...cool word, although maybe not really a word. This budding expert thinks it’s one quality Sotomayor shares with Souter. She certainly doesn’t promise to be a lion, a firebrand, a liberal Scalia. So liberal activists have reason to be disappointed by the appointment. It might reflect the president’s conviction--reflected in his biography--that social change we can believe in shouldn’t be pursued through the courts. It might also reflect complacency, of course, with what the Courts have already done.
David Brooks trying to be David Hume?
A mediocre eclair is a mundanish.
Yes, "mundanity" is a cool word. It is also obscure enough and its meaning equivocal enough to free the author from having to express his evaluation of the quality of Ms. Sotomayor's nomination in too blunt (and, hence, offensive) a manner. One suspects, though, that--metaphorically speaking--if the following 3 1/2 years betoken anything like a rhetorical morning in America, many citizens will have to make do with the cold hard reality of mundanishes for breakfast.
I suspect it will be anything but mundane if she is involved in any sort of second amendment ending.