I think I'll just piss on his grammar and word choice and use that as a basis to deride him as a SCOTUS nominee. Apologist for an imperial executive branch? I could give a toss. But sloppy language? Clearly this demonstrates one of the apalling characteristics Bush was looking for in an appointee.
something really bothers me about the acronym SCOTUS. Is it that much harder to write "supreme court?" And if so, wouldn't SC suffice, given the context?
I think I'll just piss on his grammar and word choice and use that as a basis to deride him as a SCOTUS nominee. Apologist for an imperial executive branch? I could give a toss. But sloppy language? Clearly this demonstrates one of the apalling characteristics Bush was looking for in an appointee.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:28 PM
One needn't always be serious, even among those whisperers in the ears of power, the small-time bloggers.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:32 PM
Um, I wasn't being serious there.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:17 PM
something really bothers me about the acronym SCOTUS. Is it that much harder to write "supreme court?" And if so, wouldn't SC suffice, given the context?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:24 PM
I mean, you don't really need a separate letter for the word "the" in most acronyms.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:25 PM
I wage war on SCOTUS. It is appalling.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:26 PM
But it rhymes with POTUS, which sounds like the title of a dunce. The POTUS cap or something.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:29 PM
"Enough of that George! Put on the POTUS cap!"
"Aw, geez, dad. Do I have to?"
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:57 PM
It is bothersome because it looks like SCROTUM.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 7:08 PM
In Doug's defence, he was referencing a long held obsession of ours...
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 7:59 PM
So Doug even gives exactly the same explanation I give, but thinks that it's always said in bad faith?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 8:19 PM
I want to know whether he will give 110%
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 07-21-05 12:18 AM
I think Doug's view is not that it's always in bad faith, just that it's a tiresome rhetorical trope.
It doesn't bother me as much as the "no one respected us" trope in sports (or, as it may be known in the future "the Detroit Piston's trope").
Joe O is exactly right: the real question is whether Roberts can make a real football play. He certainly shows a lot of character.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-21-05 3:22 AM
It is funny because it looks like SCROTUM.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 07-21-05 6:29 AM
Perhaps I'm being dense, but what does "honored and humbled" have to do with the adversarial stance? (Ah, propinquity, combined with bad linking.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-21-05 9:48 AM