That's funny — intentionally funny, I presume — because "this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks" is just what a partisan hack would say, and "My goal today is to convince you that" is just the intro that an elite partisan hack would use to butter up an elite audience.
The quote is from "Justice Amy Coney Barrett argues Supreme Court isn't 'a bunch of partisan hacks'" (USA Today).
I'm not calling Barrett a partisan hack. I just want to say that these speeches are so unnewsworthy. Supreme Court Justices always say the same thing — they're not partisans, not political. Justice Breyer is out and about these days — he's got another book — and he's saying the same thing. They need to say it, and I understand why. It's central to their legitimacy. But it's an assertion that they are not abusing their power. What's the good of saying it over and over? You're getting into "protests too much" territory.
By the way, I remember when educated people made a point of using "comprise" correctly. Is that over? Is it the new "nauseous" — a word you can only use wrongly or people won't get what you mean?
Posts
65 comments:
"Comprised" should be interchangeable with "included" so of course it doesn't work here. Hardly anyone gets it right.
So yeah she looks like a hack. Damn.
“Comprised of” is a double passive.
Fitting for Coney Barrett.
Here's a theory: perhaps Justice Coney Barrett, with scrupulous honesty, was deliberately misusing "comprised" in order to avoid lying!
Maybe she was talking about the prog Justices.
I have to hand it to Breyer for making me actually remember he exists over the past week. Most days I'd be able to name you the other 8 Justices no problem only to come to Breyer and think, "I want to say ice cream, but I'm not sure why."
why is she out making speeches and remarks? SHut up and just do your job.
Forgive my ignorance - I understand how nauseous has been misused over the years, but how did Justice Barret misuse "comprise"?
I love your "by the way." My first reaction to this headline was, "Composed, dammit!"
Is it the new "nauseous" — a word you can only use wrongly or people won't get what you mean?
I Literally, don't get what you mean by any of this
Please. Before Amy was there, you knew exactly how every vote would go because of the partisans there. Nothing changes because WE are a divided country, so there will always be division.
Here is an idea: let's stop pretending that the courts are the final repository of wisdom. Until Wickard v Filburn is thrown out, the Feds can drill down into any aspect of your life.
""My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.""
In that case she is a failure before she starts.
Gee, it kind of sounds like an Administration that claims they have a "mandate" to fundamentally change the country because they have a one vote VP majority in the Senate or a five vote majority in the House...
When news reports about judgements from courts usually include the president that appointed the judge, it is hard to disabuse the people that judges are simply extensions of the political process. The judges themselves might wish to think they are independent, but their voting records align strongly with the party that appointed them, so it is maybe a distinction without a difference. "I am independent, and generate my rulings based on my understanding of the law; however, I would not be in this post if my philosophy was not in alignment with the people who nominated me." Or, "I am not a partisan hack, but I slept in a holi...er...I was appointed by partisan hacks because of how I would rule."
I am not sure it's really correct to say comprised of is used incorrectly. Sure, there are grammar scolds who object to it, but here Mark Liberman notes some celebrated authors (like Dickens) who use comprise "incorrectly."
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17636
ditto for nauseous: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/can-you-feel-nauseous-or-nauseated
This is what I love about the English language, although I understand it must make it more difficult for non-native speakers to learn.
That second link is worth reading alone for the reference to the 1618 work by John Vicars, A Prospective Glasse to Looke into Heavan, using the phrase, "Satan's Tennis-Ball":
Which, though some Wretches Atheisticall,
Some Nauseous Neuter, Satan's Tennis-Ball,
Some execrable Sadduces (I say)
Which doe the Resurrection denay,
Though some vile Sectists Pythagoricall,
Or Infidells most Diabolicall.
Maybe not hacks, but the members of the court are absolutely partisan. That is mostly why they are chosen - for their partisan reliability. The one member who comes closes to "hack" is Sotomayor, who was chosen purely and explicitly for her partisanship, and has never distinguished herself otherwise.
People who use comprise correctly know Latin.
Barrett, like Kavanaugh, has been a disappointment. Both are squishes.
Dog bites man
[i]Is it the new "nauseous" — a word you can only use wrongly or people won't get what you mean?[/i]
I know the traditional meaning of "nauseous" -- nausea inducing -- and that most people currently use it these days to mean the same thing as "nauseated." But the language is always evolving and the process is democratic. The people who outvote you on the meaning of a word are necessarily not "wrong." They just changed the language over your objection.
So, yeah, "nauseous" now means the same thing as "nauseated," whether you like it or not. Sorry.
They aren't partisan hacks, they're cowardly hacks.
" The one member who comes closes to "hack" is Sotomayor, who was chosen purely and explicitly for her partisanship, and has never distinguished herself otherwise."
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Just because you were recently hauled into court and convicted on that Peeping Tom case doesn't make you an expert on litigation.
Is that over? Yes and no. The comprised of grammar problem has been debunked but: “Our advice to you is to realize that the disputed sense is established and standard, but nevertheless liable to criticism.”
She's right.
Many are partisan virtuosos.
My ideal Supreme Court justice: "My goal today is to deliver the best judgement I can. A judgement that is consistent with my interpretation of the law. A judgement I can be proud of and stand behind, even in the face of widespread dissent."
Justice Barrett:
Not partisan hacks? OK, but they're all graduates of elite law schools, which is two strikes against them IMO.
So, yeah, "nauseous" now means the same thing as "nauseated," whether you like it or not. Sorry.
Now do flammable and inflammable.
Judge Smails: You know, you should play with Dr. Beeper and myself. I mean, he's been club champion for three years running and I'm no slouch myself.
Ty Webb: Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're a tremendous slouch
I remember when educated people made a point of using "comprise" correctly. Is that over?
What, educated people? Yes, that's over.
Um, they're saying the quiet part out loud. In other words, yeah, they're hacks.
Law prof emerita Ann Althouse throws two strikes right past SCOTUS Justice ACB.
1. Poor use of rhetoric.
2. Wrong use of word.
Not bad for a day's work.
Conclusion? Wisconsin beats Notre Dame in football.
I just want to know what the deep state left has on Roberts...
Tax my ass.
Glad you caught the "comprise" error. It hit me as I was reading it, along with the sad feeling that our prestige educational institutions have been failing us for a long time if one of their graduates can make such a simple mistake. Doesn't being a lawyer require a grasp of language?
"Hacks"? Any federal judge that isn't a textualist is a hack. They're either ignoring or adding to the constitution or the law to achieve a political or social goal they like. So on SCOTUS, everyone but Thomas, with a chance that Gorsuch could grow into non hack status.
Partisan? Sure. To the extent their votes are easy to predict. The data over the last 20 years, the left wing SCOTUS justices have been far more partisan than the right wing justices, who still tend to be fairly partisan.
Roberts tried really hard the last couple of years to make it look like the court isn't made up of 9 partisan hacks. He did this mostly by steering the court away from contentious cases where the partisan hackery shows up, and by joining the three liberals as often as possible when one of those contentious cases couldn't be avoided. I think Trump stung him badly with the "Obama judge" rhetoric. An honest judge would have ignored Trump, but Roberts somehow seems to think they aren't all hacks with predetermined votes, but he was proved wrong just a few weeks ago when the three Democrats on the court did a complete 180 on him on the latest Admistrative Procedures Act case because it was Biden as President and not Trump.
One of the Founders biggest errors was giving these politicians on the courts lifetime appointments. They should stand for election like every other politician.
'They should stand for election like every other politician.'
In a popular vote? If that were the case we'd have 9 far-left radicals.
I'd much rather have an age cap of 80 let's say, or sooner if it's a Biden 25th amendment situation.
Nobody can convince me that RBG was actually doing any work the last couple years of her life...
"Just because you were recently hauled into court and convicted on that Peeping Tom case doesn't make you an expert on litigation."
Hey, 'nolo contendere' is NOT the same as 'convicted.' As you should know. Anyway, the legal term you're looking for is T. Inspecens
Speaking of hacks, and lawyers . . .
Last night I watched the final half-hour (counting commercials) of "A Few Good Men." Not being a fan of courtroom drama or lawyer heroes in general, I had only seen snippets before, and never the climax.
Whew! Tom Cruise, fresh out of high school, trying to out-ham an old pro like Nicholson.
And there's Kevin! Kiefer! Cuba Gooding Jr!
No nekkid Demi Moore, goshdarn it.
The ending had me laughing hard. "I am an officer in the United States Navy!"
"Our duty was to protect the weak!"
"There's an OFFICER on deck."
Question for Professor Althouse:
Given 10 upcoming Supreme Court decisions with a total of 90 individual votes. If Althouse could predict the votes with an accuracy of 95% or more, would that prove the justices are a bunch of partisan hacks? How about 85% ? What would our host predict her score would be?
Language evolves. Geten over it.
Whatever convincing was attempted, I’m not convinced…
Joe,
Electing 9 leftwing nuts would be clarifying- it is what you are going to end up with anyway if the voting fraud isn't stopped.
gahrie said...
So, yeah, "nauseous" now means the same thing as "nauseated," whether you like it or not. Sorry.
Now do flammable and inflammable.
****************
How about moot and moot?
The three liberals' votes are easy to predict on any case with a political component- they vote 100% of the time with the Democratic Party's position. The 6 "conservatives" are harder to predict- Roberts is the hardest these days, but he is still fairly reliable on federalism grounds and curbing the power of the central government. Thomas and Alito are easier to predict, though Thomas can sometimes surprise me by holding firm on original intent grounds to support liberal positions- in other words, Thomas is more a classic liberal in the old sense than anyone else on the court other than, maybe, Gorsuch. Kavanaugh seems to go with Roberts a lot in the two years he has been on the court. Barrett is just too new to be sure on any particular case.
When Justice Scalia passed away, I cried and wondered if God didn't love the United States any longer. But thanks to Mitch, I sleep well at night - every night - because: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
"My goal today is to convince you that" is just the intro that an elite partisan hack would use to butter up an elite audience.
I don't see it. It sounds more like a college or high school speech class or debate. Say what you are going to say. Say it. Then say what you said. There's no assumption that she will be able to convince her audience or that they are better than other people. Presumably an elite audience would be harder to convince of anything they didn't already believe and one would have to find less straightforward ways to persuade them.
"Partisan hack" sets the bar way too low. Judges have a point of view, a bias. That doesn't necessarily make them partisan hacks. It does call into question whether judges should play as crucial a role as they do in the United States.
i just finished an interesting book,
Highly Irregular: Why Tough, Through, and Dough Don't Rhyme And Other Oddities of the English Language,
Which is Mostly about how snobs and such want to pretend that there are rules to english.
Actually, the book is about how english got such bizarre rules; and One of the big reasons is: Snobs. The Main takeaway, is
Latin was a real language, a perfected language, a language of Rules,
while, English was Just.... Something people DID
Which is why Latin is dead, and English is alive
Been a long time since "comprise" was used that way only. My by now old dictionary says that the "incorrect" usage is also okay.
How about moot and moot?
I'll answer your moot, (see what I did there?
Well, originally, a moot was a meeting, of the whole clan or tribe. They were an early form of direct democracy. Anyone could bring up (moot-today we would say move) any topic for discussion, which is where the verb form came to be. However, because of that, opinions were usually so divided about everything, that nothing was ever decided or done except in emergencies. They just sat around and argued endlessly instead. Thus the third definition of moot came into being. There is nothing so uncertain or as irrelevant as something being debated at a moot. The matter is in fact moot.
One of the Founders biggest errors was giving these politicians on the courts lifetime appointments. They should stand for election like every other politician.
That wasn't the error. The error was their belief that our country would continue to value honor and that a man's reputation would continue to be worth dying over.
"You're getting into "protests too much" territory."
Or willful self-deception territory? I mean, I am a cynic and all, but these people seem to believe their own BS. Which doesn't mean we have to believe it. In fact, the opposite: the delusions of the anointed are a danger to the people.
'How about moot and moot?'
Regardless --- Irregardless.
Are they the same, for all intensive purposes?
Reminds me of anecdotes of misunderstood rock and roll lyrics : )
" . . . a bunch of partisan idiots don't comprise this court"? Though when it sounds awkward, rewrite.
"Flammable" vs. "inflammable": "Flammable" was devised for the understanding of semi-illiterates and small children, who might actually think that it made sense for a truck to be labeled in large letters "This Stuff Won't Burn."
"Nauseous" vs. "nauseated" I always understood to be a US/UK thing. Right after I got to England and was taking part in a chamber music camp, I remarked that I felt "nauseous," and the response was a lot of stifled giggles. (For those who don't know: "nauseous" in the UK is used to describe something that makes you feel ill; if you feel ill yourself, you are "nauseated.") Because of the Continental Divide, I'm not sure our usage is "wrong," but it's certainly US-specific.
She is right. They aren't partisan hacks.
They are philosopher priests that make the Pharisees look reasonable.
Saying language evolves begs the question of whether evolution always moves in a good direction. For example, Althouse seems to be saying that the new normal is the new nauseous which is certainly comprised in what I feel when watching the political class perform these days but was not included in her meanings but only garnered by an inattentive googley scan across of the surf of the words. And drank a glass of water.
If they would rule cases based on the CONSTITUTION... as it is WRITTEN, then maybe they would not be seen as hacks.
dictionary has me confused now - may be the word accommodates multiple POV?
internal / external
consist of; be made up of >>> "the country comprises twenty states"
synonyms:
consist of · be made up of · be composed of · contain · take in · embrace · encompass · incorporate · include · involve · cover · comprehend
------------
but also : make up; constitute. >>> so correct also to say >>> twenty states comprise the country
"My goal today is to deliver the best judgement I can. A judgement that is consistent with my interpretation of the law. A judgement I can be proud of and stand behind, even in the face of widespread dissent."
What!! No emanations? No penumbras? No "evolving standards of decency"? No disparate impact? No looking out for the little guy? No "what would Earl do"? Or Holmes? Or Taney?
So Pollyannaish. I can even see the rosy red cheeks framing the cherubic smile on her cute, beaming little face.
Partisan hacks dominate the lower courts. Those that aren’t are disturbingly reluctant to keep the partisan hacks
in check…
…like every other major institution. Education, medicine, media…
Language may evolve but I think "nonplussed" is the best example of the phenomenon you are highlighting - where a misperception of the definition of the word ends up where the exact opposite of the word's meaning becomes the standard usage. Best -
And what's the deal with potable water?
I don't want to carry it around, I just want to drink it!
Ent-moot. Talk about endless jawing . . .
English is in many ways a pidgin language, evolved in a context of exploration and trade. It is adaptable and adaptive, taking vocabulary from anywhere and everywhere.
As Bryson puts it (paraphrased)--The French pride themselves on the 'purity' of their language; English is a slut and will do it with anybody.
wildswan: I think if you're channeling e. e. cummings, it's "And drank rapidly a glass of water."
For "comprise," I substitute "encompass," and see if it works. Not that they're synonyms, but one makes grammatical sense wherever the other does.
Being a hack would be a sucky way to be.
But, different strokes fer different folks.
IMHO.
Post a Comment