Sunday, July 24, 2005

The Supreme Court Conundrum

I've given the matter much thought -- as much thought, I daresay, as I've given to anything in recent months. There seems to be a great deal of controversy in the last week over who should be given a place on the Supreme Court. I'm not too clear about the details, because I tend to watch television with the sound off while reading and listening to music. But there have been a great many wild gesticulations, raised forefingers, look-at-my-bosom gestures, and knit brows, which generally either means that a vintage silent melodrama is playing, or that our public commentators have gotten themselves into a snit. That these altercations often seem to include subtitles of the "BUSH NOMINEE: THREAT OR MENACE?" variety inclines me to think that This is no melodrama; this is REAL.

As ever, I have a proposal to deal with this annoying situation. I'd like to propose that Stephen take the place of the Supreme Court. Please read the prior sentence carefully, because I've been misunderstood before, and clarity is at the heart of my mission on this planet. I am not proposing that he take a place on the Supreme Court; I am proposing that he take the place of the Supreme Court. It may be objected that there will be minor technical difficulties in bringing this state of affairs about; that it would require a Constitutional Amendment, or some such piddling legalistic trifle; but I suggest that a saturation ad campaign "promising" that Stephen will lower cable rates should sweep away any difficulties quickly and forcefully.

I would like therefore to put forward the case for Stephen as the Judicial Branch of Government:
  1. He would find the salary adequate. If not, he would have options.
  2. He is not a lawyer.
  3. When he writes utter nonsense, it is deliberate. It is not because somebody put a crayon in his fist after having him read legalese until his brain squirts out his ears.
  4. He can be expected to take long leaves. "He who governs best, governs least." This should appease conservatives.
  5. Of the venerable National Review, he has said, "Flush it." This should appease liberals.
  6. He will not hesitate to confer upon himself Extraordinary Powers.
  7. He will be quick and decisive.
  8. He will not hesitate to order the summary execution of irritating people who "argue" before him by attempting to make him sift through mountains of documents.
  9. He reads The New Criterion.
  10. He reads Mojo.
  11. He is an unreconstructed Stanshallite of Rawlinsonian persuasion.
  12. He is a resident of Boston. We don't allow no pussies in Boston.
  13. Any financial dealings with him in his role of El Supremo will have the virtue of complete transparency.
  14. He will be the only "swing vote" that matters.
  15. He has proven himself unafraid to tackle fat, drunken misanthropes with social pretensions such as Evelyn Waugh. I am not trying to insinuate that anyone in the U.S. Senate has these characteristics. Only that Senator I'm not referring to isn't as funny.
  16. He won't forget his friends, or at least not for awhile.
  17. Partisan divisiveness will be but a distant memory, as he will move quickly to silence people who should have sewn their mouths shut long ago.
  18. He will be as scrupulously respectful of the separation of powers as I am of the local bleak-in-law.
  19. He will jail all PBS administrators and employees and put good stuff on instead.
  20. He has a blog.

I could go on and on. I usually do. Other supporters will immediately think of myriad qualifications of this remarkable citizen that I have missed or understated. This fact in itself is a compelling argument in his favor. I hope others will take up the torch now that I have dropped it.