Nothing surprises us anymore. We thought.
True, at first we were disturbed by this paragraph -- the beginning of a news story on today's Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts:
"John Roberts, nominated to be chief justice of the United States, introduced 5-year-old Josie, in her baby blue party dress and white headband, and 4-year-old Jack, in his blue blazer, bow tie and short gray flannel pants, at the start of his confirmation hearing Monday."To our highly attuned journalistic ear, the phrase "baby-blue party dress," in connection with the Senate Judiciary Committee struck a discordant tone. After all, as our esteemed colleague Rachel points out below, this is the freaking Supreme Court we're talking about. One wants gravitas, solemnity, showy demonstrations of intellectual rigor. Not tots in frocks.
But okay, so a few crusty senators went gaga over the nominee's adorable towheaded offspring, who were apparently brandished like Molotov cocktails by the nominee's charming and ambitious wife. We decided to overlook it. One does not want to be accused of curmudgeonliness.
Reading further, however, we were given pause -- shaken, really -- by the word, "frolicking," followed in short order by "fidgeting," and then "wiggle," all in connection with the abovementioned tots, who seemed upon closer examination to be entirely dominating the proceedings. And as we read on, groping in vain for the Valium we thought we had hidden in our third-down desk drawer, our forbearance snapped entirely when we came upon the word "snuggle." SNUGGLE. A concept that should never be associated with the Supreme Court in any way, shape or form.
Can the apocalypse be far off?