Oh my. Richard Cohen thinks that Judge Roberts is questionable because he hasn’t failed enough.
Excuse me? Failure is a recommendation for the Supreme Court? Umm… then I have any number of recommendations, beginning with William Jefferson Clinton, a man who has made more than his share of boo boos. Or is that bimbos? Never mind.
But that is not the only attribute that Mr. Cohen thinks Judge Roberts lacks. You see, the Judge has never been a politician. Now how this fits one for the Supreme Court is an interesting question, but it is not a query that Cohen addresses adequately. But then Mr. C thinks failure becomes a fellow, so perhaps this intellectual failure on his own part adds to Mr. Cohen’s stature as a… left wing nut, umm… MSM columnist. Same thing.
Having assailed Judge Robert’s failure to fail, Cohen moves on to Roberts’ inexperience with the “real world.” Unlike others, who have lived at the margins of society, the Judge comes from the world of affluence and success. Shame on him! And in case you knew that Roberts worked summers as a laborer — well, Mr. Cohen has that covered:
|The best Roberts could do in this respect was to work summers in a steel mill. He shared the work — but not the plight.|
Now, given these bona fides, one would think that Clarence Thomas would be Mr. Cohen’s ideal, right? Thomas was poor, lived on the margins, made some mistakes — all things Mr. Cohen claims fit one better for life and for duty on the Court.
But, no. These don’t give Clarence Thomas a pass with the muddled Mr. Cohen. Here is his last, incoherent take on the subject:
|If I had a vote in the Senate, I would not deny it to Roberts based on his lack of tough times — nor, for that matter, would I have granted one to Clarence Thomas, who had plenty of them. But when it comes to civil rights, to women’s rights, to workers’ rights, to gay rights and to the plight of the poor, I would prefer that Roberts had had his moment of failure. He will lead one branch of the government. I wish he knew more about all of the people.|
Try to parse that if you can. The Judge should have failed at what, precisely? Violated workers’ rights? Called gays rude names? Laughed at the “plight” of the poor? And these failures would have done what to enhance the Judge’s fitness for the Supreme Court?
I wish for Mr. Cohen not more failure but more moments of lucidity. And when they occur, I wish he would share them with us. Not only that, but I wish he would sort out the double standards to which he holds Supreme Court judges. Cohen’s contradictory demands are so irrational they would bend a normal man’s mind into a pretzel. It’s amazing that he can speak publicly about the set of standards he puts in place for Clarence Thomas and the ones he reserves for John Roberts. Such dissonance would flummox even the most experienced of psychiatrists. But I forgot: Mr. Cohen is a trained journalist; he can hold these contradictions together. Well, if not “together” exactly, they at least spout from the same mind.
Think about this: The Washington Post paid Mr. Cohen for producing these notions. While it has become a truism that we have been cursed to live in interesting times, it does not follow from this age’s affliction that we need be burdened with Mr. Cohen’s labored — and failed — attempts to bring forth coherent or congruent thought in the discussion about Judge Roberts’ qualifications. That Cohen has been reduced to flashing his failures for us is pathetic, and the failures themselves are pretty small cheese.
If you’re going to fail, Cohen, and then carp about someone else’s “perfect” success, at least fail at what you attempt with some of the same pizzazz with which Judge Roberts succeeded at his endeavors. Do not bore us with night school and your job at an insurance company.
You, Mr. Cohen, are laden with a spoiling kind of envy. So burdened with it are you that your eyes are green and slitted against the glitter you see in Judge Roberts.
You, Mr. Cohen, are a sad, sad man. Sad and embarrassing.