Below is my column in The Hill on the continuing promotionals for “The Notorious RBG.” I have long been a critic of this trend toward celebrity justices and the discomfort over these campaigns is not simply about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The culture of the Court is changing and I do not believe it is changing for the better.
Here is the column:
Whether it is the commercials for the film “RBG” over the last year or the nonstop CNN ads for the network premiere of the documentary Monday night, the airways are full of all things Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was recently shown to be the best known of the Supreme Court justices and, at this rate, she could end up bigger than The Supremes. She even has her own action figure. To someone like me, who has long praised Ginsburg and considers her to be one of the strongest intellects on the bench in the last century, the saturation coverage might seem welcome. After all, why not pay homage to a jurist instead of a reality television star?
The answer is we should not and, before you burn me in effigy for such sacrilege, allow me to explain. For years, I have criticized what I call “the rise of the celebrity justice.” Justices once avoided public speeches beyond the most mundane graduation or dedication events. Justices believed they should speak through their judicial opinions and avoid even the appearance of seeking popular or political following. This tradition developed after early years of partisan figures on the courts.
With some exceptions, this tradition was largely observed by Supreme Court justices, who often barred recordings or quotes from their speeches. Recent justices like John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy followed this tradition. Kennedy would not allow me even to quote a joke he told years ago at an event, out of this same unease over public comments. It results in an almost monastic life, but some of us feel it is the price of being one of nine on the most powerful court in the world.
That all changed dramatically in the last few decades. As the politics over the role and members of the Supreme Court grew after the 1950s, justices became more visible and iconic. While relatively restrained by modern measurements, William Douglas became a rallying figure for liberals and environmentalists. He even took the controversial step of leading an advocacy movement to preserve the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal that runs along the Potomac River from Washington to Maryland.
The biggest changes, however, occurred with the public personas of the late Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Both seemed eager to embrace celebrity status with an unprecedented vigor. They routinely appeared before huge audiences and never disappointed in throwing red meat to their respective fan bases. Scalia and Ginsburg repeatedly were criticized for discussing issues coming before the Supreme Court or making highly political statements before ideological groups. Both developed loyal, if not adoring, constituencies on the far right and far left.
While Ginsburg has apologized for her “ill advised” public comments, she has continued to make them. In 2016, she ignited a firestorm over public comments in which she joked that she would move to New Zealand if Donald Trump was elected as president. She even spoke publicly on the NFL national anthem controversy, a matter that not only could come before the Supreme Court but raises the same underlying free speech issues as a number of cases working their way through the legal system. Ginsburg denounced players like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for their “dumb” and “disrespectful” and “ridiculous” protest while discussing the legal status of such protests.
In 2017, Ginsburg continued her public comments lamenting Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign and suggesting that Clinton lost due to sexism. She was widely criticized for such openly political statements from a sitting justice. Undeterred, this year, Ginsburg continued her criticism of the election results and the “macho atmosphere” that elected Trump. She defended Clinton as being treated unfairly and criticized in a way she believed “no man would have been criticized. I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer it the same way I did. Yes, sexism played a prominent part.”
Ginsburg and Scalia were not alone in seeking public acclaim. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have been criticized for occasional public appearances. It has been a growing trend, and Ginsburg has been a major force in breaking down the wall between the Supreme Court and politics. The marketing of “RBG” moves justices closer to the status of reality television stars. It follows earlier programs, like the “Late Show with Stephen Colbert” episode showing the host working out with the justice.
In “RBG,” director Betsy West portrayed Ginsburg as nothing short of a global phenomenon, declaring that the movie would show how she “changed the world.” Entertainment Weekly wrote, “Forget movie stars. The hottest celebrity at the Sundance Film Festival this weekend was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” That is the problem. When justices become celebrities, the separation of law and politics is eroded as justices seek to maintain their popular positions with their bases. In other words, celebrity justices can become celebrity justice.
That brings us back to the “RBG” documentary. CNN has played the commercials for it on a constant loop with the type of high production values of a political commercial and the endless repetition of an infomercial. Feminist Gloria Steinem is shown proclaiming that Ginsburg is “the closest thing to a superhero I know.” For her part, Ginsburg is featured with such rousing soundbites as, “All I ask of my brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” It all makes for thrilling film, but it does not necessarily make for good jurisprudence. Like Scalia, Ginsburg spent years cultivating a following. The danger is that a Supreme Court personality can easily lead to a cult of personality. We saw that with Scalia, and we are seeing that with Ginsburg. Jurists are humans who can be influenced by the accompanying expectations and acclaim.
This trend is no better for journalism than it is for the law. CNN never did a program on the “hero” Scalia when he was alive, with weeks of adoring promos. Likewise, just as Ginsburg is the second woman on the Supreme Court, Thomas is the second African American. His story is one of the most inspirational in American history, of a man born in Georgia, speaking Gullah, a Creole dialect, in a shack with dirt floors and no plumbing. He grew up without his father, who left him at age two. He used his Catholic education to overcome segregation and prejudice to eventually go to Holy Cross, and then gained admission to three Ivy League law schools. But Thomas is unlikely to be declared a “hero” by CNN because the network simply does not agree with his judicial philosophy.
For my part, I continue to celebrate Ginsburg’s jurisprudence, though I believe her public comments are a violation of legal ethics and wise tradition. I celebrate her opinions, which should be the measure of her legacy. I expect that many will not seriously consider these concerns over the rise of celebrity justices. Ginsburg is now a cultural icon with her own unblinking following, a body of supporters who do not tolerate any reservations about her record. That is one benefit of being a superhero.
I guess I never particularly liked superheroes, however. They are merely caricatures of our culture without lasting significance or even meaning. A Supreme Court justice should be made of stronger stuff. The best do not need glitzy ad campaigns or public speaking tours. Certainly, Ginsburg does not need it. I only wish Ginsburg herself accepted that. From the perspective of the long tradition of reticence on the Supreme Court, the most notorious thing about Ruth Bader Ginsburg is “RBG.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
On another note, 2009 provided us a film depicting the life of Rapper Notorious B.I.G. that I found worthwhile. I recommend the film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notorious_(2009_film)
B.I.G. rapper
R.B.G. napper
😊
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE RUTH!
The MICK either!
😁
Kevin……hilarious!
Justices: should speak about truth, justice and the American Way.
ANONYMOUS EDITORIAL BY TRUMP STAFFER..
ASSURES US THAT ADULTS ARE SUPERVISING TRUMP
Today The New York Times took the extraordinary step of publishing an anonymous editorial from a White House insider. Said piece emphasizes that White House staffers are deeply concerned regarding Trump’s fitness. But the editorial seeks to ‘assure’ us that White House staffers feel an enormous sense of responsibility in protecting us from Trump’s whims and ignorance.
Trump has already blasted the editorial as ‘gutless’. But it is likely to shift his paranoia into overdrive; especially with Bob Woodward’s book due next week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
Today The New York Times took the extraordinary step of publishing an anonymous editorial from a White House insider.
Damn, you are one gullible troll. There’s nothing extraordinary about an anonymous hit piece on President Trump being published in the NYT. What would be extraordinary is if they didn’t.
I think Woodward’s book is a factor here. It’s known the Trump White House was planning a counter-attack. The New York Times, I believe, seeks to neutralize Trump’s counter attack before it even rolls out. That’s bold journalism! And we haven’t seen these intrigues since the Nixon years. Woodward factored then supported by ally New York Times.
So the question you might ask, Olly, Spastic, Allan, Tom, Paul and Mespo, is: “Does Trump display the symptoms of Nixon paranoia?”
Arguably Trump ‘does’; charging “Fake News” on a daily basis. We’ve never had a president use the term “Enemy of the People” regarding mainstream media. That Trump would use that term is more extraordinary the Anonymous Editorial.
Even Nixon was cooler than Trump. Nixon railed in private about the ‘liberal media’. But Nixon was too smart for “fake news” accusations. Nixon knew the public expected lawyerly statements. Even when sweat appeared on his upper lip, and Nixon’s five o’clock shadow was darker than usual, he still managed to sound like a lawyer if not a president.
And Trump sounds like what he ‘is’; a former reality star whose own reality is ‘aging billionaire playboy’. The son of billionaire (when father’s wealth is adjusted for inflation). “The Apprentice” was the only job Trump held outside his own family. That employer, NBC, is now a frequent target of Trump attacks. Trump attacks almost everyone sooner or later. That’s more Nixon than Nixon. It’s actually William Shakespeare: “I think he protests too much”.
So The New York Times is trying to tell us what we should have guessed already.
Peter Hill – it is clear we have never had a President take such heavy fire from the press and still do so well in the polls. Woodward is not the friend of the WH and now they are challenging him to release the tapes of the interviews. If the people said what he said they did, then releasing them is no problem. He has audio backup for his book, if not, he needs to back down.
Paul, it’s because supporters like you rally to Trump’s side when the media ‘attacks’. That factor bonds you all together; a shared sense of siege from liberal forces. It doesn’t mean Woodward lies, however. I don’t think Woodward needs to.
The truth with Trump is quite likely dysfunctional. An anti-intellectual trying to hold an office for which he lacks credentials.
“The truth with Trump is quite likely dysfunctional. An anti-intellectual trying to hold an office for which he lacks credentials.”
Since Trump has done so much good for the nation I think we could use more “dysfunctional(s)”, “anti-intellectual(s) and less “credentials”.
PC Schulte,…
I think Peter Hill might think a “Checkers” speech by Trump would sooth his critics and be well-received.😉☺
Trump is right. I see the MSM lying all the time either by omission or commission.
You see? And so? Haha. You, your ilk, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan-wannabees, pocket traitors and grifters on the make can all “believe” whatever the hell you want to. However, you foolhardy but dwindling 36% who still profess to support the klown kar kaptain can all commiserate each other about the “MSM” meanies when it all comes crashing down. What is that ticking sound?
this is to “I can’t really think offhand of anything he’s done well, at that” allen / allan
That ticking sound might just be Congressional Republicans getting ready to dump Trump just so soon as Kavanough takes his seat at SCOTUS.
That ticking sound Mark keeps hearing might be coming from the vest Mark bought at the second hand store.
Mark is back with his gobbledygook. He couldn’t sustain a reasonable discussion. He realizes how inadequate he actually is.
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/09/02/papadopoulos-claims-trump-and-sessions-approved-his-outreach-to-the-russians/comment-page-1/#comment-1776460
Peter Hill,…
When you have a low-level staff like Assamora secretly tape recording you, your lawyer secretly taping you, a White House with unprecedented leaks, and “unnamed sources” within the your organization campaigning against you, you’d probably be looking over your shoulder, maybe preparing to “clean house”.
When there is a steady stream of open and “anonymous” attacks aimed at you, it’s not exactly paranoia to watch your back under those circumstances.
Trump goes beyond the defensive of watching his back and reflexively strikes back.
Trying to “be Nixon” or speak in a somewhat lawyerly manner like Nixon is not something that Trump wants or needs; it’s not in his nature, and his counterattacks are keeping his base with him.
Okay, for arguments sake: why so many leaks, unnamed sources, yada yada? Is it because the day glo bozo has the judgment of a sugar-crazed 5th grader and can’t identify qualified candidates to work in the people’s White House? Or is it because those who are exposed to him on a daily basis are frightened out of their wits that such an imbicilic buffoon actually has access to the nuclear codes? You can choose the option which you desire.
this is to “ya, but my pallet of MAGA hats will become collector’s items, maybe” tommie
Those are questions for greater minds than yours, Markypoo.
I might answer them for you at a later date.
I’ve given away almost every one of those pallets of MAGA hats as gifts to people like you, just to piss them off.
OFCOLA. The members of the resistance inside the White House are conservative Republicans who are desperately trying to save the Republican party from President Bozo Boots.
A very wise man once asked me, “What’s that ticking sound?”
Tom, who brought “Assamora” to the White House??? None other than Donald Trump! He cynically wanted a Black face regardless of her attitude or effectiveness.
And speaking of attacks, Trump takes shots at people on Twitter several times a day. That’s how enemies are made!! Every time Trump attacks someone he alienates their friends, family and co-workers. How stupid can you get! That’s why savvy politicians, with positive agendas, refrain from personal attacks. They know it isn’t worth the enemies it makes.
Trump may be more careful in the future about who he brings to the White House, and who he allows to stay on….I never watched Trump’s TV show, so I don’t know why she was at the White House, or what, if anything, she actually did there, or what their history was.
I don’t think Trump is that concerned about about any sort of quota system, or token representation by gender or race.
When Trump attacks people, he’s usually responding to enemies.
In most cases, the “attack tweets” are a response to, not a cause of, the enemies.
His tweets are one of his ways of getting his side of the news out. The MSM has a tendency not to report good news from the Trump administration. They cover up the good news with garbage or don’t report it at all. That is why some of the people on this blog don’t know some of the major positive things that have occurred.
L4B not only has a direct pipeline into the activities of the Special Counsel team, she also has insider information and insight into the
actions and motivations of the White House staff.
If her beliefs/ guesses turn out to be incorrect, she need only to change the facts until those facts behave, and conform to her beliefs and guesses.
Most people don’t feel free to do that; it takes a “special” kind of dedication and determination to pretend that one’s opinions, suspicions and beliefs can be transformed into, and presented as, fact.
This is a typical hit piece, but even as a hit piece it recognizes how successful the President has been ” effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.” a lot more.
Does it ever occur to the left that if he were stupid these things and MORE would never have been accomplished?
Allan, has it ever occurred to you that Trump only rules because Republicans control Congress..????
You’ll see, after the midterms, how strong Trump ‘really’ is.
Trump isn’t a classic Republican. He is an outsider. Many in the Republican Party disliked him from the start as much as many Democrats. He did not get a lot of Republican support and got no support from Democrats. Both the leader of the House and Senate have not offered him much support.
Yet, despite all of that he has done more in a short time than a Republican President with a Republican controlled Congress and the same for Democratic Presidents.
you’re right peter. it will be a blue wave. feel free to stay home and dont bother voting, victory is assured.
I’m sure for some the goal is to heap loads of praise and acclaim upon her in the hopes that it will encourage her to remain on the Court: Make her a celebrity, and provide her with that ego food.
In that case one has to wonder who wields the real power.
There is no need for more than one supreme court justice. All Americans can read the English language and manifest tenor of the Constitution. Multiple justices exist merely due the corruption and politicization of the juridical branch. The sole and singular function of the judicial branch is to assure that actions comport with the Constitution and statute law – to void all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution. The judicial branch is not co-equal. Justices must be impeached with extreme prejudice when they fail in their duty to void all acts contrary to the Constitution. The acts of the SCOTUS are routine and perfunctory. With the power to impeach, the legislative branch as representatives of the “Sovereign” holds absolute dominion. Judicial “interpretation” is severely restricted, limited and shall not “modify” the Constitution or legislation. The judicial branch has “evolved” and been unconstitutionally transformed into a high criminal, political branch. It may take a decisive President to exert with abandon executive power sufficient to reset the scope, focus and purview of the judicial branch. Abraham Lincoln is a notorious example of a President assuming authority he did not have and effecting an outcome in excess of the powers of the office.
___________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
SCOTUS NOMINEE WILL NOT SAY IF TRUMP CAN SELF-PARDON
Judge Kavanaugh declined to answer Senator Leahy’s question about whether Trump is correct when he says he has the “absolute right to pardon himself.”
“The question of self-pardon is something I have never analyzed. . . . [It’s] a hypothetical question that I can’t begin to answer as a sitting judge,” Kavanaugh said.
“I hope for the sake of the country that remains a hypothetical question,” Leahy said.
Trump made the claim that he has the “absolute right to PARDON myself” in June on Twitter, adding: “Why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?”
Kavanaugh also declined to answer whether the president can pardon somebody in exchange for a promise that the person would not testify against him.
Edited from: “Power Post: Kavanaugh Hearings”
Today’s WASHINGTON POST
From what I’ve seen of confirmation hearings, SCOTUS nominees rarely, if ever, announce how they will vote, or might vote, on a particular case that may or may not show up.
Sen. Leahy knows damn good and well that this is the case, given his history with this nomination process.
So refusing to commit himself as to how he “might vote” is not surprizing; the big surprize would be if a nominee DID announce how they’d rule in a particular case.
Isn’t that the RBG rule?
a valid question and equally a valid response in a confirmation hearing
I here that when she checks out, Trump already has someone to take her place. She might kick off and nobody will know she passed.
The running joke is when RBG passes, Hillary will want to take her place. Trump will be okay with that, but the decision will be up to the funeral home. 🙂
+1 for a funny which I had not heard.
to olly’s “funeral home” post
You’ve confused her with Thurgood Marshall, who was (by his own admission) a triumph of the taxidermist’s art. “I told my clerks that if I die, just prop me up and keep on votin’ me.”
Trump wants four picks. Two down, two to go. The fourth is Sotomayor due to her health.
Independent Bob – when Trump was running he had a list of judicial candidates and he has been picking from that list as he goes along. Kavanaugh was on that list.
Cavanaugh just said that Brown v. Board of Educ. was the greatest SCOTUS decision. I think it was Marbury v. Madison since it gave the Court something big to do. I wonder what you guys think?
I dont like Brown. They could have waited for Congress to pass a law but they jumped the gun instead. minus one Kavanaugh
Marbury of course, yes
I’d think the Dredd Scott decision would appeal more to Kavanaugh, if he’d been around at that time, he’d have voted for keeping Scott as an item of property.
I’d think the Dredd Scott decision would appeal more to Kavanaugh,
One of our pretend lawyers fancies Kavanaugh subscribes to notions of substantive due process.
Well, here’s what we DO know about Kavanaugh: 1. He was rehearsed and rehearsed for his appearance before the Judiciary Committee; 2. Among the rehearsed items, designed to show that he is a really, really, caring person, is the caca about being a CYO coach (gotta throw in the Catholicism angle) and proud dad of 2 little girls. HOWEVER, when Fred Guttman, father of a murdered high school girl at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tried to shake his hand, after his name and connection to the murdered girl was told to him, Kavanaugh shot him an FU look that tells you everything you need to know about what a total hypocrite he really is. He refused to shake Fred’s hand, and, to add insult to injury, he sent security to throw out Mr. Guttman. Yes, Kavanaugh really, really cares about those aborted babies, but not about teenage girls murdered by someone who should never have had access to an automatic rifle.
1. I’m sure the Sergeant at Arms takes orders from Brett Kavanaugh.
2. Kavanaugh turns away from a perfect stranger who is there to make a scene, ergo he doesn’t love his daughters.
Natacha’s ‘mind’ at work.
TSD: Nope, your excuses aren’t going to work. The ones who threw out Fred Guttman were Kavanaugh’s personal security detail. What proof do you have that Guttman was there “to make a scene’? You also missed my point: did you see the contemptuous look Kavanaugh shot at Fred Guttman as he was turning away? You also missed the hypocrisy element altogether: I never said Kavanaugh didn’t love his daughters, I said that he was putting on a show of fake compassion and sincerity while throwing in the Catholicism angle for good measure. He supposedly cares about protecting unborn babies, but not high school students against underage killers who could legally obtain a lethal weapon. His Second Amendment writings prove this. He couldn’t stand looking at the reality of a grieving father whose daughter could have been saved if current Florida gun restrictions had been in place when she was killed. The NRA will be sure to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court of these new restrictions, so Fred Guttman’s presence there was very, very appropriate.
The ones who threw out Fred Guttman were Kavanaugh’s personal security detail.
It’s exceedingly doubtful Kavanaugh has a personal security detail as such a thing would be hideously expensive. Even if he did, they have no authority over who may enter the Capitol (which has a dedicated police force patrolling it).
It’s conceivable that there are U.S. Marshals trailing Cavanaugh right now. Whose fault would that be?
What proof do you have that Guttman was there “to make a scene’?
Don’t need proof. His presence there makes no sense otherwise.
You also missed my point: did you see the contemptuous look Kavanaugh shot at Fred Guttman as he was turning away?
No I didn’t, because you’ve imagined it. Mr. Gutterberg is a pest. He’s not less of one because he’s suffered a family tragedy (for which Mr. Kavanaugh bears no responsibility).
Spastic, let me get this straight, ‘The parents of school shooting victims are merely gadflies at a confirmation hearing’..?? Like school shootings are just a minor issue and we shouldn’t expect SCOTUS nominees to be affected..?? Like the ‘right’ to own ‘any’ rifle completely supersedes common sense and public safety..??
I’m not sure where you’re getting this.
No clue what business you think Guttenberg has there other than satisfying his curiosity. No clue why you think ‘school shootings’ are an ‘issue’ for appellate judges. Appellate judges who stay in their lane answer questions of law, not questions about social policy or psychiatry or optimal modes of crime control. No clue why you think Guttenberg has some claim on Kavanaugh’s meatworld attention. Mr. Guttenberg is, by the way, a prop placed there by Dianne Feinstein. If Kavanaugh had any clue who he was, there’d be a reason he didn’t trust him.
Spastic, there was time, 30-40 years ago, when the parents of shooting victims would not have been considered controversial subjects for appointees to meet.
you’re full of crap. and you don’t like Catholics either, obviously. hate’s ok, so long as it’s a left wing “Activist” directing it at at white men and Christians.
If this anti-Catholic comment is intended for me, let me inform you: I AM a cradle Catholic, attended Catholic schools until college and currently am a musician at Catholic masses. That doesn’t mean I don’t know a hypocrite when I see one.
You’re in a hole, b**ch.. Quit digging and don’t try plying us with more biographical fictions.
Natacha, look in the mirror and the hypocrite will be easy to recognize.
Natacha – None of that doesn’t mean you aren’t anti-Catholic. Martin Luther was a cradle Catholic and married a former nun. Look what happened to him.
Natacha – Guttman was just as appropriate as Alex Jones trying to talk to the tech giants who were being questioned.
1. Name one SCOTUS nominee that didn’t prep for the confirmation hearings?
2. @fred_guttenberg
I will be at Kavanaugh hearings and I hope to play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice.
Of course you believe Guttenberg was there with a sincere desire to just meet Judge Kavanaugh, perhaps go have a beer and discuss US Civics. LOL!
The role Fred Guttman played was to put the face of a grieving father on the reality of unbridled access to guns, including those capable of mass killing, by mentally unstable underage persons. That is the reality uber-hypocrite Kavanaugh couldn’t handle. Mr. Guttman made no effort to raise his voice, hold up signs, call Kavanaugh names or otherwise behave inappropriately. Offering someone your hand for a handshake is not inappropriate. If you can’t handle the reality that your rulings could result in the deaths of innocent school children, then you don’t belong on the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was mainly chosen, however, to prevent Trump from being required to respond to a subpoena. We all know that so his fake compassion performance becomes all the more farcical.
The role Fred Guttman played was to put the face of a grieving father on the reality of unbridled access to guns, including those capable of mass killing
Except the reality isn’t ‘unbridled access to guns’. It is otiose law enforcement, something politicians who fancy schooling and policing should be social work exacerbate. There was a two-digit population of complaints against that young man and his brother and nothing was done by the police and the courts. He belonged incapacitated and in prison.
exactly instead of diligent police work to take one crazy off the streets, they’re calling for police state to work to take millions of guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and leave them defenseless against the streets and crazies. no thanks.
it’s just often the same group of “activists” pushing all this nonsense
keep this in mind folks: if you want to ditch the bill of rights and rule of law, in favor or your imagined utopia, you might not like the outcomes, & end up with buyer’s remorse
The anti gun crowd has Senators that represent them and can ask those questions in the Senate hearings. You like all the disruptions. You don’t believe in civility. You ar crazy.
Natacha – is it Guttman or Guttenberg? And he was there for a dive bombing, sneak attack.
so what if he was rehearsed? everybody who appears before Congress gets rehearsed. for good reason, they aren’t there to waste Congress’ time, for starters, they need to be responsive.
…so, so what. gosh you must surely know that, which means, you must surely think the readers are stupid and may find that scurrilous due to your wonderful framing. sad!
Did you listen to some of the audience that shouted and screamed and had to be ejected. The left is unhinged. Do you remember how Scalisi was shot? Apparently you believe security should permit potential violence against the candidate for a Supreme Court decision. That is nuts thinking but then you are Natacha. Safety is the primary concern.
Take note how Merritt Garland and Kavanaugh, when on the same panels or issues, supported one another positions over 90% of the time.
By the way Natacha who hates Fox. Are you watching the the confirmation hearings? Which channel?
Natacha – you do not know the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon, do you? Both you and Feinstein kept throwing automatic weapons around today and Feinstein got corrected every time, so I will correct you. There were no automatic weapons.
PC Schulte,..
In fairness, Sen. Feinstein was probably born in an age when the Kentucky Long Rifle was state of the arm in firearms.
Maybe she just hasn’t kept up with all of the technological advances over the very long span of her lifetime.
Tom Nash – she could ask her armed body guards. 😉
Natacha……You’re mean.
Kavanaugh also said he found the (65) meetings he’d had with U.S. Senators to be quite enjoyable.
“Miss Lillian” Carter was once asked by a reporter to define a ‘white lie’. She replied, “Remember when you cane to the door and I said I was glad to see you?”
Remember Linus van Pelt: “I’ll say anything for divinity, no matter how nauseating”. Kavanaugh is Linus jonesing for home made confections from Lucy.
mespo………you must have appreciated what Judge Kavanagh just said about coaching his girls in basketball..and how important a coach can be in a young person’s life. I thought about you and what you had said weeks ago, …..and all the kids you, like Judge Kavanagh, have had a positive influence on……..and how rewarding it is. That was such a nice moment in a hearing like this!
Cindy:
I actually thought Thomas Hardison was a better choice but Cavanaugh won my approval with his comments about the value of coaching kids. If he means it, that puts him in the select group of people who get called by their titles in a democracy and he gets it twice — judge and coach. Think about it: the titles “doctor,” “father/pastor,” “judge” and “coach” are the honors we accord only a few professions.
Language always discloses what people think is most important.
mespo…..Indeed!
I think Brown v. Board diminished itself with the wording, “with all deliberate speed.” Much of the South took decades to de-segregate. You could make the case some parts never did and we’re now trending towards more segregation in the form of Charter Schools and allowing public funding to support it.
enigma,
I know how liberal blacks covet the opportunity to blame Southern white faces for all of their problems, but Boston, Mass. in 1974 took 15 years to fully integrate…kicking and screaming all the way until 1988. On the other hand, I was a public school music teacher in 1973 in Waco Texas when the schools there desegregated..and it went so so smoothly….never was heard a discouraging word publicly. No riots, nothin!
Maybe the trouble in Mass. was in “south” Boston? Would that help your narrative?😁
Cindy, Enigma likes to forget about places like “south” Boston and South Chicago, Detroit and all the large Democratic areas where because of his type of thinking blacks kill other blacks at an incredible rate while he focuses on nonsense not giving a damn about all the dead children..
Allan…….Amen!
Enigma, it is your type of attitude that perpetuates racism.
Telling the truth doesn’t perpetuate racism, it reveals it.
Well, then let’s hear some of it from you.
If you don’t like the facts, call them lies.
But Enigma not only do you not tell the truth but you also distort the truth. Tell us about your concerns for the black children of South Chicago. You focus in on relatively picayune problems because in that way you can maintain a victimhood status, but you forget about the really big things like thousands of deaths and crime way out of proportion. That is where one’s energy should be focused but you are more interested in your ideology.
One certain waste of energy is entertaining a troll. Dismissed!
I’m still waiting to hear from the caring Enigma that looks out for those kids in South Chicago.
Uhhhh…..hope you brought a book to read while you wait. Like maybe War and Peace? 😀
Cindy Bragg – maybe he will be like my wife and only read the Peace, skipping the War. 😉 The Peace had all the mushy stuff.
LOL Paul C. maybe I should pay more attention when we do “the peace” at church. tee hee hee
Cindy Bragg – since two priests were just caught having homosexual sex in a car in broad daylight, I would be careful. 😉
Cardinal Sin
Darren Smith – berry punny. 😉
LOL, Paul C……………..Maybe I should pay closer attention when they do “the peace” at church….. 🙂
Oh my word! Poor guys…At least they weren’t molesting children. See? There’s always something to be glad about 🙂
p.s. Do those collars spin, by any chance?
Cindy Bragg – they come off really fast, like a clip-on tie. 😉
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. Couple of things 1) You previously cited the wrong dictionary, trying to pass it off as the OED. 2) Since you seem to be on campus ask around, maybe one of those students knows where the library is and you can get the first one knocked off. 3) Back in the day, I used to date a girl from the Honors College at my school. I did more than eat dinner with her.
Cindy Bragg says:
September 6, 2018 at 1:13 AM
Paul C. Schulte Oh my word! Poor guys…At least they weren’t molesting children. See? There’s always something to be glad about
p.s. Do those collars spin, by any chance?
Paul C Schulte……clip-on collars? “for those awkward clerical moments”
BTW, I’m not going anywhere near that new post….LOL
You boys behave over there. 🙂
Enigma…..correction: the 6th grade center in Waco, where I taught, desegregated in 1973 while I was there. .The other grades had done so 3 yrs earlier.and also had experienced no public outrage…making Waco Tx years (4–15) ahead of yankee Boston, where desegregation ended in 1988, after 15 yrs of protests.
You do know Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. You are making my point for me. Here’s an article about a school district in Mississippi ordered to desegregate… in 2016. There is also information about several active Federal lawsuits where schools have not complied.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/17/478389720/after-50-year-legal-struggle-mississippi-school-district-ordered-to-desegregate
Enigma……..you seem to be a nice person, but are rather slow. My point was that the Yankees were no better than Southerners.
I agree wholeheartedly about the North, I grew up there. You were also making some other points about me blaming whitey when I was responding to a request for opinions about a legal case not being implemented for decades.
enigma….yes I know about Cleveland Miss. ……a lot of the black kids were not happy….they wanted their school as it was/ But I know Civil Rts. race baiters in the Obama admin.knew better than anyone else what is good for everyone.
Love the way they helped Chicago, too!…..LOL
Do you believe parents have no rights as to where their tax dollars are spent for their children’s education?
The Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle of various guilds, the teacher’s colleges, school apparatchiks, and teacher’s unions among them. The answer to that question is ‘no’, but they don’t admit to that. They just impugn the intelligence and character of parents.
Historically, separate but equal never was. If the Charter Schools end up with vastly greater resources than the public schools, I can’t suport that. There might be some sort of partial allocation I wouldn’t have a problem with. The people typically making those decisions represent the best interests of the already wealthy.
If the Charter Schools end up with vastly greater resources than the public schools, I can’t suport that.
If the Charter Schools end up with vastly greater resources than the public schools, it will be because the public that provides those funds decided that was a better education product for their children. But what do I know, I was publicly educated.
The public rarely makes the decisions as to where the funds go. I went to a private school across town (which later merged with a public school and became public) next to the University of Minnesota. My parents thought it imperative to escape the public school in my neighborhood. We played out football games in the same stadium as the Gophers, swam in an Olympic pool and had access to top of the line audio/visual equipment and more. The “better education product” that existed was by design not by accident. Taking funding from existing public schools to give it to Charter Schools will only make the disparity worse.
enigma…….my parents couldn’t afford private schools. Your family must have been affluent, which makes me wonder why you talk like a victim of white oppression. I can’t believe you got to attend private school!
You also live and work in the South…..which is the direction your feigned white oppression faux outrage is headed.
My family was nowhere near affluent. They sacrificed for their children as do many families across the nation. Fortunately, I was tall, a good basketball player, and a National Merit Semifinalist which got me an academic scholarship my first semester in college and a athletic scholarship the rest of the way. That helped greatly in my younger brother being able to attend college as well.
enigma………my parents worked hard, also, but there is no way any of us could have gone to a private high school.
My father was in church work, very accomplished musician, but very little pay. I went to an incredible high school in River Oaks, where the richest of the rich kids in Houston went. But I wore hand me down clothes, many were faded .sometimes. A deacon in our church bought us 1 new outfit every year. I was so self conscious in school because I couldn’t dress like other girls, or get my hair done, etc. It affected my grades because I was embarrassed. But I was always grateful for everything I was given and loved my family. Oh and btw,
many kids at my school arrived in limousines every morning!
I would have killed to go to a school where we wore uniforms which would have concealed faded hand me downs!
All I’m saying is please stop acting so put upon…and be happy you were privileged to go to a private high school. That was a privilege!
Turn that damned victim frown upside down, kiddo. Be happy!
If you’re referring to High School, I’m gonna guess Lamar.
to karen
enigma – since you are teaching the same students how are you making it worse? In Arizona regular public school are allowed to bond their districts to raise money for buildings, etc. Charter schools cannot do that, so they get slightly more per student. However, you only get paid for every day the student’s in the seat and the money follows the student. Now the public schools started building and running charter schools.
I’ve met Betsy DeVos, played golf with her in a foursome as part of the Orlando Magic Youth Foundation charity golf tournament. I was invited because I was chairman of their minority advisory board. She impressed me as a very nice lady. The policies she’s implementing as Secretary of Education specifically allows for different standards and allowing for the ability to discriminate (not speaking of race here).
What I’m seeing in Florida is a free for all with several groups applying for charter schools with minimum standards. But the for-profit schools seem to have accessed a disproportionate amount of funding and are located in the suburbs which are much whiter than the cities. Following the money.
enigma – I cannot speak for other states, I can only speak for what is happening in Arizona. Speak to your rep about it.
enigma:
Everything has its cost. Desegregation destroyed historically black universities and lots of black culture that thrived in the segregated South. The Welfare State destroyed nuclear black families sending fathers out of the homes. Some say that was necessary progress but I’ve talked to African-American peers of mine who aren’t so sure.
mespo – I’m trying to respond with less than a treatise. I’ll split HBCU’s into two categories, the State Schools like Florida A&M, Tennessee State, Alabama A & M, Bethune Cookman and private schools like Howard, Spelman, Fisk (my alma mater) and Morehouse. The State schools in some cases did well, some still do but aqre dependent on the whims of state legislators and Boards of Regents who allocate funds between the schools. If I visited Florida A&M in a vacuum I might think it a marvel, until I stumbled on the University of Florida. Tennessee State was forced to merge with UT Nashville and lost some of its identity and blackness. IIRC there were approximately 110 HBCU’s in the early seventies and approximately 104 now. Private schools in general are faring worse in terms of funding and dealing with accredidation issues. Overall the athletic programs have declined with the top recruits now going to white institutions as opposed to even the 1970’s when Tennessee State, Grambling and others contributed several first round draft picks year after year. HBCUs are still cultural marvels which some of the white students that attended Fisk and all the rest could attest to. In many ways, HBCU’s are still thriving although many are also barely hanging on and others went kaput.
I might agree with your assessment of the impact of the welfare state if you include other systemic programs that also contribute to the problem.
enigma:
Well, I only had space to hit the highlights but seemingly you agree that desegregation had its benefits and its costs. I lament the loss of a culture regardless of color. I think black culture suffered immeasurably as you point out in your comment by the social engineering done under the banner of equal rights. The only place Americans are truly equal is before the law. Otherwise, there are always greater and lesser men. That pertains to the individual not the group he derives from. Like Burke, I know of no way to write an indictment (or a testimonial) against (or for) a whole people.
mespo – I was following along, nodding in agreement and then you said, “The only place Americans are truly equal is before the law.” Respectfully, while justice may be blind, those that make, interpret, and implement the laws generally are not. America past and present is replete with examples of laws specifically designed to promote inequality.
As an example, I give you a quote from a judge from the 4th circuit in a case involving voter suppression in North Carolina.
“The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
enigma:
Justice, like every human endeavor, is not perfect nor is it fatally flawed. The opinion of one judge is less important to me than the overall trend — the arc of the moral universe, if you like — toward or away from something. I see the arc bending towards fairness more here than everywhere else. That does not presuppose that ultimate equality is attainable — it is not so long as humans judge it and work it. Rather, we have to live with each other like it or not. That doesn’t mean we have so sacrifice principle or justice. It only means we have to accord respect. Respect that, like every other thing of value, has to be earned by both sides of the issue. We can start that trust bond by listening and debating not screaming and demanding. You have always shown an affinity to engage even if I didn’t like your assumptions. That’s fine and a start.
The moral arc may ultimately bend toward justice. The current trend is in the opposite direction yet I believe it will ultimately turn toward justice again. Even if we ultimately arrive, we’ll have to fight to keep it.
enigma:
We can disagree on trajectory but that we always have to fight for anything good is the divine order. Welcome to the human condition.
I agree on Marbury. I don’t think we’d be able to recognize an America in 2018 which didn’t have Marbury as a foundation stone. I question if there’d even still be an America without the judicial review promulgated by the Marbury decision.
Mark M……..yes my high school was Lamar……Go Redskins! 😊.
SCOTUS is not intended to do “big.” SCOTUS is limited to simply and efficiently voiding all acts contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. For example, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 provides Congress merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding “individual welfare.”
Individual welfare is free market charity. The “manifest tenor” is that Congress may tax for roads and NOT redistribution.
Now there’s some “manifest tenor” we can all understand.
“Roads not redistribution.”
I LIKE it!
It has a certain ring to it.
mespo – I heard Kavanaugh list 4 court decisions as the most important, Brown being one of them, Marbury another, then Roe plus one I was not that familiar with and cannot remember.
Paul:
My son was texting me while in court so you’re probably most accurate.
‘Cultured people are merely the glittering scum which floats upon the deep river of production!’
~Winston S. Churchill
Goes for the Glamourous crowd, too.
Mespo……nested above your comment is a comment for you from me. Just FYI 😐
I got the message and replied. Thanks.
Nice deflection on JT’s part, feed the authoritarianism anti-democratic types by posting about RBG. All the while when Trump is hand picking his jury on the Supreme Court.
Did you know that our founders rejected democracy as an acceptable system not once but on nine separate occasions over the two years spent crafting the Representative Constitutional Republic we have now? Your short sighted incorrect anti American void of morals statement stands as the reason why;.
Did you know that Re Publica means Representing or for, by, and of the people and citizens? While Democracy means ‘mob’ rule.
We saw evidence of that yesterday and more today.
Not that you care nor an of your foreign and rejected ideology types but just to to USE you as a good example and to tell ourselves YES it was well worth the effort to find and elect someone who would destroy your kind and in doing so we could get one with the government sponsored racism, sexism and lack of any moral values you exhibit and support …. on command from your ruling class.
THAT is an ad hominem . Unfortunately the recipient is not a hominem.
What is Michael Aarethun babbling about..??
He starts out by saying our founding fathers ‘rejected democracy’; calling it ‘mob rule’. Then he accuses ‘your kind’ of ‘government sponsored racism, sexism and lack any morals’.
Is Michael writing from a survivalist camp in Appalachia? Because his comment reads like the garbled, righteous nonsense that survivalists promote.
stop with your regional bias Peter. Appalachia is a fine place with fine folks.
And what’s wrong with survival? Should one aspire instead to extinction?
Be prepared! – motto of the “Scouts” f/k/a “Boy Scouts” a once fine institution
Fishwings, if it is not beyond your capacity, read the Constitution.
Yup. And speaking of celebrities, I’m watching the SCOTUS nominee hearings and see that Trump nominated Eddie Haskill. Oily.
JJ,…
– I’d kind of like to see Eddie on the Supreme Court.😉😊
The sessions would be far less boring, and we’d get to see which justices Eddie sucked up to the most.
hand picking by which you mean exercising his constitutional prerogatives as elected president to nominate justices who are to be confirmed? just as all the other presidents have done?
in a word: sore losers!
Ginsburg makes a great case for mandatory retirement age for SCOTUS justices.
About RBG, I agree with Turley…mostly. But his praise for Justice Thomas is misplaced in my view. Thomas is the most anti-black public black
person I know.
So you view blacks as somehow some things to be treated differently for their inability to be any different. What a horrible inhuman attitude. For that is how RBG treats them just as she treats young women as fair game from age 12 onwards. But I comfort my moral senses with the thought even stupid people deserve representatation under our Constitution. Too bad they are all anti Constitutional. My view of the different colors is simple. As long as these sexst and racist people like Ginzberg are selected because ‘it’s our turn’ or to satisfy ‘our version of morals’ As long as their reverse racist, women victimizing ways are given credibiity the problem will remain.
RDKAY, if you believe blacks should be equal to everyone else under the law and Constitution then you should not feel that way about Justice Thomas. If you believe blacks shouldn’t be equal to everyone else under the law and Constitution then your statement migth make sense.
“Thomas could well be the main reason it’s become alarmingly common to hear those lofty magistrates referred to as the “Supreme Snorts”
I must disagree with JT. I think RBG is a political hack at this point and not a jurist.
Paul C. I have either grown up, or she has changed; at any rate, I absolutely agree with you. 20 yrs ago I thought she was so impressive.
Cindy Bragg – the one does not preclude the other. 😉
So interesting that Turley frequently mentions that Scalia did the same type of things that Ginsburg has done. Yet he never mentions any specifics. You might get the idea that he feels the need to mention a conservative so his lefty followers don’t say “hey, what about Scalia?” Scalia is dead, Ginsburg still alive and is still doing these things. And actually takes pride in doing them.
Scalia would decline to have his picture taken with individuals unknown to him I think so lawyers and others couldn’t use the picture to promote themselves.
I would say that my pedestal for any of the members of the three branches was destroyed with Clinton in the 90’s. It was put through the grinder a decade later when our community organizer seemed more interested in being a rock star than a president.
“To someone like me, who has long praised Ginsburg and considers her to be one of the strongest intellects on the bench in the last century”
Wouldn’t this tell normal people that Professor Turley leans left?
I do agree with the professor that converting the Supreme Court into a reality show is bad for the nation. The Supreme Court has one job, to protect the Constitution. They should not be political figures.
When I have heard Scalia it sounded as if it was in an educational setting. What he did for the most part was explain how he felt the Constitution should be interpreted. He would carefully explain that his interpretation had nothing to do with his likes and dislikes leaving that type of decision up to Congress and the American people. Other Supreme Court Justices in the same venue strayed from that and explained why their personal view of the world should be imposed on the American People so their liking or disliking played a strong part in their decisions.
Scalia’s ‘constitutional interpretations’ just happened to mirror right-wing agendas.
Anyone who pretends to speak for the founding fathers is a fraud. Because the founding fathers didn’t all agree with each other. Nor could they have envisioned a modern superpower with 300 million people.
Peter, your comment demonstrates how ignorant you are. Scalia’s interpretations of the Constitution attempt to mirror the Constitutin.
The founding fathers could only think so far in advance but they recognized the need for a tight anchor that could be moved with a Constitutional Amendment. 9 unelected individuals responsible to no one should not be making laws. When they do they are acting like oligarchs.
The founding fathers signed this contract recognizing that they didn’t agree with everything rather they agreed to compromise.
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan “interpret” the Constitution in ways that just happen to to mirror their left wing–agendas.
there is a lot of secondary materials available to illuminate the constitutional text. and there is a tradition of law going back well thousands of years not the least of which is in judaism for example, of learned men interpreting primary sources with secondary materials. the same process which is the essence of common law.
moreoever, i think the Founders did see the massive potential of our abundant geography and could have imagined America as a large world trading empire, and they did. what they probably couldnt have imagined is the technological marvels of our day and that’s where good jurisprudence is needed to safeguard our constitutional liberties especially fourth fifth and sixth amendments
Kurtz, we half agree.
The founding fathers knew the U.S. was well-situated to become a world power by virtue of abundant land and resources. Our original 13 colonies alone occupied more area than most European nations.
But I don’t think the founding fathers could have envisioned the size and scope of modern cities. Even big cities of the 1920’s would have been hard to imagine from a 1780’s perspective. In the first census taken,1790, only four American cities had more than 10,000 people. New York had just 49,000.
And I don’t think the founding fathers could have possibly envisioned the size and scope of modern corporations. The industrial revolution was in its infancy when America was founded. So even huge railroads of the late 1800’s would have been difficult to imagine 100 years earlier.
Had the founding fathers been able to visualize the gigantic scope of modern cities and corporations, they would have realized the inevitable need for a big federal government and muscular bureaucracy.
You are talking through your eyes. I would say that the predominant ideology of our founders was classical liberalism. Classical liberals are quite different from what you think and describe.
Anyone who pretends to speak for the founding fathers is a fraud.
Your words, not mine.
Anyway, they would have realized the inevitable need for a big federal government and muscular bureaucracy.
I won’t pretend to speak for the founding fathers, I’ll just use their own words:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. Thomas Jefferson
The last 100 years prove how true those words are still today.
She should be censured for her comments
Turley’s response to the outing, exposing, humanizing, domesticating, or whatever other ing of these supposedly sacred, cabalistic, and god like institutions is peculiar to those who see the law as some omnipotent force; a force to which they are a participant. The law is created, as is religion, by mankind to provide anchors to society. As society evolves, the anchors move and change. The laws follow. The law is not the finger protruding from the cloud, but the mankind that came up with the finger.
The desire for the Supreme Court and/or other courts to remain out of the public view lies in a direction that can be found with the Catholic Church. The acceptance of power without open and obvious accountability is from where humankind is evolving; it is not the direction in which humankind is going. Regardless of the checks and balances inherent to the law when it comes to political and ideological bias, a judge is either liberal or conservative, to some degree, such is the structure of the American self. The question around which the issue of celebrity exposure or sacred behind the scenes profile revolves is accountability vis a vis the issues. Ideally a judgement on an issue should be independent of political bias but only governed by the law. However, the law is, in many, many instances, interpreted in one or the other direction. The instruments of this must be on display at all times.
If the law is made by the people for which it is designed to govern, then, it is better in the long run that the people see how the sausages are made. A sausage can be an epicurean delight, fabricated of only the finest ingredients, carefully assembled; or it can be that which tastes good, appealing to the base tastes of saltiness and sweetness, but made of and how; one wouldn’t want to know.
If anything illustrates the baseness of too many Americans when it comes to politics and ideology, it is this last Presidential election. The only thing that will evolve and save America is for the workings to be exposed openly and transparently. Perhaps it’s time for arrogance to be taken out of the equation(s): judges, priests, oligarchs, etc. Perhaps it’s time for the people to deal with these realities face to face without the authority that accompanies something of which one is not privy.
“The law is created, as is religion, by mankind to provide anchors to society. As society evolves, the anchors move and change. The laws follow.”
It is amazing how close Issac and I are on this subject until we enter into the realm of discussing what democracy is all about.
I use the word anchor frequently when I am thinking about the Constitution. It is our anchor. It sets the table and methods for how law will be developed. It doesn’t develop the law for if it did it would no longer be an anchor. It interprets the law and permits Congress and the people to determine what laws need to be made and also permits them to change the Constitution if such change is needed.
9 persons should not determine what a law means. That would be oligarchy. They should only determine if the law is Constitutional no matter how they personally feel about the law. Personal feelings should be left with the justices of the lower courts.
issac – if you want to see how sausage is made see the Yes, Prime Minister episode on sausages and the EU. It is hysterical. The EU says the British breakfast sausage is not a sausage because it does not have enough meat in it. 😉
The law is created, as is religion, by mankind to provide anchors to society. As society evolves, the anchors move and change. The laws follow.
The anchor is a very good metaphor but what part of anchor don’t you understand? The purpose of the anchor is to secure the vessel to a position that enables it to withstand the various forces that try to dislodge it. The vessel is free to swing about that anchor as it is influenced by those forces. If there is too much force, too much influence, then more chain is let out.
Our nation’s founding is anchored in natural rights. That anchor would be represented in the Declaration of Independence. Our constitution would be representative of the anchor chain. The captain and the crew would be our government. As long as they attend to the chain, then this country will be free to swing about that anchor. But if they allow that anchor to drag, then we lose the security of that anchor and eventually we will join every other nation in the graveyard of history.
Olly and Allan
My use of the word anchor seems to be acceptable. However, what seems to be missed and/or misinterpreted is my postulate that the Constitution does not make the people but rather the people create the Constitution. This is most obvious when it comes to amendments. The Constitution is both an anchor to which to refer and a reflection to which to refer. The earliest Mediterranean societies: Sparta, Carthage, Rome, etc had constitutions. They were only as good as how they were adhered to and revised at the same time.
An indicator of where we can go off the beam is the capitalization of the first letter. Perhaps the Constitution should be the constitution. Perhaps the onus should be on the reflection more than the absolute. Do we need another religious ingredient? My thread, however rambling and inarticulate, is that Ruth Bader Ginsberg serves her country vastly more effectively as a celebrity justice as opposed to as where Turley would have her sequestered. Ultimately, nothing should be behind closed doors. The law can be a religion and lawyers priests, judges cardinals, and bring with it all the perversions that come with doors closed. Turley is a high priest on the road to being a cardinal.
Whether this country is a republic or a democracy it functions democratically and anything that invites the participation of the people in decision making is only as successful as the level of awareness of those people. If something is not open and transparent the first thing that arrives to represent the truth is a lie. If ever that has been proven beyond a shadow of any doubt, whatsoever, it has been proven by the present President. From ziz boom ba, rickety rack, boom a lacka be to blatant lies, we have the influence of our fearless leader over tens of millions of deciders. A constant splaying of the innards of the White House, government, and judiciary is what this country needs, followed by an enema. Trump was elected to ‘drain the swamp’ and unclog the arteries, etc. What we got was a thousand pounds of cheese. No wonder he’s so upset about Canada’s dairy tariffs.
isaac – “my postulate that the Constitution does not make the people but rather the people create the Constitution”
You are just plain wrong or refuse to believe that the constitution was based on the idea that certain rights are inalienable. They exist without our country or constitution. Yes, I can feel you getting all anxious since this concept requires faith in these rights and that them being inalienable comes very close to a religious idea. One can look at it this way, 1+1=2 regardless of mans existence, but if he does exist, it is how he recognizes or uses 1+1=2 that will determine his success.
Jim22
What’s plain is that however religious and inalienable the constitution is or appears to be, it was created by men and is interpreted by men and women, in part-rarely completely, and bent left or right depending on the bias of the interpreter. Just as with the law it is a mechanism, a tool, a device with which a society controls itself. This is also true of all religions. However, the authority of a supreme being or inalienable force presents a foundation that was and remains to some degree necessary for those societies that have yet to assume complete responsibility for themselves. The Catholic Church is the force that it is, however diminishing, because, regardless of the fact that it was created by men to control mankind, it’s main ingredient is that it was not men that created it but that it is a product of a supreme being with which one can only agree. Ironically, the very men that interpret it are of the same species that created it. It only works if you believe first in a supreme being/creator and that these mutts, pedophiles, perverts, scholars, caring types, ignorant types, arrogant types, somehow a combination of human traits but separated and compartmentalized to show that they are above human frailties have the last word.
Such is the case with the constitution and the law. If the people accept the constitution as sacred and only interpretable by the priests of the law, then the evolution of society will depend on the political bias and oligarchical control of those priests.
The perfect example of this is the second amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The priests and the gun lobby with the NRA have taken this ‘sacred’ text that is unalienable to some and alienated the first part from the second part, also here is no word in this text that refers to the individual. Militia is a society. Free State is a society. People are a society. Yet, because these unalienable words have been alienated from the original text and common sense, individuals with their purchasing power, represented by their oligarchs, have created a disaster that exists in the United States only, along with some third world hot spots like Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The peer nations of the United States are more truthfully and actually conformed to the second amendment than the country that originated it. This is beyond ironic. This is a treason of a sort. Hopefully it is a treason in which America will only acquiesce and not be forged.
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion in that no one religion will have the right to dictate religion, as was the case in the time, and each person will be free to worship in their own way, as wasn’t always the case in the time. The founding fathers were no less and probably more aware of the inherent potential contradictions in any form of government. Perhaps that is why it is so imperfect, a work in progress, something that needs to be revisited and revised on a regular basis, sometimes wrongly as with prohibition, and sometimes rightly as with the repeal and the 13th amendment.
A society will always need its laws and constitutions, however, when blindly followed they disappear further and further from their original intentions. The strength of any country and its constitutions and laws rests on its ability to understand them in context with their place in the evolution of all mankind, not just that evolution peculiar to the collective as well as individual ego.
“The perfect example of this is the second amendment.”
If the public is anxious to change what the Constitution says, it is simple, pass a constitutional amendment.
Allan
There is no need to change the second amendment. There is only a need to not pervert it through oligarchical means. The Supreme Court is the safeguard of a constitution. However, the ultimate force behind the interpretation and revision of a constitution remains the people. Some supreme being, unalienable and omnipotent did not add the 13th amendment, the people did through their representatives; perhaps not all, and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, and other tragedies but in the end the mechanisms of government whether they be the Presidency, Congress, Senate, or Judiciary, respond to the people. This is as it should be. Unfortunately in our oligarchy, the people are kept at a distance and the design is by the few oligarchs and special interests. The vanguard of change for the better is transparency and access. If Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a celebrity justice, so much the better.
The words are very clear. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Issac if you wish to infringe pass a Constitutional Amendment.
“However, the ultimate force behind the interpretation and revision of a constitution remains the people. Some supreme being, unalienable and omnipotent did not add the 13th amendment, ”
An amendment to the Constitution was passed. Do the same for the second amendment…Pass a constitutional amendment to say what you believe is appropriate. Don’t ask for an oligarchy consisting of nine lawyers to do the job for you.
MILITIA has had a specific legal meaning not a vague one such as you suggest. but, why bother explaining, you are steadfastly sure of you own superior opinion.
you dont like gun rights? ok, repeal the second amendment,. meanwhile the meaning is obvious and fundamental freedom like it or not.
Mr Kurtz
Militia had but one meaning at the inception of this nation; that the people had the right to defend their society; a society of a village, country, or state, against a foreign power be it a foreign nation or marauding individuals. The individual is called upon by its society to augment the regular army or to simply stand as a defense and/or offense against a threat. Individual self defense has always been a work in progress in any society and is separate from this intent.
The second amendment addresses the rights of the society. It has only recently been perversely interpreted to refer to a right to arm ones self to the teeth. Since 1977 the NRA has been perversely using the second amendment to roll back the very gun control regulations the NRA championed up until then. This is not the voice of the people but the voice of a special interest.
It’s not a question of whether or not I like guns. I like well regulated guns, like it says in the second amendment.
My use of the word anchor seems to be acceptable.
Of course the use of the word anchor is acceptable. You’re not the first person to do so. It implies security for whatever it is attached to. It provides a point around which an object can swing. That anchor is our unalienable rights. The constitution and all it’s amendments are the chain connecting our country (the object) to that anchor.
The constitution cannot be that anchor. The fact our constitution is amendable proves that point. That would mean if it were our anchor, then the only thing securing us to anything is the capricious will of the people and those they are able to elect. That’s democracy and in effect, mob rule.
If that’s what you support, then you have no legitimate argument against the powers wielded by the current regime. You don’t like their policies or their use of power, then you better win elections. On the other hand, if we weren’t anchored in the law but rather by what the law is itself anchored in, then that is a degree of security that is above the will of the mob.
Olly, the physical anchor that anchors a ship is governed by physics or laws of nature. We don’t throw physics into the ocean to anchor the boat. We throw in a manmade object to do the job.
The Constitution is the same. It is created by humans to anchor their system of government and is based on the laws of nature, natural rights.
We don’t throw physics into the ocean to anchor the boat. We throw in a manmade object to do the job.
Wrong. That would place man and his nature superior to the anchor. We cannot be anchored to the will of man.
Olly, ultimately each man is anchored to his own beliefs. The Constitution was an attempt to anchor all of man together in the 13 states based on natural rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution was an attempt to anchor all of man together in the 13 states based on natural rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
To prove the anchor is the Rights (DoI) and not the Law, all you need to do is look at what changes and what does not. The former is fixed and the latter is not. The former preexists man and the latter is created by man. Removing the law does not remove the Rights. The Law’s just purpose is to chain us to the Rights. If the Law is just, then the anchor and chain work as one. If the Law is unjust, it’s the chain that has failed, not the anchor it was attached to.
“To prove the anchor is the Rights (DoI) and not the Law, all you need to do is look at what changes and what does not”
We may be dealing more in semantics, but if you wish to say that the anchor is the DOI then the anchor failed badly in 1778 when the Constitution was signed. The DOI said “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” and that was lacking in both the Constitution and the laws of the time.
We may be dealing more in semantics, but if you wish to say that the anchor is the DOI then the anchor failed badly in 1778 when the Constitution was signed.
The DoI didn’t fail. It’s the same today as it was when it was written. If anything, it was the Law that failed, and I wouldn’t even agree completely with that. The Law did what it was supposed to do at the time and it has been amended, as designed, to move us closer to becoming a more perfect union. If we as a society and a government fail, it’s because we fail with the Law, not with the self-evident truths we measure success or failure by.
That is righ Ollyt. It just didn’t function as the physical anchor from the second the Constitution was signed.
We don’t hear much about the DOI when disputing things (perhaps we should hear more) but we do here the words it is or is not Constitutional.
Maybe we need to set up a Supreme Court to determine DOI issues.
It just didn’t function as the physical anchor from the second the Constitution was signed.
I agree Allan, but I don’t believe that is the fault of the DoI. It’s the fault of people that see the constitution as a replacement for the DoI. In Lincoln’s Fragment on the Constitution and Union he describes the relationship between the DoI and the Constitution:
The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple — not the apple for the picture.
So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.
Maybe we need to set up a Supreme Court to determine DOI issues.
That would make for some very contentious confirmation hearings. 😉
“I agree Allan, but I don’t believe that is the fault of the DoI. It’s the fault of people that see the constitution as a replacement for the DoI. ”
The DOI wasn’t going to provide what was most needed, security. That is why the compromise was made and the Constitution created. Even that was not enough so the first 10 amendments were added. I think the Constitution is a good anchor but I look towards the DOI to help interpret what the words of the Constitution mean.
Allan – you realize the Articles of Confederation come between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
“Allan – you realize the Articles of Confederation come between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?”
Of course Paul. The statement copied in the email was that of OLLY not mine. We both recognize that and have mentioned it in the pasts. The Articles of Confederation wasn’t a good enough anchor.
Allen – I am not seeing a nexus between the Declaration and the Constitution, without including the Articles.
Paul, I know this will give you great comfort, Olly and I didn’t leave out the Articles of Confederation as they were discussed previously. Now you can rest in peace.
Olly, think why the Constitution had a stronger federal presence than the Articles. Yes, our natural rights played a big part, but not big enough that a compromise wasn’t necessary to secure an adequate number of signatures for the Constitution.
I don’t disagree with your rational of the primary purpose for government. Life is full of compromise.
“If you’re looking back at the DoI to interpret the constitution, these principles are key:
1. Equal treatment under the law – no one is above the law.
2. Security of unalienable rights.
3. Limit the power of the centralized government to those things the states give them to do.
4. All other power retained by the states and/or the people.”
Every signature signed away number 1 and limited who was protected under number 2. Indirectly 3 provided the states the right to determine who should be denied equal treatment and unalienable rights. Finally number 4 protected a specific class of people.
I do not note “all men are created equal in your 4 points. Compromise is a bit-h.
Every signature signed away number 1 and limited who was protected under number 2. Indirectly 3 provided the states the right to determine who should be denied equal treatment and unalienable rights. Finally number 4 protected a specific class of people.
None of those principle points have changed since they were drafted and signed. The DoI is a document for all people, not just Americans. The audience for it extended beyond our borders. It was the founder’s vision for any country. They knew those principles were not the current state, but those principles were what this country and any country should justly work towards. This is why the constitution was designed to be amended and not the DoI. This is why the DoI is the anchor and not the constitution. As this country and culture have transformed, we change (amend) the laws to move towards the DoI’s vision. If you weigh anchor every time you change the law, then you get a government abandoning its principle purpose. You get what progressives have given us over the last 100 years. You get another laundry list of grievances. And that points us right back to this:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
“The DoI is a document for all people, not just Americans.”
Olly, the Constitution was written for just Americans and only of a specific class so if you wish to continue to engage in semantics you can call the DOI our anchor despite the fact that it was superceded by the Constitution. You are looking for an origin, but why stop at the DOI? Why not go futher back to the British Common Law, the New Testament, the Old Testament, all of western philosophy to the Greeks and beyond?
“This is why the DoI is the anchor and not the constitution.”
To continue with the semantic argument the Constitution had the amendment process to slow down emotional impact and to provide for change so that the Constitution could remain the anchor of our society. Religious people in our society may turn to their anchor, the New or Old Testament or something else. We needed a common anchor that took into account biases of the people of the day.
Not every ship can use the same anchor even though the physical principles remain the same. The anchor meets the needs of the ship and the people on it.
Allan – the DoI specifically describes “crimes” that only the British could have committed, therefore the DoI is not for all people, just the ones (not the Tories or neutrals) trying to rebel against England. We few, we tiny few.
Paul, I think Olly and I were focusing on the natural rights portion of the DOI. If that wasn’t obvious to you I am sorry. I don’t know how you could think we were discussing things that didn’t have to do with the rights of man. Maybe you weren’t following the discussion closely enough and had women on your mind.
Allan – I don’t think women are discussed in either the DoI, Articles or Constitution w/10 amendments. And Ginsberg puts me off women. 😉
” And Ginsberg puts me off women. 😉”
Paul, from your comments about women on this blog I think RBG is doing everyone a service. 🙂
Allan – I was thinking that if every SJW girl just just had a poster of RBG over her bed, we would save billions in birth control every year.
I do not note “all men are created equal in your 4 points. Compromise is a bit-h.
Then you are trying very hard not to:
1. Equal treatment under the law – no one is above the law.
2. Security of unalienable rights.
Olly, I am not trying anything. I am merely stating the Constitution was an anchor and that each ship is different requiring a different anchor. In the case of the Constitution the anchor was formed based on compromise. I try and protect the Constitution and use the amendment process to fix the inherent problems that exist.
so if you wish to continue to engage in semantics you can call the DOI our anchor despite the fact that it was superceded by the Constitution.
That is not just patently false, it is a dangerous interpretation of our founding documents.
First of all, if the constitution superceded anything it would be the Articles of Confederation. If the AoC superceded anything it would be English Law. I have absolutely no concern or interest in what English Law is based on. I’m concerned only with ours.
Secondly and most importantly, to believe the DoI was superceded is exactly what progressivism is rooted in. Look up the definition and you tell me, did our constitution do the following regarding superceding the DoI?
1 a : to cause to be set aside
b : to force out of use as inferior
2 : to take the place or position of
3 : to displace in favor of another
If that is what you believe, then our legal system is our anchor. It would mean everything put into law is just. It would mean any amendment the government could get passed, and having no principle basis for dispute, would be the new anchor. You could effectively wipe out the Bill of Rights if you had enough votes, given the fact there is no principle greater than the Law. If the Law is our anchor, if the Law supercedes the DoI, then erase the self-evident truths. Erase the principle that all men are created equal; erase the notion of unalienable rights; erase the idea that the legitimate purpose for government is to secure those rights; and finally, erase the radical idea that we are a government of the people, that the people have any right to redress the government. After all, in your world the government is the Law and their power and authority are rooted in whatever they can convince an ignorant and dependent society to accept.
Semantics!? Not even close.
“Semantics!? Not even close.”
Of course this is a semantic discussion. It revovles around what you and I think an anchor is. An anchor restrains a boat within specific limits. The DOI is greater than an anchor, but if you wish to call the DOI an anchor do so.
When the nation decided on certain actions did it base its decision on the DOI or the Constitution? Before you answer remember “all men are created equal”. The actions of the nation were restrained by the Constitution, not the DOI. I would not argue about the DOI being correct, it was. The Constitution was wrong. But the Constitution is what restrained appropriate action.
“did our constitution do the following regarding superceding the DoI?
1 a : to cause to be set aside”
Did we live by the rule “all men are created equal” or did the Constitution permit slavery? I think the answer to that question is obvious.
“If that is what you believe, then our legal system is our anchor. It would mean everything put into law is just. ”
Not at all. The word anchor has nothing to do with justice. An anchor is an inanimate object that doesn’t think or determine anything. It neither creates something nor does it erase anthing. It is an element of restraint and changes nothing with regard to natural rights. Those rights exist despite the Constitution.
The DOI wasn’t going to provide what was most needed, security.
That wasn’t it’s purpose. It was a moral and legal justification for independence. It is the foundation for everything that follows, specifically security for our natural rights.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
This is the primary purpose for government. This is the primary purpose of any legal system, and the reason is very simple: If it wasn’t in man’s nature to infringe on the natural rights of others, then no government would be necessary. We’d all live in harmony in the state of nature.
The Articles of Confederation was the first effort to establish a government that would provide that security. But given the colony’s concern of setting up a centralized government with too much power like the one they just got rid of, they made it too weak.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This justified scrapping the AoC and we get the constitution. It still points back to its original purpose and it was crafted to once again limit the power of a centralized government. If you’re looking back at the DoI to interpret the constitution, these principles are key:
1. Equal treatment under the law – no one is above the law.
2. Security of unalienable rights.
3. Limit the power of the centralized government to those things the states give them to do.
4. All other power retained by the states and/or the people.
And look at the grievances; they are a great reminder of what government looks like when they’ve exceeded their original purpose noted above.
Allan – The Constitution was approved in 1789, I think.
Paul I wrote 1778. I reversed the last two numbers, sorry. It should be 1787 in September to be more exact.
Allan – I was just to lazy to look it up. 😉
i am with the Marxists on this question to some extent: I suspect that the Constitution was a clever pact among the states to secure a stable, unified, efficient, relatively popular yet also limited national republic, capable of standing up to England as a rival in war and and trade and thus, becoming its own eventual Empire.
All the babbling about rights may have been sincere, or maybe not. Maybe they were just as crass manipulators of ideology as our politicians are today.
But there are good, valid, legit reasons to interpret the Constitution in light of such Enlightenment political principles, that is for sure.
I suspect that the Constitution was a clever pact among the states to secure a stable, unified, efficient, relatively popular yet also limited national republic, capable of standing up to England as a rival in war and and trade and thus, becoming its own eventual Empire.
If that were true, then the Articles of Confederation was what, a not-so-clever pact? If what you say is true, then there would have been no need for limits, no need for federalism, no need for a Bill of Rights. Relatively popular? Based on what, whose ox is getting gored?
I can certainly understand why you would agree with the Marxists to some extent; that’s what’s in vogue; not the framer’s original intent.
“Perhaps the Constitution should be the constitution. Perhaps the onus should be on the reflection more than the absolute.”
What you are saying is that you wish to trivialize the Constitution.
Instead of looking for laws for and by the people you are looking towards an oligarchy of 9 to make laws when you already have a House and a Senate elected by the people to pass legislation. You liken it to religion and therefore to the 10 Commandments. What you would like to do is take a commandment and make it functional only when it satisfies your need. To you thou shalt not murder means thou shalt not muder on Wednesdays since you robbed a candy store on Wednesday and killed the shop owner. You want laws that are self serving to you.
The Supreme Court decisions are not behind closed doors as you think. The Constitution is an open book as are the decisions. Maybe you want the Justices to be wearing clothing that advertises Nike and political view points like “Kill Bush”.
I don’t know how you got from your discussion of the Supreme Court to Trump. TDS perhaps?
Olly, I don’t think professor Turley is much of a sailor.
sore loser type Canadian speaks and takes a dig at Catholics and the entire American electorate, too. pathetic. why come here every day if you find us so deplorable? BEGONE
Interesting….justices can, among other things, secretly meet with parties in cases before them, take money on the side and not report it but let a female member of the court become a celebrated example of true commitment to justice and it’s a terrible thing. How dare she!
I say more power to her. May she live forever!
She’s an activist with a gavel.