It’s no secret, and it’s no surprise, that liberal commentators have become enraged at the conservative members of the Supreme Court, who exposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an unconstitutional and unholy mess in last week’s oral arguments. It would be a full-time job keeping track of the invective. But one person does deserve special mention: Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.
In her column, she says of the current Court, “It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.”
Now that is rich. Dowd’s columns are, without exception, an intellectual content-free zone. They are mood-pieces, a window into the unstable emotional state of liberal east coast elitists. Her words are unburdened by facts, reason, or analysis.
That isn’t a crime, and it even serves a purpose of sorts. But she’s impossible to take seriously. And for her to criticize Antonin Scalia’s grasp of the law is like a third-string quarterback in middle school criticizing Peyton Manning’s grasp of football.
Dowd is as light as air.
Maureen Dowd is a waste of time. Who bothers to read her columns? Hasn't she "jumped the shark" already, too?
You're kidding, right? *Who* bothers to read her? Every reader of that rag of a newspaper, that's who, including the news producers of the three broadcast networks, the editors and managing editors of every metropolitan daily in the country, the guy who runs AP, who introduced The One in such glowing terms the other day. Ms Dowd, as repellent as she is, as intellectually light as she is, hangs the wallpaper that Leftists and clueless *independents* live with and take as truth. And she's been given contemporary American journalism's Good Housekeeping seal of approval: the Pulizer Prize. It speaks volumes about the Columbia trustees that they never awarded the prize for commentary to Michael Kelly, rest his soul, but gave one to this — person.
It's funny that you mention her legal expertise in comparison to Justice Scalia, I'll wager her constitutional insights are a lot closer to the vagabonds that populate the Occupy movement. They too seem quick to engage in the free public offering of constitutional expertise. How lucky for us all. n nThis unabashed narcissism and hubris is finally showing its face because the President of the United States has shown them the way. n n n n
I imagine she knows a thing or two about hacks.
"Dowd’s columns are, without exception, an intellectual content-free zone." n nWhich begs the question,"Why bother with her?" n nOr put another way, "I wonder also what Kim Kardashian is thinking?"
How does she get such prominence in the NYT? She has nothing to say that's worthwhile and Wehner is right to call her columns "mood pieces" devoid of intellectual content, what Shelby Steele mockingly calls "poetic truth" as opposed to real truth.
Liberals are quick to turn on their allies when they sense betrayal. If I were a liberal justice I would be torn: support the ACA and seem to be the liberals' lap-dog, or vote against the ACA to show my allies that they cannot take me for granted. The later is possible when you have a set of self-important and unelected persons who like all judges want to be respected.