She knows its Satire..... Right?

News is in the Sarah Palin is planning to appear on the Colbert Report broadcast from Iraq next month.

She does know that Colbert is not an actual Sean Hannity impersonator, but rather a comedian, doesn't she?

Hard to know for sure.

Retreat and Snipe or Waiving the White Flag of Surrender?

After circling the wagons and preparing for holy battle to defeat the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, it looks like Wingers are preparing for defeat.  But they won’t go down without a fight:

we're lucky to have Jeff Sessions and not Arlen Specter as our guy leading the charge on the Judiciary Committee: Because of his gentlemanly personality and because he's been on the receiving end of a Borking himself, Sessions will lead the examination of Sotomayor in just such a respectful fashion, but as a principled conservative and an experienced prosecutor, he'll grill her til her every pious claim to commitment to equal justice is stripped away.

Yeah, I am counting on a stellar performance from Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the Third to make the Judge breakdown and shamefacedly admit that she is a Radical Judicial Activitist.  Count on it.   But after the brilliance that is Jeff Sessions, here, apparently is the real question for the hearings:

Does Judge Sotomayor embrace a view of judging that is constrained by the text, history, and principles of the Constitution and our laws?  Or does she favor an interpretive enterprise in which a judge's personal feelings, views, background, and politics drive the outcome of cases?

Is that it?  If this is what the nutters have been chattering on about, I suspect they are in for some serious disappointment.  I know the nutters have a thing about the infallibility of the written word (i.e., the reference to “text”) and all but if this is it, it really is time to pack it in.

Ed Whelan Wingnuttery Watch™ in Effect – Code Red!

I just found the perfect decision to push Big Ed Whelan off the deep end into the depths of depraved stark raving wingnuttery.  Accordingly I have raised the Whelan Wingnuttery Watch™ to Code Red!

Here is the reason. In 2008 Judge Sonia Sotomayor was part of a unanimous court decision that limited the use of the Patriot Act to muzzle Internet service providers who are contacted by federal authorities for customer phone and Internet records.   In essence if the Government is checking out what websites you view and who you call, your ISP is not allowed to tell you or anybody.  It is a secret.  Sotomayor sided with the ACLU and ordinary Americans over the objections of the Bush Administration which supported the gag rule.  Apparently the First Amendment still applies and your ISP can tell you what’s going on but if the government is spying on an actual terrorist they need to keep quiet.

You know what this means?  Remember the old you are either with the Bush Administration or with the Terrorists line?  Big Ed and his posse have a clear opportunity here to play the Terrorism Card!

We can do away with this “She is a Judicial Activist but I can’t show you an example in any of the 500 decisions she’s written” line.  We can also move past the “She’s an Empathizer just like Justice Alito,” line and hit the hard stuff.  I’m looking for Big Ed to bring in Cheney and Feith and go for it man.  The “Your Either with the Bush Administration or with the Terrorists” Meme is bleeping golden.  If Rod Blagoivich had it in his back pocket he would have sold it for a gazillion bucks. Since Big Ed and the Boys have been stuck at Code Lame so far on this Supreme Court Nomination, I am predicting that they’ll either have to pack it in soon or seriously step up the Wingnuttery.  Otherwise they just continue to look weak and pathetic.  

This terrorism card is the perfect opportunity for Big Ed to step up and get back in the game.  Sure it is a bogus line of attack.  But remember with the Wingnuttery, it does not need to be factual or even make sense.  It just needs to feel good.  Look for Big Ed to play the Terrorism card in the near term. As a result of the desperate state of affairs I am upgrading the Whelan Wingnuttery Watch™ to Code Red.

The Whack Job of the Day is....

Ed Whelan. Hurray!

Her Majesty Sonia Sotomayor vs. the Rule of Law   [Ed Whelan]

In 1996, Judge Sonia Sotomayor delivered a speech to law students that she then turned into a law-review article (which she co-authored with Nicole A. Gordon), “Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics:  A Modern Approach” (30 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 35 (1996)).  The article is muddled and mediocre—it’s certainly not something that those struggling to portray Sotomayor as brilliant would want to highlight—but I will focus less on its overall quality than on some of Sotomayor’s arguments:

And Big Ed goes on into incomprehensible emotional whining. Blah, blah, blah. This is a big let down.  I was expecting seriously hardcore wingnuttery and all he comes up with is more emoting over the fact the Sotomayor is not a Historicist like Scalia and may consider a multitude of factors when deciding a case. 

If this is the best that Big Ed Whelan can do, then I'm am seriously disappointed.  

Where are the Blue Helmets and the forces of Radical Transnationalism or the coming of the Islamic Republic of Minnestotastan or any of the good stuff?  

His Schtick on Sotomayor is Lame.  Just Lame.  I knew the Judicial Activism Card was going to be played and predictably it has been played, but I guess I expected a higher quality of wingnuttery. 

Big Ed is a disappointment so far.

Passage of the Day:

I suppose there's no more perfect storm than a loggorheic ideological narcissist with a twitter account. But ladies and gentlemen, I give you...Newt Gingrich, who has twitually accused Sonia Sotomayor of racism, just as he twitually accused the President of being soft on pirates a few hours before the President got very hard on pirates a few weeks ago. 

[...]

another thing about Newt: his tone sounds increasingly anachronistic. The clarion partisanship seems desperate. Those big, bold Luntz-words and phrases that worked so well in the 90s--patriotism, freedom, socialism, government arrogance, entrepreneurial creativity, flagrant, unpatriotic and outrageous (the latter three usually modified by "incredibly")--smell cheesy in this more sober time. I am simply not nostalgic for this sort of behavior. I used to think that what Newt--a smart guy, who often thinks creatively about policy--needed was an anger management course. Now, I just think he needs a designated grownup who will ground his blackberry whenever these eruptions occur and send the bully-boy up to his room for a time out. 

~ Joe Klein

If the shoe fits.... 

Making Conservatism Credible Again?

This sounds like a real winner!

Event Description

Many pundits today suggest that conservative ideas have been consigned to the ash heap of history, and that the only important political question we face is how dramatic America’s turn toward liberalism will be. But even in these tough times, some conservatives have managed not only to reaffirm their beliefs, but to find success with the electorate as well.

The 2009 Bradley Symposium will feature two such officials, reflecting on ways American conservatism can be made credible once again: Congressman PAUL RYAN (R–Wisconsin) and Governor MITCH DANIELS (R–Indiana).

Commenting on their presentations will be two of conservatism’s most thoughtful young writers and analysts, YUVAL LEVIN, editor of the new journal of public policy National Affairs, and RICH LOWRY of National Review.

Looking for Mitch Daniels to lead the GOP from the wilderness, I see.  Well, I guess he was smart enough to get out of the Bush Administration early, so that is something. But why the hell are they inviting Rich Lowry?  He is just going to talk about Reagan's response to the problems of the 1970s - slow growth, social unrest and and Soviet adventurism. That ain’t gonna do no good today. 

I’ll save them some time and sum up the current state of core conservative beliefs: Gross Incompetence in Governance, Tax Cuts, Terror, and Torture.  After you add effusive religiosity and fear of Gays to the list, you’ve about covered it. 

I’ve listed “Gross Incompetence in Governance” as a core value of the party because there is no other way you can account for the current state of affairs today with assuming that the series of catastrophic errors that occured on their watch following their game plan had to be intentional.  Otherwise, you’d had to assume that it was not conservative governance that was to blame, but rather that conservative ideology yields disasterous results.  I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and saying that Gross Incompetence in Governance is a feature not a bug. But either way, I guess.

RINO ALERT --- RINO ALERT --- RINO ALERT --- RINO ALERT --- RINO ALERT

CODE RINO is now in Effect.

The following RINO Alert has been issued for residents inmates of Greater Wingnuttia.   

This breaking news just in Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson the lawyer that secured the Presidency for George Bush in 2000 has just announced his intention destroy the institution of marriage and in effect to destroy the earth!!!!! 

How so, you may ask, would a stalwart Republican go about doing such?  I’ll tell you.  He’s challenging a Gay Marriage ban in Federal Court, trying to impose the practice on you!  This comes as terrifying news that the man who talked the Supreme Court into Empathizing with the Equal Protection Rights of George Bush under the 14^th amendment to the Constitution would now use his considerable talents to support such a cause.

Know what this means, Olson has gone Rhino.

Next thing you know he’ll be backing Harold “Radical Transnationist” Koh’s appointment to the State Department and Trashing Rush Limbaugh.

Whelan Wingnuttery Watch™ Continuing

Well I thought I’d check in with Big Ed and his Posse over at the NRO to see what zaniness they’d have in store for us this afternoon since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court this morning.

And while perusing the pages, I noticed a disturbing trend: many of President Obama's nominees to high legal position have been assigned snappy label to help the faithful keep track of why one should fear the particular individual.

First off is Sonia Sotomayor, who is a Liberal Judicial Activist of the First Order. We are told that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court and Practices Selectively Empathy. Interestingly by noting that Sotomayor is more of an activist than the current activist Supreme Court, the author seems to be implying that the court consists of Activists - presumably referring to Judge Scalia.

Next is Diane Wood. She is "a hard-Left judicial activist and aggressor on culture-war issues." She also viciously turned her back while someone was speaking before, too. Oh the Horror!

Next is Elena Kagan. Her label, impliedly, is EcoTerrorist. I am sure she will be soon forgotten for the moment (until next time that is).

Who can forget the extremely qualified Harold Koh who has been labeled a Radical Transnationalizer, here to replace Good Ol' American Law with weak-willed-effete European Law.

Last but not least is David Hamilton who is Pro Allah and Anti-Jesus. Believe it or not. Yet to be confirmed is whether or not he required witnesses to swear to tell the truth on the Koran. The answer is probably no, but one can never tell.

I am expecting some HIGH QUALITY WINGNUTTERY in the near term on Sotomayor. I don't think it'll match the Pro-Allah Anti-Jesus line, but close maybe. We shall see. Anyway, Big Ed and his Posse won't let us down.

Quote of the Day:

Over at the NRO, which surely would have gone bats over any person Nominated to the Supreme Court, the Wingnuttery begins:

A judge acts as an umpire, making the calls of balls and strikes: neither the judge nor the umpire is supposed to decide that one party is more sympathetic than the other and deserves the benefit of the ruling.

Whatever. 

But what happens if we are not playing a game of baseball but rather football?  In this case the Umpire is in way over his head and will end up guessing to make the ruling.  Or rather what happens when the rules are not clear or this issue has not arisen before?  Do you flip a coin? Presumably the answer is yes from this crowd.  Flipping a coin would be far more preferable to considering other factors. 

Get ready for more cries such as this, but with more shrillarity, on Judge Sotomayor.

Whelan Wingnuttery Watch™ in Effect

This just in: President Obama's Nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court will be announced this morning.

I don’t know who the nominee will be, but odds are high that Outrage and Indignation will flow from the predicable parts of the wingnut-O-sphere.  We’ve seen some pretty good memes on Obama’s picks for law-type jobs so far like “Pro-Allah but Anti-Jesus” or “Radical Transnationalizer.”  We can only speculate on the wackiness that will arise later today with Big Ed Whelan sure to take the lead at promoting the wingnuttery.

While I don’t know who he’ll pick, but I am sure it will be an improvement from the cast of characters we saw Bush appoint.  Anyone remember Alberto Gonzales?  With Alberto as an example, he’ll surely do better, right?

Number of the Day:

6%

A survey of 6 Arab countries shows that only 6% say that Iraqis are better off after the war. This is up from 3% last year.  It appears that The Mission Accomplished Proclamation by President Bush may have been premature.

Passage of the Day:

When Vice-President Biden publicly mocked Roberts about his gaffe at a ceremony shortly after the Inauguration, Obama shot him a scathing look of rebuke. (Biden later called Roberts to apologize.) Still, there is no disputing that the President and the Chief Justice are adversaries in a contest for control of the Court, and that both men come to that battle well armed. Obama has at most one more chance to take the oath of office, and Roberts will probably have a half-dozen more opportunities to get it right. But each time Roberts walks down the steps of the Capitol to administer the oath, he may well be surrounded—and eventually outvoted—by Supreme Court colleagues appointed by Barack Obama. ~ The New Yorker

One can hope.

Ya, I can see this happening - Dispatches from Greater Wingnuttia

A call has gone out to President Obama from some of the zanier portions of the wingnut-O-sphere to appoint a Latino to the High Court.

Their pick: Miguel Estrada

It would be a bi-partisan move they say and show that Obama is reaching out to hard right types.  

Why don’t they round up some more failed Bush judicial nominees, like Estrada and send them over to the White House, too.  You never know maybe they can sneak Rogers-Brown or that Kavanaugh Character by the screeners. 

Number of the Day is....

18%.

This apparently is the Wingnut Base within the Florida Republican Party as demonstrated by Charlie Crist’s 53-18 percent lead in the polls over his ideological challenger for the GOP primary in the Florida 2010 Senate Race.

Maybe the GOP is not dead yet.  We will have to give them a little more time here to know for sure because Erick Erickson's wingnut boycott of Crist has just started.

And Thus the Tent Gets Smaller

Note to the eventual Last Sane Man in the GOP: Please lower the Flag and bring it with you before you leave. Thank you.

Two Quotes:

“And something that the Democrat sponsors do not point out, a lot of the CO2 that is created in the United States is naturally created. You can’t regulate God. Not even the Democratic majority in the US Congress can regulate God," 

~ Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) on Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever term describes the cooking of the earth.

Responsible stewardship of the Earth now equals Regulating God.  

Man that is seriously fucked up.  If you live in Texas, wouldn’t having Joe Barton as your congressman be a major embarrassment?  

He has to realize that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, for example, have been a great success.  The Cuyahoga River actually caught on Fire during the 60s.  Note to Barton: when a river catches on fire, it is God’s way of telling you that there is a serious problem that requires you immediate attention.  Fortunately folks back then took the steps needed so that our kids today can swim, fish and breathe clean air.  And regulating God had nothing to do with it.

Now William Smith.

Smith is Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III (R-AL), right hand man on the Judiciary Committee.  This man’s advice will, presumably guide Senator Sessions during the confirmation hearings on the next Supreme Court Judge.  Last month Smith had words for Steve Schmidt a former advisor to John McCain and apparently a treacherous RINO. 

Schmidt told a group last week that Republicans should embrace homosexual marriage. Otherwise, they risked becoming sectarian.  By sectarian, Schmidt did not mean being defined as having a limited set of principles that served to guide the Party.  He meant and he indicated that Republicans who refused to embrace homosexual marriage are narrow-minded.
 
Schmidt is just like a maverick, which is probably why McCain made him a top adviser.  He has no guiding principles.  He would rather be open-minded.
 
Schmidt was speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that quickly embraced his message.  I wonder if next week Schmidt will take his close minded stump speech to a NAMBLA meeting.  For those unfamiliar with NAMBLA, the acronym is for North American Man Boy Love Association.
 
Schmidt would quickly tell you that he is not advocating that we support 60 year old men in their desire to rape 8 year old boys, but he would not classify his opposition as narrow minded. No! This is a principled position; there is some logic behind it, Schmidt would say.

Is Schmidt then going to take his close minded stump speech to the Bestiality Club?  Again, his answer would be no, although there are a group of people who embrace this lifestyle. 

Schmidt and other gay lifestyle proponents would say that my opposition is based on the slippery slope approach.  I say that it is based on principle and that it is no more close minded than their position for gay unions.  The difference between me and Schmidt is that I’m not a maverick.  I’m guided by something called Christian principles.  And I don’t need people in California, New York and Washington to tell me what the principles should be.

This guy advises a top member of Judicial Committee of the Greatest Deliberative Legislative Body on Earth?  Really?  Does he really believe that Party doctrine must conform to his understanding of Christian Principles? Is the Republican Party his church?

What does this say about the future of the Republican Party, when it has guys like these in leadership roles?  

Whelan Wingnuttery Alert --- CODE RED

Ed Whelan has been nobly blowing the whistle against the threat that future Obama Administration legal advisor Harold Koh, would subordinate US Law to International Common Law (effete European Law) or Sharia Law (scary Muslim Law).  (Editorial Note: Ed has since retracted the claim about the scary sharia law)

Big Ed is busy, preparing to against other threats, both real and imagined at this time, so I thought I’d take a moment to help him out with this post on a truly frightening proposition.  It concerns the dire risk of Transnationalism.  But it ain't the ordinary type of transnationalism where your job up and moves to China lock stock and barrell.  Or is it even the type of Transnationalism where greedy investment bankers pump up the value of the US Real Estate market in order sell a slice of your mortgage to foriegners. 

No it ain't the normal type of Transnationalism. It is far worse.  It is the RADICAL kind of Transnationalism.

Here goes:

RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT ---  RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT 

This just in: Romania to Decriminalize INCEST?

You know what this means people.  Radical Transnationalist Harold Koh who may or may not be bound and determined to subordinate the US Constitution to European Law WILL IMPOSE THIS ON YOU if he gets confirmed to work at the State Department. That is right.  His Radical Transnationalism will make incest legal right here in the USA, even though he has absolutely no power to do so.

This is what it means to be Transnationalized Radical Style!

My friends this clearly cannot be allowed to come to pass.  This is why all Wingnuts must arise to strike down the Koh appointment.

I repeat a Red Alert has been issued.  Be on the alert for acts of depraved wingnuttery in response to this fake threat.

RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT --- RED ALERT ---

 RED ALERT --- RED ALERT ---  RED ALERT --- RED ALERT ---

Maybe some I day can get a job at the NRO someday or get hooked up with the Wingnut Welfare.  I hear you get paid and all you have to do is to make up crazy shit.

(H/T: The Corner)

The Disaster that was the Bush Adminstration --- Chapter 15

From our 3,675 part series recapping the Tragic Reign of Error that was the Bush Administration, let's check in with Chapter 15.

Yes it was this bad.

Headline of the Day:

The CHRISTIAN EXODUS from the HOLY LAND

"the situation for Arab Christians has gone rapidly downhill," says Razek Siriani, a frank and lively man in his 40s who works for the Middle East Council of Churches in Aleppo, Syria. "We're completely outnumbered and surrounded by angry voices," he says. Western Christians have made matters worse, he argues, echoing a sentiment expressed by many Arab Christians. "It's because of what Christians in the West, led by the U.S., have been doing in the East," he says, ticking off the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. support for Israel, and the threats of "regime change" by the Bush Administration. "To many Muslims, especially the fanatics, this looks like the Crusades all over again, a war against Islam waged by Christianity. Because we're Christians, they see us as the enemy too. It's guilt by association."

Christians have lived in Holy Lands for 2000 Years.....until now.  

I still have a hard time understanding how Bush could have called for another Crusade after 9/11.  It was either an act of blithering ignorance or catastrophic arrogance.

Who could have possibly guessed he'd screw up everything he touched, this bad?  I mean the guy was a screw-up, that much was clear.  But the series of fuck-ups, one after another, were so bad that at least some of them had to be done on purpose.  

The Law of Averages tells us that he'd get something right, if not on purpose then by chance, if for no other reason.  Unfortunately, the Law of Averages was suspended during the Bush Administration.  Maybe they had it stashed at Guantanamo.  Thanks a lot George. It. Was. A. Total. Disaster.

Heckuva Job Junior. 

Book Review of the Day:

What made Cheney’s influence so perfidious was the combination of his pro­found panic over the 9/11 attacks (and the mysterious anthrax “attacks” in the follow­ and his absolutist view of presidential prerogatives. The attacks apparently unnerved Cheney to the point of his imagining Saddam Hussein to be undeterrable, an al Qaeda collaborator, and brimming with weapons of mass destruction. “I don’t know him anymore,” said Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser to George H. W. Bush. According to Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff, “Cheney was traumatized by 9/11. The poor guy became paranoid.” Having underestimated the al Qaeda threat before 9/11, Cheney overcompensated; in the weeks following the at­tacks he traveled with a doctor as well as a duffel bag containing a gas mask and a biochemical survival suit.

If the attacks scared the wits out of Cheney, they also provided the opportu­nity to reestablish the “imperial” presidency first embraced by Richard Nixon, who famously said, “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Cheney believed the post-9/11 terrorist threat to the United States was so existential as to jus­tify any means deemed necessary to prevent future attacks—including torture, unwar­ranted surveillance, arrest and detention without trial, and violation of congressional statutes and international treaties restricting the behavior of US military forces.

A review of the book The Dark Side, by Jane Mayer.

I have not read this book but will put it on my list.  Well, Cheney lost his wits, traveling with a Doctor and a Gas Mask (and rolls of duct tape no doubt) after 9/11.  If I remember correctly, Tricky Dick was having heart problems at the time, so the possibility of dropping dead and George Bush becoming President must have really freaked him out.

I have read my share of “Bush Fucked-Up! Read all About It” books.  So I am pretty worn out on reliving the Disaster that was the Bush Administration.

More Visual Evidence of a Bush BOOM, err...Bush BUST

I know. Nothing That Happened During the Bush Administration Was His Fault. He just worked at the White House.

But what do you think the Country would look like now, if in fact, he had fucked things up?

Bush Boom Soon to Return?

The word is just in that the Bush Bust may soon be over!  It was, we are told,

a brief correction.

You know what this means, if Larry Kudlow says that happy days are here again, you better buy stock in a sunglasses factory (it will be in China, btw), because the future is actually that fucking bright.  

Just saying.

Activist Judge (to be) Alert?

Continuing my point from earlier this morning on Historicism and the Bench, the quote below fits quite well. 

With that being said, we have a RINO alert in progress.  And this news is bad, Bad, BAD.

Similarly, I think private gun ownership should be a matter for legislative determination, rather than judicial. The Second Amendment is unclear about whether there is a right to own guns for personal self-defense or hunting, and I don't think delving into eighteenth-century documents argued to bear on the meaning of the amendment is a sensible way of doing constitutional law in the twenty-first century.

A Conservative discussing why the GOP is messed up.  In part the reason is a fundamentalist mindset and along with the heresy of doubting the fallible text of the Second Amendment.  

But maybe when considering the Second Amendment, we should give serious consideration of the view of the Strict Constructions on the Bench and look to the intent of the Founders.

The founding fathers mainly relied on Muskets to repel the Redcoats.  So shouldn’t our understanding of the second amendment be confined to the same relationship as the colonists had with the Musket?  I mean those guys didn’t have flamethrowers or cruise missiles or anything. They relied on locally administered Armories, like the one King George III tried to seize at Concord, MA.  This really pissed people off at the time, if you remember.

So shouldn’t it be logical that the intent behind the Second Amendment was to protect the institution of the Militia?  Sounds originally reasonable to me.

If one is a so-called “Strict Constructionist” why would you want to expand gun rights into the 21^st century when you can stick with Militias and Muskets?  Surely a Strict Constructionist would never legislate from the Bench when all you have to do is to call Balls and Strikes, would they.  Answer:Yes because they prefer a different result.

Anyway the quote above demonstrates that no one viewpoint is sufficient for a Judge to rely upon in every instance.  

No Place for Empathy Here Man --- Move Along

It was an interesting day at the High Court the other week as the issue of the day was  a School’s Strip Search of a 13 year old schoolgirl.  You see school officials received a tip that a dangerous Ibuprofen Mule was smuggling the Advil in her underpants.  Naturally the School Officials had no other choice than to strip the child down in the interest of public safety.  

First up the Dude Defending The Strip Search:

MR. WRIGHT: I think -- I think it could lend itself to that, Your Honor, but I would prefer that the Court -- we would ask the Court and it's our position that the Court would lay down a bright line rule such that it wouldn't end up in a factual dispute, and that bright line rule is this. Once you had reason to suspect a student is possessing any contraband that poses a health and safety risk, then searching any place where that contraband may reasonably be found is constitutional, and – [emphasis-mine]

JUSTICE SCALIA: Any contraband, like the black marker pencil that -- that astounded me. That was contraband in that school, wasn't it, a black marker pencil?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, for sniffing.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, is that what they do?

MR. WRIGHT: It's a permanent marker.

JUSTICE SCALIA: They sniff them?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's the -- I mean, I'm a school lawyer. That's what kids do, Your Honor, unfortunately, Your Honor. But -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?

And then they came for your Sharpie. 

Strip searches are on the table, so to speak.  But what if the strip search is unsuccessful, as the case was here. They didn’t find the Contraband Advil with just a strip search, so can the school go even farther?  When you have potentially dangerous suspected Ibuprofen Mules on the loose, would a body cavity search be the next step to safeguard the students……

JUSTICE SCALIA: Could I come back to your distinguishing a strip search from a cavity search. What would you require before you would allow a cavity search?

MR. WRIGHT: Nothing at all. A bright line rule. I would not allow it.

JUSTICE SCALIA: No cavity search in school, no matter what?

MR. WRIGHT: We're not even clinically trained to do that, Your Honor. I would submit that if a child has something stuffed up one of their cavities -- and I assume we mean private parts, the very private parts -- that the first thing to do would be to send them to the hospital. I mean, we just don't have that clinical training.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Your basis -- your basis for saying that, I guess, is just sort of the practical one, we don't know how to do that type of thing. So far as the legal principle on the basis of which you justified this search, you could justify that search, too, couldn't you?

MR. WRIGHT: On the legal basis I could see that, Your Honor. I could see that result. But practically -

JUSTICE SOUTER: But if -- if we hold in your favor in this case and the next school district says, all right, we're going to have classes in body cavity searches, then there would be no legal basis, if we accept your principle, for saying that's out of bounds as a matter of the Fourth Amendment; isn't that correct?

MR. WRIGHT: I see your concern. That's to be left up to the local governments, Your Honor. As you have mentioned, this Court has mentioned, in Ingraham and Wright -

JUSTICE SOUTER: So it would not -- it would not be out of bounds under the Fourth Amendment?

MR. WRIGHT: Technically, but it will be controlled by the community. It would be controlled by the local board.

Lesson One: One thing the Next Supreme Court Justice should never have Empathy. What good is empathy at the Supreme Court?

Lesson Two: Kids use the internet; they will read about this. And don’t be surprised if some them use the “Old Advil in the Underwear Prank” on some other kid s/he doesn’t like.

Lesson Three: Kids that get caught using the “Advil in the Underwear Prank” may pull John Roberts Defense and plead that if the “Chief Judge didn’t overrule it, then it must be OK and plus I paid Alberto Gonzales 5 bucks to write a memo saying that in the interest of Public Safety it is OK pull a fraternity style prank like this.”

Lesson Four:  This should piss everyone off.