#1: Your Name is Dahlia

Something named "Dahlia Lithwick" (why does that sound like an anagram?) writes at Slate.com (another utterly useless gathering place for virtual minds that are virtually empty), that the judicial legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor has been rapidly diminished because there are too many ideologues on the Court. The absence of a swing-voter like herself to replace herself means that all rulings come down to philosophy. As you no doubt have noticed, I prefer practical experience, but hey--it's just all our lives and liberties in the balance!

Duh-lia cites Antonin Scalia and Charles Krauthammer as evidence that O'Connor was not a deep thinker (who's shallow now, Dumh-lia?), and implies that liberal justices are just as much to blame as conservatives for their unwillingness to be pragmatic. Sorry, but the liberal "ideology" just happens to mirror majority opinion--not to mention, experience--in this country, so it ought to be more flexible causawhazzanow?

Writing of ideologues in hushed tones, as though ideology is a defense for poor decisions, is the same free pass Bush received and still receives from the press. Scalia has gotten the same cushion for the last few years, and now it appears the journalistic practice of legitimizing voodoo reasoning will continue indefinitely. Belief, it seems, is truly the last refuge of the scoundrel--and the last subject mined by hack journalists.

And a word about Chuck Krauthammer: would he be employed, by anyone, if he were Teutonic and had the last name "Kikesmacker"? Or if he were from Chicago's south side and was named "Coonlyncher"? But apparently a zionist can pick any name, short of "Charles Israelispy," and run with it. Krauthammer's success can, I think, only be attributed to his ridiculous name--it certainly hasn't been the product of his reasoning or writing.