Sex and the Supreme Court
I could be optimistic and hope that this blog reaches out to the cake (or brioche)-eating multitudes out there, but I suspect that very few people (including my mother who gets schocked by sex and bored by the Constitution) will read this. So, thank you, if you're here.
I have asked myself, time and time again - why do people write blogs. There are people I know with busy busy lives, who cannot read anything (because of time constraints) who still blog voluminously. The answer I suspect lies somewhere in between the need Beethoven had to write music even when he couldn't hear it, and the need some of us feel (as I have begun to) to produce written work even after we leave college
...and what will I write about? About people and politics, focusing on the title subjects therein, I suspect. There will definitely be those who write about both subjects, singly or together, better than I (see example, Underneath Their Robes, on the right of this blog). Do send me such links, and be forgiving...
So moving on to sex and the constitution - I don't know if any of you out there noticed it, but the Constitution is sexy. Besides embracing all races, all sexes, to perform all sorts of sexual acts (in privacy) and getting rid of the consequences, it is also mysterious and resists interpretation, even when it is handled by 8 men and 1 woman at the same time.
So, let us say HBO realised the potential for this new show, whom should they cast? Well, surely, a few of the members of our current Court would want to move onto the silver screen...
Justification: Much like Charlotte, Scalia seems not to have masturbated, and is shocked that anyone else can. Furthermore, like Scalia, I suspect that Charlotte has never sodomised her spouse (or have they). Like Charlotte, Scalia also likes high art (i.e., the opera), but is decidedly, not as sweet.
Justification: The only thing standard about Stevens is his constitutional liberation, and openness to new ...er...arguments-much like his namesake. He often chooses novel takes on issues that you and I would see in a more...sober...light.
Other close contenders...: Clarence Thomas, for gettin' it on, and Sandy O'Connor for being such a babe.Miranda:
Justification: Like Miranda, O'Connor is a practical, clever woman, who is independent, and goes her own way. She is Carrie's (Kennedy's) closest ally, and like Miranda, has also delivered babies (grasping at straws here). Like Miranda, she nearly justified getting rid of the baby but not quite.
Other Contenders: Scalia, for being the bitchiest SOB around...but then Miranda ain't that bad. Also, as noted above, I suspect that Scalia does like the tookus, which Miranda decidedly does not.
Justification: Some may gasp, some may grimace, there may be wailing and gnashing of teeth. "How," some inquiring minds will want to know "with 6 perfectly good justices left to choose from, did you get him!" Well, like Carrie, Kennedy has spent ages flitting from one guy, to the next, back to the previous one, searching for the perfect judicial doctrine, (and the perfect pair of foreign laws to go with his handbag). His writing has the same level of rigid reasoning and precision (though, it just isn't Vogue). And no one who has seen his smiling face can deny that he is just the cutest thing alive...
Supporting Cast:Well, we're left with a few more Justices, and while we can't satisfy all of them... (suggestions to do so are welcome of course), here's what we can do with some...
Stanford Blach-Souter....Res ipsa loquitur
Mr. Big-Roberts...as above,but I must add:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Official_roberts_CJ.jpg
Suggestions for the remaining three?