It has been hard for me to work up much energy for denouncing Judge John G. Roberts, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee. After all, I knew I was never going to like anyone Bush would be willing to nominate, so it is going to take finding something pretty awful to get me into a proper sweat over this guy.
Actually, I'm almost grateful that Bush didn't go the talking dog route, offering a fascist woman and/or person of color. There's no pleasure in observing the contortions of the viciously ambitious. Or maybe simply crazy.
But the picture above catches what immediately rankled about the guy -- he, and his family, look just like all the smug upper class twits I left behind by choosing to go to college at Berkeley in the sixties instead of one of the Seven Sister colleges.
As Robin Givhan writes in today's Washington Post:
Okay, so they flunk looking fashionable or even passably contemporary. Is that a crime? Certainly someone like me who once gleefully accepted the label "frumpy" can't go there.
But today, buried in the last paragraph of a New York Times roundup of Robert's judicial opinions, came this:
If it is good law to enforce what is unjust, law loses any claim to morality; without a moral claim on society, law is simply superior force. This is a view that can only be held by someone smugly confident that he has the guns and will continue to wield them indefinitely -- a 1950s US upper class white boy perhaps?