre bleu! Juste-milieu--j'y suis, j'y reste!

Thanks, TA. I left out the most important part! And I call myself an editor . . .

Actually, I match the specs of the TSA-15 perfectly, except for age and two medical conditions of some consequence: dementia and the heartbreak of psoriasis.

In fact, Melvin, those two medical conditions only improve your likelihood of fitting in.

Joel this is the first time I stumbled onto one of your editorials, how insidious you are. The Oracle Rush Limbaugh warned us about extremist like you whose first proclivity towards the nomination would be to excoriate Roberts for his profamily behavior. Your demagoguery "J intensive" with a wife, family so cute to be criminal" How did you become so anti family? Being an attorney and not expecting you to have any knowledge on the subject, Judge Roberts veraciously ruled the UCC did not apply to this haples California toad, which the plaintiff predicated their suit upon.I know this is to deep for you because you have to have some knowledge of the UCC and interstate commerce judicial rulings. Your ramblings are so pivotal to the extreme left and hatred for GW. Please try to read some history books regarding the founding fathers, the constitution, the judicial process so as to be somewhat knowledgable and be able to expostulate your beliefs with some facts instead of fallacious rantings.The enigma about people like you and the moveon.org idiots. they never let facts get in the way of their whimsical choleric obloquy eminating from their mouths.

Oh, JWF. You WAY didn't get it (probably likes emoticons, too).

Say hello to the Oracle for me, will you?

JWF: you are signature right-winger. You woulda loved Sen. Joe McCarthy. Why not assume Joel has read those books and reached different conclusions than you have? And when you use words like obloquy, just just make me shivver. Take your horses ass back to Kentucky, or, if you are there, pls stay.
Have a nice day.

Now now, let's all count to ten. JWF's just saying "hi," in a right-wing bloggerish kind of way. Let him read Joel's piece again, and maybe he'll see it's all in fun. That's what we're about here. Fun, fun, fun.

Oh, wow. I haven't seen a blast of vituperation like that since the RoveStorm.

Now, when "the oracle" warned people about this, was he high on prescription meds?

I don't know how you all can be blithely obsessing about the Supreme Court knowing that the father of the TV dinner has just passed away!

Woah, a person goes to a 45-minute lunch and misses a lot.

Why don't these random wander-inners ever read the blog and the comments and put two and two together before ranting?

TA, you don't have to be scum. At least, I won't call you that. Just myself. And LP, sorry about the bitchy brides. I figure I'll have a quiet affair when I get married so there will be less to worry about and less risk of being bitchy. And by affair I mean reception, not extra-marital activities. Though if I were to do that I'd probably keep that quiet, too.

I went to a Counting Crows/Wallflowers concert one time. Real good. How Bob Dylan had such a good looking son, I'll never understand. Who cares if his mother was a supermodel?

People like JWF are what make us other non-crazy conservatives look bad. I can't believe he called Limbaugh "Oracle." That's the kind of over-the-top behavior that makes me cringe. Calling anyone "Oracle" is just weird.

JWF: Welcome to the blog. It's not so bad here. On your comment, "Please try to read some history books regarding the founding fathers..." etc., there is one history book that I really really like called The Grand Idea, it's about George Washington, you should check it out.

"The Grand Idea"!
Achenbach, you kill me.

Surely JWF is a troll?

If not, JWF, you might note that Joel *wrote* a book on one of the founding fathers.....

Thank you Lord Achenbach (if they can call Rush "Oracle,"...). Now let's all circle around JWF, embrace him/her and sing Kumbaya.

Or was that shameless of me. Don't answer that. Back to Judge Roberts: Sen. Kennedy this morning (according to Barbash's Supreme Court Insider blog) essentially green-lighted Roberts, or, more precisely, made it clear that there wouldn't be a Borking of this nominee. Asked if he'd deliver a speech against Roberts to match his opening speech against Bork, Kennedy said:
"No, absolutely not. Look, we all knew where Judge Bork was on the philosophical, ideological specter [spectrum?]. He had staked out his positions for years and years and years. It wasn't any real mystery. And he had been nominated by the president for those very reasons and it was important for the American people to understand it. This is not the case. This is an entirely different case...."

So, no apocalyptic showdown, apparently.

This individual really comes highly qualified. He's respected.

HA! Nice shameless plug, Joel.

Oops, that last line, "this individual comes highly qualified..." was part of Kennedy's quote. What is the emoticon for "I am a doofus"?

hey, look, at least the crazy guy gave joel a chance for a shameless plug!

that's awesome...

Even if I acknowledge that it was shameless, it was still shameless. Sorry. Onward to more important things.

Ha! I didn't even notice that the "The Grand Idea" post was by Joel at first. The fact that it is makes it even more hilarious.

I'm glad there will be no showdown. I'd rather Roberts just get through, no filibustering, etc...

"What is the emoticon for 'I am a doofus'?" Uh, excuse me. Perhaps you haven't heard that we've banished emoticons. And I don't care that it's your blog.

You mean Achenbach and Weingarten write SATIRE?
Oh, hell. And all this time I thought they were being serious and George Will and Charles Krauthammer were the ones joshing around.
Now I'm wondering: Is The Washington Times some sort of inside-the-beltway version of The Onion? Break it to me gently...

I think the dufus emoticon would require blushing, which you can only get on those cool new full-fledged smiley faces on the IM things.

JWF, you should pass that thesaurus to GW

Cheech and Chong told me I should save the whales. Ahhh drug abusers is there anything they don't know?

I think JWF is really Joel

A bit of context on JWF from someone who briefly lived in Cincinnati, near Northern Kentucky...That region of the country is one of the most conservative places you will ever find yourself. I met a LOT of racist, wealthy whites, there was a brief race riot back in the late 90's, and of course, there weren't enough ballot boxes/machines in the predominantly black districts for the 2004 election. Not that JWF isn't responsible for his ignorance, but we are all products of our environment to some extent.

I think JWF is John Roberts

I have to say, I think today has been the best blogging day ever.

Oh, and the bars in Cincinnati stink.

As manipulative as it was, I have to admit that Melvinn's satire of my rambling post was pretty damn funny. Made me laugh. Granted, it was insulting and didn't counter my opinion, but at least it was creative.

Who else thinks that the whole JWF post with Achenbach shameless book plug was just an orchestrated product placement by Joel's publisher?

Realitybites: Please, enlighten me: Who was the father of the t.v. dinner, and what was the cause of his demise?

Hmm, I was so sure that blog article was going to end with a punchline, because something so obviously engaged in self-parody had to come out giggling at the end, right? Well, no, apparently that wasn't so much tongue-in-cheek as a literal sendup of all the paranoid scrambling Democrats seem to default to on a daily basis around here - about what I've come to expect from what's left of the Washington "America = Bad" Post. Bush should have nominated Ted Kennedy just so the Democrats would turn on him like a pack of rabid dogs, because if Bush likes him he must have the number of the Beast branded on him somewhere, right? But don't worry, all this hub-bub will soon die down and you can safely return to your local Starbucks HQ, there to impotently debate how best the Democratic Party can formalize its ideological alliance with French socialists and the best way to continue appeasement policies towards terrorists and North Koreans. And when the price of a venti latte goes up another 40 cents, you can burn down the World Bank. In summation, I paraphrase The Onion: "Well, at least we still have the same smug, condescending attitude that lost us the election in the first place."

i'm with irregardless on the conspiracy plot.

I mean, can people really be that obtuse?

Irresponsible Speculator: what the hell are you going on about? Do you seriously think that the piece was a "literal sendup of all the paranoid scrambling Democrats seem to default to on a daily basis around here?"

Where is "around here?" Who are the "paranoid scrambling Democrats?" And finally, did you or did you not "identify" Plame?

(RE: Irrepressable Speculum) Well, at least some conservatives have the same smug, condescending attitude that they had before the last election.

"What is the emoticon for "I am a doofus"?"

Joel, welcome to the SCC.

bc

PS Check your rating on Amazon, I bought a couple of your books for some friends. It mighta bumped up a few thousand notches.

Back to the point here... Joel gave you a few laffs, and if you would like a few more, check out the John G. Roberts Quiz, courtesy of a smart-aleck blogger about Federal judges... Roberts is apparently on the Fedjudge "hot" list...

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/

i take that back.

people are, indeed, that obtuse.

bc:
I hope one of those books was "Captured by Aliens" -- a classic.

Mmm, Speculum....
Unfortunately, I have a feeling the Irresponsible Spectator is a male and doesn't know what a speculum is. And if he did, he would probably consider it something dirty.

good job, Cow Town!

CowTown: as a conservative I take offense at being lumped into the same boat with the inflammatory ramblings of Irresponsible Speculator. Can you please call a spade a spade and label him/her the parody of a partisan hack that he/she is trying so hard to be...

I'm with irregardless on this one. Though I know that CowTown didn't mean it to apply to all conservatives. CowTown is good people.

CowTown- Father of the TV dinner was Gerry Thomas & cancer was the cause. There's a link under Entertainment News from the washpost.com home page.

Dreamer, of course it was.

I cherish my hardcover of CbA.

Now, how do I get Joel to autograph it without having to go to someplace in PA?

I had Clive Barker autograph my copy of one of his books (can't remember if it was 'The Books of Blood, 'Imajica' or 'The Great and Secret Show') with "Sweet Dreams - Clive". He did give me a double-take when I asked for that inscription.

I think Joel could do better.

bc

Mea Culpa. I still have to develop proper manners for this blog. I'm used to more fractious, stratified blogs where libs & cons do nothing but flame each other. My sincere apologies to irregardless, sara, and any other conservative who has been contributing to this very civilized blog.

I feel a round of kumbaya coming along....

good grief, how many comments is this? what's the achenblog record?

Only if smores and a campfire are involved.

The father of the tv dinner and James Doohan in ONE DAY?!!!!

It is a conspiracy.

Do you think Joel makes smores on his porch? Maybe using the heat of his stogie?

bc: it was 11:42

This makes me happy I'm a Canadian. Our PM has so much power he submits the name to Parliament for discussion, and then appoints the judge anyway. And since the Liberals have been in power for so long, and always will be for the foreseeable future, the bench will be liberal. Our system obviously needs more checks like yours, but your crazy system really makes for lots of political theatre.

I thought it was 11:51. Which is an anagram of 11:15. Whoa.

(bc: You have the hardcover? I only have the paperback. Or should I say, the paperbach.)

Wow...look at all I missed!

I was just on the Metro, and I saw an ad with "Got Lactose Intolerance?" across the top and a picture of four people with milk mustaches fighting to get into a bathroom. Beneath this, it says that if you have lactose intolerance, you may be able to sue. Sue?!? Who are you going to sue? Your parents, for passing on the genes? Cows?

George Washington was of Plantagenet descent. Just more imperialism...on a different shore. And yes, it was shameless self-promotion, Joel. Better to try and sell 'em now before they hit the deep discount bins. Never have seen Joel's title at Costco, though.

Maybe someday in the near future I'll finish my book on what it was like to have been smallpox-vaccine-injured as a kid. My affinities are with Joseph C. Wilson IV. If he can become upset about the dubiousness of the yellowcake claims, then certainly I can get upset about the dubiousness of the variola claims. Wilson's roots in Santa Barbara aren't that far from my roots in Bakersfield.

I'm beginning to miss Joel's obligatory Rove post for the day. Sniff, sniff. Memo, State Dept. memo...who's got the memo? Who had the memo? Who read the memo? Who peeked, who leaked?

The building that had the bathroom with too few stalls so that you had to suffer through your lactose intolerance longer.

Wow, big day on the blog. I had meetings all day and when I got here I felt like the kid who didn't get on the merry-go-round soon enough and now it's going too fast and even if you run you'll never catch up with it. But I enjoyed reading it anyway. Especially the kit. Really great, Joel--this is why I don't even have to bother articulating a coherent point of view; I can count on you to do the research and express the views of right-thinking people everywhere.

Perhaps the lactose intolerance adds were just a subtle satire of the crazy litigious state of our society.

Disgruntled spoiled children suing parents for genetic predisposition to embarassing ailments is a funny concept for a book.

I just did some googling, and apparently the food pyramid is part of a racist conspiracy within the FDA, because the majority of non-white Americans are lactose intolerant, and the food pyramid recommends a lot of dairy.

Two things I don't understand. First, are the grounds of the suit that non-whites are getting left out of the nutrition reindeer-games, and it makes them feel bad? Second, who actually follows the food pyramid!?!

You know what is incredibly embarrassing?

Spelling embarrasing incorrectly (see above: embarassing [sic]). Also, spelling "ads" as "adds."

Ugh.

One thing to remember about the skimpy paper trail as a judge is that, while in private practice and in general Roberts was/is conservative, that doesn't necessarily mean he'll end up a Scalia/Thomas style Justice. O'Connor was nominated by Reagan to be a solid conservative Justice, but as someone mentioned early on in the process, once you get a lifetime appointment you start to worry less about who put you there and more about the legal landscape for the next several decades. If Roberts really is an old-school conservative, then he would shy away from "judicial activism"... including any activism on his part (such as voting to reverse RvW just because of his personal beliefs despite the clear existing precedent) Of course, if he's a neo-con then "judicial activism" means what the OTHER guys are doing, not what we're doing... (e.g. effectively ignoring the phrase "A well regulated militia" in the 2nd Am. and arguing that gun control, i.e. regulation, is unconstitutional) I can envision Roberts falling into a role similar to O'Connor, a right-leaning pro-business pro-government moderate. Of course, I am hopelessly naive.

Oh and LP and Sara, my biggest gripe with big weddings is you spend all that cash on other people... I'm getting married in September and my Fiancee and I are flying out to Bermuda, spending a week there and getting married on the beach with just the two of us and some random friendly island folk as witnesses/ministers etc. I figure, airfare to Bermuda or 1,000 mini lobster roll sandwiches? I'm on a jet plane, baby... lol...

(another aside to LP... I've been a lurker for a while, I'm also from Maine, when you were talking about designing signs for a festival, it wasn't the Yarmouth Clam Festival was it?)

Just the other day on Good Eats, Alton Brown told us that yogurt does not cause those annoying problems to those who are lactose intolerant. So apparently there is at least one dairy option still available.

And then there's Lactaid...

Did anyone see the article on blogging about the perverted professor who salivated all over one of his students on a BLOG and then got fired for it? Check it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072000515.html

Will someone please address the neo right hidden agenda for another tax cut?? The cut being curtailment of the employer share of social security. This is the real reason they want individual investment accounts instead!!

To SMIK -- took the words outta my mouth. Let's add possible regulations for drain cleaners (Drano douche, anyone?). The point is, folks, is that if abortion becomes illegal federally, goes back to the states and each state's back alleys, abortion is not ever going to go away, and women will die! Which some right-to-lifers, I suppose, will believe that such should be her punishment. Say, anyone believe the Bush twins wouldn't hesitate to get, nor be punished for getting, an abortion, should it be her "choice" to get one? After all, mom and grandma are pro-choice (well, maybe just for family members. . . ).

The Bush II administration makes the Reagan White House look like the "good ole days"!

Whether we realize it or admit it, we are living among some of the most turbulent times in American history.

If we are not destroyed in the process, let us hope that we will become a better nation and democracy from having survived two terms of the Bush II administration and his Supreme Court choices.

Benin Dakar
Duluth, GA

TA, I saw that earlier today. If my professor ever used the words "bitchin' bod" in regards to me and then blogged about it, he'd have some brutal rhetoric to deal with.

Is anybody else thinking that we're basically going to have Ned Flanders on the Supreme Court?

The conservatism was to be expected, but the so-wholesome-as-to-be-creepy family life makes me want to, um, "borrow" his TV trays.

Oh Bendejo - the money spending goes both ways. Last year I spent about six hundred dollars on a friend, just to attend the most boring wedding ever and waste a whole weekend of my life. I've had to do that on several occasions, actually. This is why weddings should be banned.

And no, the posters weren't for the yarnouth clam festival - is that this weekend? They were just for this silly company picnic.

Sara,
The whole thing just grosses me out. I imagine the poor girl feels so dirty because of it--I know I do when sweaty older men make it obvious I'm a guest star in the "spank bank". (Sorry to be crude, my male buddies use that reference frequently.)

And the fact that even when warned he could get in trouble for saying those things, he pathetically interpreted the warning to mean that it's because he might actually get to have sex with her. Not even thinking such language is blatant sexual harassment.

Sara, you are constantly drawing attention to your gender. That's so right-wing.

Try drawing attention to what you think, and if that's not impressive, what you know.

Does anyone else find this ominous--was in an earlier Washington Post on-line chat today? [The Post] reported in today's editions that Roberts gave Florida Gov. Jeb Bush advice on how the legislature could name George Bush the winner of Florida in 2000, when Republicans feared the recount might go the other way.

Melvina! Ha!
Oh, Melvin, and you were doing so well.

Agghh! You found me out. Unhand me, you brute. Get the GG, quick.

This isn't WA Post material. Typical liberal irrationality. Calm down, the white man isn't going to hurt you...

anyone expecting a scary margaret
hamilton or menacing jack palance/
nicholson type must feel letdown
with the bush pick of john roberts.
now does this president know how to
fly under the political radar or what?
roberts on first impression appears to
be a snagfree appointee........without
scar tissue or smoldering burning
issues....someone who has went with
the system...someone who the system
can now go with...it is difficult to
see how the us senate does not vote
up on roberts at this point..........
bush did a zig to a much expected zag.
this political balloon seems to have
arrived without the hot air...........
yup..summer just got duller...........

I'll go by "S" from now on to keep from bothering you, Melvin. Oh wait . . . I just remembered that I don't care.

TA, "spank bank"? Don't let Gee hear that or he'll use it in his next piece when he starts writing again.

"There are six students, most of whom are probably smarter than me, but they DON'T READ THE PAPER!!!"

I thought this was the funniest part of the article. He so doesn't understand college students. Not that I do either. But at least I don't try to teach.

Dreamer, yes I have hardcover of CbA. (paperbach - made me snort).

I just bought another on Amazon the other day for $7.99 (around $11.50 delivered).

counter - well 11:15, I wasn't really that close, was I?

Ultimately, I think Tribblehead, er, Justice Roberts, will be a quiet force for conservatism on the SC, as the current Administration intends him to be.

bc

Ladies, you so know that you do NOT want to know what goes on in the vacuum chamber between men's ears.

Every 8 seconds or so, it's not a complete vacuum.

Some guys are dumb enough to blog with their output filters off. Even tenured guys, apparently.

bc

LP: Yarmouth was last weekend actually.

And yeah, thought about the fact that we are giving up loot and "dollar dances" with the bride (which, given many of my friends, is a phrase that would almost certainly be misinterpreted in way that my fiancee would probably not be keen about) but we're both in our early 30s, don't want/need much really, and we don't want our families and friends to shell out cash on gifts because they feel they have to... we figure this is saving them money too...

"Nowhere in the Constitution, as I recall from the time I glanced at it in the Rotunda of the National Archives, does it say that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of the aforesaid Constitution."

If you read and not glance at the Federalist Papers, it says:

"To JUDGE with accuracy of the proper extent of the federal judicature, it will be necessary to consider, in the first place, what are its proper objects.

It seems scarcely to admit of controversy, that the judicary authority of the Union ought to extend to these several descriptions of cases: 1st, to all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation;"

So, then Alexander Hamilton envisioned a judiciary which could judge cases dealing with laws passed in accordance with the Constitution BUT NOT 'be the final arbiter of the ...Constitution?'

?

After having recently had Constitutional law, I am more comfortable with strict constructionist interpretation of the document than I am with a liberal majority pulling so called 'tests' out of thin air.

Achenblog should get an achenclue.

Geez Joel, change your tampon when you get a chance. Even NPR would've rejected THAT rant!!

I praise you for your efforts, bendejo. I hope your friends appreciate what they've got...

and still, hours later, some folks just can't seem to take a joke....

AMAZING

Mark my words, Bush is gonna do the impossible.

He's going to serve another term.

Stock up on water and batteries and canned goods people.

Unless he has the Federalist Papers memorized (and who in their right mind does?) he spent quite a bit of time on a pointless rebuttal of Joel's post.

I give up, Sara. Take me, I'm yours.
Now, as I was saying about Judge Roberts...

I think what happens is that people read the Kit, start to feel steam shooting out of their ears, and then head straight down to post a comment without reading any of the other comments in the Kaboodle. They're probably not very interested in the Kaboodle, actually. TSA-15, on the other hand, LIVES for Kaboodle.

You might face some serious competition from jw, Melvin/a.

Achenfan: it's either that or Joel is behind a lot of these knee-jerk response posts just to keep the smolderingly kaboodle, well, kaboodling...

The Kit is almost an afterthought for us. It's just a conversation starter that allows us to branch off into other subjects like weddings and Counting Crows.

I think jw and I were each other's flavor of the week and we're done, Achenfan. I'm gonna say he was Rocky Road.

you guys are so wrapped up with Roberts that you missed the REAL news bit of the day "Flip-Flops At White House Cause Stir -Not The Political Kind, The Ones On Guests' Feet" http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-flipflops.artjul18,0,5412390.story?&track=rss

well - in all fairness it was the two days ago but MAN, this is NEWS! Joel, you missed this one????? The horror, the horror!

Kaboodle is best with ketchup. Or shall I say catsup?

Joel, this was one of your funniest non-Rough Draft blog items.

I have nothing to add except a teaspoon of discontent with Roberts. If it is true that he wrote about the toad, "for reasons of its own,it lives its entire life in California," then I must question the man's intelligence.

Do animals have reasons for doing anything? Humans have reasons for doing things like living their entire lives in California, but toads?

I thought animals operated according to instinct, not will, and could be described by their habits, not their reasons.

Maybe Roberts is too dumb to be even a creationist to the disappointment of TheoCons who would legislate from the Bible instead of the bench, and consequently, too clueless to be harmful, and therefore, could never be an extremist, and so should be an ideal member of the Supreme Court.

He's got my support.

"...change your tampon..."?

Somebody smack Bill. Preferably with a tampon. Super-plus.

OK, everybody, it's almost time to go home. Thanks to those who actually talked about Judge Roberts. And the TSA-15, you rock.

I tried to make ketchup a while back. Holy cow. I had no idea it was that complicated. Seriously, the things I take for granted...

Roe v. Wade?

Let's talk about Rove v. CIA.

Sara:
So Melvin, or Melvin/a, or whatever he's calling himself these days, is in with a chance?
(jw was Rocky Road? That's quite the compliment.)

Truly inspired Joel! Bringing up Marbury vs. Madison really makes me want to go back and study those Federalist Papers I overlooked in school. In any case, Ken Doll Cake Topper is a perfect match to adjudicate on behalf of a nation of women who are growing up like non-sexed Barbies who can't get an abortion and needn't leave their perfect MacManses. We've got to start buying our children the more enlighted dolls like the Brazilian one that can get pregnant. I do hope this raises furor that journalists scrape up to the edges of reason, in the meantime keep us laughing!

Sara! You cut me to the quick! Your words like a hawk swoop down from above to grip my love in their bitter talons of pain and remorse. My heart is empty without you, my dearest Sara. Sara, without and H--for the heart you lack in your vacant chest!

achenlove - how cute.

And about the blogging prof--why am I not surprised he's a sportswrter for the Boston Herald? Too bad I missed PTI, I bet Korheiser and Wilbon had a field day.

Okay, like an idiot, I actually started reading these posts. Then I discovered I only had a two week vacation! Why, tell me why, the comments box is at the bottom of the page? Nobody really wants to read eveyone's opinion, however seeing your thoughts on a forum is ahhhhh..., never mind.

Did you say, a life time term for the President is the condiction of this nomination? Duh, hello, no matter the level of one's intoxication....that is not funny! The only reason I wake up in the morning is the possibility today is the day "W" is impeached!!!

Er...hope he doesn't read this blog. Where is the edit feature!!! [Yeah, that's right. Three exclaimation points. Bring it.]

I guess BTW won't be singing Kumbaya with us. I am so pathetic. I'm now blogging from home...

The life time appointment swap scenario between Bush and Roberts was quite amusing.

It goes a long way in the White House, the culture of "You scratch my back, I'll revive you from pretzel asphyxia stupor."

Was that a low-blow? Don't get me started about those in the White House.

I believe they caused the deaths of no less than 25,000 civilians, according to most rational people. Oh whoops, that's the file on 43, not 42, there's been some clerical error.

What's with this "another white guy" bit?
Should he have selected Allen Iverson??
Yeah, I know, Eugene Robinson and Donna Britt will say "of course".

I know he swallowed or coughed up that pretzel long ago.... what's he stammering about now?

I knew when Roberts was tapped by the President there would be a solicitation on my benefit of doubt accout. I speedily went to my safe where I keep all such valuable items. Only to discover, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Card, Armitage, Rice, Abrams, Libby,.....[well you get the idea] have bankrupted and closed that account long ago.

Does anyone else find this ominous--was in an earlier Washington Post on-line chat today? [The Post] reported in today's editions that Roberts gave Florida Gov. Jeb Bush advice on how the legislature could name George Bush the winner of Florida in 2000, when Republicans feared the recount might go the other way.

Say it ain't so.........Throw that other Stalin lookin' guy (what's his name, Bork) into the mix, we're finished, no contest, piss on the fire, call the dogs! It's gonna be a long night.....(reaching for my new book, Bush's Brain). If ya can't beat em', better start acting like them!

Then again, someone might be spuffin'?

Look up the case captioned as Cooper vs. Aaron, in it the Court declared itself to be the final arbiter of all matters regarding the constitutionality of legislation and government action.

TA, I'm at home now, too. 9 PM and I'm back again.

jw, I'm so sorry! I never meant to hurt you. But Rocky Road, that was a compliment. Rocky Road is amazing! My favorite flavor. And I didn't say we couldn't ever get back to the intense e-flirting that we had going on, darling. It's altogether possible. Melvin/a isn't my type anyway.

And actually, there's no H on the end of my name because it's Sara. Not Sarahuhhhhhh. The H is superfluous.

Bill, I pretty sure somewhere in the 300+ comments above this one, someone has pointed out that no matter who a President appoints to the Supreme Court, lots of people are going to be unhappy about it.

These days, people just have more tools to vent their spleens.

Sara, that last comment re. jw (AKA 'ol Blue) was sweet.

bc

'ol Blue, huh?

Well, I do have my moments. I can be sweet if I want to be.

Especial Interest
by: Moi Moi

Moi Moi needs humor,
As a weed needs rain.
When Joel is somber,
me feels a pain.

bc: Ol' Blue?
Front page headline today, "Democrats say nominee hard to defeat." Translation: our extreme left-wing operatives have found nothing objectionable with Roberts, but since he's Bush's choice we can't bring ourselves to actually approve of him.

Home section: "The return of the front porch." What about the back porch?

Sara: I forgive you. You'll always be my one-and-only e-sweetheart. [insert "wink" emoticon]

'ol Blue is an old-fashioned Bluetick hound popular in the American South. He's a good natured beast, but being a hound dog, he persistently pursues when he catches a whiff of something he's interested in, such as a female dog in estrus. When he's caught that scent, he'll dig holes underneath the fence as fast as you can fill them in.

Also known to do a bit of comedic howling.

I use the term 'ol Blue affectionately.

I'm also not surprised that jw would raise the front porch vs back porch debate...

bc

bc

And while I'm analyzing the paper, what's with Marc Fisher's old switcheroo in his column. He starts out by praising Roberts, and then just tears him down. Never mind that his argument that Roberts is unconcerned with the rights of the fry-eater is totally illogical. He says, "It's not the court's role to tell police whether an arrest is reasonable if the officer has probable cause." But in the legal world, probable cause supersedes reasonableness. If you have probable cause for an arrest (e.g. you see someone breaking the law) then the arrest is reasonable by default. Whether a kid's feelings get hurt when the cuffs are slapped on should even factor into the argument.

The more I read about Roberts, the more I like him. There's no place for touchy-feely judges on the Supreme Court, where decisions have the potential to affect broad swaths of legal doctrine.

Well, bc, I never thought I'd be reading about female dogs in estrus here!

We're capable of anything.

re. Fisher, I think you called it in your first post this AM.

First entry for today's SCC: sorry for the double 'bc' in my previous post.

bc

And my "should" should be "shouldn't."

jw, thanks so much for accepting the apology and returning me to my position of e-sweetheart. I was up all night.

The Supreme Court "not the arbiter of the Constitution"? Better read it again. The S/C
has review of all laws written in the US, whether
excreted by Congress or by your locally elected
bestiary. And no matter where you stand politically, you should thank the Framers daily
that we have the Court to shield us from the
antics of the zany do-gooders of the left and the
goose-steppers of the right. Without the Supremes
we'd be a nation of laws all right: we'd be choking to death on crappy laws of every stripe.
And we'd be even less free than we are today -- if
that's possible.