Deep Thoughts from VDH - Roberts as Hamlet

There is not a more pompous son of a bitch at the NRO than this guy:

Chief Justice John Roberts, a good man who apparently thought he was doing the right thing, is increasingly taking on the character of a lone figure from classical Greek tragedy. If one collates all the news reports, rumors, and scuttlebutt, and if they are mostly credible, one learns of his tortured switch. It was perhaps prompted by a genuine desire to mitigate the Court’s “partisan” reputation, or to establish Roberts in the long tradition of a Warren or Souter, as a jurist who “evolved” on the Court in a fashion that pleases the influential in Washington and New York—or both. ... The tragedy is that, as the story comes out, the reputation of the Court will sink not rise, as—fairly or not—it appears overly sensitive to public opinion and liable to capitulate to such pressures in mediis rebus.

Roberts, who wanted to cement his reputation as a sober and judicious jurist, through his Hamlet-like deliberations ended up seeming incoherent, tentative, and unsure of himself. And if it’s true that rumors of Roberts reconsidering his vote swirled in Washington prior to the final outcome, and that such perceptions of hesitation prompted renewed venom and pressure — from not just the media, but from those such as Senator Leahy (who had voted to confirm Roberts) on the floors of Congress, and the president himself (who attacked the Court even earlier in his State of the Union address) — then the Court comes off as far more suspect after the opinion than before. Everything Roberts wished to prevent he ensured.

Victor Davis Hanson, NRO writer and Wingnut Welfare Recipient

The thing that Hanson has that other wingnuts lack is a knowledge of Classical Greece. I think he actually has a PhD in ancient Greek linguistics. If there is a question concerning the speech patterns of the ancient Greeks, he would know a lot more about that than me.

This gives him stature amongst the wingers.  In this regard he can posit on the issues of the day without relying upon any expertise in that field just by using examples from the past:

The ancient city state of Xdemopolis chose to engage in diplomacy with its rival state instead of preemptively attacking. In the process Xdemopolis was pre-emptively attacked, the city burned, the men put to the sword and the women and children sold into slavery.

Therefor engaging in diplomacy with _______ is wrong. We would be better served by acting aggressively with _______ lest we end up like the ancient Greek city state of Xdemopolis which was pre-emptively attacked, the city burned, its men put to the sword and the women and children sold into slavery.  This proves that Obama's position, whatever it is, sucks.

This shtick works awesomely on the wingnet.