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.
One needn't always be serious, even among those whisperers in the ears of power, the small-time bloggers.
Um, I wasn't being serious there.
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 mean, you don't really need a separate letter for the word "the" in most acronyms.
But it rhymes with POTUS, which sounds like the title of a dunce. The POTUS cap or something.
"Enough of that George! Put on the POTUS cap!"
"Aw, geez, dad. Do I have to?"
It is bothersome because it looks like SCROTUM.
In Doug's defence, he was referencing a long held obsession of ours...
So Doug even gives exactly the same explanation I give, but thinks that it's always said in bad faith?
I want to know whether he will give 110%
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.
It is funny because it looks like SCROTUM.
Perhaps I'm being dense, but what does "honored and humbled" have to do with the adversarial stance? (Ah, propinquity, combined with bad linking.)