Is the New York Times actually serious? Of course it is. If the president can play the a patronizing sex game (of the bean counting sort — man, it’s early and your mind’s already in the gutter), why wouldn’t the Gray Lady.

Today Linda Greenhouse has a piece on the ALARMING DROP IN FEMALE LAW CLERKS at the Supreme Court. This, you know, is all part of the plan. All part of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT’S WAR ON WOMEN.

With but 16 out of 43 female law clerks on the Court and a John and a Samuel W. additions, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is “all alone in my corner on the bench” (says Justice She).

In fairness, apparently this came up first in the blogosphere– the Times is following, not leading.

Souter seems to have given a straightforward and honest answer. Greenhouse writes: “Justice Souter, said he was disappointed to find himself without any female clerks. He explained that he had hired the top four applicants, who turned out to be men. “

And so there we are — if we are, so what?. If the guys are tops in a given applicant pool, please don’t suggest standards should be lowered or changed to get the women on top. We’ve been there and it was a headache we could have all done without, thank you very much.