The Washington Post has a truly bizarre piece wherein one of its editors attempts to joke about being on the Supreme Court:
First, I’m a woman. That seems to be the (understandably) necessary requirement, and I’ve got that one down. I realize I’m a long shot in a competition loaded with talented and credentialed women, and I wish those women well. The New York Times Web site has an interactive feature, “If You Were President,” that allows people to vote for their favorite candidate for the court, and it is rich with experienced female jurists and lawyers. (Sure, let’s delude ourselves for a while into thinking that we have some clout when it comes to picking justices.) Such distinguished women as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are front-runners. (Bill Clinton is on the list of contenders, low down, but there’s no way that’s happening, sisters.)[….]
I’m used to being around a lot of men since I once was a sports journalist, but I have wonderful female friends, too, and if she’d have me, I would love to go to the symphony with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Over a glass of wine at intermission, we could think up ways to get some of the guys to take early retirement so we could get more women on the court.
Why would this be funny?
I’m new to reading about Supreme Court nominations, but I feel like I’ve dropped in from another planet, one where off-the-cuff smears of potential SCOTUS nominees play an important role in the selection process and where the whole idea that the court might someday be one-third female is either laugh-out-loud funny or a sign that affirmative action will destroy civilization as we know it.
What is going on? All of this makes about as much sense to me as Dijongate at this point.