We know, we know, we have absolute faith that some aspect of the John Roberts confirmation hearings is exciting. That aspect is probably happening underneath the desk. (Has everyone been keeping their eyes on where Biden's hands are? He really likes himself, you know. Then again, Biden does most of his masturbating on camera.)

In any case, or favorite moment so far was when Orrin Hatch observed of terrorists, "these non-traditional enemies who are clearly non-traditional." Clearly.

If you're looking for SCOTUS-related excitement, we suggest you mute the hearings and turn your mind to the question that burning up the law blogs: Why didn't Justice Souter make a memorial statement on the passing of William Rehnquist?!? Why didn't he go to the Tuesday memorial service!? Article 3 Groupie at UTR builds a case for this being highly unusual if not controversial, noting that Souter issued statements for every other Supreme who's passed in recent years. She further points out that

[A]nswering the question "Why wasn't Souter at the Rehnquist service on Tuesday?" with "Because he was in New Hampshire" makes about as much sense as answering the question "Why didn't A3G go to the gym this morning?" with "Because she was in bed."
UTR's theory: David Souter is still pissed about Bush v. Gore. Well, New Hampshire residents are stubborn.

Ann Althouse's readers off their "top ten reasons why David Souter declined to issue a statement on the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist," including "Expected to be able to join O’Connor and Kennedy in a joint opinion."

Bench-Slapped: Souter v. Rehnquist! [UTR]

Should Chief Justice Roberts keep the gold stripes on the robe? [Althouse]


How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc