Learning The Robes



By Tony Kornheiser



Sunday, June 30 1996; Page F01

The Washington Post 



I am going to abandon my usual formula of writing about things like singing condoms, dogs that eat

money, and the guy who pooped on the airline service cart. This week, I take the "high road,"

examining a serious, distinguished institution -- the Supreme Court of the United States. The court

issued a number of significant decisions in the last week, decisions that could profoundly change

the fabric of American lives, decisions that raise some perplexing questions. 



For starters, what is it with this Ginsburg chick? What is that stiff white bib she wears? Where

does she do her deliberating, the Dancing Crab?



Also, can someone please tell me what kind of a name is "Antonin"? Antonin is not the name of a

Supreme Court justice. It is the name of a poodle groomer in the Hamptons. (Maybe if I called

myself Antonin instead of Tony, they would let me write more dignified columns, and I wouldn't

constantly be searching the wires for items about people who've had sex with flotation devices.)



I should note that most Americans are not like us power junkies in Washington, where everyone

knows the justices, collects Supreme Court bubble gum cards, etc. But if you go to, say, Peoria,

Ind., and ask the average Tom, Dick or Antonin to name the nine justices, he would say, "Peoria is

in Illinois, you idiot." Then he would say, "There are nine? Wow. Lessee, there's the woman, and

that black guy, and Agnew, and, um, Wapner . . . ? 



The fact is, people don't know the Supreme Court justices because the justices' business is

deliberately anonymous, because they operate by obtaining quiet, collegial consensus, and because

they are as personally scintillating as Milk Duds. 



As a service to those readers in the nation's heartland, I thought I would name the justices and

supply a thumbnail sketch of their backgrounds and ideologies. This may get a little complicated

and technical, but bear with me. Being an informed citizen requires some intellectual effort.



Rehnquist: The chief justice. A bit sour of countenance. He makes Warren Christopher seem like

Robin Williams. For breakfast, he likes Count Chocula in pickle juice.



O'Connor: Famous for having John Riggins pass out slobberingly drunk at her feet. Pundits regard

her as the "swing" vote. I do not know what this means, except it sounds vaguely sexist to me. I

mean, why not just say she is the "flounce" vote or the "minxy little kittenish sashaying" vote?



Breyer: He is so bland, he is, um, vanilla. Hahahaha. (Is this a classy column or what?) 



Scalia: Generally regarded to be the smartest justice. Also he is regarded as a "strict

constructionist." (This is the way pundits refer to someone who, if he were not a Supreme Court

justice but, say, a radio talk show host, would be dismissed as a right-wing lunatic.) Scalia believes

the Constitution allows dogs to carry guns. Believes defendants should be executed prior to trial. Is

said to be considering making the entire state of Virginia a "gated community." 



Thomas: Enjoys Coca-Cola. 



Ginsburg: Small. Cute. Would look really ridiculous in a handlebar mustache.



Kennedy and Stevens: I keep confusing them. They both wear bow ties. (As do George Will and

Irving R. Levine, but the way to tell those guys apart is to throw them both against the wall, and the

one who compares your technique to Bob Feller's is Will.) 



Souter: Scary. Lives with Mom. Looks like proprietor of Bates Motel. 



In the last week, the justices issued several gravely important, earth-shattering rulings, the details of

which escape me at the moment. If you ask me, the court spends too much time on boring issues

of politics, criminal justice and interstate commerce. It should devote more time to the sort of

issues we really care about. Here's one: enjoining Tony Danza from ever singing or dancing in front

of a camera. Here's another: banning forever those antacid commercials where a guy is worried he

has a tumor but it turns out all he needs is a good belch.



Anyway, the only Supreme Court decision I remember from this past week is the one declaring

that women can go to the Virginia Military Institute. 



I agree. I think women should have every right to go to VMI. What I don't understand is why they

would want to. VMI is an institution that requires its students to shave their heads, stand at

attention for hours and get called "maggots" by people too stupid to have real jobs. Women want

this? 



Next, men will be suing for the right to get Caesarean sections. 



Basically, I think the best way to get people to do something unpleasant is to tell them they can't

do it. Pretty soon they'll be suing your butt off for the privilege. 



Let's say Roto-Rooter is having a problem filling openings for Assistant Industrial Toilet Unclogger,

because the job requires you to enter cesspools wearing only underpants and a snorkel. All the

company would have to do is advertise the job, but say "Asian women, Jews and persons with

speech impediments need not apply."



Roto-Rooter would have to hire extra people to field all the job applications. And the U.S.

Supreme Court would be on the case. 



© Copyright 1996 The Washington Post Company