Bay Buchanan was on CNN Monday night bemoaning Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as not being “the best and the brightest.” Now I realize that understanding irony is not among Buchanan’s basic capabilities (I’m not sure using her opposable thumb was among her basic capabilities until age 50 or so), but the rest of us should really take note of the worst and the dumbest among today’s TV punditocracy espousing an opinion on who is or is not the best and the brightest.
Her last comment before they cut her off was, “She’s no Antonin Scalia!”
Assuming there’s not another Antonin Scalia to whom she’d be referring in this context, I think I’m safe in assuming that this was the same pathetic relic (quite possibly from the mid-19th century) who, in his dissent to Bowers v. Hardwicke (2003), which overturned a state’s right to make sodomy a felony, decried the ruling as undermining the court’s role in providing the country with “moral leadership.” Amazingly, at the age of about 170, and after having served as a judge since at least 1987 (presumably, prior to his appointment, he lived in a cave, under a rock, wearing earplugs and blinders), he was completely unaware that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the U.S. Constitution as it applies to modern laws.
So in response to the latest of Ms. Buchanan’s stellar career of always being reactionary, hopelessly stupid, wrongheaded, and just plain wrong, I’ll simply say, “Let’s thank heaven for small favors!”
Now if Scalia would just retire or (forgive me for being terribly politically incorrect) croak, and if Clarence Thomas would find a more appropriate place than the federal bench to sit forever perched with his thumb up his ass, Obama could appoint a couple more judges with some passing familiarity with the aforementioned Constitution.
But I’m not counting on anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment