{"id":725,"date":"2010-05-13T09:20:02","date_gmt":"2010-05-13T14:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bourdaghs.com\/blog\/?p=725"},"modified":"2010-05-13T09:20:02","modified_gmt":"2010-05-13T14:20:02","slug":"uhm-what","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bourdaghs.com\/blog\/?p=725","title":{"rendered":"Uhm…What?"},"content":{"rendered":"

David Brooks is one of the more thoughtful and interesting conservative voices on the current political scene (then again, given the Neanderthal-like quality of much of the competition, that’s sadly not saying very much). But his column in the New York Times<\/em> this week<\/a> strains credulity. So far as I can tell, he is arguing that Elena Kagan is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court because she is, well, too judicious. <\/p>\n

She is apparently smart, deft and friendly. She was a superb teacher. She has the ability to process many points of view and to mediate between different factions.<\/p>\n

Yet she also is apparently prudential, deliberate and cautious. She does not seem to be one who leaps into a fray when the consequences might be unpredictable. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After years of belly-aching about radical judicial activism, the right now wants to demonize cautious, middle-of-the-road pragmatism? <\/p>\n

My favorite response to the nomination so far comes from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo<\/a>, who asks the burning question, “Who’s more likely to be gay? Unmarried, middle-aged woman or televangelist\/family values pol?”<\/p>\n