Supremely Forgettable: A Majority Of Americans Cannot Name A Single Justice

1599px-Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_-_Roberts_Court_2017There is an interesting C-SPAN survey out this week where ninety-one percent of citizens agreed that decisions on the Supreme Court impacted the lives of every American but a majority lack the ability to name a single justice. 

Some fifty-two percent were unable to name one of the nine justices. The best known, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could be named by just twenty-five percent.  Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts came in for a tied second at fourteen percent.

One positive finding was that sixty-four percent support televised arguments — a reform that I have long advocated. However this was strangely down from a poll in 2015 when seventy-six percent backed TV cameras.  I am surprised by the twelve percent drop in three years.  Why would a sizable percentage of voters now oppose such access?

115 thoughts on “Supremely Forgettable: A Majority Of Americans Cannot Name A Single Justice”

    1. PC Schulte,
      The information is from the U.S. Naval Academy website, “Eligibiliy Requirements for Cemetery”.
      I knew that Libby Custer was buried at West Point, so I checked the Annapolis requirements to see if they allowed widowed spouses to be buried there, too.

      1. Tom Nash – since you are pretty reliable, I am going to take your word for it. 😉

        1. PCS,

          T Gnash is reliable?

          What a pair of clowns you two are; honking as at each other while pretending to have a serious discussion.

  1. Here’s a tell on their depth (or lack) of civics literacy: they cannot name any of the justices on the supreme court, yet they opposed President Trump’s nomination to fill Kennedy’s seat before any name was announced. This includes members of the US Senate.

    They know what they are told to know; no questions asked. That’s civics pollution, and I believe China has a study showing a direct correlation between pollution and stupidity.

      1. When did HRC nominate someone to the Supreme Court?

        Additionally, civics illteracy is a reflection of the growing number of the electorate willing to be herded like sheep into ideological pens. If the people actually had a clue, we wouldn’t have a congressional approval rating in the teens and an incumbency success rate in the nineties.

      2. “Better look up what republicans said about any of HRC nominations.”

        I don’t know how some people have survived with such stupidity.

  2. They couldn’t even name Neil Gorsuch, whom Dems were just having an existential crisis about?

  3. SCHOOLS PUTTING LESS EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL SCIENCES

    Americans are becoming increasingly ignorant regarding all the Social Sciences. Early education has stressed Reading and Arithmetic at the expense of Social Studies. This trend, along with the decline of local newspapers, could produce future voters who are functionally illiterate at grasping basic issues.

    Another factor, stirring this pot of ignorance, are election year attack ads made for TV. The Millennial generation has been inundated by these spots every campaign cycle. Said ads are deliberately designed to ‘turn voters off’. Spooky music, silly graphics and annoying narrators are all calculated to make elections ridiculous. “Don’t bother voting”, is the unspoken message conveyed by said ads.

    Therefore Donald Trump is shamelessly exploiting America’s growing ignorance of basic civics. By constantly attacking the ‘fake news media’, Trump is telling the masses to avoid the finest sources. The idea seems to be that the most comprehensive newspapers are somehow ‘deceptive’; too many details. Too many fact checks regarding Trump lies! It’s the worst possible message for the American masses.

    1. Peter Shill, this is an interesting set, which we have in our house.

      https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Our-Time-Original-Interviews/dp/156511969X/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1535555639&sr=1-1&keywords=studs+terkel

      One of the things which hits you is that Terkel laments again and again how little we study this and how little we study that blah blah. Here’s your problem: There are only so many hours in the day and you need to set priorities. When Terkel was an adolescent, only a minority had a full complement of secondary education and only about 6% of each cohort attended a baccalaureate granting institution. So, we weren’t studying it when Terkel was young, either, though it’s a reasonable wager that schooling in metropolitan centers in the 1920s was conducted with a seriousness and efficiency that it commonly lacks today.

      It’s perfectly reasonable to study the three Rs because those are basic skills. For civic purposes, the fundamentals of American history, geography, and civics might be advisable for elementary school students. That’s not what’s commonly meant by ‘social studies’, which is typically a mish-mash when it’s not peddling contemporary fads. As for high school students, academic subjects are a suboptimal use of their time as a rule.

      1. American education probably peaked in the post-war era when families were increasingly prosperous and moms remained at home. There were also low ratios of non-English speaking students.

        1. 1. The society has been ‘increasingly prosperous’ (bar brief business recessions) for generations. The notable exception would be the period running from 1929 to 1941. Growth in per capita income during the business cycle running from 1949 to 1954 was unusually rapid, but much of the added productive capacity was channeled into military uses. The rest of the period running from 1954 to 1961 had ordinary rates of economic improvement.

          2. The employment-to-population ratio (that is, the ratio of employed persons to persons over 16 not institutionalized) has fluctuated between 0.54 and 0.65 since 1947. Fully 1/3 of the working population in 1957 was female. What’s happened since then is that you’ve developed a much larger (male) retiree population and seen some delay in workforce entry because tertiary schooling is more common. There places have been taken by married women who might have been at home 60 years ago. Please note that in 1957 most women were married by their 21st birthday and the annual attrition rate of extant marriages was such that you might have expected 20% to end in divorce. Those working women were, by and large, married women. The thing is, the media image takes the standards and practices of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie as if they were the prototype for the whole society. Only about 15% of the population is from that class. (The fictional Ward Cleaver was middle management at a bank, not the sort of job most American men had or have).

          3. About 22% of the school-age youth in this country speak some foreign language at home. And, of course, it’s the policy of the Democratic Party of Rackets that there be MOAR of them.

          1. Non-English speaking students have been a rising percentage because middle class, standard-English-speaking parents have had low birth rates for many years at this point.

            1. Non-English speaking students have been a rising percentage because middle class, standard-English-speaking parents have had low birth rates for many years at this point.

              We’ve had large scale mechanical increase from (largely illegal) immigration from Latin America, but it Peter Shill’s mind that contributes nothing to the changing composition of the student population. Actually, Orientals and East Indians do not have total fertility rates exceeding that of the English-speaking caucasoid population. First generation hispanics have high fertility rates; since home country Mexicans do not, it’s a reasonable inference that fertility rates for the Mexican population as a whole would settle to about replacement level if the abnormal mechanical increase ceased. It’s policy in the Democratic Party to have never ending waves of Mexican (and now Central American) immigration in order to build their client base.

                1. i dont know about that wave ending but even if it did it was one hell of a wave.
                  whole towns in mex emptied out into places like chicago and LA and Dallas and one major metro after another.
                  it’s one of the historic migrations in history by size and speed
                  but Dems say, oh, nothing to see here, keep moving, move along now racists

                  1. Kurtz, here in the west, ranchers and fruit growers are often Republicans. And currently they’re complaining about ‘lack’ of immigrants to supply their labor needs.

                    In fact, that alleged murderer of Mollie Tibbets in Iowa was working on a dairy farm owned by a Republican who had been a state party official.

                    1. i am aware of that dynamic and it applies in Michigan likewise.

                      there are however temp worker programs that have been available for a long time for such seasonal needs as cherry picking etc. and could be increased if there was a bipartisan will to adjust immigration in a way that would benefit all of America rather than just the Democratic party politicians and their collaborators among the Republican capitalists.

                    2. “owned by a Republican who had been a state party official.”

                      Peter, it is not that run of the mill Republicans are so smart rather that run of the mill Democrats are so dumb.

                2. MBITRW, there have been 22 million immigrants to this country since 2000, of whom about 10 million came from Latin America. Note, had we maintained annual entry rates on the order of 0.125% of the extant population (i.e. the norm prior to 1840 and between 1924 and 1965), we’d have had fewer than 7 million immigrants. While we’re at it, about 2% of the people in the world who are proficient in English are resident in Latin America, so distributing that inflow accordingly suggest about 150,000 immigrants from Latin America would have been appropriate, and not the 10 million we received.

                  1. Spastic, see my answer to Kurtz. Ranchers and fruit growers are often Republicans. And they’re complaining about ‘lack’ of immigrants for their labor needs.

                    And where do you get this 22 million figure? If those are supposedly ‘illegal’ immigrants, than how was that number compiled? I mean, if they’re here unofficially, then how does anyone put a reliable number on them?

                    It seems like you’re always throwing out ‘statistics’ without ever bothering to tell us where these statistics are from.

                    1. that is a valid question and an interesting study, i looked into it once from someone who said there were 30 million illegals. methodology on such things is beyond my ken. i am not sure that the order of difference is all that consequential however:

                      …. we are talking from 1-3 size the population of greece for example which has about 10 million. now if every single soul from Greece emigrated here including the one million or so extra of refugees still encamped from Asia Turkey Syria and North Africa, most people would find that an amazing number. whether it was one entire Greece or two or three.

                      But if it’s just mexicans well whopee because they will all have kids who are Americans by accident of birth and who then will vote 90% democrat in exchange for future hope of amnesty for their relatives.

                    2. in short this is a demographic conquest of sorts, and those who encourage it are trading short term gain for their party affiliation for a profound change in population, which may have negative implications for the native population, to put it nicely

                      then again Peter you are right to suggest rich republicans are often on board with it for money’s sake. thus it has ever been so in America from early times, with one generation after another inviting in the rabble from one armpit of the world after another, to help swell the ranks of what Marx called the “reserve army of unemployed” that helps keep wages DOWN.

                    3. Ranchers and fruit growers are often Republicans.

                      I don’t care

                      And they’re complaining about ‘lack’ of immigrants for their labor needs.

                      Newspapers trot out the crops-rotting-in-the-field meme when convenient. Without a doubt, reporters look through their Rolodex for reliable quote sources or cold-call around until they get the quotation they want.

                      As for the policy question, the agribusinessmen in question are welcome to (1) modify their wage structure and working conditions and recruit locally; (2) substitute capital for labor; (3) change their crop mix and plant something which is less labor intensive to care for and harvest; or (4) sell land to interests with a higher RoI.

                    4. And where do you get this 22 million figure?

                      The Center for Immigration Studies compiled it from Census data.

                    5. Not unsurprisingly, TSTD is misciting the study. “New data from the Census Bureau show that the nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal), also referred to as the foreign-born, reached 40 million in 2010, the highest number in American history. Nearly 14 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country from 2000 to 2010, making it the highest decade of immigration in American history. This is the case even though there was a net decline of jobs during the decade. In contrast, from 1990 to 2000 job growth was 22 million and 13.2 million new immigrants arrived. Immigrants come for many reasons, such as a desire to join relatives or to access public services. As a result, immigration remains high even during a prolonged period of economic weakness.”
                      But what’s an error of a mere 9 million?

                    6. Not unsurprisingly, TSTD is misciting the study.

                      No, I’m not. That’s the reported estimate (broken down by year) for the 17 calendar years running from 2000 to 2016. Descriptive statistics. Quite simple.

            2. “Non-English speaking students have been a rising percentage because middle class, standard-English-speaking parents have had low birth rates for many years at this point.”

              Stupidity is increasing in the segment of the country that has promoted leftist ideas. Non English speaking parents generally have children that speak English if they are born in the US. Your mind is polluted. You spent too much time in Bejing.

      2. that’s well said
        I think history and civics is a worthwhile and sufficient use of “social studies” time for kids up to 18 years.
        i didnt bother with sociology or psychology until senior year in college, not including many hours of hours of micro and macro. And, a bonus elective class in marxist economics, which turned out to be more fun than anticipated.

    2. “Therefore Donald Trump is shamelessly exploiting America’s growing ignorance of basic civics.”

      What a bunch of horsesh-t. It is people like you that have seen to it that American youth are kept ignorant. Math and reading skills are necessities, Your type have added all sorts of distractions that not only take away from the *important* civics courses but also take away from mathematics and reading.

      The left is now attempting to censor ideas on the Internet. This has been a part of the policy behind “fake news” by the MSM for years and now is extending to social media.

      If one truly is interested in the promotion of all ideas then one would be up in arms over shadow banning and other techniques used to limit the voice of anyone not upholding leftist ideology.

      1. “The Left Is Now Attempting To Censor Ideas On The Internet?”

        Actually, The New York Times ran an article today saying that a certain faction of employees at Facebook wants to allow ‘more’ conservative views.

        But Allan if you’re implying that Google restricts its news searches, then you’re merely parroting Trump’s idiotic tweets from yesterday. Like Google is supposed to make sure a certain percentage of ‘positive’ Trump stories shows up in news searches. That technology doesn’t exist, Allan.

        1. Peter, you are liberal arts guy and know almost nothing about science. The algorithms can do anything Google wishes them to do. I can mention a number of right wing sites that provide excellent opinion that have been censored or thrown off of Facebook and Twitter or even have been cut off by MasterCard and Visa. When I do searches I find it obvious that Google is screwing around.

          You are parroting people that wish to censor what is seen on the net. You are a shill and a no-nothing.

  4. What amazes me about most Americans, whether self proclaimed liberals or conservatives is their absolute ignorance of their own country and rest of the world, combined with a belief that the “American Way” is best for all countries, peoples and situations and a duty to “export” democracy.

    George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are no different in that respect, with both having a desire to export democracy.

    1. What amazes me about paleos is that they fancy they’re exceptionally well-informed. Yet, the only ones you locate from occupations which require either extensive foreign travel or disciplined study of social life tend to be peddlers of fringe enthusiasms: gold buggery, neo-Confederate historiography, or Jew-hatred.

      1. whats a paleo, the people who eat the funny diet? or do you mean paleoconservatives? who the hell calls themself that anyways. who are you talking about? dont be coy.

        also what does that have to do with this subject. i sense you have a useful insight that you are hiding behind this oblique talk

  5. Some fifty-two percent were unable to name one of the nine justices.

    That’s bad enough; what’s worse: there are only eight justices.

    1. Touche’! Some say only 7! Sotomayor is unsuited for most any judicial post much less the highest one. Read her s̶c̶r̶e̶e̶d̶s̶ … er … opinions. Almost flunking out of Princeton for writing deficiencies and after an affirmative action admission (that she brags about) didn’t dissuade her from waxing pitifully.

      Full of nonsense like this line: “[I]t ignores the importance of diversity in institutions of higher education and reveals how little my colleagues understand about the reality of race in America.” Translation: If you’re not a minority you have no right to an opinion on race policy in America. Right, Madame Justice! She needs an agent for that kind of stand-up.

      1. You are right. Sotomayor has no right to be on the Supreme Court. While Trump was complaining of the potential bias of a specific Hispanic judge the news media was attacking him as a racist. At the same time Sotomayor was saying that her history as an Hispanic made her opinions have value that was required to interpret the Constitution. Her claim to fame was what the media was beating up on Trump for.

        1. “Right to be on the Supreme Court.” What right? You can be eligible or not. You can schmooze and work your way through the system. You can be fortunate enough to have a view of the law that corresponds with the current POTUS. In the end, you have to get confirmed by the Senate.
          Contrary to mespo’s comments, she was graduated from Princeton summa cum laude. She was on the Yale Law Review. She is qualified.

          1. Unlike other courts the Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution not to look at outcomes and inject personal feelings. That is what Sotomayer feels is her job. That means the Constitution as an anchor for our society is non-existent. If you believe that the Contstution is like toilet paper that can be disgarded and a new roll put in its place then you will find solace in what you say. I don’t believe in that. I believe in the ammendment process and that Congress, not the Supreme Court makes law whether or not I have agreement.

  6. It would be interesting to speculate what would happen if the right to vote depended on, say, passing the same test as for those applying for US citizenship.

    1. A knowledge test to vote seems like such a great idea, until we stop and reflect on how such tests were manipulated to exclude certain groups from voting in the past.

      1. It would be designed by teacher’s college faculty. NCATE is hot for certification norms which would deem anyone not subscribing to the SJW agenda as unfit to teach.

      2. SierraRose. What do you think would happen if the ballot didn’t mention party affilliation and the names were randomly placed?

        1. Or even fictitious names ! Probably some of those would get “elected” as well .

      3. That’s why I suggested the citizenship test. Are you saying that one is biased? It asks questions about our government structure and how it functions, and similar things.

  7. Ideally, the occupants of the bench would be of interest primarily to those engaged in rarefied appellate practice, the reason being that appellate courts would review individual cases with little import for anyone but the parties or would engage in interstitial lawmaking only which would be of modest interest because it merely calibrates or makes small incremental supplements to the existing law. That’s the proper place for case law in a constitutional system. Whenever you hear the phrase ‘landmark decision’, you know a usurpatious fraud is afoot.

    If our democratic culture was robust, of course, Most of the justices appointed to the court since 1937 would have been bounced off in impeachment proceedings if they couldn’t learn to toe the line and respect democratic discretion. Exceptions might be (or have been) Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Byron White, Charles Whittaker, John Marshall Harlan, and Felix Frankfurter. The elite bar stinks, and has for a long time.

      1. He just likes to practice his ignorance everyday. And he is getting very good at it.

        1. It’s pretty amusing to be called ‘ignorant’ by a nosepicking adolescent.

        2. Fishwings, I don’t always agree with DSS, but his ideas are backed with a reasonable amount of knowledge and he is able to create cogent arguments to argue his point of view.

          Looking back at almost everything you have written since I have been on this blog I have only seen you provide juvenile opinions where fact and reasonable argument are absent.

            1. Fishwings, DSS sounds smart to intelligent people as well. Some are so stupid they can’t recognize it.

        3. Fishy – did I call YOU any names? I asked a serious question. What sort of litmus test would you impose on potential jurists? That they display a particular political bias? And if so, who gets to decide?

      2. The Supreme Court Justices are there to interpret the Constitution not to legislate or promote their political ideas. Your statement therefore might be considered an oxymoron.

        1. “The Supreme Court Justices are there to interpret the Constitution not to legislate or promote their political ideas.”
          So, how do you tell the difference? When they render a decision you don’t like?

          1. ” how do you tell the difference?”

            Jay, they render a decision that explains what the Constitution actually says based on the law that is in question and keep decisions narrow and on point. Take the Roberts decision on Obamacare. He actually changed the meaning of the law to make it Constitutional and his change to a tax was exactly what was avoided by Congress. The bill should have been sent back to Congress. Take the Kelo case where private property rights were trampled by the SC which sided with private interests. (That decision was made by the Liberal justices.) The law was severely stretched.

      3. “Right wing” in liberalspeak is in ordinary American English a judge who tells a member of the har-de-har public interest bar that if said shyster would like a particular public policy enacted, he should contact his state legislator or member of Congress.

    1. gosh Im not sure I fully agree with you but that’s a well written editorial comment!
      did you say you were an architect? you could quit your day job and go write for a political rag
      not that they pay very well

  8. Dismay over this topic shows the bubble those in power live in. Most people care more about their lives, families and fortunes than the temporary occupants of the national government bureaucracy. They are our servants not the reverse and the homage they get is mostly underserved by the sycophants and wannabes whom they seem to attract.

    1. i still think somebody may have smothered Scalia. He went to bed without using his CPAP machine and with a pillow over his own head? and no inquest. why no inquest, Texas law required it, town barney fife just listened to the family, ingored procedures, and shipped the cadaver.

      People are killed for less than what he had coming before him all the time. but hey, everyone will just cry conspiracy theory. Remember, the only conspiracy theories we are allowed to believe are those the GOVERNMENT pleads in court, on a daily basis! Those are the true ones; all others are just for the credulous, contrary, and crazy.

      1. Kurtz, no one thinks it unusual when an overweight, 80 year old diabetic dies of a heart attack. Whether or not to order an autopsy was at the discretion of the local magistrate, not any random sheriff’s deputy. She conferred with law enforcement and decided not to order one, because his family didn’t want one.

        Remember, the only conspiracy theories we are allowed to believe are those the GOVERNMENT pleads in court,

        You’re allowed to believe anything you want. What you want but aren’t getting is to be taken seriously when you’re giving people the issue of your imagination.

      2. So Scalia’s FAMILY wanted him bumped off? Seems hard to believe. They guy was terribly obese in later years. No doubt any number of health conditions could have done him in, without resorting to conspiracies.

  9. I am not surprised; instead, I am disaffected by these results. I expected them, since I also know that most adults (in the South) can name the head football coach at the state’s largest university than can name either of heir state’s two Senators or their local House member.

    I specifically identified the South because that region has a high preponderance of prominent state universities that are well-known for their football programs; it was not an attempt to denigrate the region where I live.

    I would be most satisfied if the Supreme Court would have justices that could actually read the laws they are supposed to follow and interpret, rather than being like Ginsburg, Roberts, and Kennedy, who would twist the laws beyond their intent or purpose.

    1. kevinbeck2015 – we have a new head football coach and I know his first name but I am not going to learn his last name until we start winning some games. 🙂 Since I call my federal representatives, I know their names. I will have two new ones to learn now.

  10. All Supreme Court arguments and public meetings of the Court should be on television. On antenna and cable. On Freespan. CSPAN woiuld be a good channel. Do not expect the traditional networks like NBC to do so.

    1. “Do not expect the traditional networks like NBC to do so.”
      No, because 1) most proceedings are boring and would have low ratings and 2) how would they interrupt the proceedings for commercials?

      1. Gather around boyz as I pass down sage advice passed on to me: Take care of your special little lady friend’s bidiness & your special little lady friend will help you with your bidiness.

  11. “It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy.”

    – Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee
    _____________________________________

    We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin
    ___________

    The American Founders kept the republic by restricting the vote, limiting taxation to security, infrastructure and “…general Welfare…” and providing for private property “…in exclusion of every other individual…” and in exclusion of the government.

    To preserve a republic, the vote must be restricted, taxation limited and property kept private.

    People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.

    Freedom does not adapt to people…

    dictatorship does.

    1. Gnite George,

      I think even Turley/Mueller/etc… will have to soon sober up to reality, we’ll see soon.

    2. Okay, move along now, you know it’s your nap time. There will be koolaid and cookies right before tuck-in time. There will be Gilligan’s Island reruns in the afternoon when you wake up.

      this is to “now they watch me to make sure I don’t hoard my meds” georgie

    3. “The American Founders kept the republic by restricting the vote, limiting taxation to security, infrastructure and “…general Welfare…” and providing for private property “…in exclusion of every other individual…” and in exclusion of the government.”

      Wouldn’t you say that the idea of federalism limiting the federal government’s responsibilities was more of a reason than limiting the vote? You realize the fact that woman were permitted to vote in New Jersey from the beginning (though repealed the following century).

      1. Let’s ask Tytler. What kind of mess do we have? A redistributionist welfare state in violation of limitations on taxation and the right to private property. The Constitution has been nullified in favor of redistribution, social engineering, control of the means of production through unconstitutional regulation and central planning straight out of the Communist Manifesto. You realize the fact that you threw up an absurd exception to the rule. If woman voted what the —- was the unconstitutional, anti-American 19th amendment forced through for? Why the —- would anyone in their right mind let the parasitic “poor” vote? The Founders knew they would simply “sell” their votes. Franklin said “republic” because he had no concept or expectation of a one man, one vote democrazy. None. The singular American failure has been the SCOTUS – the most recent example of which is Obamacare which is completely unconstitutional just like Medicare – they are NOT “…general Welfare…” they provide redistributed benefits for individuals using the money of other people – charity. Constitutionally, all the redistribution must be done by the charity industry in the free markets of the private sector. Charity, redistribution, Medicare, etc. cannot be taxed for by Congress – Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. Go tell the SCOTUS. Get them some reading lessons.

        1. “You realize the fact that you threw up an absurd exception to the rule. If woman voted what the —- was the unconstitutional, anti-American 19th amendment forced through for? ”

          I wish I understood what you were trying to say.

  12. David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fourteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you can watch it on YouTube unless they think it is Fake News.

    1. Paul C. Schulte has all the intelligence of a yellow brick. See “Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz”.

      1. David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fourteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – how you coming on getting me my citations. Been 14 weeks now. Talk about passive-aggressive.

        1. As I have repeatedly stated, anybody with the slightest competence could find the definitions. Yellow bricks are another matter…

          1. David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fourteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – and I have repeatedly told you that dictionaries, especially the OED, contain a variety of definitions for each term. Only you can select the right definitions.

            You really have no idea how dictionaries, especially the OED, work, do you? Do you even know where the main library is on the WSU campus? I am sure if you ask enough people on campus, someone will know. Then ask for the reference section. Then find the reference desk and tell them what you problem is. They will be laughing and giggling inside, but they are very good at keeping a straight face. Anyway, they are paid to help you.

  13. We have a new justice, we lost a justice and we will be getting a new justice. Exciting times on the SC. RBG is only more famous because she has her on documentary out right now and she votes from the bench. I am going to be tasked with learning two new Senator’s names

    1. I think I know what you mean by “she votes from the bench.” And? But whether a position is set forth during argument or not, on many of the issues facing the court we know pretty much in advance what the votes will be. So? Kennedy was a little bit of a cyper because he could vote with one bloc or another. With the personnel in place, we are pretty clear where they will come down with the possible exception of Roberts on some issue affecting long-standing precedent. If confirmed, Kavanaugh may provide a surprise or two, but probably not. As for Senators, there’s Doug Jones, Tina Smith and which Republican AZ’s governor appoints to replace McCain.

      1. hollywood – right now I am hoping that Ducey appoints the runner-up in the primary tonight, either would make a great Senator. There are already heavy rumbles against him appointing Cindy. Like Custer was interred at West Point, McCain is going to be interred at Annapolis. So, two students who graduated bottom of their class are buried on their school grounds.

        We have a perfectly good military cemetery here, but I know too many people lining up to p**s on his grave, males and females. They would have to post guards at the cemetery 24/7 to protect the grave.

        1. John McCain’s home was the Navy until he was 44 years old, Washington thereafter. His wife was from Arizona. They owned properties there. One of which they used as a residence and several others were assigned to Cindy’s great aunts. Interring him in the Baltimore-Washington corridor is much more appropriate than Arizona. The sort of love which manifests itself in visiting and tending to a grave site is something I think you see among ordinary people, not people like the Hensleys, even when they’re fond of the deceased. Carol Shepp McCain and one of her sons live in Virginia Beach, so they can make an overnight road trip to Annapolis now and again.

            1. We can check the trade literature of which undertakers make use. I’m wagering it will tell you that patricians tend to be unsentimental about that sort of thing. Barbara Bush was buried in College Station, Tx., a city to which she was a stranger.

              1. There was logic and sentiment to Bush’s choice. College Station is the home of Texas A & M University which is home to the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library. I suspect the elder Bush will be buried there as well.

  14. Shockingly, most Supreme Court Justices cannot name more than 0.000001% of Americans alive today, people who are impacted by their decisions in their daily lives. NSA Director Nakasone said that he will – or will not – provide more streaming TV from everyday American households for every Supreme Court Justice, along with biographical information, neither confirming or denying such capabilities exist. “The American public should have input to this branch of government, without having to be aware of it or spendind time on it. That’s our job.”

Comments are closed.