I usually like to express my own thoughts around here, but the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice is so important that it can only be honored by featuring one of those screaming, talking-points infused melees that makes cable news the bastion of journalism that it is. So here are my pundits du jour: From the right, Rufus Lawnorder, and from the left, Archie Whiffle They’ve assured me that they are completely up-to-the-minute as far as their respective camps’ opinions are concerned.
So, gentlemen… your thoughts on John Roberts?
WHIFFLE: Well, he seems qualified, that’s for sure. There are some questions I’m hoping he’ll answer at the hearings, but he’s definitely less radical than I’d feared.
LAWNORDER:: Look, the Democrats are going to be smearing this guy up and down the wall, but it’s not gonna stick. They can wail like the proverbial ballerina in a blender, but this guy’s bullet proof. Bring ‘em on!
WHIFFLE: Yeah, he seems like a pretty good candidate. Conservative, yes, but we expected that.
LAWNORDER:: Scream all you want, Libby McHatesamerica! You can’t tear this man down.
WHIFFLE: I don’t think tearing him down is necessary here.
LAWNORDER:: Hey, hey, whoa there! Keep it civil! Just because you’re not getting your way doesn’t mean you have to resort to fillibusters and personal destruction.
WHIFFLE: I don’t think anyone in power is really doing that -
LAWNORDER:: Ooooooh, you’re just spoiling for a fight, aren’t you? Well, you got one, pal, you got one!
WHIFFLE: Really, he seems pretty okay. Naturally, I’d like to hear his real opinion on Roe v. Wade, as he’s argued it both ways in his professional career.
LAWNORDER:: Zing! The gloves are off! See what I’m talking about?
WHIFFLE: What?
LAWNORDER:: Easy there, you’re getting hysterical! Well, who could blame you - this guy’s for real. That’s what’s got your liberal crotchless panties in such a twist, isn’t it?
WHIFFLE: No, not so much. The thing about this nominee -
LAWNORDER:: HA! You can’t even bgring yourself to say his name, can you?
WHIFFLE: “John Roberts.”
LAWNORDER:: I bet that hurt, didn’t it? Well, get used to it, Benny Bitter! Scream all you want, but get used to it!
WHIFFLE: This is about the Rove thing, isn’t it?
LAWNORDER: Whoa, take it down a notch, willya? What?
WHIFFLE: This is about the Karl Rove scandal. You’re so interested in getting his mane off the front page that you’re trying to inflate this slow and most likely sedate confirmation process into some sort of gigantic and angry political struggle.
LAWNORDER:: …
WHIFFLE: Aren’t you?
LAWNORDER:: Hey, take it easy, you’re gonna stain your red diaper! The thing is, you can BE that nasty about Judge Roberts, and he’s gonna be FINE! But if you want to make this a giant, nasty partisan mess, okay. Okay! You got it. Let’s dance, motherfucker, let’s dance! Come on!
WHIFFLE: …
LAWNORDER: I think he left. Probably off to plan his next meanspirited salvo. Well, fine. We’re ready! Lock and load, baby, lock and load!
Thank you, gentlemen.
Fanny Roborat
37 comments
Pingback from Oh, for the love of God… » The Supremes
July 20, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Lynne
July 20, 2005 at 2:41 pm
1My new favorite name: Libby McHatesamerica.
That is the best.
ellen
July 20, 2005 at 3:41 pm
3That’s what people like about President Bush. He doesn’t make mistakes. (At least any he admits to.)
tess
July 20, 2005 at 4:48 pm
4Who needs “Crossfire” when Adam’s recreated it almost perfectly? Or for that matter, “Hannity and Colmes.”
ice weasel
July 20, 2005 at 4:56 pm
5Bravo Adam, that psot is exactly why I never watch the television news or commentary and seldom listen radio, other than NPR (and there are moments when NPR strains me).
Truth be told, the broadcast media has one major drawback, it’s slow. When it comes to transferring information it’s tedious as hell. I can have four windows open to different sources on the web and crosscheck any given item within sixty seconds. It’s damn difficult to find more than two degrees of difference of any viewpoint on the broadcast media (in general, I’m sure there are some exceptions).
So, yes, accurate and funny Mr. Felber. I too liked Libby’s full name.
It will be interesting to see how long the “Roberts Distraction” goes on. If I were Howard Dean and the congressional Dem leadership, I would just move to confirm the guy and be done with it. It’s going to happen anyway and I think, as a party, we were doing much better with the Rove Espionage case.
And that’s not to say that this isn’t extremely important. It is. But as they say on the newsgroups, “Is this the hill you want to die on?”
Is this even a battle we can win?
Thanks for the laugh Adam.
aslam
July 20, 2005 at 5:27 pm
6Scoff all you want at Lawnorder’s rabid act, but he’s gonna be the one having the last laugh. Whiffle left because he knows that his objection to John Roberts has been tainted even before he can state it, and the papers tell him that Americans don’t like obstructionist pessimists.
BTW, anyone taking bets on when Rove’s Presidential pardon might happen?
Ann
July 20, 2005 at 5:46 pm
7I’m just laughing at the image of Rove’s “mane” on the front page. Suddenly I see him as the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz. Thanks!
jacqui
July 20, 2005 at 6:19 pm
8After reading the Slate article, I suddenly wonder whether Whiffle didn’t leave but was instead removed for prosecution! Only a terrorist, after all, would oppose the appointment of such a patriotic nominee…
poor Whiffle, will we ever see him again?
Tiffany
July 20, 2005 at 8:02 pm
9I’ll say this much: I think you’re spot on with the observation about this lovely and convinient distraction from the transgressions of Karl Rove.
Aslam, I’m not taking bets because I’d probably lose on that point.
Jim
July 20, 2005 at 8:43 pm
10Anne,
I think Rove is more akin to the humbug behind the curtain than the Cowardly Lion, but I see where you’re coming from.
Adam,
I’ve seen, known, and voted either for or against “manely” politicians. Have you seen a current photograph of Rove? He has no mane, is not maneish or even manely.
Seriously though…Great post. Keep up the good work.
dave
July 20, 2005 at 11:19 pm
11Adam, can you swerve on a stick of bubbles that you meant “mane” and not “name”?
Dave
dee
July 20, 2005 at 11:32 pm
12Well, a Supreme Court nominee as a distraction will do till the next white woman disappears.
Mike
July 21, 2005 at 6:10 am
13Aslam, you’re bet is moot anyway - I’ll give you big odds Rove keeps not only his freedom but his job.
Mary
July 21, 2005 at 9:29 am
14I’m with you Mike. Shrub will just keep raising the bar until there is no way Rove can’t pass under it.
tess - That’s HANNITY and colmes.
Adam - great post! You need to have Wiffle and Lawnorder debate more often.
Landis
July 21, 2005 at 10:08 am
15Or HANNITY and
colmesI’ll join Whiffle. Just push this guy through as fast as possible and then go back to focusing on Rove-gate.
Steve
July 21, 2005 at 10:50 am
16Apparently the Right, or at least the Ann Coulter faction thereof, is having problems with this Roberts guy.
See billmon’s posting at Tom Tomorrow’s blog wherein The Sublime Ms C is quoted as saying “Yeah, and thanks to Reagan, the pinko faggots are running the country. Commie bastard.”
I look forward to the day when some of these folks simply implode, leaving only a greasy splotch on the carpet and a whiff of brimstone in the air.
Murray
July 21, 2005 at 11:42 am
17“Any person convicted and executed for a capitol crime will no longer serve in my administration” - Bush
Mary Kay
July 21, 2005 at 12:26 pm
18Where’s Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd when we need them???
Lynne
July 21, 2005 at 12:50 pm
19If you missed The Daily Show last night - hilarious - it’s up on Crooks and Liars.
Right Wing Ninny (Dan)
July 21, 2005 at 4:37 pm
20The Rove factor is definitely at play here….The truth be told…this is a big coverup of the Rove story. Justice OConnor was told to resign by Justice Thomas in order to create a diversion for Rove. Then Judge Roberts was plucked from relative obscurity to be the sacraficial lamb and draw the liberal fire off of Rove. All of this was planned months ago to fill to occur in the slow news month of August. Isn’t it just like a women Justice to do as she is told, being the swing Justice and all? Yep, the vast right wing conspiracy is at it again……sneaky b-tards!
Landis
July 21, 2005 at 5:29 pm
21You don’t think that’s a bit of a straw-man, do you Dan?
The argument isn’t at all that this whole Supreme Court nomination was brought up just to deflect the scrutiny from Rove, but that the specific announcement of the nomination was done a week earlier than Mr Bush had previously stated were his intentions.
Pete IVDL
July 21, 2005 at 10:31 pm
22From the White House Radio transcripts:
[POTUS] Help, I’m down, I’m taking fire over Iraqistan… Man down! Bring out the Gimp!
[ROVE] I’m sorry, Mr. Pres-[sound of small arms fire, sustained and accurate]
[POTUS] Oh good fuckin’ gracious, the Gimp’s winged! Bring out the Glove Puppet! And HURRY!
[Sound of Justice being lubed and slipped over index finger… Puppet is poked above the barricades… Occasional misfire is heard in the distance. A dog barks.]
[POTUS] Ahh, that’s better, I can hear myself think now. Someone patch up the Gimp. I’m off to London to take a train ride. Woooo-ooooo!!
tess
July 22, 2005 at 4:31 am
23Mary:
Thanks for the correction. I forget how much of a putz colmes really is.
Right Wing Ninny (Dan):
I do believe the diversion would really be the London train bombings, if you really want to create some really great strawmen.
Jody
July 22, 2005 at 10:55 am
24To give the left wing credit where it’s due, I was barely back from vacation and hearing the announcement, it seemed, when MoveOn was asking me to sign a petition against the nomination. Could I have a moment to think and evaluate on my own, please?
And I wish Right Wing Ninny’s scenario didn’t have the feel of being just this side of plausible - much of what Bush and Co does is just to this side of plausible.
Oh to be on vacation again, eating lobsters and clams, watching the Red Sox and watching Rick Santorum take on the culture of life in Boston. Speaking of just this side of plausible.
Harold
July 22, 2005 at 12:37 pm
25Since the whole YellowcakeGate scandal can be dismissed if people focus on the phrase “British intelligence has learned that” (”one of the older boys told me, sir”), the London bombings and semibombings seem more plausible as a distraction. At least when Clinton needed a distraction, he was content with sending Al Gore off to kill just Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Right Wing Ninny (Dan)
July 22, 2005 at 2:57 pm
26To be honest, if it is possible for a conservative to be honest, I do think J.R. is a sacraficial lamb. He will be roughed up through August and eventually withdraw from consideration. Bush will then nominate a slightly more moderate women judge to replace Justice O’Connor in order to address his issues with women. The Libs, having spent much of their intellectual and political capital attacking J.R., will vote for the new girl. Meanwhile Rove will skate through Rovegate the way most politicians/operatives slide through - connections. But hey, give Rove a break. It is hard directing the Executive branch, the Legislative agenda and packing the Supreme Court without outing a person once in a while.
P.S. Tess, I agree with you about the London bombings…..scary isn’t it?
Emmarie
July 23, 2005 at 10:58 am
27I at least hope this is teaching people to refrain from speculation. After hearing several minutes of discussion of someone else’s position on Roe v. Wade on All Things Considered, I suddenly cared less when this guy turned out to be the nominee. And as an aside, all this obsession with Roe v. Wade as the defining point of the nominee gives me Catholic grade school flashbacks. Is there any way they can start talking about other issues as well?
waterfowler
July 24, 2005 at 5:27 pm
28Emmarie,
I’ve had this out w/ my leftist sister enough times. There are no “other” issues other than Roe. Ask Ted, or Hillary, or Nancy. That was the biggest win for tyranny in the history of the world. If they can get the courts to legislate, then they can own the world, as long as they pick the justices. And they might still, eventhough the Reps. have what should be a “hammer” style majority. As far as I’m concerned, and I am a right wing-nut, Thomas is the perfect example of a moderate, because he has read the Constitution and tries to keep it intact, as opposed to bending the meanings of words to what it should’ve said. I know, What about the female’s health? Well, what if that female is about to be aborted? What about her health?
I’ll try to stick to other topics in the future. This one makes me sick that we are even discussing it.
sad but hopeful, waterfowler
Murray
July 25, 2005 at 12:07 am
29Waterfowler,
How can a woman possibly know what is best for her? Only some one as wise as Jessie Helms and George W Bush should make that decision.
The alternative to legal abortions is illegal abortions. How is that better?
Abortions are up substantially under W. vs. Clinton. How is that possible? (Women are nervous about having children when the future is uncertain).
Question. Would you rather have fewer abortions under an immoral president Clinton or more abortions under God’s chosen and beloved child, George W Bush?
Adam Felber
July 25, 2005 at 5:36 am
30Wow. Inevitably, I guess, we’ve opened up the abortion can o’ worms here. And unlike almost every other world problem, I don’t think we’re going to solve it here amongst the comments.
But here are my two pennies anyway.
Both sides in the abortion debate are a bit disingenuous in how they try to frame it, probably because the real question is too painful and inscrutable.
To wit: Pro-choice people insist on framing the debate as a woman’s choice and nothing else, as though the fetus doesn’t exist. The insincerity of this stance is evidenced by the fact that most pro-choice people do not favor unrestricted late-term abortions.
Pro-life people insist on framing the debate as “life begins at conception.” Most of them don’t really mean it either, or else there would be a hue and cry surrounding in vitro fertilization that would rival the abortion clinic protests. After all, the discarded embryos (the discarded Human Lives) from that process rival the abortions performed each year.
[The stem-cell debate touches on this, but it’s mostly political hot air. Few people have seriously suggested stopping in vitro fertilization or similar baby-making procedures.]
In short, you won’t find many pro-choice people advocating making abortion legal up until the very moment that labor begins. Nor will you find many pro-life people insisting that a woman who was raped by a relative yesterday shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion if she proves to be pregnant. In those extreme circumstances, the shouts of “It’s my body!” and “Murder!” ring hollow.
The slippery and uncomfortable fact is that the facts about where life begins are slippery and uncomfortable, and there are few people on either side of the debate who honestly believe it really begins at either conception OR birth. It’s probably somewhere in between, in a process that is obviously and demonstrably gradual, and there are no certain answers.
I really don’t know. My opinion, though, is that both sides are so accustomed to the line of argument that has been handed down to them that they’re not really thinking about what “debating” is supposed to accomplish. It seems that each side thinks that giving up anything, even giving up the things they really don’t believe in, would be the first step down a very slippery slope.
I do know THIS, though (waterfowler, mostly): All this talk of “legislating from the bench,” and how that’s a new, modern, pernicious force… well, that’s a load of crap. Read the history of the Supreme Court, read the Constitution itself, and you’ll see that there IS a thin line between the interpretation of laws and the de facto making of laws. There’s supposed to be. From a philosophical standpoint, there HAS to be. Anything that is not explicitly covered in the Constitution, any law made or unmade, is by definition fodder for the courts to decide upon (if asked). Their interpretations are necessarily things that go beyond the Constitution, and these decisions necessarily have immediate consequences as far as the law is concerned.
That’s how the system works. Whether the case is Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education or Bush v. Gore, the courts are simply doing their job. We don’t raise an almighty ruckus when the President pushes for legislation [indeed, not even when he INTRODUCES legislation], and that’s a far more explicit crossing of the boundaries between our three branches. If you fall for the recent rhetoric about these Infernal Judges, you’re just being suckered.
hedera
July 25, 2005 at 11:35 pm
31Adam, thanks for the most dispassionate and accurate summation of the abortion can of worms I’ve seen in some time. Right as usual on all counts.
Emmarie
July 25, 2005 at 11:50 pm
32Sorry, Adam! I didn’t mean to open up the can of worms. (The very idea makes me confused; how are they living in the can? Whose job is it to can them? Isn’t that just absolutely disgusting?)
I just wanted to try to point out the single-issue fixation, not open it up.
Pete IVDL
July 26, 2005 at 7:25 pm
33I was going to try and inject something valid and (hopefully) humorous here. After all, if Adam can clearly and dispassionately (i.e. not without passion, but without allowing passion to obfuscate an inherently clear argument) argue the point about inherently unclear arguments, the least we can do, etc, etc.
The Roe vs. Wade “debate” should not be such a polarising argument, the way I see it. I guess that the probability of the life of the fetus should be sacrosanct (in the full meaning of the word), unless the mum has been (or could be) violated in some way, physically, emotionally, or morally. It’s not a matter of “life at any cost”, it’s a matter of possibilites. Does the possibility of a healthy, happy, baby outweigh the probability of an unhealthy, unhappy mother? And what about the life of both individuals after birth? Doesn’t that count too?
I heard news today that the Virginia legislature has legislated that pharmacists MUST dispense the birth control pill (even the ‘morning after’ pill) when it has been legally prescribed by a registered physician. Isn’t that nice of them? Kinda proves my final point. Maybe the religious fundies don’t have anything good left to argue about, so they’re sniping where they can.
As the unwanted child of a 15 year old Melbourne schoolgirl who was quite brutally raped in late 1962, I guess I am a wee bit biased. Just not in the way I “should” be, I guess. It’s the oldest dilemma - my belief system dictates that I should not even be here to argue about my belief system. Catch-1?
Just my AUD$0.02 (that’s, er, carry the 4, USD$0.00000035 or something)
Murray
July 26, 2005 at 10:04 pm
34Things are always deeper than the rhetoric.
I believe in choice.
I believe that fetuses are potential children.
I would do anything to change the mind of one of my children if they wanted to abort their child (my grandchild) for almost any reason, including handicapped, excluding annacyaphalic or anything that dooms the child (I had a niece with fetal alcohol syndrome, who tore up her parents before she died at 4 years old, blind and unable roll over).
When the Right says that the Bible claims the soul begins at conception, they are mistaken. What did the people at the time of Jesus know about sperm, eggs, uterus, implantation, etc? All they knew is sex and babies. What happened between them was called conception. So a definition of conception that starts at fertilization can’t be accurate, when the medical definition of pregnancy is the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus. Therefore an IUD or a morning after pill can’t abort a child because it is not medically considered a pregnancy up until this point. To misread the Bible and say that fertilization equals pregnancy makes everything more difficult.
I believe in a compromise. I believe that life is defined by brain waves. When they stop, life stops. When they begin, life begins.
This means that up until about 8 weeks an abortion is acceptable, but after that you really are messing with a separate life. I’m willing to live with that. It’s earlier than the 13 weeks of the 1st trimester but 8 weeks later than implantation.
I know 6 women who have had abortions, (none mine) every one is haunted by her actions and everyone feels it was the only choice at the time. I am sure that each would have had an illegal abortion if abortions were illegal. My heart hurts for each of these women and the suffering they’ve had to endure, it wasn’t an easy choice but at least they had the choice to make.
hedera
July 26, 2005 at 11:51 pm
35While we’re listing things we believe (good list, Murray):
I believe nobody has the right to make the choice except the woman who will have to change the diapers. Her man has a say, as long as he’ll be changing them too.
I believe that we should be honest with kids about sex and babies, so they’ll know what they’re getting into.
I believe contraception should be freely available: better a fornicating teenager on the Pill than a pregnant teenager dropping out of school.
I believe it is the height of male chauvinist arrogance (remember male chauvinism?) for a self-righteous pharmacist to deny the “morning after” pill to a woman who has tried to use a contraceptive and had it fail. I’ve never heard of female pharmacists doing this, somehow.
I believe it is very close to theft for any pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription and also to refuse to return it to prevent it being filled elsewhere. I wonder if anyone has filed charges? I wonder if anyone will?
Pete IVDL
July 28, 2005 at 6:30 pm
36Thank you, Murray and Hedera. You’ve both just managed to articulate what I’ve been desperately trying to find the right words for for the last 40-something years! (I’m not saying my brain waves have been particularly scintillating all that time, but every now and then…)
Now, if we could only stop the fundies from turning nouns into verbs (not that the fundies are the only ones who do that - ‘GOOGLED‘, indeed!), so that ugly and emotionally charged words stop being used as punctuation… The trouble is, unless you’ve lived it, it’s so easy to see any morally or ethically unclear situation as some sort of point-scoring, who-can-scream-the-loudest game.
Oops. Back to my medication…
Murray
July 28, 2005 at 8:05 pm
37Hedera,
As long as we are at it, I believe that parents are stupid to lie to children when it will be apparent soon enough that Santa Claus isn’t real. Why teach them that you can’t be trusted? (Christmas gifts have plenty magic of their own).