The place looks awfully bohemian for a lawyerly event, but this is Madison, my friends:
It's very hard to get an unblurred shot of the place:
But in some ways a blur is appropriate -- symbolic, perhaps of the blurring of the line between law and policy, which I recommend sharpening ....
... and my opponent in the debate prefers to keep well blended. We must recognize that the Justices are "making public policy" for the country, he says, as I keep saying that progressives have a stake in preserving the rule of law and the legitimacy of the courts. They need an articulable legal theory that is as powerful as the conservative's originalism, I say. My opponent fairly seethes: "The concepts such as original intent of the framers are pernicious in my opinion." A member of the audience rejects my assertion that originalism is comprehensible to ordinary Americans and that liberals need a theory that is equally appealing in the political debate, where, now, their favorite judges are too easily painted as "activists" who are "legislating from the bench." Who believes the conservative's argument? -- he asks and says that everyone must know that what the courts do is politics by another name. I said, "If I had a videotape of you saying that and I put it up on my website, do you have any idea what the reaction would be?"
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
Madison has the same problem as it did in the sixties, when my pacifist conscientious objector uncle who did a tour in Nam as a MASH orderly described it thus:
Too many hippies, not enough bullets.
So, did he have any idea what the reaction would be? I suspect not. This is the tone-deafness that creates minority parties.
I have to admit, even as a life-long Republican, that I am very disturbed by the self-destructive, anti-democracy stance of the Democratic Party. A one-party state is a very bad idea, and some of the things being done by the GOP Congress are good proof of that. But a one party state seems to be the only option when the opposition party rejects democracy.
I think the response to the hypothetical video would be 'that's Madison for you' and not much else.
The value placed on obtaining a degree seems to be in total opposition to the values and ideas that come from the institutions that hand out those degrees (the degrees are still considered precious, the other stuff, dross).
Strange times.
The current slew of Slate articles on Higher Education seem to be dancing around this idea. They don't want to come out and say that the intellectual output of academia has little influence outside of academia, but the sum of their articles suggest just that.
Thanks for taking the argument out into "the field." I'm stuck here talking to senators, many of whom (unlike at least half of the lawyers in Madison) don't have law degrees. They think only in political terms. It's kind of depressing.
Then again, I get to go home for the weekend and they all have to keep bickering about the war.
Of course, Saul, the swing vote is all a matter of perspective. I would suggest that it is Justice Kennedy who is taking the swing seat now, and that leaves the Constitution in about the same level of mortal peril into which Justice O'Connor successfully placed it.
"So, did he have any idea what the reaction would be?"
I think he thought the reaction would be that right-wing idiots would denounce him as usual and, therefore, so what?
Saul: I don't think it's fair to just say that Federalist Society folk would be rude. People weren't rude to me. They listened. But afterwards, as I was standing up in front, waiting to get my coat, many people filed past me without stopping to say hello or thanks for coming or nice talk. It wasn't in-your-face rude, but I sensed the antagonism. Skilton (referred to as "my opponent" in the post) sounded angry and belligerent, even though he was speaking to a friendly audience. There is just a lot of insular stewing among liberals. It's not going to help get more politically popular. Oh, and by the way, the audience clapped after Skilton's initial presentation, but they did not clap after mine!
Saul, have you ever been to a Fed Society conference or debate? I'm guessing not. I've been to a number and the only person I remember getting jeered was a loco audience member self described as the founder of the fed society chapter of "the first internet law school" :)
Just like I'm sure you remember from your school days in Madison, it's lefties like yourself who tend to hiss and spit at those whose political expressions don't match up perfectly. Shouting down speakers and throwing pies...
Wow, Ann. You just pegged my Respect-O-Meter.
Saul: As for the clapping, I totally saw that a few people were about to clap and then no one was going to clap first and then the people who had their hands in the I'll-clap-if-anyone-else-claps position waited a little while and put their hands down. Believe me. I was in a position to see it. I wish I had that on videotape. By the way: do you think Skilton dropped enough names?
Saul: "for whatever reason there was some hesitation"
Well, it's pretty obvious to me what the hesitation was. I gave a good talk and deserved applause, but the individuals who were about to do the normal thing and applaud wanted to know that the group would approve of their applauding. Groups train each other. I saw it in action.
Saul: I don't think it's fair to just say that Federalist Society folk would be rude. People weren't rude to me. They listened. But afterwards, as I was standing up in front, waiting to get my coat, many people filed past me without stopping to say hello or thanks for coming or nice talk. It wasn't in-your-face rude, but I sensed the antagonism. Skilton (referred to as "my opponent" in the post) sounded angry and belligerent, even though he was speaking to a friendly audience. There is just a lot of insular stewing among liberals. It's not going to help get more politically popular. Oh, and by the way, the audience clapped after Skilton's initial presentation, but they did not clap after mine!
Ann,
I've read many posts of yours these past 5 months on your blog, but few remarks of yours have affected me as much as this paragraph reply above.
If just ONE, just one blog-reader of yours here had been there with you, we would've clapped after your presentation like nobody's business.
I feel for you in Madison, man. Give 'em hell, Harry!
Cheers,
Victoria
I have to admit, even as a life-long Republican, that I am very disturbed by the self-destructive, anti-democracy stance of the Democratic Party. A one-party state is a very bad idea, and some of the things being done by the GOP Congress are good proof of that. But a one party state seems to be the only option when the opposition party rejects democracy.
Hear hear!
I recently wrote a post where I mentioned this very point:
That any democracy, for it to be healthy, i.e., for it not to have an one-party/ideology system, it MUST have a pendulum effect between at least two political Parties.
I am also a lifelong Conservative, but having the other side win for a change, keeps us all honest.
But that cannot happen, if that Party is so wrapped-up in its own uncontrolled rage towards the other side.
You'd think after 1972, after 1980, after 2000, after 2004, they'd learn their lessons, but no.
Still the other side doesn't get evolve -- you have to offer more than condenscenscion, and bitterness about your opposition. You have to offer positive IDEAS.
Progressives being so tetchy and hostile, as evidenced by Ann's post, just isn't good for America...
Cheers,
Victoria
TDdonovan: "fundamentally non-partisan, apolitical, even (dare I say) anti-political"
Thanks for that. That's a quote I'd consider putting in the banner. It's true. A lot of the time I was trying to explain the political problem that liberals have with being political about the courts. But they seem to prefer to have the problem. Ah, well, don't we all love our problems? They wouldn't be problems if we didn't love them!
"is just a lot of insular stewing among liberals."
Of course, "insular stewing" is not only a habit of liberals
Saul: He sounded angry to me. I would have like to see him focus on Alito, rather than rail about Richard Posner, Ed Meese, and the Dred Scott decision. His idea of what makes a good judge is someone who thinks about the facts and the "equities." Basically, he makes the argument for outcomes and having your heart in the right place. I think this is bad as a matter of law and a loser as a matter of politics. He didn't put kid gloves on to say these things, and there is no reason why I shouldn't state my opposition straightforwardly. The demand that I pull my punches to show respect for him as a respected eminence reminds me of the way he used arguments about personalitiies. Argue substance. Period. Everything else is drivel.
By the way, Saul, you said John was name-dropping too! Do you owe him an apology too?
"I don't think John was dropping names for the sake of dropping names. John does know everyone, and in the times I have spoken with him, I never have gotten that impression (especially since I have the habit of being a name dropper (got it from my mom))."
That's a quote from you! I certainly agree that he was using name-dropping as argument and not merely to express pride that he had been in the presence of various people. But I am rejecting that sort of argument. The fact that Judge Fairchild thinks such and such? Or that Meese said something once? You think that is persuasive?
Surprise, Surprise, Ann is fundamentally dishonest in her description of events. Her worst trait is that she pretends to be an independent thinker. Her second worst trait is that she thinks that people who don't know her shouldn't be mean to her even though her arguments are often flawed. We only know your writing and not the real you, Ann. The Ann that writes this blog is not worth knowing.
Saul, my argument is what it has always been: argue substance. I suppose stories about people are "easy to follow." So are children's books. What is your point?
We only know your writing and not the real you, Ann. The Ann that writes this blog is not worth knowing.
As much as this comment deserves to be rightfully ignored, I'll bite.
People who write blogs are doing so from the same remove and possibly with the same persona that you are writing your put-downs in blog commentary sections.
What's to say you, Elliot, in real life, are not a mousey little man, scared of your own shadow, who wouldn't stroll up to Ann Althouse and say what you just did to her in person?
Yeah, you're a big man now, in the safety of that monitor, arentcha, you whiney little salad-tosser.
Ouch, salad-tosser.
Can't say I've heard that one before.
You forgot to mention that elliott is one of those profile not found fellers.
(can't even take the time to tell us his favorite films, books, or link to his website)
and does anyone else not like being the last poster on a thread?
(hmmmmm, to respond you'd have to help me out by posting after me, but by not responding you'd leave me in this state of discomfort. Which will win out, sympathy or sadism?(albeit very, very, very, very, very, very mild sadism))
oh, and Victoria, you forgot to say
Cheers!
(to think at one time I owned an autographed 12" of Banarama's Cheers Then)
Sorry you had trouble hearing, Saul. I was on a microphone, so projecting my voice (as I do in the unmiked classrooms) would have been incorrect. If the technical people had the volume too low, that's a point against Café Monmartre. No one indicated they had trouble hearing, so, speaking into a mike, I had to assume the volume was set properly. That's how to use a mike!
I'm not sure what the point of your long comment is, really. Obviously, I've already said that I disagree with Skilton's conception of judging and I prefer to talk about substance. If you prefer to hear stories, avoid my talks.
Ms. Althouse,
As a cheesehead stuck in Virginia (via Illinois, don't ask), I gotta say, i like your site, and feel for you being in Madison.
I think what Saul was trying to say (in a bloviated way) is that judges from the right are dangerous, and might overturn current case law, and that he misunderstands original intent.
If Saul wants to visit my site he can find both the federalist and anti-federalist papers, and understand the constitution.
Contrary to the left's belief, there is plenty of written evidence from the framers of what they wanted the Constitution to mean.
Thanks, Crazy. Yes, the conservative judicial theory is threatening because it takes a position and commits to rules. O'Connor left things fluid, and when she is replaced by a real conservative, we should expect a dramatic power shift. I do understand what Saul and Skilton are exercised about.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा