A Suggestion for Supreme Court Nominations
I suspect any appointment to the Supreme Court will require three nominations:
A nomination of someone controversial, articulate, and argumentative. (You can think of him as Robert Bork II.) He will attract lots of “reality-based” opposition and will make them look like fools. He will be defeated and then write a best seller among my fellow wingnuts.
A superficially-attractive candidate with some baggage. It doesn't matter what the baggage is as long as the Other Side gets to use the word “hypocrite.” The important thing is to exhaust them but let them think they won a battle.
The third nominee is the person we really want.
Addendum: Gullyborg came up with the same idea first and recommended Ann Coulter as Robert Bork II.
3 Comments:
Actually, Robert Bork may have had a larger and longer-lasting influence on American political thought as a consequence of being denied a Court seat than he would have had if he'd been confirmed. For the serious thinker, it's best to stay out of politics -- as a player, at any rate.
I shudder to think what would have happened to Thomas Sowell and his influence on American thought, had that great man ever been awarded a federal office.
I want to see Douglas Ginsburg renominated. Yeah, I realise he's too old now, but it would be a wonderful vindication for his career.
How can anyone mention Bork and Coulter in the same breath?
I am reminded of the apocryphal story of the actress who approach George Bernard Shaw and suggested they have a baby together. "Just think of the good that could be accomplished by a person with my looks and your brains." Shaw replied, "I must decline. I cannot risk the possibility of the child having my looks and your brains."
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Post a Comment
<< Home