Hatch thinks John Roberts walks on water

July 21, 2005

I realize that most conservatives are pleased with John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court, but Orrin Hatch seems to believe Bush’s choice may be holier than thou. Literally.

Throughout the day, Democrats stressed that Roberts, 50, could spend 30 or more years on the court and that it is essential to scrutinize his record and philosophies. “A preliminary review of Judge Roberts’s record suggests areas of significant concern that need exploration,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, said in a floor speech. “We need to know what kind of Supreme Court justice John Roberts would be. I hope the White House and the nominee will work with us and cooperate so that all relevant matters can be constructively explored.” […]

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) [responded] more colorfully. “It’s a little bit like biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ,” he said on Fox News. (emphasis added)

First, I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure comparing some Republican lawyer to Jesus Christ is blasphemous under Hatch’s belief system.

Second, Hatch may also want to check his history a little closer. The Pharisees were self-righteousness hypocrites. If Hatch is looking for politicians in Washington for whom this description applies, he may want to take another look at his own party.

The present day Republicans are the modern day Pharisees. We
really need to hang their Terry Shiavo performance around their
necks. Make them try to defend that.

  • The conservatives seem to be totally enamored with Roberts. This editorial in the NT Times by David Brooks is just gushing over like a starry eyed teenager on a first date. The opening line to his editorial, “Roberts nomination, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.”

    Is it just me or do the right-wingers just keep getting stranger by the day?

  • Hatch is such a hack.

    Dobson and Falwell will surely condemn his blasphemy. When hell freezes over.

  • they may be disappointed. I thought this was interesting from the FT:

    The Georgetown Law students studying international trade law in London this summer have found themselves in an interesting position: their professor has been tapped as a nominee to sit on the Supreme Court
    John Roberts, President Bush’s pro-business nominee, was due to finish his lectures on Friday, with final exams scheduled for August 9. But, after the White House called Roberts Monday night in London to tell him to fly to Washington immediately, it was understandable if some last-minute changes to the class schedule might be needed. Fortunately, the students will not be left without a professor, as Judge Timothy Stanceu of the US Court of International Trade was due to begin lecturing on July 25.
    So what did the potential Supreme Court justice have his students reading? Legal Problems of International Economic Relations was a required text. He also had them read “Winners and Losers: The Truth About Free Trade,� an article published in The New Yorker magazine last year. In their opening lecture, the judges addressed a number of questions, including why international trade should be regulated differently from domestic trade and why there are riots when the World Trade Organisation meets.
    US senators, journalists and members of political interest groups have been scrambling for clues about Roberts’ life, character and views. The Georgetown students, it seems, have had a sneak preview.

  • I saw Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer talking to Tim Russert last week and was amazed at how really grumpy Hatch has gotten lately. Schumer, who spoke first, went out of his way to be friendly and engaging. As soon as Hatch got the mike he immediately went into attack mode which really screwed up the whole atmosphere and seemed to genuinely surprise both of the other men. I’ve watched Hatch over the years and this really seems out of character. Is he just having a bad week or could the ravages of age be finally catching up to him? We’ll have to wait and see.

  • Is it just me or do the right-wingers just keep getting stranger by the day?

    Mark, I’ve been having that same sensation. From the national media certainly, but particularly in communications with my younger siblings. They seem, literally, to have gone insane, spewing stuff I wouldn’t have thought possible a couple years ago. A formerly fairly intelligent and rather sweet sister now, in effect, channels enormous hatred toward anyone who reads or thinks outside her wacko cocoon. You could really sum up her mind and mood these days with a hissed or growled “Er ist ein (cross out Jude and write) Demokrat.” (to quote Rove).

    I’ve been trying to understand this. Far as I know she’s not on meds gone out of balance. No traumas I know of. Aging, yes, but aren’t we all. As I was puzzling about it this morning I heard Al Franken on Air America talking about an RNC webpage on which they put a lie into Wilson’s mouth (literally – they edit a transcript of his comments on CNN, making Wilson say Cheney sent him to Africa) and then refute that lie-within-a-lie. Franken was stunned at their willingness to keep such an easily refutable lie up on their website.

    That’s when I think I finally came to some understanding of this strange behavior of my sister and other wingnuts. Having become a Bushie (and before that a Clinton loather) she lives in a world of lies so complete and encompassing that it becomes impossible for anyone to present reality (facts, logic, history) to them. Everything gets re-interpreted to fit the underlying lie (i.e., “faith”). It’s a sort of pervasive Cognitive Dissonance solution which increasingly requires them to disbelieve realities and invent unrealities in order to cope. Most people, those who don’t take politics so seriously, simply shrug when they encounter something which contradicts their beliefs or preferences. The whackos can’t do that; they’re forced to back still further away from reality just to hold their closed world on its foundation.

    They’re simply not aware of how much they’ve been lied to. It’s something like the religious faith she and my other relatives have. It’s not a social thing for them, not just people you interact with or a rationale for doing good works. In fact, many such “deep faith” types are distinerested by real-world churches and by those in need (think Bush). At this level (or depth) it’s hard to define a difference between “faith” – i.e., a belief in something which cannot be proved true (and, therefore, is impervious to disproof) – and an all-encompassing lie. Intelligent Design is as good as (better than) evolution through natural selection. There’ll be pie in the sky by-and-by.

    When I was in college a friend who was headed for a career in Psychology made an interesting observation: the guy who thinks he’s Napoleon rarely knows he’s crazy; as far as he knows he is Napoleon and isacting appropriately (often bothered by the fact that all the crazy people around him don’t realize “the truth” about him). It’s got to be something like that going on in the case the right-wingers.

    If there’s anything to this line of thought, then it would seem the most appropriate response is simply to not play their game (as some have said here, don’t buy their “frame”). Therapists often do play along with their patients, enough to arouse interest and provide emotional support, but there’s a line they aren’t supposed to go beyond. It’s called “denial of reciprocity”. You let them play, but you don’t participate. You don’t attack head-on because, at best, you simply can’t get through and, worse, you wind up re-inforcing their illusions (in religious terms, providing them yet another opportunity to ‘witness”, to “strengthen their faith”). So you let them play their game to a point and then refuse to go along. Turn away, Ignore them. Don’t reward their ridiculous activity/belief. At some point, usually, without re-inforcement, they either quit/withdraw or start all over with a new fantasy, hopefully a less harmful one.

  • Ed – I have boiled my theory about these glassy eyed Republicans down to a couple of one liners that I got from Mad magazine many years ago.

    1st – and my favorite, Mental illness is contagious..
    2nd – this describes the ones using eliminationist rhetoric, Support mental health or I’ll kill you.

    And I lifted this gem from a Jack Higgins novel that I just finished – “Are you playing the game, or is the game playing you?”

    I think that the last one is pretty descriptive of how people are getting swept up in this tide of lunacy that seems so fashionable among reality challenged among us.

  • Mark,

    Good ones.

    Here’s another: Even paranoids have real enemies.

    Another one (which I used to have on my office door): Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.

    • Comments are closed.