"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth—anonymously and posthumously."Thomas Sowell

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Fashion Consultant to the Gods

So, I'm thinking---Sam Alito definitely has the makings of an ubersexual---brilliant, kind, and obviously confident in his sexuality, but he looks like a total wienie, let's face it.

So, I thought, to achieve a consummate ubersexuality, he might spruce up a little bit. A very cool facial hair statement, sometimes called a Van Dyke, might help.

Not. Bad.

Not bad at all.

Give the man a festive shirt and a decent tan, some pixelating to lend an air of mystery, and of course, some appropriate shades:

Yeah, baby. Ladies and gentlemen, the next Supreme Court Justice of these here United States. Destiny awaits, and rightfully trembles.


Matt Huisman said...

I smell opportunity for you here, TVD - truly an underserved market. Your timing, as usual, is impeccable as the A3G is out of the country for a while and won't be able to stop you from encroaching on her turf.

If I may make a branding suggestion - I'd tweak the name a little (definitely lose the 'Tom' - how Hilfiger pulled that off is beyond me) and go with 'von Dyke'.

Hunter Baker said...

Yep, get ready for the ultra-trendy hot "von Dyke" trucker hats.

Matt Huisman said...

Trucker hats? Absolutely. Ever since Rehnquist decided to kick it up a notch with those gold stripes on the robe, each justice has been scrambling to show a little more flava. (Rumour has it that O'Connor retired in a snit because she had planned on wearing the same thing.)

Tom Van Dyke said...

"Of course he looks great, he just got von Dyked. I mean look at that hat!"

I like it, fellas. I like it.

tbmbuzz said...

I don't know. The Dems (as usual) attempted to bork Alito. If he had a scraggly Bork beard, they may have succeeded!

Tom Van Dyke said...

Scraggly? Scraggly????

Nay, nay---manly beard. Manly. Ubersexual beard. Bork would be on the court today if he'd got himself Von Dyked.

connie deady said...

Not to thread hijack or anything but how is Scalia's position on the Oregon physician assisted suicide strict constructionist?

If we all stuck to interpreting the Constitution without regard to whether or not we favored the policy outcome we'd be much better off for it.

The Classic Liberal Anonymous said...


Please correct me if I am wrong here...

Wasn't the legal question whether or not a doctor can prescibe illegal narcotics for the purposes of death?

Is it OK to break a federal law while following a state law?

connie deady said...

Is it OK to break a federal law while following a state law?

Well you have the concept of federal pre-emption which generally governs. ERISA (which governs employee benefit plans generally prevails over state insurance laws). You also have the principal that the state may grant more individual rights than the federal government.

Sometimes the two conflict. For example, federal wiretapping statutes allow conversations to be taped with the consent of only one party. Some states say any conversation may be taped (without a warrant) only with the consent of two parties, thus it's a crime for me in Pennsylvania to carry a concealed tape recorder and tape conversations. But it's legal under federal law.

To me the question is that states have historically been the ones to make laws regarding narcotics, licensing of physicians, crimes.

Put the particular policy aside and ask yourself if that is the kind of policy you want made by the federal government or by the states? Think abortion. Really states should establish their own abortion laws. I don't think this is an area the feds should be involved in. If Oregon wants to allow it, why object? Remember states can grant more rights than the federal government. They cannot infringe on Constitutionally protected rights.

The Classic Liberal Anonymous said...

As a judge, if you disagree with law A, and law A is an impediment to the implementation of law B, do you:

Uphold B owing to your disdain of A;


Honor A (even though you disagree with it) and repeal B?

To B or not to B, that is the question ...

connie deady said...