Maureen Dowd, "The Wearing of the Green": Why Isn't She Apologizing for Libeling the Supreme Court?

Maureen Dowd has written many despicable op-eds over the years; however, one of her most disgusting opinion pieces was "Men in Black" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/dowd-men-in-black.html), in which she declared in April:

"This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.

It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes."

At the time, I responded to Dowd (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/maureen-dowd-men-in-black-pot-calls.html) by noting:

"But it is the strident tone of Dowd's opinion piece that makes me cringe. No matter how ardently I might oppose the opinion of any Supreme Court justice, I would never dream of labeling him or her a 'hack.' This lack of civility and basic respect for the opinions of others, threatens to tear apart the fabric of American society. If the conservative Supreme Court justices are 'hacks,' does this mean that each of us is free to take the law into his or her own hands? I shudder at where this leads."

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Wearing of the Green" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/the-wearing-of-the-green.html), Dowd bores us with her take on the visit to Ireland of Queen Elizabeth, who was "wearing an emerald green suit."

Instead of this twaddle, Dowd should have written an apology for libeling the Supreme Court. Why do I think that we will never see remorse from Maureen? As we have seen in the past when she "inadvertantly" borrowed language from another writer, contrition is not one of her own strong suits.