And here's Gail Collins — we remember her embarrassing column last week — with a new column "The Unsinkable R.B.G./Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has No Interest in Retiring."
From the beginning, Ginsburg waved off the whole idea. (“And who do you think Obama could have nominated and got confirmed that you’d rather see on a court?”) Anyway, since Republicans took control of the Senate in January, it’s become pretty clear that ship has sailed.On the subject of the aging and sleeping of Supreme Court Justices, a reader sent me 2 quotes from the book "Yankee from Olympus: Justice Holmes and His Family":
“People aren’t saying it as much now,” she said with what sounded like some satisfaction.
Coming back to Court after fourteen years, [Chief Justice Charles Evans] Hughes watched Justice Holmes a trifle apprehensively. Was a man of eighty-nine capable of a full day's work in this most exacting job? Lately, Holmes's legs had become very weak. On that first day, Hughes noted how Brandeis helped him to his seat.But 2 years later:
The first lawyer stood up. Holmes took out his notebook, unlocked it, slipped the key in his pocket and began to write. His Chief Justice smiled; he had forgotten this old trick of Holmes's. At the lunch hour he asked to see the notebook.... Holmes had not missed a detail. It was a perfect synopsis.
But after lunch when the Justices were in their places and the lawyer had talked for ten minutes, Holmes put his fingers to his forehead and went off to sleep. Hughes reached out cautiously, poked him in the leg. Holmes sat up. "Jesus Christ!" he said loudly, and the Courtroom stirred. Later that afternoon, [Justice James Clark] McReynolds interrupted a lawyer who was young and obviously inexperienced. Holmes took his hand from his forehead and leaned forward. "I wouldn't answer that question if I were you," he said clearly to the young man, and went back to sleep.
On the morning of January 11, 1932, Holmes had a majority opinion to deliver.... When his time came, Holmes leaned forward, picked up the papers in Durm v. the United States. Spectators noticed how well he looked; the cheeks were pink against the white hair and mustache. But when he began to read, Holmes's voice faltered, thickened. He shook his head impatiently and went on. But what he said was barely audible beyond the front row of benches.
At the noon recess, Holmes left the Courtroom with the other Justices, ate his box lunch and returned to the Bench. When Court rose at four-thirty, he got his hat and coat, walked over to the Clerk's desk. "I won't be down tomorrow," he said.
That night, Holmes wrote his resignation to the President: "The time has come and I bow to the inevitable. I have nothing but kindness to remember from you and from my brethren. My last word should be one of grateful thanks."
Posts
32 comments:
What a noble creature, this Gail Collins.
Althouse has finally found a worthy opponent in Gail Collins.
I figured that would be selling herself short, but clearly Althouse finds Collins arguments so important that she needs to blog about them regularly.
I will posit that your mentioning it here and then Gail Collins writing about could be a coincidence. Otherwise one might conclude that Ms. Collins cannot find an original idea to solemnly columnize.
@MadisonMan Whether she got it from me or not — and saying she did is, of course, a literary trope — she's doing what I observed was predictable, which is my real point. It's a big cliché, the whole thing, including the utterly dorky cliché "that ship has sailed."
Really, this is what the NYT gives us in columnists? I subscribe, so I can blog, and I get some value out of quoting this stuff and critiquing it. But everyone needs to see how bad this material is.
The word is predictable.
transparent is a close second.
It looked like a wet sloppy kiss to me but I couldn't finish the column.
Thurgood Marshall set a standard for senility that will never be passed.
Althouse said: " But everyone needs to see how bad this material is.
In fairness: Agenda driven disregard for the truth makes it much harder for a mediocre author to write a coherent and insightful column.
But everyone needs to see how bad this material is
Yes indeed.
But what can the Times do? It's not like there are people (1) with original thoughts who (2) can write well and (3) want to write for the Times and (4) subscribe to the same worldview as the Editors.
Anyway, she's on the Pulitzer Board! Common knowledge therefore is that she is excellent!!
Perhaps Collins will columnize about Ta-Nehisi Coates' column about how great David Carr was, Ezra Klein jumping-in by paying someone to make an X, Y axis demonstrating Carrian greatness and its relation to democratic participation rates in Zambia, Antartica, and Alabama.
While over at Salon: 'Christian Right Wishes David Carr Dead While Flogging Homeless Lookalike For Pleasure & Profit'
In th meantime, did you hear about what to think about that new Obama speech?
Beyonce was there.
'Antarctica'. Clearly an autocorrect problem.
Never trust a woman who has not, at least once, had sex standing up, wearing only high heels.
You can see how this applies to the subject at hand.
The color of heels does not matter, but black is a traditional choice.
I am Laslo.
While over at Salon: 'Christian Right Wishes David Carr Dead While Flogging Homeless Lookalike For Pleasure & Profit'
I would read that.
"Never trust a woman who has not, at least once, had sex standing up, wearing only high heels."
The 'having sex' part is integral to this. Strippers often wear only high heels, but aren't necessarily having sex. Otherwise we would have to say all strippers are trustworthy, which is probably not the case.
Common sense is to only trust a stripper a dollar-bill at a time.
I am Laslo.
If you look at the left and the right as groups, there are plenty of dumb people on both sides, pretty much any accusation you want to hurl at your opponent, the internet will provide an example to back you up. (Andrew Sullivan thrived on this fact, and good riddance to him.)
But if you limit yourself to the thoughtful, careful thinkers who speak well and make their points with some grace, you are not only looking at a much smaller group of people, you are looking at a much more conservative group of people.
And when you talk about the wheezy milquetoast kind of columnist attractive to the affluent white liberal that makes up the bulk of the Times' reader base, well, sad to say, but that cupboard is bare. Gail Collins is as good as it gets (though none of this explains the column inches handed over to a vile troll like the aptly named Charles Blow).
Even though they may not be intrinsically trustworthy, strippers have a First Amendment Right to do what they do. You can also probably work the Second Amendment in there, too.
I am Laslo.
Strippers, wearing only high heels, at the shooting range and engaging in target practice. That is worthy of the American Dream, right there.
I bet Ginsburg would state that this is Constitutionally protected.
I am Laslo.
"But everyone needs to see how bad this material is."
Not really. Never bothered much with the NYT op eds even in the years when I was a regular reader; haven't been a regular reader of the NYT in 15 years. Better to leave such drudgery to those willing to shoulder the task.
Althouse wrote: Really, this is what the NYT gives us in columnists? I subscribe, so I can blog, and I get some value out of quoting this stuff and critiquing it. But everyone needs to see how bad this material is.
Thanks for subscribing and doing the dirty work. Maybe the NYT should let you do a guest Op-Ed
Richard Dolan added: Not really. Never bothered much with the NYT op eds even in the years when I was a regular reader; haven't been a regular reader of the NYT in 15 years. Better to leave such drudgery to those willing to shoulder the task.
I gave up my subscription too around the same time. Three questions: (1) what happened around that time to alienate so many former subscribers; (2) Why does the NYT continue to alienate subscribers? (3) Who benefits from that business model?
"But if you limit yourself to the thoughtful, careful thinkers who speak well and make their points with some grace, you are not only looking at a much smaller group of people, you are looking at a much more conservative group of people."
We conservatives are inundated with liberal crap thanks to the whole liberal culture, its the liberals who live in the liberal bubble who are not getting the other point of view.
Thread to Bobber Fleck.
This business of trying to pressure Justice Ginsburg into retirement reminds me of Justice Stephen Field's central role in persuading an ailing Justice Robert Grier to leave the Court in 1869.
Some years later, when Field himself became incapacitated, a fellow justice sought to nudge him into retirement by reminding him of his role in Grier's departure from the Court.
"Yes," retorted Field, "and a dirtier day's work I never did in my life."
Should judges be appointed for life?
Ginsburg needs to resign. She is too Judgemental.
There's a nice story that I once heard about William H. Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of fond memory. In his later years, he was reminded by a clerk that in earlier years, when the clerk had served, Rehnquist had said something about justices being well-advised to retire younger rather than older, to which the Chief replied "it turns out that things look rather different from up here," or words to that effect. There's something to that. These people aren't pro ball players; if you're still capable of doing to work, why retire? Our Hero was asked about retirement a few years ago, and his response, too, was on the money: "I can't imagine what I would do for an encore," or words to that effect. It's terribly difficult to think up a reason why Justice Ginsburg ought to resign that doesn't boil down to a thinly-veiled reason why she shouldn't have been appointed in the first place.
Laslo Spatula said...
"Never trust a woman who has not, at least once, had sex standing up, wearing only high heels."
For all we know, Justice Ginsburg has indeed done so at least once.
Simon retorted: For all we know, Justice Ginsburg has indeed done so at least once.
The heels part is quite plausible indeed.
Bricap said...
"Should judges be appointed for life?"
Well, they should be appointed. We should probably start there, because that's not an uncontroversial point; judges are elected in many states, and the battle has not yet been entirely won against those who think that they ought to be elected in the rest. And being appointed, for how long should their term last? If the answer is to be anything short of life, we should first consider whether that term is to be renewable, because if that is the answer, she is little better than an elected judge, for she then has a constituency to please. But then, if the term is not for life and is not renewable, does the judge not then have to fear her post-judicial careeer? Does she not then, also, have a constituency to please?
Perhaps the solution is simply to say that judges are merely breveted to the Supreme Court, for a single term of, say, ten years, whereafter they revert to being federal appellate judges. That is, no one gets appointed to the Supreme Court, per se, you get appointed to the federal appellate bench, and then the President nominates you to do a tour on the Supreme Court before reverting to the lower court. Or you could approach it in a manner similar to the selection of chief judges--you say that there are nine justices, each serves for X years, and upon vacating the bench, the most senior active judge on the circuit that has gone longest without sending a justice to the Supreme Court becomes the next justice.
Underlying all this, the problem in view is simple: How do you ensure an impartial court? Life appointment is the traditional approach, and there is much to say for it. By contrast, all the various novelties are beset by obvious difficulties and uncertainties. I tend to think we are well-served to stick with what we know.
Thread to Bobber Fleck.
Wrong.
Lazlo owns this thread.
Lazlo > all others
R.B.G.?
To the unborn, she is known as D.V.G.. That would be Darth Vader Ginsberg.
RBG is as big a political hack as Gail Collins, though probably not as intelligent.
She's the biggest hack on the Court since Taney.
Some people should not drink because they lose the ability to accurately judge their limits a drink or two too late.
Some judges.....
RBG is as big a political hack as Gail Collins, though probably not as intelligent.
She's the biggest hack on the Court since Taney.
Sotomayor and Kagan would disagree.
They are pretty damned hacky.
damikesc said...
"Sotomayor and Kagan would disagree."
Sotomayor? Sure. No argument here. I don't think that's a fair assessment of Justice Kagan though, and even if it is, she is a sufficiently talented writer to make up for it.
Post a Comment