Do you remember learning about comparatives in grade school? "An adjective or adverb expressing the comparative degree." You know. Big, bigger, biggest. Happy, happier, happiest. You can also use more and most as in talented, more talented, most talented. I recall learning that an adjective or adverb could apply to a large group of objects (The kids have big dogs). The comparative limits the size of the group (Dick, Bill, and Condi have bigger dogs). And here is my point, the superlative can only refer to one object (George has the biggest dog).
"That's your point?" you may ask. It is. Think of it as a public service reminder to the Senators debating judicial nominees. Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor, Jr. have all been called President Bush's "most extreme" nominees. Now I understand that grammatically you can group objects together and apply the superlative to them (Dick, Bill, and Condi have three of the biggest dogs). However, as the grouping becomes larger the specifics of the point you are trying to make diminishes. If you add Myers, Saad, Kavanaugh, McKeague, and the other Presidential nominees to the group that are "Most Extreme" the effect of the superlative shrinks even further. I urge the Senators to remember that when they invoke (and you know they will) the "Most Extreme Circumstances" clause of the Memoradum of (mis)Understanding.
Judges Owens and Brown have been confirmed. Debate has been closed on William Pryor with a vote to follow soon. My optimistic side thinks that the rest should be easy, right? The cynic in me expects to hear the phrase "most extreme" from the Senate floor both soon and often. See you tomorrow.
