[Spuds Hilton, the author of the article] said in an interview that while he has no clue as to the identity of the alleged nude judge, "the whole idea of sailing the seven seas naked makes the mind race. When you hear that a member of the highest court in a country the size of Canada may be lounging by the pool buck-naked, daiquiri in hand, you know that people will be interested.Here in the U.S., the justices are always blabbing about "judicial modesty," but who know what kinds of vacations they take?
"The owner of the travel company said that nudity is the great equalizer," Mr. Hilton added. "I guess that makes sense -- no power suits, no uniforms, no $600 pumps and, apparently, no judge's robes."
Anyway, a naked cruise? It's just so perfectly awful, combining the horrors described in two of my favorite essays, "Naked," by David Sedaris and "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again," by David Foster Wallace. And then add Supreme Court Justices for a truly dreadful, nightmare vacation.
Posts
20 comments:
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I would not at all enjoy taking a nude cruise.
But why shouldn’t a Supreme Court justice feel free to take a nude cruise?
They need to find a way to relax and unwind just like the rest of us.
Here’s one thing I’m sure of: Scalia could REALLY benefit from going on a nude cruise.
Short pants don't seem so bad now, do they?
I'll feel so dirty and squirmy if it turns out to be Ruth
Re: "But why shouldn’t a Supreme Court justice feel free to take a nude cruise?"
There are rather few humans so blessed in anatomy to warrant a boat ride in their birthday suit. Of that small circle, even among them the body is better served by giving far less information to others than nudity permits.
What separates us form dogs and apes is not, I suggest, intellect or hairlessness, but shame. Fashion is nice compensation for guilt, however. And the ability to avoid observing other naked mammals groom is also wonderful.
P.S. The DFW article is indeed a spendid one.
Why is everyone so squeamish about nudity? If a Justice enjoys this, more power to them. And for those too lazy to read -- it's a Canadian Supreme Court Justice.
Read the article carefully, please, ladies and gentlemen... It makes very clear that we are talking here about a Canadian Supreme Court judge, not one of ours.
About 30 years ago the National Lampoon ran an illustration depicting the Supremes engaged in nine different perversions. For example, Justice Douglas was having carnal knowledge of a kangaroo. Justice Marshall was wielding a whip. That sort of thing.
Of course, the illustration got passed around the Justice's chambers.
When the picture arrived at Justice Blackmun's office, his clerks showed it to him.
Upon seeing it, he expressed relief. The illustration depicted him holding his coat open with two aghast children standing in front of him.
Blackmun thought it well and good that he was shown protecting children from the wicked things the other Justices were doing.
Re: "squeamish about nudity"
I see naked people every single day at work. I would argue that people should be very squeamish, and avoid the temptation to share your wares with the rest of us.
So few of us are as beautiful as Michaelangelo's David, and if we saw even David walking around, scratching, eating, squatting, and chatting up some bird, the appeal would soon pass, and we would hire a tailor, find him some socks and boxers, and be satisfied with the brief exposures at a museum.
Even if limited to the fairer ones among under-30 crowd, nudity has some fairly obvious disadvantages. Clipping one's cell phone at the waist becomes rather painful, for one. Gardening becomes dangerous. And don't even think about pets.
George: That anecdote is in "The Brethren," but it's not Blackmun, it's Brennan.
Here's an idea, pogo, if you don't like seeing a naked person. Don't look.
Bayer, Burger, Bader, Black...
A memory for B's is what I lack
Blackmun, Brennan, Blair and Bork...
Which one is the silly....
"...if you don't like seeing a naked person. Don't look. "
Ah heck, I'm just being a bit outrageous to make a point.
The female form is a thing of wonder. Grace in movement and enchantment by the toss of hair or dangling finger. Males? Not so much.
In artwork, quite lovely. At length, on a cruise, unable to enjoy the myth permitted by film, photo, or sculpture, but faced with the actual lumpen man? Me, I'd rather eat glass.
Having seen thousands of naked people in every form, from godlike to jabbathehut, having explored every nook and cranny, and even gone inside of chest, abdomen, and skull, I can attest that you aren't missing much. Imagination trumps reality. You may disagree, but I don't see the nudity thing becoming much of a threat in Wisconsin.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams ... glitter in the dark near Tanhauser Gate."
- guilty of assuming and being lazy - a naked Ruth would not be pleasing to think of after all..
It was Associate Justice Elle McPherson.
So the naked judge can see first hand that Bare Necessities books travelers according to a formula that usually denies boarding to numerous males in an attempt to equalize the number of men and women--a direct violation of our Public Accommodation law here in Austin, which proscribes discrimination based on sex.
Just wondering: Thinking of all the Supreme Court justices, which one would you most like to see naked? :)
If folks are interested in briefs no justice would ever abandon, they should checkout www.illegalbriefs.com.
Well if it had been a justice of the United States Supreme Court who had taken the cruise, I think that it would have been Scalia. Here is a quote from a few years ago when he spoke at Harvard:
"But Scalia said his personal views on social issues have no bearing on his courtroom decisions.
'I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged,' Scalia said."
Read the whole article at www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503540.
I'm rather more keen on imagining naked Secretaries of State, m'self.
Let's just say it's a good thing the Justices don't look to foreign precedents for anything.
Post a Comment