Sure, the court isn’t supposed to be beholden to public opinion, but...But what?!!!
... Americans’ faith in their institutions and feeling that their voices are heard might be strained even further by what seem to be lurches backward by a court forged in the hottest flares of partisan passion.Reread that. I love the way the word "strained" appears in the most strained sentence I've read all year. I mean really read. Mostly when I encounter strained prose, I'm disgusted and find something else to consume.
But I get sucked into this crazy sentence. It's full of colorful words but mind-bending if you try to picture what's going on. Let's see. Faith and feeling... might be strained... by lurches backward. Lurches backward might strain faith and feeling. And then there's a forge... so the Court is likened to metalwork of some kind.... yet it's capable of lurching. Backwards! Seemingly....
Bruni goes on to list questions of law that the new Court "could well" revisit — abortion, gay rights, voting rights, affirmative action. He presents this as a problem because the President who appointed the new justices doesn't have "deep-seated convictions" — or "a genuinely felt vision" — like some idealized liberal President who aspires to use the Supreme Court to achieve advances that are traditionally the work of legislatures. Bruni characterizes Trump as "the most brazen of opportunists" because he'd pick a nominee that would win him favor from voters.
That is, Bruni first complained that the Court won't be "representative" of Americans, then complained that Trump would not advance his personal political preferences but would think about what voters want. I suspect that Bruni's real point is that the Court ought to be political and liberal.
This picture of Hell is a detail from a fresco in a church in Bulgaria — found at the Wikipedia article "Hell." I chose it because of Bruni's "Hell" metaphor and his phrase "forged in the hottest flares of partisan passion" and because of the scales of justice in the upper left-hand corner.
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
Franks kind of a dipshit isn't he.
He's a restaurant critic, not a deep thinker...
How do you parse almost every phrase in that sentence but omit "partisan psssion?"
— because the Court "won’t represent what most Americans believe."
it Won't? are you sure? As Al Smith would say; Let's take a look, at the record
Americans' assessment of their political ideology was unchanged in 2018 compared with the year prior when 35% on average described themselves as conservative, 35% as moderate and 26% as liberal.
Gallup Poll finds that although the plurality of Americans consider the ideological orientation of the Supreme Court to be "about right," nearly one-third of Americans -- the highest level in more than a decade -- call it "too conservative.
Maybe, Just Maybe; it's New York Times, that "won't represent what most Americans believe"
Does adhering to the Constitution really frighten them so much? It’s not like Trump is promising to destroy anything or change precedent. That’s the other side saying those things. I’m slightly surprised Bruni allowed his panties to get so twisted over a nominee yet to be named. Keep some of your powder dry Boy.
The "living Constitution", forged in the hottest flares of partisan passion.
“What the people want” might not be Constitutional.
We have ways of dealing with that.
But like Reid’s removal of the filibuster, it should make us wary of charging forward.
Word salad from the food critic!
Imagine having to try and impose a veneer of logicsimilitude on the crap you have to write every day to keep your cushy job with all of its great perks.
Of course the famous New Yorker cover "View From 9th Avenue” comes to mind.
Dred Scott decision was unfortunately representative of public opinion in its time.
And Roe v. Wade has never been.
Neither followed the Constitution. Which is what the Court is supposed to be guided by. That is sort of the whole point of having a constitution.
For most of my adult life, the court has been pretty well balanced with 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and a swing vote. It kept decisions in the middle, prevented anything too extreme from happening, and polls showed the American public liked it that way.
I disagreed with the Senate's approach to the Garland nomination but didn't fuss too much because Obama was trying to throw off the balance of the court by replacing a conservative with a liberal. Now, though, We're going to see the same thing happen the other way--a liberal replaced by a conservative.
Conservatives will be fine with that, but having the court move too far to the right will contribute to further undermining the court's reputation with the public.
Democraticals only want power.
Everything else - all other considerations - are tertiary.
They skip right over secondary because power occupies both top positions.
The play for power is not preferred by the American people.
It is rejected.
Therefore, Democraicals lie about their positions.
When those lies are discovered, new lies are generated.
And the activist press covers for the Democraticals.
That is why attacking education is so important to the Leftist Collectivists.
They must weaken enemy defenses in order to assume power if they cannot steal power.
The Court was the best way to steal that power.
Now that Avenue may be foreclosed.
The Leftist Collectivists can always start another Civil War.
They are 0-1 so far.
Will they go 0-2?
I suspect that Bruni's real point is that the Court ought to be political and liberal.
Bingo!
Frank Bruni is an ass. Don't care what he thinks....
I suspect that Bruni's real point is that the Court ought to be political and liberal.
Tsk, tsk. "Liberal" is so 1990s.
He wants the court to be absolutely, positively, immutably progressive.
Deplorables only lurch backward. Liberals always stride forward. That's why the mostly peaceful riots have been a glorious example of American progress.
Bruni believes that liberal and progressives are the majority That is because lives in a liberal fishbowl
Lefties love the whole 'forward' versus 'backward' framing device. It spares them from the chore of discussing right versus wrong.
The New York Times devotes a lot of space to columnists, such as Bruni, who have been writing drivel for many years.
These regular columnists' articles are not edited or even proofread. Bruni can spout whatever nonsense comes into his mind, and he gets big paychecks for doing so.
A woman named Amy with 7 kids frightens Frank so much she causes him to write silly words. I think mothers should have a voice on the Supreme Court. Neither Elena Kagan nor the wide Latina have kids. Not so hellish to include moms.
The NY Times is awash in light-think. Heavily degreed people who are probably very smart, but have been so miseducated that they sound stupid. Bruni is a fire-breather for the left. That's what he does. You don't go to Bruni for interesting thoughts. You go there to find someone saying what you like, or you go there to abuse yourself. But it's not a source for clarifying, well thought-out ideas. It's an opinion. And a bad one at that.
Give a listen to the Joe Rogan podcast with Douglas Murray from 9/17. Among other things, he mentions the NY Times staff awash in groupthink. But listen to Douglas Murray. Then go back and try to read Bruni.
Yikes.
Tim-
If the Constution is conservative shouldn’t the court be?
Who is pro first amendment ( an election culture)?
Who is pro Second Amendment?
Who is for due process?
Who is for the electoral college?
Who opposed the ACA individual mandate?
What did Americans believe about integrated schools in 1954? And about abortion in 1973? And gay marriage in 2015?
but having the court move too far to the right will contribute to further undermining the court's reputation with the public
I bet they won't be too much more concerned and if they are I'm okay with that, given the alternative.
Get it out of your system, Mr. Bruni, puke it up!
might be strained
Keyword: might. Replace it by "might not" and the meaning is the same.
Rusty is correct re Bruni. But I'd remove the "kind of" from Rusty's characterization. Bruni might be right about about "most" New Yorkers want; but once you move 100 miles west of the Hudson, needs and wants of the people start to change. And they stay that way until you get 150 miles west of Las Vegas. Sorry Frank, but as Walter Cronkite used to say, "And that's the way it is". not that Walter really knew.
Well it does seem the court is becoming a right wing activist court and one even Justice Roberts is concerned about.
Oh really? Yeah, tell that to the Californians who overwhelmingly supported Prop 9 only to have a court overturn what the majority wanted. Lol gf.
Bruni is a frightened, ineffectual little butterfly.
Bruni is a honk on Bobo kinda girl.
"Maybe, Just Maybe; it's New York Times, that "won't represent what most Americans believe""
Perhaps they are concerned that the non-ideologue Donald Trump will do something that is popular with ordinary Americans.
We'd go back to state legislatures deciding things. The horror.
Wake me when it's over.
My mother's "Oh hellfire and damnation!" was a more honest and pithy epithet when she encountered something she really didn't like.
gourmand of garbage
purveyor of foppery
bruni is looney
MartyH said...Tim-If the Constution is conservative shouldn’t the court be?
The court is never out of step with public opinion for long. So if you want the court to support your issues, you need to pay attention to public opinion.
Megan McArdle has a piece behind the WaPo paywall which looks like it could be interesting. The gist seems to be that both parties wish to turn the Supreme Court into a partisan super-legislature.
Chief Justice Roberts is very concerned that he will no longer be in the Kennedy swing vote role that he took over. No glory for being one vote on the losing side. He is a nasty little opportunist.
At the risk of bringing religion and representation into the mix, is Frank suggesting that the US isn’t actually 66% Catholic and 33% Jewish?
"Conservatives will be fine with that, but having the court move too far to the right will contribute to further undermining the court's reputation with the public."
Not if the Court bases its decisions on the text and intent of the Constitution and doesn't legislate, like it has too often in the past.
If most Americans actually believe in statism and not liberty, I say to Hell with 'em.
If most Americans actually believe in statism and not liberty, I say to Hell with 'em.
"Well it does seem the court is becoming a right wing activist court and one even Justice Roberts is concerned about."
O horrors! Do you mean the Court could actually move in an anti-statist direction? The humanity!
"My mother's "Oh hellfire and damnation!" was a more honest and pithy epithet when she encountered something she really didn't like."
My mother preferred "Bugger me with a post-hole digger!" Good ol' Mom!
"...Americans’...feeling that their voices are heard might be strained even further..."
The feeling their voices are heard is strained? Bruni knows this how? Maybe someone hears a voice but doesn't agree with what it expresses. Ergo "that voice is not heard". Oh, well...Free speech is easy. Convincing is hard.
And "strained even further" yet. Bad enough now, just wait till a new justice writes an opinion Bruni doesn't like.
"...by what seem to be lurches backward by a court..." Backward from what to what? And "lurches"? Might actually be a nice, smooth ride.
"I suspect that Bruni's real point is that the Court ought to be political and liberal." Oh, you suspect that, huh? Evidence (LOL)?
@Birkel 7:09
What you said.
A basic reading of the constitution would reveal that it's pretty much a laying out of the (now) conservative principal of 'we are citizens, don't fuck with us unless you have a very good reason.'
Liberals have tried to turn that into, 'the government can do whatever it wants and you (the citizen) must fight us to be able to live your life as you see fit.'
I know which philosophy I'd prefer...
I certainly don't trust Bruni.
Bruni is just another liberal talking head who knows that there is nothing likely to stop Trump from making this appointment.
And he's right about that.
This is just his desperate and pathetic attempt to try anyway.
Like everything else we'll be hearing about from now until Barrett sits in the SC.
Blogger tim in vermont said... Imagine having to try and impose a veneer of logicsimilitude on the crap you have to write every day to keep your cushy job with all of its great perks.
Exactly. It's not Bruni's fault, it's the system, man.
I imagine a lot of decisions like this:
Court: Leave free citizens alone and stop imposing your will over their God-given rights, as recognized in the Constitution.
NYT: How dare this hyper-partisan Court restrict our Will to Power.
Citizens on the conservative side: We wish to be left alone and in peace.
BLM/(pro-communism)Antifa: You will be made to care.
Free citizens: Go away or be run off.
NYT: Who are these cretins who demand freedom?
- Bruni characterizes Trump as "the most brazen of opportunists" because he'd pick a nominee that would win him favor from voters. -
Irrelevant. If Trump rights the Court, he'll have fulfilled a purpose far beyond four more years.
the Court "won’t represent what most Americans believe."
Bruni seems to be having his Pauline Kael moment, thinking that his pals in the NYT newsroom and the Upper West Side are representative of "what most Americans believe."
As to the court "moving too far to the right," AYFKM? This is a court that in the last 10 years has declared gay marriage a right enshrined in the Constitution, and found the Obamacare mandate Constitutional by declaring it to be a tax. As of now there are only two reliable conservative votes, with Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts taking turns giving the liberals (who vote in lockstep) a majority. Replacing RBG with a conservative will move the court a little closer to balance, but two of those three can still join the liberals, and they will on specific decisions.
So Bruni's text is
"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
That seems to be so much of anything from the left these days. so shrill and empty.
I'm still trying to find words in the Constitution that forbid making human abortions illegal. I guess founding father penumbra get in the way.
After this appointment there is a clear majority of votes that would overturn Windsor, Obergefell and Lawrence. People might think Windsor and Obergefell are fair game, but all the "leave us alone" conservatives on here, if Lawrence is overturned, in 12 states the police will have a right to break down the door and arrest consenting adults having sex. "Oh but it won't happen" is a lousy argument these days when so many things have happened that "won't happen". John Yoo wrote an NRO piece the other day about "revisiting" moral questions by the court so they can be decided locally.
roesch/voltaire said...
Well it does seem the court is becoming a right wing activist court and one even Justice Roberts is concerned about.
9/23/20, 7:44 AM
Sad! Will he commit honorable seppuku or merely retire to spend more time with his illicit family? Well...bye.
But I thought he said there were no Clinton judges or Bush judges or Obama judges. And yet, is it that there are now, Trump judges?
Bojemoi, is there anything that man can't do?!
RGB was a Magic 8-Ball where all the die faces said "Decide Left." Her nickname was Foregone Conclusion.
Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
"Well it does seem the court is becoming a right wing activist court and one even Justice Roberts is concerned about."
Since when has the constitution been right wing?
If the court was supposed to represent public opinion, and what people 'believe', we would change it every 4 years.
The court is not making policy.
The only problem I have with this post is you covered all the bases, leaving nothing meaningful to be said. :-)
roesch/voltaire said...
Well it does seem the court is becoming a right wing activist court and one even Justice Roberts is concerned about.
With the departure of Kennedy, CJ Roberts became "the decider", the person who got to decide when the Left would win illegitimately. With one more actually honest member, Roberts loses that power
Of COURSE he's upset / "concerned". He's power-hungry crap-weasel of an individual, who's faced with losing most of his power
tim maguire said...
I disagreed with the Senate's approach to the Garland nomination but didn't fuss too much because Obama was trying to throw off the balance of the court by replacing a conservative with a liberal. Now, though, We're going to see the same thing happen the other way--a liberal replaced by a conservative.
Conservatives will be fine with that, but having the court move too far to the right will contribute to further undermining the court's reputation with the public.
IOW, Leftists will be very upset that they no longer get 5 black robed thugs to force their politics on America. They're going to actually have to go to the American people, make a case, and win elections based on their deranged beliefs.
I can see why that bothers you, Tim.
What I don't see is why I should care about the desires of anyone who IS bothered by having a legitimate Court that rules based on the written US Constitution and written laws, and requires political change to come via politics
While you're focusing on Bruni's weird prose, did you look closely at the image of Hell you used to illustrate one of your points? The population inhabiting the infernal realm are distressingly monochromatic, and unfortunately not of the while male demographic one is permitted to demonize these days. Do you have any idea how many folks in Web-ville you've triggered by reproducing such a painting? It's even worse than using a Mandarin word that sounds something like the most forbidden word of all time (at least forbidden for someone of your demographic).
If you weren't damned to Google-Hell before this, you're certainly headed for the innermost circle now.
Just saying. Have a good day.
tcrosse said...
Megan McArdle has a piece behind the WaPo paywall which looks like it could be interesting. The gist seems to be that both parties wish to turn the Supreme Court into a partisan super-legislature.
Ah, the last refuge of the idiot NeverTrumper: "Both sidesism", based on nothing but Projection.
The Right wasn't the US Supreme Court to be a Court, bound by the written US Constitution and the written laws (in that order).
You want same sex marriage in your State? Wonderful! Engage in the political process in your State to get that passed, Can't succeed that way? Then you lose.
Want legal abortion in your State? Ditto. "Repealing Roe" does not mean "US SC should discover a Constitutional right to life and force every State to outlaw abortion", which is what "SC act like a partisan super-legislature" would look like.
You want "gun control" laws? Well, the US Constitution says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So you're welcome to try to get a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the 2nd, but until then you're out of luck.
"Both sidesism", the clear sign of the inferior mind
Paulio said...
After this appointment there is a clear majority of votes that would overturn Windsor, Obergefell and Lawrence. People might think Windsor and Obergefell are fair game, but all the "leave us alone" conservatives on here, if Lawrence is overturned, in 12 states the police will have a right to break down the door and arrest consenting adults having sex.
So what? If you don't like the laws of your State, move to a different State.
We've already agreed the US Constitution does not actually support what was imposed by Windsor, Obergefell and Lawrence. What that means is that is you like what those decisions imposed, you are free to go to the political arena and try to get them.
And if you can't, then you deserved to lose
What he really means is the SC will ditch the concept of the "Living Constitution" and return to the original meaning of the document. I remember being taught about the "Living Constitution" during social studies class when I was in junior high school (John Marshall, Pasadena Ca., circa 1970).
It was the LC that got us Roe v. Wade decision. Brown v Board of Education was decided on the original text, no LC required. RvW requires penumbras to justify itself, while Brown requires just 2 words: Equal Protection.
Mr. Bruni is just another 'political shill' pushing a narrative which makes no sense other than on "Twitter". Hey Mr. Bruni, I thought Congress and the President are supposed to
"...represent public opinion..." and SCOTUS intrepid laws which sometimes needs to go against "public opinion"? Sometimes we get some real zingers like -'Dredd Scott'.
Greg the Class traitor said:
Want legal abortion in your State? Ditto. "Repealing Roe" does not mean "US SC should discover a Constitutional right to life and force every State to outlaw abortion", which is what "SC act like a partisan super-legislature" would look like.
You want "gun control" laws? Well, the US Constitution says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So you're welcome to try to get a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the 2nd, but until then you're out of luck.
Isn't funny that the Libs think the explicitly-stated rights of the 2A require controls but the penumbra rights of abortion are absolute and cannot have any controls?
Greg the class traitor said:
So what? If you don't like the laws of your State, move to a different State.
We've already agreed the US Constitution does not actually support what was imposed by Windsor, Obergefell and Lawrence. What that means is that is you like what those decisions imposed, you are free to go to the political arena and try to get them.
And if you can't, then you deserved to lose
This is great because it illustrates the differences between the two kinds of conservatives on this board. The first says that they just want the government to leave them alone. Greg is arguing he's fine with the government doing whatever it wants to citizens, as long as a majority of citizens were able to utilize the political system to achieve it.
Somehow I expect Greg to be cranky though if the Democrats sweep in November and legally introduce two new states and four new justices. If that happens I guess you just deserved to lose Greg?
Well it does seem the court is becoming a right wing activist court
Yep, we're obviously just one Justice away from the Supreme Court requiring every state ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and impose the death penalty for rape!
Seriously, there are exactly zero right-wing activists on the Court or proposed for the court in the sense that Ginsberg was a left-wing activist. Y'all are simply afraid that the illegal usurpation of power by left-wing activists to impose their policy preferences might be reversed.
This is why the "pack the Court" strategy from the left (see, for example, Paulio's post) is so blatantly stupid. The effect of packing the Court will be to delegitimize it, and Andrew Jackson already demonstrated exactly how effective a Supreme Court decision is if it's seen as illegitimate. The effect of packing the Court will be a lot of liberal Supreme Court decisions that are ignored by the states, which will have the exact same effect as overturning them would have.
And this is, in fact, exactly what McArdle's analysis got wrong. Given the judicial goals of conservatives, they don't have to have control of the Court. Whether Griswold/Roe/Lawrence/Obergefell and the last fifty years of death penalty decisions are reversed by a conservative majority or rendered a nullity by delegitimization of the court, the same end is achieved. If the left destroys the Court in order to save it, the side that loses is the left.
The smart strategy for the left is to sit back and trust stare decisis to limit reversals by a conservative court. But there are a lot of idiots on the left too stupid to understand that.
I'm not hoping for a Supreme Court that imposes a right-wing agenda on helpless Leftists. I'm hoping for a Court that starts to issue rulings that say: The relief requested by Petitioner is legislative and must be sought from the relevant legislature, State or Federal. Case dismissed.
Greg The Class Traitor sums it up beautifully with his succinct remark….this one:
"What I don't see is why I should care about the desires of anyone who IS bothered by having a legitimate Court that rules based on the written US Constitution and written laws, and requires political change to come via politics.”
Our Constitution is magnificent. One could make the argument that, in the end, it may be out greatest and most valuable natural resource. There is a way to amend it which, by design and thankfully, always takes a lot of time and careful consideration. That process protects us against the whims of those whose mission of the day or year would be carve it up and/or wqter it down piecemeal in order to mollify some suibsection of the public. The Constitution, if it were able to converse with us, would rightly say “Don’t tread on me”.
No, Paulio, what I want is what the Constitution guarantees us: a republican form of government
That means the decisions ar made by "we the people" not "you the self anointed elite".
And neither Windsor nor Obergefell has ANYTHING to do with personal freedom. They are about forcing the government to give benefits to people who haven't actually earned them.
And, clearly, you don't understand "federalism" at all. I'm fine with State governments being free to do a lot of "stupid" things. because I can move away from that State while still being an American.
The Federal gov't imposing rules is an entirely different thing. Can't escape from those.
You would do much better in life if you learned how to think, rather than just running on emotion and "everything I want is good!"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा