So, when Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court, it was apparently the first time a confirmation fight really got ugly, and set the stage for the fight over Clarence Thomas, Roberts, and now Miers. Today Bork writes for the WSJ that Bush is not a conservative and his candidate for the Supreme Court is a joke.

Now, many of you won't have a WSJ subscription to read this but I'd like to sum up some of the glorious irony contained in this opinion piece.

1. Bork is a lunatic, and so crazy-right wing that he was rejected for the court based on ideology (this is the court that has Scalia and Thomas on it despite Democratic majorities in congress, so that's something). The elephant sitting in the room, which didn't even come up in his hearings because there were plenty of other reasons to criticize him, was that Bork was the Nixon crony who finally fired Archibald Cox! This is the guy who's going to comment on anyone else's Supreme Court choices?

2. He titled his own opinion piece "Slouching Towards Miers." Ha! What a freak! To those not familiar with his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" which one reviewer noted was less cohesive and reasonable than the Unabomber's manifesto, this means he thought it might be a good idea to replace "Gomorrah" with "Miers" and that would be funny or something. Wow, the judicial candidate worthy of comparison to a city that God razed with heavenly fire for its sins.

3. His main criticism of her isn't over Roe, or her conservatism or qualifications but her failure to demonstrate and embrace of Originalism, Bork's own insane, and almost universally rejected judicial philosophy. Basically, it means the only judicial review that is appropriate must involve travel in a time machine to the year 1776, acquisition of a founding father, and subsequent interviews with him to determine how he'd feel about a law passed 200+ years later in a somewhat different country.

Ah, the WSJ opinion page. Source of so much lunacy. It's like going to a zoo.