They're taking a break in the Judiciary Committee, and Edward Kennedy is being interviewed on Court TV, saying that what both Democrats and Republicans want is a justice who is in "the mainstream." In the first place, that's utter nonsense. Each side wants someone who will do with the court what that side thinks should be done with the court. And in the second place, exactly what is the "mainstream"? Prevailing legal opinion? What a majority of Americans think? What does any of that have to do with constitutional interpretation? Now Kennedy is trotting out Katrina again and how that proves that "equal protection" is not a reality, blah, blah, blah. Well, I've been poor and . . . Ok, "not so poor" is as far as I've climbed . . . but I know this: Poor people don't have it as easy as rich people. Fact of life -- get over it. Or else just say what you really mean, which is that you want all wealth to be taken by the government and redistributed by your formula, and you want the Supreme Court to help you. You've never believed in "equal opportunity" in your life. "Equal results" is your religion.
The quality of commentary on Court TV has just dropped. Nancy Grace is a twit, sucking up to Kennedy and saying it's an outrage that Roberts is ducking questions.