“The Kept Judge” (1908) (h/t - James G. Fallows) Like many liberals, I used to hold the Supreme Court in high regard: Brown v Board of Education (ending Jim Crow); Reynolds v Sims (“one man one vote” reapportionment); Miranda v Arizona (right to remain silent); Gideon v Wainwright (right to an attorney regardless of ability to pay); Griswold v Connecticut (marital privacy includes contraception); New York Times v United States (the Pentagon Papers case); Roe v Wade (do I have to say?)... the list goes on, but it becomes less frequent in the years after Earl Warren retired as Chief Justice, and even less frequent as his fellow Associate Justices retired.
Several times, I have taught a class on the history of the Supreme Court, and my overarching theme is that it has always been political and almost always been conservative to reactionary. As I tell students, that isn't a criticism or praise; that's reality. There also used to be different standards regarding ethics: When Benjamin Curtis dissented from the horrific Dred Scott decision, one of Scott's attorneys was his brother. Really.
That goes to a point about Thomas's jurisprudence, or lack of same. I don't think who he hangs out with has had the slightest effect on how he votes--Harlan Crow hasn't gotten anything out of the court that he wouldn't have gotten anyway if he weren't Thomas's sugar daddy (Who IS Barf Kavanaugh's, by the way?). But it looks increasingly like Thomas broke the law. And that is in Merrick Garland's wheelhouse. If Thomas committed an indictable offense, he should be indicted. No one is above the law.
A word, too, about Biden: at the time of those hearings, he had been in the Senate for almost 20 years. What I would call The Great Change was only really beginning--it would gain steam in the Clinton years. At the time, for Biden and many of his Democratic colleagues, John Danforth's word was good enough. That's wrong, and sad, and they know it now, but they didn't then.
I mention this because in 1995, I did an interview with Harry Reid, who was just starting his rise to leadership (and I think he was the best Senate majority leader since LBJ). He said--as you'd expect--that he expected Bill Clinton to be reelected. He said, also unsurprisingly, that Clinton was fortunate in his enemies and named three off the top of his head: Pat Buchanan, Bob Dornan, and Bob Dole.
I had a dear friend, Gary Elliott, a fellow history professor who in his previous life had been a DEA agent; thus his wisdom when he would respond to one of my complaints by saying, "Quit your whining, Green. In your job, you've never been shot at." His dissertation, and subsequent book, had been on one of Reid's predecessors as a senator from Nevada, Alan Bible, one of those unknown workhorses who actually played a major role in environmental and historic preservation in the 1960s and 1970s as an Interior subcommittee chair on parks and recreation (he also was behind the original legislation protecting the Alaskan wilderness).
Gary read my interview with Reid and ran into my office, saying, "You have a big story here." Huh? He said that interview showed that the Senate had completely changed in the past few years, as in since the Thomas and Hill issue. How so? He said Harry Reid was very much an institutionalist when it came to the Senate, and he had lumped, with an incipient Nazi like Buchanan and a loon like Dornan, the Senate republican leader. He said that NEVER would have happened in the old days. That is the change that the Thomas confirmation hearings presaged, and that Biden was not yet aware of.
In 2020, I growled about Biden talking about getting along with republicans. I think he knew better. I think he knew that that was how he HAD to sound to win.
It would be nice if "Smokin' Joe" Biden ACTED as though he knew better - this waiting for the 'Godot' of "bipartisanship" is wearing on a body...... And Joe's love of tradition and the filibuster will end up with us going over the cliff, Wile E. Coyote to the Repubs' Roadrunner.....
nah, Tom. I know very few academics (and I know a LOT, I was even once a very low-status one) who'd say they "respected" academia.
especially now, when it's gone the way of pretty much every other Major American Institution. which is to say, to shit.
I read an interview recently with a Columbia sophomore (the reason for the interview was that the kid's an actor) who was bitching and moaning about the incredible ripoff involved in the fact that Columbia has managed to hang on to its famously heavy core requirements, so that you actually can't get out of there without reading Homer, Plato and the rest of the gang. imagine that! college with REQUIRED READING!! world history you HAVE TO KNOW!!! things that aren't related to STEM (which is, let's face it, a truly UGLY acronym, and that's dropping the sarcasm).
I've always wondered if that quote was real...I vaguely remember him once or twice denying he actually said it. at least in those particular words.
god knows, his casting was much too impeccable for him to have actually believed it. as a thought experiment, try thinking of Cary Grant in "Vertigo." or Jimmy Stewart in "North By Northwest." or anybody better than Robert Cummings in "The Saboteur."
TC, this one edition of "A Fine Mess" is worth a whole year of subscription bucks.
Thomas has walked through the door to Hell and its just another news story.
Here is my current thought. There has always been this sense of "respect" between the Supremes. Scalia and Ginsberg hanging out, etc. Blah, blah, blah. I call bullshit.
Wouldn't it be nice if each of these isolated elite jurists were to be asked their opinion of Thomas' behavior? Get on record. Is this OK or not OK? If it is wrong and indeed a massive conflict of interest, what is your solution, all 8 of you? You are specialists on "opinions". Let's hear it. This is big stuff. Stop hiding in your fancy offices. You are not a god.
What if they were pestered until they answered?
Of course, Robert's could do his job. He has expressed his concern about the reputation of the court. Hey John! Guess what? That reputation is in tatters and you will be the guy they blame for the next 300 years.
in all fairness to RBG, she said that she and Scalia enjoyed opera together (and I've seen the albums she liked...she KNEW her opera) and (if I remember correctly) fished together. but she always insisted that his ideas were "horrifying."
I'm sure some of us have occasionally been friends with people whose politics we hated. I personally find it difficult but have actually managed it a few times. if I can do it, anyone can.
whether it's such a good idea is another question entirely...as with most things, it depends on the specific people.
in my case, I don't mind being an asshole as much as I probably should.
Yes. I have been friends with people whose politics I detested. In fact, I am there now. One of them is Royce Williams, the Navy pilot who shot down four MiG-15s in a fight in 1952 when he was in an airplane that shouldn't have been in the same sky with them. I can say in all honesty, I would have enjoyed serving under his command in the Navy. He's an interesting guy and I was glad to be part of the team that forced the Navy to finally admit after 70 years that the fight did happen and upgrade his award to recognize the truth and be "proper" for what he did - a Navy Cross that he finally received this past January. And I get "political" emails from him I cannot read past the first paragraph at most. Most of the guys I knew and wrote about these past 40 years were people I mostly didn't discuss contemporary politics with. Didn't stop me from respecting them. There was only one - Dick Best, the guy who won the Battle of Midway - with whom I shared totally copacetic politics.
is it possible that the WWII vets (because of their remarkable variety) would just be bound to have more liberal types because there were so many of them, and from such varied backgrounds?
obviously, since I phrased it that way, I think so.
Yes. liberals and conservatives, and rich kids as well as poor, volunteered or got drafted. That they all learned to deal with each other and work with each other regardless, was probably one reason thing felt so unified wen we were growing up.
I fear that several members of the current SCOTUS are ideologically in league with those who do not trust and who would destroy our institutions, especially those since the New Deal, even if it means sullying their own, and in the case of Thomas, with impunity. These are the anti-modernity folks who are increasingly radicalized by their shrinking numbers in the nation as a whole. Despite my fear, I'm holding to the last line in this excellent piece.
Your piece and Michael Green's elaboration teaches me so much. In 1990s, I had started to pay attention to Southern culture and politics as The Americans With Disabilities Act had passed and many of us thought it to be the Civil Rights Act for people with disabilities. Many Southerners had voted for it and yet the treatment of "underserved people" in Southern states was pretty churlish and uneven to say the least. So, when Thomas was up for appointment to the SC, I had this uncomfortable and almost racist feeling about him. Was he a token appointment for Republicans? Would he serve the interests of "his people" or other oppressed people (e.g., people with disabilities)? Would he carve out a place in history of SC court rulings that made the conservative case for inclusion, civil rights, equality in access and quality of rehabilitation services and education? Over the period, he proved a disappointment, never or rarely asking questions of petitioners or offering insights for connecting the promises of equal rights and opportunity with the decisions brought to the Court. His was an unimpressive and unimportant record, until Scalia went and Trump got his three-stooges. Sorry, that is unkind. So, we have the House Slave, not the field-hand serving the man and protecting the status quo for the men to whom he is beholding for his advancement from the whip to the polished interior of the establishment that his color, though not character, deems him unworthy. He will pass his term in comfort, with all the favors granted him in exchange for his undying loyalty to Master.
as I recall, at the time, he was very much a token...didn't people talk about his filling "the Black Seat," as if he and Marshall (called, very plausibly, "the most consequential lawyer of the 20th century") were somehow interchangeable?
at the time, Marshall nailed it with his comment that a Black snake will kill you as dead as a white one. I'm paraphrasing...
...regarding his usual facial expression: I remember when Danforth was speaking on his behalf and said that if anyone heard CT's fabulous laugh (so deep, so hearty, so real), they'd be in his corner. I hope someone else remembers this as well.
why did Danforth (a party guy if ever one was) have so much sway back then? he has a famous name. and so fucking what?
didn't he also give a leg up to Hawley, more recently saying it was a big mistake?
from my point of view, it's two too many. fuck him.
I somehow doubt very many people have heard CT's "so deep; so hearty; so real" laugh. He has the sort of sourpuss face that, on a woman, would be called a "resting b**ch face". Doubtless, CT only lets loose his genuine laugh when he is being gifted largesse from a far-right Republican donor.
The single word on whatever memorial will exist for my life is clueless. How can voting majorities elect representatives who effectively seek to rule over women’s bodies, allow the murder of young children, enrich the all ready wealthy, attempt to codify a state religion, deny history, and generally deny civil rights to a diverse, divided majority?
Fox propaganda, self-righteous, self-serving, lies that are never challenged. In fact, even the MSM follows their lead. Hard not to give up. If only our MSM had balls
for me, the most infuriating thing about all these years of Mitch's duplicity, lying and downright wickedness (is he not the demon spawn of Deputy Dawg and Foghorn Leghorn?) is that he has never once convinced me (or anyone who's really WATCHING, as far as I'm concerned) that he is motivated by anything resembling an actual belief or conviction. not for a second.
it's really hard for me to get there, Fern. what I would say instead is that he had a much more realistic sense of what it was possible to actually get away with (specifically his refusal to allow Garland to go through the confirmation process). I like to think that pretty much every Democrat who might have been in a position to do the same thing would not have dared to do so.
so in THAT very particular sense, I suppose he's cleverer than any Democrat. but it strikes me as the same kind of cleverness that allows people to know exactly when they can cross the street against the light and not get hit by a car. is that CLEVERNESS or something else?
I'm really asking because I think I've managed to confuse myself, which happens all too frequently.
but if your point is that he THINKS he's cleverer, he does indeed.
Yes...I remember reading it and thinking what a worthless, loathsome piece of human refuse Mitch is and always has been. It's easy to be a clever political strategist when he has have his turtley claws on every money string going into and out of the Senate. It's easy for him to keep his caucus together when he controls the money they need from the RNC for their campaigns... If it is cleverness to realize very early on that money holds the keys to the castle and cleverness to position yourself right in the middle that cash flow...then yes, Mitch is clever.
And yes, may he rot in hell until the flesh drops off his bones and may Satan torture each bone separately.
"And the event for which Joe Biden will never be able to apologize for sufficiently for his “go along to get along” beliefs that led him to alliances with people who wished him dead."
This is the Achilles heel of progressives, even mediocre ones like Joe "No Malarkey" Biden. Once someone shows you that they want to end you, a line has been crossed. Civility ain't required thereafter.
I retain an eidetic (even muscle) memory of watching those Thomas hearings from the tv room of the AIDS hospice I was working in at the time. a lot of patients were watching with me, and it was a very worldly, hip bunch of (mostly) guys. everybody knew that Anita Hill was telling the truth; even the guys whose dementia had deprived them of the ability to form sentences were hooting and hollering at CFT's pathetic "high-tech lynching" moment.
actually, did anyone REALLY believe him? I doubted it then and, well...he hasn't exactly given us much reason to think otherwise.
How I hope it can be done, sadly, my energy and resources are diminished this time around. I will recruit granddaughters as best I can. The reality of the situation is the result of 45 years of effort by Republican operatives intent on doing what chump came within a hair of doing. Now or never…
I consider myself a defensive subversive and will be ordering new and comfortable shoes to carry out what I can in 2024. But I know 45's administrative disasters plus his post-presidency have exhausted anyone who's been paying attention.
Blockbuster analysis Tom. A Clarion call to action Eloquent, direct, understandable, relatable and most of all a balanced recitation of history and facts
The one thing that gives me hope for 2024 is the increasing backlash to abortion restrictions and the increasingly lax gun laws being enacted at the state level. I do think people are getting angry about both, and are prepared to do something about it. The Democrats need to run on both for Congressional and statewide races. The Presidential race in theory should take care of itself, given President Biden's list of accomplishments, but we must assume nothing.
I don't know how we hold the Senate, but we have to try. I wish we had a credible and dynamic candidate to run against Rick Scott in Florida, but I don't think we're going to get one. (I SOOO envy the largess of Democratic riches in California, where you have really good candidates ready to take over for DiFi.) Montana's state legislature is working on kneecapping John Tester's re-election campaign. I would consider it a miracle if we got the Senate to 50-50 with VP Harris as the tiebreaker.
one of your best, and as good as they've been, that's saying something. this time, you banked your rage a little to do the thorough narrative demanded, and it sure IS demanded.
people our age have the same SCOTUS problem: we came up during a unique historical period
of the Court and, therefore, came to regard it as a reliable court of last resort on matters relating to individual rights before the law, as in your listing of those important cases. and old habits die hard, especially habits of mind. SCOTUS has been a reactionary body that's tended to enforce the worst principles involved in our founding, not (as we'd come to believe) the best. in that big SCOTUS book he published a good while back, Jeffrey Toobin (no masturbation jokes allowed for the moment) defined what makes a particular Chief Justice's court a success or failure. whatever we may feel about its decisions, Rehnquist's court was considered very successful.
the Roberts Court is a failure, and Roberts knows it. it looks like the way he's accepting his fate in the history books is by smiling wanly and not giving a fuck. at least that's what he's done so far. I can't imagine he's going to surprise us.
our side was very effective in blocking that dangerous piece of shit Bork (survivor of Nixon's massacre), but the result of that success is that confirmations have become a complete joke. and that's not likely to change.
Thomas is a disgrace, but he's able to successfully hide behind the rules (that is to say, the LACK of rules). it DOES look like he's going to have to confront this real estate deal on some level, but I don't see him getting too much of a hard time...I think of your quote above about the few pursuing the interests of the few. that's a really good one I seem to have missed.
as I've said before, Randall Kennedy (who has himself been in some controversial racial hot seats) is very eloquent on the subject of CT, and I'll post a few links below.
it'd be good to note here that Kennedy, in the more recent YouTube interview listed first, contradicts the points he makes in the second, longer speech.
Well put, indeed.
Several times, I have taught a class on the history of the Supreme Court, and my overarching theme is that it has always been political and almost always been conservative to reactionary. As I tell students, that isn't a criticism or praise; that's reality. There also used to be different standards regarding ethics: When Benjamin Curtis dissented from the horrific Dred Scott decision, one of Scott's attorneys was his brother. Really.
That goes to a point about Thomas's jurisprudence, or lack of same. I don't think who he hangs out with has had the slightest effect on how he votes--Harlan Crow hasn't gotten anything out of the court that he wouldn't have gotten anyway if he weren't Thomas's sugar daddy (Who IS Barf Kavanaugh's, by the way?). But it looks increasingly like Thomas broke the law. And that is in Merrick Garland's wheelhouse. If Thomas committed an indictable offense, he should be indicted. No one is above the law.
A word, too, about Biden: at the time of those hearings, he had been in the Senate for almost 20 years. What I would call The Great Change was only really beginning--it would gain steam in the Clinton years. At the time, for Biden and many of his Democratic colleagues, John Danforth's word was good enough. That's wrong, and sad, and they know it now, but they didn't then.
I mention this because in 1995, I did an interview with Harry Reid, who was just starting his rise to leadership (and I think he was the best Senate majority leader since LBJ). He said--as you'd expect--that he expected Bill Clinton to be reelected. He said, also unsurprisingly, that Clinton was fortunate in his enemies and named three off the top of his head: Pat Buchanan, Bob Dornan, and Bob Dole.
I had a dear friend, Gary Elliott, a fellow history professor who in his previous life had been a DEA agent; thus his wisdom when he would respond to one of my complaints by saying, "Quit your whining, Green. In your job, you've never been shot at." His dissertation, and subsequent book, had been on one of Reid's predecessors as a senator from Nevada, Alan Bible, one of those unknown workhorses who actually played a major role in environmental and historic preservation in the 1960s and 1970s as an Interior subcommittee chair on parks and recreation (he also was behind the original legislation protecting the Alaskan wilderness).
Gary read my interview with Reid and ran into my office, saying, "You have a big story here." Huh? He said that interview showed that the Senate had completely changed in the past few years, as in since the Thomas and Hill issue. How so? He said Harry Reid was very much an institutionalist when it came to the Senate, and he had lumped, with an incipient Nazi like Buchanan and a loon like Dornan, the Senate republican leader. He said that NEVER would have happened in the old days. That is the change that the Thomas confirmation hearings presaged, and that Biden was not yet aware of.
In 2020, I growled about Biden talking about getting along with republicans. I think he knew better. I think he knew that that was how he HAD to sound to win.
Good points all. Thanks again for another solid Prof Green contribution.
Well, you're very kind to say that. Your posts are terrific.
I like hearing that! :-)
It would be nice if "Smokin' Joe" Biden ACTED as though he knew better - this waiting for the 'Godot' of "bipartisanship" is wearing on a body...... And Joe's love of tradition and the filibuster will end up with us going over the cliff, Wile E. Coyote to the Repubs' Roadrunner.....
Hope some enterprising journalist/s investigating Kavanaugh’s sugar daddies, diabetes threat with that mess…
beautifully put. thank you.
Thank YOU. I appreciate it. I'm just hot in TC's league.
I'll bet I couldn't teach a university class like you can. For one thing, I'd have been thrown out long ago for "disrespect of acadamania."
Well, I TRIED to get thrown out for that ....
I really did Laugh Out Loud.
so did I.
nah, Tom. I know very few academics (and I know a LOT, I was even once a very low-status one) who'd say they "respected" academia.
especially now, when it's gone the way of pretty much every other Major American Institution. which is to say, to shit.
I read an interview recently with a Columbia sophomore (the reason for the interview was that the kid's an actor) who was bitching and moaning about the incredible ripoff involved in the fact that Columbia has managed to hang on to its famously heavy core requirements, so that you actually can't get out of there without reading Homer, Plato and the rest of the gang. imagine that! college with REQUIRED READING!! world history you HAVE TO KNOW!!! things that aren't related to STEM (which is, let's face it, a truly UGLY acronym, and that's dropping the sarcasm).
"Actors should be treated like cattle." - A. Hitchcock.
I've always wondered if that quote was real...I vaguely remember him once or twice denying he actually said it. at least in those particular words.
god knows, his casting was much too impeccable for him to have actually believed it. as a thought experiment, try thinking of Cary Grant in "Vertigo." or Jimmy Stewart in "North By Northwest." or anybody better than Robert Cummings in "The Saboteur."
TC, this one edition of "A Fine Mess" is worth a whole year of subscription bucks.
Thomas has walked through the door to Hell and its just another news story.
Here is my current thought. There has always been this sense of "respect" between the Supremes. Scalia and Ginsberg hanging out, etc. Blah, blah, blah. I call bullshit.
Wouldn't it be nice if each of these isolated elite jurists were to be asked their opinion of Thomas' behavior? Get on record. Is this OK or not OK? If it is wrong and indeed a massive conflict of interest, what is your solution, all 8 of you? You are specialists on "opinions". Let's hear it. This is big stuff. Stop hiding in your fancy offices. You are not a god.
What if they were pestered until they answered?
Of course, Robert's could do his job. He has expressed his concern about the reputation of the court. Hey John! Guess what? That reputation is in tatters and you will be the guy they blame for the next 300 years.
Nailed. It.
Puke on the camaraderie between RBG and Scalia. Never bought it, Scalia was not that stupid, was she?
in all fairness to RBG, she said that she and Scalia enjoyed opera together (and I've seen the albums she liked...she KNEW her opera) and (if I remember correctly) fished together. but she always insisted that his ideas were "horrifying."
I'm sure some of us have occasionally been friends with people whose politics we hated. I personally find it difficult but have actually managed it a few times. if I can do it, anyone can.
whether it's such a good idea is another question entirely...as with most things, it depends on the specific people.
in my case, I don't mind being an asshole as much as I probably should.
Yes. I have been friends with people whose politics I detested. In fact, I am there now. One of them is Royce Williams, the Navy pilot who shot down four MiG-15s in a fight in 1952 when he was in an airplane that shouldn't have been in the same sky with them. I can say in all honesty, I would have enjoyed serving under his command in the Navy. He's an interesting guy and I was glad to be part of the team that forced the Navy to finally admit after 70 years that the fight did happen and upgrade his award to recognize the truth and be "proper" for what he did - a Navy Cross that he finally received this past January. And I get "political" emails from him I cannot read past the first paragraph at most. Most of the guys I knew and wrote about these past 40 years were people I mostly didn't discuss contemporary politics with. Didn't stop me from respecting them. There was only one - Dick Best, the guy who won the Battle of Midway - with whom I shared totally copacetic politics.
is it possible that the WWII vets (because of their remarkable variety) would just be bound to have more liberal types because there were so many of them, and from such varied backgrounds?
obviously, since I phrased it that way, I think so.
Yes. liberals and conservatives, and rich kids as well as poor, volunteered or got drafted. That they all learned to deal with each other and work with each other regardless, was probably one reason thing felt so unified wen we were growing up.
David, last sentence; perfection. Borrowing
thank you, Dave. all yours.
I fear that several members of the current SCOTUS are ideologically in league with those who do not trust and who would destroy our institutions, especially those since the New Deal, even if it means sullying their own, and in the case of Thomas, with impunity. These are the anti-modernity folks who are increasingly radicalized by their shrinking numbers in the nation as a whole. Despite my fear, I'm holding to the last line in this excellent piece.
“The Roberts Court of Versailles “
Or, “All that glitters is not gold, and the illusion of largesse is simply that, an illusion”
“WAKE UP, ‘Murica”
✅✅✅kudos
Your piece and Michael Green's elaboration teaches me so much. In 1990s, I had started to pay attention to Southern culture and politics as The Americans With Disabilities Act had passed and many of us thought it to be the Civil Rights Act for people with disabilities. Many Southerners had voted for it and yet the treatment of "underserved people" in Southern states was pretty churlish and uneven to say the least. So, when Thomas was up for appointment to the SC, I had this uncomfortable and almost racist feeling about him. Was he a token appointment for Republicans? Would he serve the interests of "his people" or other oppressed people (e.g., people with disabilities)? Would he carve out a place in history of SC court rulings that made the conservative case for inclusion, civil rights, equality in access and quality of rehabilitation services and education? Over the period, he proved a disappointment, never or rarely asking questions of petitioners or offering insights for connecting the promises of equal rights and opportunity with the decisions brought to the Court. His was an unimpressive and unimportant record, until Scalia went and Trump got his three-stooges. Sorry, that is unkind. So, we have the House Slave, not the field-hand serving the man and protecting the status quo for the men to whom he is beholding for his advancement from the whip to the polished interior of the establishment that his color, though not character, deems him unworthy. He will pass his term in comfort, with all the favors granted him in exchange for his undying loyalty to Master.
as I recall, at the time, he was very much a token...didn't people talk about his filling "the Black Seat," as if he and Marshall (called, very plausibly, "the most consequential lawyer of the 20th century") were somehow interchangeable?
at the time, Marshall nailed it with his comment that a Black snake will kill you as dead as a white one. I'm paraphrasing...
“House Slave”. I couldn’t put my finger on him, but this makes perfect sense.
Yeah, "House Slave...maybe, but he is a very bitter and angry "House Slave". He has the most dis-satisfied, unhappy face of any man I have ever seen.
...regarding his usual facial expression: I remember when Danforth was speaking on his behalf and said that if anyone heard CT's fabulous laugh (so deep, so hearty, so real), they'd be in his corner. I hope someone else remembers this as well.
why did Danforth (a party guy if ever one was) have so much sway back then? he has a famous name. and so fucking what?
didn't he also give a leg up to Hawley, more recently saying it was a big mistake?
from my point of view, it's two too many. fuck him.
I somehow doubt very many people have heard CT's "so deep; so hearty; so real" laugh. He has the sort of sourpuss face that, on a woman, would be called a "resting b**ch face". Doubtless, CT only lets loose his genuine laugh when he is being gifted largesse from a far-right Republican donor.
Bravo Fred!
The single word on whatever memorial will exist for my life is clueless. How can voting majorities elect representatives who effectively seek to rule over women’s bodies, allow the murder of young children, enrich the all ready wealthy, attempt to codify a state religion, deny history, and generally deny civil rights to a diverse, divided majority?
…and my wife adds destroy the climate.
Fox propaganda, self-righteous, self-serving, lies that are never challenged. In fact, even the MSM follows their lead. Hard not to give up. If only our MSM had balls
They have accountants instead.
Ooo, good one.
All very interesting and relevant questions! Makes one wonder, doesnt it?
The face of Clarence Thomas like the decisions written by Alito, oozes with a sneering distain for the rabble they see as beneath them - us.
Throw them out already.
He does indeed Sneer, not even subtle
…and Mitch McConnell,
'Mitch McConnell's Court Deliver
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court.html
'How McConnell's Bid to Reshape the Federal Judiciary ...'
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-mcconnell-and-the-senate-helped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/
'Mitch McConnell greatly damaged US democracy with ...'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/15/us-supreme-court-mitch-mcconell-conservative-judges-democracy
'Mitch McConnell and the Federal Judiciary'
https://amarkfoundation.org/mitch-mcconnell-and-the-federal-judiciary/
'Mitch McConnell's legacy is a conservative Supreme Court ...'
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/03/mcconnell-on-verge-of-winning-long-term-battle-against-roe-00029752
'Mitch McConnell's legacy is a conservative Supreme Court ...'
https://theconversation.com/mitch-mcconnells-legacy-is-a-conservative-supreme-court-shaped-by-his-calculated-audacity-147062
'How Republicans Have Packed the Courts for Years'
https://time.com/6074707/republicans-courts-congress-mcconnell/
'McConnell closes in on Roe after years of pushing ...'
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/03/mcconnell-on-verge-of-winning-long-term-battle-against-roe-00029752
for me, the most infuriating thing about all these years of Mitch's duplicity, lying and downright wickedness (is he not the demon spawn of Deputy Dawg and Foghorn Leghorn?) is that he has never once convinced me (or anyone who's really WATCHING, as far as I'm concerned) that he is motivated by anything resembling an actual belief or conviction. not for a second.
I'm convinced that Mitch is convinced that he's much cleverer than any Democrat, and he's been proven correct. Are you not convinced of that David?
it's really hard for me to get there, Fern. what I would say instead is that he had a much more realistic sense of what it was possible to actually get away with (specifically his refusal to allow Garland to go through the confirmation process). I like to think that pretty much every Democrat who might have been in a position to do the same thing would not have dared to do so.
so in THAT very particular sense, I suppose he's cleverer than any Democrat. but it strikes me as the same kind of cleverness that allows people to know exactly when they can cross the street against the light and not get hit by a car. is that CLEVERNESS or something else?
I'm really asking because I think I've managed to confuse myself, which happens all too frequently.
but if your point is that he THINKS he's cleverer, he does indeed.
Face the facts, David; look what Mitch has accomplished.
May he burn in hell as soon as possible.
oh I'm certainly good with that. simple and direct.
The New Yorker did an insightful piece on McConnell’s early career and its motivation a while back
Yes...I remember reading it and thinking what a worthless, loathsome piece of human refuse Mitch is and always has been. It's easy to be a clever political strategist when he has have his turtley claws on every money string going into and out of the Senate. It's easy for him to keep his caucus together when he controls the money they need from the RNC for their campaigns... If it is cleverness to realize very early on that money holds the keys to the castle and cleverness to position yourself right in the middle that cash flow...then yes, Mitch is clever.
And yes, may he rot in hell until the flesh drops off his bones and may Satan torture each bone separately.
"And the event for which Joe Biden will never be able to apologize for sufficiently for his “go along to get along” beliefs that led him to alliances with people who wished him dead."
This is the Achilles heel of progressives, even mediocre ones like Joe "No Malarkey" Biden. Once someone shows you that they want to end you, a line has been crossed. Civility ain't required thereafter.
True of all Dems in my adulthood, still pissed at Ted Kennedy. Obama probably knew better but was hogtied
Jeri, I have to disagree with you about Obama. While I respect him in many ways
and voted for him twice, his basketball metaphors hurt
the "people", especially in
the 2008 meltdown. I don't
think he was hogtied at all.
I do think he thought he could
dribble the ball down the court and score a basket with
no penalties. He didn't pay
enough attention to his
other players and specifically
his guards. Look where the ACA is today?
Quid pro Crow. (Not mine. MSNBC banner last night)
TCinLA ..Ty for your in-depth writing
Supreme Court needs x to be expanded to fifteen justices and the filibuster gone…
We are kidding ourselves ..our democracy
Is decayed and don’t have much left to
Change the path and save our freedom
God Help the USA we Must Each do everything for our children and grandchildren Because it feels sickening
And I am someone who looks at the glass
Half full …This may be the BEST picture
Of the reality of what we’re facing EVER
Written by Anyone…it feels like disaster!
But I’ll keep doing what I’m capable of doing to help save our Freedom!🌹marsha
Hello, Marsha. Hugs every day. 🌼
Love and hugs you’re an Angel and your kindness is extraordinary truly
Touches me deeply 🌹marsha
🌻💗🌸
I retain an eidetic (even muscle) memory of watching those Thomas hearings from the tv room of the AIDS hospice I was working in at the time. a lot of patients were watching with me, and it was a very worldly, hip bunch of (mostly) guys. everybody knew that Anita Hill was telling the truth; even the guys whose dementia had deprived them of the ability to form sentences were hooting and hollering at CFT's pathetic "high-tech lynching" moment.
actually, did anyone REALLY believe him? I doubted it then and, well...he hasn't exactly given us much reason to think otherwise.
How I hope it can be done, sadly, my energy and resources are diminished this time around. I will recruit granddaughters as best I can. The reality of the situation is the result of 45 years of effort by Republican operatives intent on doing what chump came within a hair of doing. Now or never…
I consider myself a defensive subversive and will be ordering new and comfortable shoes to carry out what I can in 2024. But I know 45's administrative disasters plus his post-presidency have exhausted anyone who's been paying attention.
They certainly have!
...and we're nowhere near the end of having to clean this shit up.
Blockbuster analysis Tom. A Clarion call to action Eloquent, direct, understandable, relatable and most of all a balanced recitation of history and facts
Clearly to me, one of your finest “Messes”
Thanks!
Some folks will kick ass; others will try for the high ground. Either way, keep at it and vote!
The one thing that gives me hope for 2024 is the increasing backlash to abortion restrictions and the increasingly lax gun laws being enacted at the state level. I do think people are getting angry about both, and are prepared to do something about it. The Democrats need to run on both for Congressional and statewide races. The Presidential race in theory should take care of itself, given President Biden's list of accomplishments, but we must assume nothing.
I don't know how we hold the Senate, but we have to try. I wish we had a credible and dynamic candidate to run against Rick Scott in Florida, but I don't think we're going to get one. (I SOOO envy the largess of Democratic riches in California, where you have really good candidates ready to take over for DiFi.) Montana's state legislature is working on kneecapping John Tester's re-election campaign. I would consider it a miracle if we got the Senate to 50-50 with VP Harris as the tiebreaker.
one of your best, and as good as they've been, that's saying something. this time, you banked your rage a little to do the thorough narrative demanded, and it sure IS demanded.
people our age have the same SCOTUS problem: we came up during a unique historical period
of the Court and, therefore, came to regard it as a reliable court of last resort on matters relating to individual rights before the law, as in your listing of those important cases. and old habits die hard, especially habits of mind. SCOTUS has been a reactionary body that's tended to enforce the worst principles involved in our founding, not (as we'd come to believe) the best. in that big SCOTUS book he published a good while back, Jeffrey Toobin (no masturbation jokes allowed for the moment) defined what makes a particular Chief Justice's court a success or failure. whatever we may feel about its decisions, Rehnquist's court was considered very successful.
the Roberts Court is a failure, and Roberts knows it. it looks like the way he's accepting his fate in the history books is by smiling wanly and not giving a fuck. at least that's what he's done so far. I can't imagine he's going to surprise us.
our side was very effective in blocking that dangerous piece of shit Bork (survivor of Nixon's massacre), but the result of that success is that confirmations have become a complete joke. and that's not likely to change.
Thomas is a disgrace, but he's able to successfully hide behind the rules (that is to say, the LACK of rules). it DOES look like he's going to have to confront this real estate deal on some level, but I don't see him getting too much of a hard time...I think of your quote above about the few pursuing the interests of the few. that's a really good one I seem to have missed.
as I've said before, Randall Kennedy (who has himself been in some controversial racial hot seats) is very eloquent on the subject of CT, and I'll post a few links below.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/us/clarence-thomas-white-conservatives-blake/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5TQAUaI2fw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbpNZ1syaGA
it'd be good to note here that Kennedy, in the more recent YouTube interview listed first, contradicts the points he makes in the second, longer speech.
Excellent summary. ❤️🤍💙