The ABA Journal has posted a podcast that I did with former New York Times journalist Linda Greenhouse on the Supreme Court. Greenhouse is currently the Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law and Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence at Yale Law School.
The podcast can be accessed here.
65 thoughts on “Turley and Greenhouse Discuss Supreme Court”
Anyway, the Justices don’t need to be concerned with anything but adherence to the Constitution in making their decisions, which Professor Turley thinks should be available to a far greater audience. I agree with him. If anyone probably had the more accurate and informed idea of what the Framers really meant and would have wanted it would be Professor Turley, not armchair Constitutionalists who comment on a blog’s comments sections. I place my trust in he knowing the Constitution far better than they.
Oh good lord. As IF some folks what the framers meant more than anyone else, lol. Professor Turley’s words speak for themselves and are not out of context. The continuous emphasis on and mischaracterization and understanding of what a REPRESENTATIVE democracy is, is getting petty and has been silly for quite sometime. Some folks are no better informed than anyone else here regarding the framers original intent. Absurd.
Jonathan Turley, please write a 2015 update of your article “10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free”. Thanks for your great writing!
I respect your opinion Darren and I don’t often disagree with it, but there is a problem; you see this as a semantic issue and it’s far more than that. We have become so complacent in our use of words that we’ve become disconnected with the original intent or context from when this government was established. This “semantics” issue leads people to believe such things as “rights come from government” or that “government must follow the will of the people” or that “the Bill of Rights are like every other amendment”. All of those statements can be argued as semantically correct but without the context they are dangerous notions. This is the depth that the ‘majority’ of our citizens understand our government. So, while “everyone” might recognize the structure of the U.S. Government, they clearly have no idea what the framers originally intended.
I recommend getting a copy of Arthur Stansbury’s “Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States, for the use of all schools” written in 1828. It was updated in 1993 by William Huff and again in 2014. It can be found at http://www.elementarycatechism.com/. It’s full of semantics but the body of work provides much more than that.
I believe it is counter productive to become too involved the semantics of whether the US is a representative democracy, a democracy, or a republic. Everyone recognizes the structure of the US government and we should just accept it for what it is and move on to more important topics. Rather than focus on this, we would be better served to talk about the subject at hand rather than the nomenclature.
“Note that AdT’s view that a legislature could be in error is profoundly anti-democratic. It’s the independence of the judiciary from the political winds, not its subservience to “Popular Sovereignty”, that is critical.”
Excellent posts and you captured very well the concern I have with those that have no depth to their use of terms like “Popular Sovereignty”. I’m not concerned with JT’s reference to a “representative democracy” because he is using it in a particular context. He would never use that term to imply the framers intended ‘majority rules’ or ‘the will of the people must be obeyed because We the People created government’. Because they lack depth, his groupies will wed their flawed paradigm with his terms and conclude, ‘elections have consequences’; unalienable rights be damned.
raff, Mea Culpa. Fencik was a great Yalie and Bear. He was a wide receiver @ Yale, saw him play several games. And, Jauron was a running back @ Yale, both he and Fencik playing DB in the NFL, as you well know. IIRC, both went to high school in Illinois? I had the programs from all the games we went to and I always was interested where the players went to high school. Carmen Cozza[Yale coach] seemed to have a good relationship w/ Illinois high school coaches.
You forgot about Gary Fencik, former All-Pro safety for the
Bears. I believe he was a Yalie.
Calvin Hill, Dick Jauron, Brian Dowling[Doonesbury’s BD]. Saw them all play. Hill was a man among boys. He was bigger than his offensive linemen.
Yale used to have good players?
I agree with the notion that the blogs are protected by multiple prongs of the First Amendment. And that is one of the reasons I took great exception to members of Congress declaring that bloggers were not journalists. I suspect much of that was due to the want to wither away the courts protection of confidential sources between bloggers and their sources of information and to other protections afforded journalists in either the statutory, administrative or common law.
In my view the difference between the underground press and bloggers are just a matter of technology and both must be afforded the same protection traditional mainstream media are–however diminishing that might be.
ChipS, Superb comments and analysis. I’m watching a replay of the Packer/Cowboy Ice Bowl on the NFL Network. A Yale alumnus, Chuck Mercein, played a key role. Saw him play @ Yale Bowl. It won’t be that cold this weekend, but still too cold for Dallas.
In the Podcast Professor Turley made mention the Founders would have greatly admired the technology available to the average citizen and this is further evidenced by the importance they held in courtrooms being open to the general public.
I agree with this observation and this is one of the reasons I find the US Supreme Court’s position that video of proceedings is unwarranted and unnecessary. The fact that citizens are required to wait in line hours for the court to open its doors to the public and that only a few are permitted to attend due to space requirements is not something the Framers would envision as an open court when amalgamated with the freely available technology of video broadcasts and archiving.
It is certainly important an aspect of communication for the non-verbal cues which go certainly beyond the spoken and especially that above the written. It can lend insights into the minds of those who speak or do not. That level of communication is largely lost in the written and audio media.
Here is an example of a state supreme court televising oral arguments
Well, Tocqueville called the US a “democratic republic.” I’ll take him even over our fair host, if this terminological dispute is really important–which it isn’t.
Alexis deT was a big fan of the role of the judiciary in the US, btw. Of the unique American tradition of judicial review of constitutionality he wrote:
The errors of the legislator are exposed whenever their evil consequences are most felt, and it is always a positive and appreciable fact which serves as the basis of a prosecution.
I am inclined to believe this practice of the American courts to be at once the most favorable to liberty as well as to public order. If the judge could only attack the legislator openly and directly, he would sometimes be afraid to oppose any resistance to his will; and at other moments party spirit might encourage him to brave it at every turn. The laws would consequently be attacked when the power from which they emanate is weak, and obeyed when it is strong.
Note that AdT’s view that a legislature could be in error is profoundly anti-democratic. It’s the independence of the judiciary from the political winds, not its subservience to “Popular Sovereignty”, that is critical.
And Chip every single time on any given subject I would choose Professor Turley’s argument and knowlege base over Spinelli’s, lol.
Professor Turley says we are a representative democracy. I believe he has the credentials that would make him the Constitutional scholar here:
“While we have a representative democracy, it still has democratic elements. Congress reflects the divisions in the country.”
I’d say Olly has a clear understanding of the diff. b/w a republic and a direct democracy.
And there’s no institution of American gov’t that embodies that distinction more than the SC, which gave itself the right to strike down laws passed by both elected branches of the gov.
Chip, I was responding to Olly’s comment here:
on 1, January 6, 2015 at 10:32 pmOlly
And maybe, just maybe we can create defenders of natural rights and republicanism as opposed to the current advocates for majority rule.
Seriously, Chip, lol. That’s kind of comical.
Comments are closed.