Can you top this?

I realize that we’re dealing with an embarrassment of riches, but in the category for the most preposterous reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s death, I offer you the junior senator from Missouri:

A proud son of Missouri, Rush Limbaugh was a voice for the voiceless. He changed talk radio, but more importantly, Rush changed the conversation to speak up for the forgotten, and challenge the establishment. He lived the First Amendment and told hard truths that made the elite uncomfortable, but made sure working men and women had a seat at the table. Erin and I are praying for the Limbaugh family.

Basically the entire conservative movement since the 1960s can be reduced to the proposition: Life in America today is deeply unfair to white men.

Here is the end of Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty, a 35-year-old case in which the SCOTUS upheld an affirmative action program that ended up giving a county road dispatcher job to Diane Joyce, a woman applicant, over Brian Johnson, a white man who had scored slightly higher on a written test that was one part of the application process:

It is unlikely that today’s result will be displeasing to politically elected officials, to whom it provides the means of quickly accommodating the demands of organized groups to achieve concrete, numerical improvement in the economic status of particular constituencies. Nor will it displease the world of corporate and governmental employers (many of whom have filed briefs as amici in the present case, all on the side of Santa Clara) for whom the cost of hiring less qualified workers is often substantially less — and infinitely more predictable — than the cost of litigating Title VII cases and of seeking to convince federal agencies by nonnumerical means that no discrimination exists. In fact, the only losers in the process are the Johnsons of the country, for whom Title VII has been not merely repealed, but actually inverted. The irony is that these individuals — predominantly unknown, unaffluent, unorganized — suffer this injustice at the hands of a Court fond of thinking itself the champion of the politically impotent. I dissent.

That’s the whole thing right there.

. . . A friend offers this strong contender from John Fund at the National Review:

The truth is that the bombastic narcissism of Rush’s radio persona was mostly a marketing act. Rush was, in truth, a shy man . . .