"A campaign has been constructed around a mood, rather than the other way around. The mood is Obamacore..."

"... the outburst of brightness and positivity that took over pop culture upon the election of our first Black president in 2008, and that continued until the wheels fell off eight years later. This was the age of Glee, Taylor Swift’s 1989, and Hamilton, seemingly disparate art born out of the same impulse: the feeling of a new dawn, a generational shift, a national redemption.... ... Obamacore positioned itself as sensitive, non-threatening, and relatable. It was Aziz Ansari writing a book on modern dating alongside a Berkeley-trained sociologist, porn star James Deen talking about bacon, Louis C.K. playing a cop on Parks and Recreation.... The fandom that had sprung up around Obama’s presidential campaign expanded to embrace New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and later, Hillary Clinton. For a moment, bodies as hidebound as the Supreme Court and the papacy looked as if they might be rehabbed into vehicles for social justice.... This summer’s sudden reappearance of hope and positivity has spurred split reactions. Do you embrace your inner cringe, or try to tamp it down?... The optimistic case is that, against all odds, we seem to have heeded the lessons of Obamacore. Generation Z is willingly climbing the coconut tree."

Writes Nate Jones, in "That Feeling You Recognize? Obamacore. The 2008 election sparked a surge of positivity across pop culture. Now hindsight (and cringe) is setting in" (NY Magazine).

See also "100 Pieces of Pop Culture That Defined Obamacore/You know them when you see them — whether they were genius or, well, not," by Nate Jones (in NY Magazine). Just to select one:

"I was in my kitchen and he said something, and the minute he said it, I knew what he’d just said. And every window and door closed. And that was it… He knows what it is; I know what it is."

Said Sandra Lee, to US Magazine, quoted in "Andrew Cuomo uttered mystery remark to ex Sandra Lee that ended relationship, famous chef reveals" (NY Post).

This was a 10-year relationship, but he said something wrong. Sure, there were other problems, but there was that one thing he said that the minute he said it, she knew that was it —  every window and door closed.

Ever say something like that? You might have continued in the relationship, working out your difficulties, but then you went and said one thing. What was the thing? Do you remember the thing or have you shut every window and door on it? And is there one thing — never yet said — that if it were said, it would shut every window and door to your heart, even if it were said by the most dearly loved person in your life?

You know, it's pure chance that Andrew Cuomo came up in 2 posts this morning. Remember when he was idolized, when famous people called themselves Cuomosexuals, and when some members of the party that's supposedly "saving democracy" had the idea that the Covid emergency created a way to oust Trump from the presidency and install Cuomo?

Then, a year later, in 2021, we got things like "The ‘Cuomosexual’ phenomenon was disgraceful. We’re politicians’ bosses, not their fans" (by Alyssa Rosenberg in WaPo). And look at us today —  not me, but maybe you — fans of Trump/Kamala. 

Consider "D.C.’s 'first activist hotel,' the Eaton, which features a 'Radical Library' in its lobby and has hosted protest song performances in its rooftop bar."

"And the city’s feminist-inflected Hotel Zena, where you will encounter a huge portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsburg made of tampons."

I'm reading "The world’s coolest hotels want to tell you a story/The latest design-driven hotels aim to immerse guests in a story or social movement, or transport them to another time" (WaPo).

That link on "feminist-inflected" goes to a 2020 Architectural Digest article about the hotel, where it says, "The larger-than-life homage to Justice Ginsburg has been constructed using 20,000 hand-painted tampons, arranged on a pegboard to create a pointillist portrait (complete with the justice’s signature lace collar and her 'Notorious' moniker). A 20-foot-long curving wall in the hotel’s restaurant evokes a glittering gown, adorned with 12,000 protest buttons from decades of feminist marches and events.... And a hanging installation of painted folding chairs honors Chisholm’s famous advice: 'If they don’t give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.'"

I looked at Hotel Zena's website. It costs about $400 a night to stay there. I was sad to see that some of the rooms had a "king" bed. That's so wrong. I want to be drenched in activism when battling insomnia at the feminist hotel. They need to curate every detail or it's insufficiently immersive. Also what's with bringing your own folding chair? I thought we were kicking the fucking door down?

"I thought Democrats had learned a lesson from the Ruth Bader Ginsburg episode.... Building a cult of personality around one particular justice..."

"... served to reinforce the idea that it was reasonable for her to stay on the bench far into old age.... All liberals have to show for this stubbornness is a bunch of dissents and kitsch home decor. In 2021, it seemed that liberals had indeed learned their lesson—not only was there a well-organized effort to hound the elderly Stephen Breyer out of office, but the effort was quite rude. (I’m not sure screaming 'Retire, bitch' at Stephen Breyer was strictly necessary, but I wasn’t bothered by it either—he was a big boy, and he could take it.) But I guess maybe the lesson was learned only for instances where the justice in question is a white man."

Writes Josh Barro, in "Sonia Sotomayor Should Retire Now/If she leaves the Court this year, President Joe Biden will nominate a young and reliably liberal judge to replace her" (The Atlantic).

The link on "kitsch home decor" goes to an Etsy page for a $20 item called the Our Lady of Dissent Prayer Candle.

I'm not quoting this because I agree with it. I shouldn't have to say that, but I just watched Don Lemon charge Elon Musk with responsibility for words Musk had simply quoted. When I quote something, I might mean let's talk about this or this is crazy or this is articulated colorfully. 

"An award given in the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been abruptly canceled after the family of the late Supreme Court justice and others objected..."

"... that this year’s slate of recipients do not reflect her values. The Dwight D. Opperman Foundation last week announced that it would award the prize to Elon Musk, Martha Stewart, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Milken and Sylvester Stallone. Critics couldn’t help but observe that these 'five iconic individuals' — as the awards news release described them — included among them convicted felons and conservative billionaires who own right-wing media enterprises...."

WaPo reports.

What a mess! How does something like that happen?

Galas built around impressively named awards are a stalwart of the Washington elite social scene — and a way to entice celebrity honorees to rub elbows with politicians and business leaders over $1,000-a-head plates of prime rib....

Ugh. Let them stew in their own au juices.  

"What happens after the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, as is anticipated this week?"

Asks Jeannie Suk Gersen, in "After Affirmative Action Ends/The next big question for school admissions will likely be the legality of 'race-neutral' methods that are designed with the continuing goal of producing diverse student bodies" (The New Yorker).

Notice that the phrasing of the question assumes — there's no "if" — that the Supreme Court will "end affirmative action." The decision may come this morning, so it's a good time to think about what to look for in the new opinion. How much will be off-limits in this fast-approaching future?

What if schools move, as many surely will, to obey by adopting race-neutral measures—for example, deëmphasizing test scores, or boosting applicants from poorly funded high schools—that are designed to produce racial diversity, trying to create some semblance of what they achieved when using affirmative action? Would those moves be lawful?...

"A new sculpture has become the first female figure to adorn one of the 10 plinths atop a powerful New York appellate courthouse in Manhattan."

"The plinths have been dominated for more than a century by now weathered statues representing great lawgivers throughout the ages — all of them men. Standing among Moses, Confucius and Zoroaster is the shimmering, golden eight-foot female sculpture, emerging from a pink lotus flower and wearing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s signature lace collar. Shahzia Sikander... 53, the paradigm-busting Pakistani American artist behind the work... 'She is a fierce woman and a form of resistance in a space that has historically been dominated by patriarchal representation... The sculpture is located at the courthouse of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court at 27 Madison Avenue."

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by New York Times - Gender (@nytgender)

Here's the NYT article about the sculpture: "Move Over Moses and Zoroaster: Manhattan Has a New Female Lawgiver/The artist Shahzia Sikander calls the eight-foot sculpture she has placed atop a New York courthouse an urgent form of 'resistance,'" which explains why there is an empty plinth:

"Totenberg’s confounding book, subtitled 'A memoir on the power of friendships'... always comes back to friendships...."

"[A]s the pages go by, and Totenberg and her friends become more powerful, the theme becomes increasingly uncomfortable — and increasingly revealing.... [S]he seems to accept and share her insider friends’ worldviews. In this universe, it seems, we’re all on the same team. The jurists Totenberg spent her career covering, for instance, are invariably portrayed as thoughtful stewards of the Constitution, even when they err.... One theory about Ginsburg’s decision to stay on the court was that, sharp as she was, she lived in a bubble that left her unable to appreciate how mean and extreme politics had become. If so, the convivial vibe depicted by Totenberg didn’t do much to clear things up. In fact, Totenberg became part of the RBG hype machine. As the justice became an unlikely celebrity, she and Totenberg developed a sort of stage act, conducting public interviews before ticketed audiences. Totenberg would share questions in advance. The responses were more thoughtful that way, which it seems was really what the evenings were trying to show. With its odd, priestly culture, the court is particularly susceptible to this sort of veneration."

 
From "Nina Totenberg Had a Beautiful Friendship With RBG. Her Book About It Is an Embarrassment. Her memoir shows everything that’s wonderful about friendship — and awful about insider culture" by Michael Schaffer (Politico).

Totenberg's book is called "Dinners With Ruth."

"Could you imagine a congressional reporter doing a book called Dinners With Harry Reid, tracing shopping excursions and intimate family moments with the late majority leader, who died the year after Ginsburg?"

"For those seeking insights about any remorse Ginsburg might have felt about not retiring while a Democrat was safely serving as president, Totenberg offers little..."

"... possibly because Ginsburg was not always forthcoming with her; of a meeting the justice had with Barack Obama at which the president gently tried to raise the question of her retirement, Totenberg says, 'She never told me about it.' Nor does she report how Ginsburg responded to the news of Donald Trump’s election. But she does seem to speak with authority when she explains that Ginsburg had been eager to give 'the first female president the power to nominate her successor.' And at the time of the election, Totenberg points out, Ginsburg was not in a health crisis. 'It was a gamble, and she lost,' she writes. Rather than defending Ginsburg’s choice to remain in office, she emphasizes how valiantly Ginsburg fought to stay alive and keep working once Trump was elected....  In one indelible image, Totenberg knocks on the door of a hotel room to find Ginsburg, hair down, desperate for Totenberg to leave so she can continue her frantic search for a medicine to ease her stomach troubles...."

Writes Susan Dominus, in "Nina Totenberg Opens Up About Her Friend Ruth Bader Ginsburg/In her memoir, 'Dinners With Ruth,' the NPR journalist writes about their parallel ascents in fields that were not friendly to women" (NYT).

We could have lived without that "indelible image," but books must be written. 

IN THE COMMENTS: Some people are saying it's unethical for journalists to be friends with the subjects of their writing. But I said, "Read 'The Journalist and the Murderer,' about the journalist’s method of fake-befriending the subject. Isn’t that what we’re seeing here?"

Here's an excerpt from Janet Malcolm's "The Journalist and the Murderer," the best book I ever read about journalism:

Laughing in the grave.

That's the fantasy of the headline writers at Politico, who came up with "How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Have The Last Laugh on Samuel Alito/The Dobbs decision is clearing the political ground for a resolution in favor of abortion rights."

The article is by Politico founding editor John F. Harris, and I'm not in the mood to wade through his scenario of posthumous mirth, but I will state the obvious: Alito's written opinion is not about preventing abortion, but about allowing the issue to be decided through the political process.

"Roe v. Wade... invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court."

"In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures 'toward liberalization of abortion statutes.' That movement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision effort then underway — the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them by the mid-1980s. No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction."

Said Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in 1992, shortly before Bill Clinton nominated her to the Supreme Court, quoted yesterday, in Aaron Blake's WaPo column, "What Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said about Roe v. Wade."

Blake is quoting that to correct people who might think Ginsburg thought that Roe was wrong about the existence of a right to abortion. 

Listen to the oral argument, starting now.

Here. 

UPDATE: I listened to the entire thing. I predict stare decisis will prevail. The lawyer for the state was particularly weak in his effort to assure the Court that Roe and Casey could fall without endangering any other precedent (e.g., Obergefell). There was some effort to discover a compromise position, drawing the line somewhere other than viability, but nothing emerged. Not that I could hear on this first pass. I will probably say more when I get the transcript. 

ADDED: Thinking about Obergefell, I wanted to quote this passage from the Chief Justice's dissenting opinion:

By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

Boldface added.  

That was 6 years ago. What "winds of change" are "freshening... backs" today?

In any case, the question then was whether to take something out of the political arena. The question now is whether to throw something back in after it's been out for 50 years! 

AND: On the theme of keeping the government's hands out of our body, Amy Coney Barrett brought up mandatory vaccination. 

"I have always firmly believed that most of a parent’s energy should be invested in making sure your kid is healthy and happy and putting one foot in front of the other..."

"... the idea that they have to meet some bullshit level of achievement or hit the threshold for performative political awareness (i.e., the type of cutesy anecdotes of toddlers referring to RBG as a 'princess' that get thousands of likes on Resistance Twitter) has always been anathema to me. Trying to indoctrinate your child with a set of abstruse political values, at a time when parents should simply be encouraging kids to learn the basic building blocks of empathy and friendship, is pretty gross. And liberalism or conservatism aside, oftentimes aggressively copy-pasting your own politics onto your small child serves your own ego far more than it’s likely to benefit them...."

Writes E.J. Dickson — "your standard Brooklyn millennial lefty mom" — in Rolling Stone....

Katie Couric writes that she was "a big RBG fan" and — deciding that Ginsburg was "elderly and probably didn't fully understand the question" — suppressed part of Ginsburg's statements about football players who take a knee during the national anthem.

The Daily Mail reports.

The published story, which Couric wrote for Yahoo! News in 2016, did include quotes from Ginsburg saying refusing to stand for the anthem was 'dumb and disrespectful', but omitted more problematic remarks. Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a 'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.' She said: 'Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from... as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly. And that's why education is important.' 

Much worse than what Ginsburg said is the possibility that Ginsburg didn't understand the question in 2016! Couric is hurting Ginsburg much more now, but at least she's confessing her own journalistic sins. 

We're told that the day after the interview "the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had 'misspoken' and asked that it be removed from the story." It seems more likely that Couric allowed Ginsburg to edit her remarks than that Couric decided Ginsburg didn't understand because she was elderly! If Ginsburg couldn't understand things because of her advanced age, then she did not belong on the Court!

We're also told that Couric sought help from her "friend, David Brooks," and he agreed that "Ginsburg probably didn't understand the question." Give me a break!

"If it’s not something 'we' ever did, what substance is there to the assurance that 'we' won’t be doing it?"

"Somehow it was the 'digital team'—that is, whoever tweets under the name of the organization. Seems like those folks are part of the 'we.' I’m amused to find myself objecting once again to their use of pronouns." 

I wrote, over on Facebook, responding to a hamhanded nonapology from Anthony Romero, the head of the ACLU:

“We won’t be altering people’s quotes.... It was a mistake among the digital team. Changing quotes is not something we ever did.” 

The quote was published in the NYT in "A.C.L.U. Apologizes for Tweet That Altered Quote by Justice Ginsburg." 

I added the boldface to "we." The earlier pronoun difficulty — the one for which Romero nonapologized — was a brutalization of a quote by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She'd written:

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.” 

The ACLU rewrite was: 

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person’s] life, to [their] well-being and dignity … When the government controls that decision for [people], [they are] being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for [their] own choices.”

I am person, hear me roar make a sound associated with a non-human animal..

The @ACLU is right to celebrate the achievements of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the anniversary of her death.

And also to point out that she was a vile transphobic bigot whose words must be erased from history. https://t.co/Q8yvY8bnCX

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) September 22, 2021

The following songs have been approved by the @ACLU. 🎶

“No [Person] No Cry” - Bob Marley

“I’m Every [Person]” - Chaka Khan

“Isn’t [They] Lovely” - Stevie Wonder

“Does Your [Birthing Person] Know” - ABBA

“Bring Your [Offspring With A Cervix] To The Slaughter” - Iron Maiden

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) September 23, 2021

"The Supreme Court on Monday set the stage for a major ruling next year on abortion – one that could upend the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Roe v. Wade..."

"... and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the court ruled that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion before a fetus becomes viable. The court granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that (with limited exceptions) bars abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.... The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit...  reject[ed] Mississippi’s argument that the Supreme Court’s cases required the district court to determine instead whether the law creates a 'substantial obstacle' for a person seeking an abortion before the fetus becomes viable. There is no substantial obstacle, the state suggested, because a patient could decide to have an abortion before reaching the 15th week. But the Mississippi law is not merely a restriction on the availability of pre-viability abortions, the court of appeals stressed; it is a ban on pre-viability abortions.... The justices repeatedly... put off considering it at their private conference – before finally considering the state’s petition for review for the first time at their Jan. 8, 2021, conference. The justices then considered the petition 12 more times...."

Writes Amy Howe (at SCOTUSblog).

It's hard to imagine considering the petition 13 times. It seems to mean they don't want to have the take the case but also can't bring themselves to turn it away. It's so soon since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the Court is choosing to bring this divisive issue to the fore. I predict the precedent will remain intact, to the political benefit of social conservatives.

Senator Hirono schooled Amy Coney Barrett for saying "sexual preference." It's an offensive term... as many people just learned yesterday.

Here's a good clip showing Hirono's earnest, mildly contemptuous attitude toward the Supreme Court nominee and editing in the use of "sexual preference" by a few notables, including Joe Biden and Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who Mazie Hirono called "our champion" on Monday, used the term "sexual preference" in 2017. Hirono jumped on Amy Coney Barrett for saying it Tuesday, calling it "offensive and outdated." pic.twitter.com/8bHIQTSVFk https://t.co/JlcRA35g59

— David Rutz (@DavidRutz) October 14, 2020

I was surprised to hear that "sexual preference" has become — at least in some circles — a politically incorrect term. I could immediately see the reason for objecting to it: It vaguely suggests that sexual orientation is a choice, even though I don't think it's true that we choose our preferences. It might suggest that who we love — and who we feel sexually attracted to — is lightweight, more like which flavor ice cream we like better than another. Yes, you prefer to have sex with a blonde, but if you can't have the blonde, the brunette will do just as well. 

Why not get bent out of shape about "sexual orientation" then? Orientation suggests pointing east or west on a landscape. All you have to do is turn around and you'll have a different orientation. 

And why the focus on immutability anyway? I think even if sexual attraction is a matter of choice,  your choice is worth of respect. Choices are important and a good foundation for rights in a free society. Think of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom to have political opinions and to speak about them. These things matter in part because they can change and you do have a choice. 

Indeed, the right to have an abortion is referred to as the right to choose. It's about individual autonomy. Let me quote the 3-Justice opinion that determined the outcome in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (the case that partially overruled Roe v. Wade in 1992):

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

But I took Hirono's scolding to heart. Even though what I've just said is what I genuinely think upon reflection, my first reaction was: Oh! I didn't know this was offensive! Have I offended?! I knew I could look in my 17-year blog archive and in my classnotes from conlaw2 to see if I'd used the offending phrase.

President Trump and the First Lady pay their respects to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the top of the steps of the Supreme Court building, and the crowd at the foot of the steps yells, boos, and chants "Vote him out!"

IN THE COMMENTS: D.D. Driver said:

Hey it's Snyder v. Phelps! Ginsburg sided with Westboro Baptists' first amendment right to protest funerals.

Sad trivia — do you remember who the sole dissenter was?

Here's my blog post from the day the Court decided Snyder v. Phelps. Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here— inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

I said, "Clearly, this is the right outcome." And I quoted Justice Alito, the lone dissenter: "Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered. In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."

Of course, no one cares about the brutalization of the not-so-innocent Trump, and Trump knows that and is taking it like a champion.

"Her father was an immigrant from Odessa, her mother was born four months after her family arrived from Poland. Her mother later worked as a bookkeeper in Brooklyn."

"Ruth used to ask, 'What is the difference between a bookkeeper in Brooklyn and a Supreme Court Justice?' Her answer, one generation. It has been said that Ruth wanted to be an opera virtuoso, but became a rockstar instead.... She was not an opera star, but she found her stage right behind me in our courtroom...."

From "John Roberts Memorial Speech for Ruth Bader Ginsburg Transcript September 23."