by The snark continues in reactions to Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings. Stephen Stromberg, writing in the Washington Post’s PostPartisan blog, suggests that one could get better answers from an octopus named Paul that predicted Germany’s World Cup win over England than from Kagan herself.
On her judicial philosophy:
Would Kagan be a “progressive” justice? The nominee objects to the terminology. Paul can express no such qualms. After coming to terms with the metaphysical crisis that no doubt attends when your only means of communication consists of consuming morsels of seafood from one of two labeled containers, Paul would have no doubt selected the one that read “yes.”
On gun rights:
What is Kagan’s approach to gun control? The nominee wouldn’t touch the Heller ruling. Paul would have inked his way toward the “right to bear arms is a collective right, but if the court determines that it is an individual right it ought to be incorporated” container.
On learning anything out of the hearing:
Of course, the White House would never allow an octopus to serve as a surrogate for Kagan. Because if senators asked Paul whether the proceedings were a vapid farce, all eight tentacles would surely embrace the “yes” container.
