December 30, 2005

Robscalithom predictions.

William Safire returns to the NYT op-ed page to do his usual "office pool" on predictions for the year 2006. Question 4 is about the Supreme Court:
The Robertscalito court will: (a) in the Texas case disengage from involvement in states' redistricting; (b) go the other way in Oregon, holding that federal power to prohibit substances trumps a state's authority to permit physician-assisted suicide; (c) decide that federal funds can be denied to law schools that prohibit military recruitment on campus; (d) uphold McCain-Feingold, enabling Congress to restrict political contributions but not expenditures; (e) reassert citizens' Fourth Amendment protection from "security letters" and warrantless surveillance.
His answer is "all." Some are more likely that others, though, especially (c). And "Robertscalito" is an awfully inelegant coinage for a notorious word maven. Much as I object to "Scalito," I still find it aesthetically appealing. If you're going to go toward ungainliness and make it "Robertscalito," leaving out Clarence Thomas becomes conspicuous. So in the interest of inclusiveness and aesthetics, I'll suggest: "Robscalithom."

8 comments:

P. Froward said...

Aesthetics are a very personal matter, I guess.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Do you pronounce it like "rapscallion"?

miklos rosza said...

It's just the Roberts Court to me.

Simon said...

"Robscalithom."

Sounds like he should be wandering around middle earth swinging a curmudgeonly axe at Rohanites and Gondorians.

Prometheus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Prometheus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DEC said...

Some of the fire has gone out of Safire.

Eli Blake said...

Actually, with the four on the right, and with the four on the left, we have a court balanced perfectly around one justice. So, one man will control one third of the government.

2006 will be a year in which Anthony Kennedy will wield a sharper and more powerful sword than George W. Bush.

Now, I do have one question. The Oregon case was argued first before the court. Is it likely that they have decided it yet, and if so, then how would Justice O'Connor look at it. One thing about her, is that she is much more aware and open than most justices about her position and the position of the court, and with it moving to the right after she leaves, I wouldn't put it past her to tweak a decision to the left with her parting shot.