"The Judge Report:

John Roberts is either a mad bomber of abortion clinics or a homo-tastic friend of the sodomite," reports Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. But, hey, wouldn't it be more fun if here both? And a french-fry-hating child-bondage supporter to boot? People, people, have some imagination. This isn't a black-and-white, either-or, right-or-left world we're living in, you know.

(Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.)

elliottg (mail):
Not a black and white world. That's hilarious, Mr. "Westerners who side with the 'Iraqi Resistance' against America", followed up by "you must have a guilty conscience.
8.15.2005 4:33pm
Goober (mail):
As the self-appointed and jealous guardian of the word "Feh," I object to its misappropriation. Jon Stewart did get it exactly right, of course. People like John Tierney and other recent critics of NARAL could learn something about the devastating use of subtlety in that piece.
8.15.2005 4:53pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
ElliottG: I'm afraid I'm missing the joke. Can you explain it to me, please?
8.15.2005 5:35pm
Eh Nonymous (mail) (www):
I feel a lot of love in this thread.

But, is it the Love of God for Man that Caused Him To Sacrifice His Only Son, or is it the illicit love of Man for Other Men which causes him to, apparently, cause all the other ills of Western Civilization (not to mention Eastern, Northern, Southern and possibly South-Central)?

That reminds me of a happy thought: Mr. Sun's Entries in the Most Dumb-Ass Question for Judge Roberts Contest, specifically two of his best:

* What is the funny feeling I get when someone raises the issue of dudes marrying dudes? (Rick Santorum only)

and of course, my most favorite (non-legal? quasi-legal?):

* Has it gotten to the point, do you think, that Tom Cruise is unconstitutional?
8.15.2005 5:57pm
Eh Nonymous (mail) (www):
That should read, as in the original, Has it gotten to the point, do you think, that Tom Cruise is unconstitutional?
8.15.2005 5:58pm
aslanfan (mail):
Are NARAL and Pacific Legal Foundation a Match Made in Heaven?

A Supreme Property Rights Disaster In The Making
The One Republic Journal, James S. Burling, August 15, 2005

"After a term marked by the Supreme Court's utter contempt for property rights, those of us who happen to think there is something special about allowing old widows to keep their homes were not prepared for an even more bitter defeat. Yet, that is what President Bush handed us with the nomination of John Roberts."

more at One R. Journal
8.15.2005 7:39pm
Goober (mail):
I suspect you were being sarcastic, but Elliot's point was that it's a little off-putting to read your chin-pulling appeals against judging Roberts by a single event now, just days after you've been so short in that virtue of open-mindedness.

Put it another way: Why should someone explaining a group's position in order to advocate for that group deserve a presumption of complexity, when just yesterday others who tried to explain another group's position (whether intending to justify, understand, control or identify weaknesses in that group, they were all treated the same) deserved to be put on a list?

I don't know if it's terribly apt. But Elliott does hit on something.
8.16.2005 4:04pm