In case you missed it, you really need to see this line of questioning — more an anecdote, really — from Al Franken to Neil Gorsuch:
There can be different colorings of the word “absurd”: Sometimes it’s kind of silly. In this case, it’s a menacing, Kafka-esque, Catch-22 absurdity: The court is going to pretend you have options — and they empathize, they really do — but they’re just going to rule against you anyway. The cat lets the wounded mouse run around a bit, plays with it, but its fate is clear. The wealthy always win, because they’re in charge and have made the rules. You can use whatever argument, any principle you want (“plain meaning”)… but the conclusion is pre-ordained.
In SCOTUS appointments, I’m less than impressed by high-minded assessments of a judge’s character, qualifications or intellect. There are plenty of honest, qualified, and smart judges. Gorsuch may be all of those things or none; but in any event it’s not why he’s there. He’s there precisely to protect wealthy interests from lawsuits and regulation; and to whittle down voting rights for those unfavored by this radically illiberal administration (and party).
It’s politics. We know what he’s there for.
fredrichlariccia says
as an enemy of the people.
” We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Charley on the MTA says
“An enemy of the people”. Nasty history to that phrase, including from the Orange Menace himself.
I would say, “no friend to the interests of the vast majority of people.” Or something more graceful.
terrymcginty says
You hit it on the head charley-on-the-mta. That’s what he is there for: to protect wealthy interests against the riff-raff.
Originalism is largely fraudulent and a convenient smokescreen. A true originalist should oppose not only Roe v. Wade, but also Brown v. Topeka Bd. of Education (desegregation of public schools) and Griswold v. Connecticut (right to privacy – birth control), but they do not, instead finding various justifications that actually violate originalist principles.
Charley on the MTA says
I’m sure some smart people can explain this to me, but I can’t get beyond this: Even if the law’s language doesn’t change, *reality* does change. And the way the law maps onto reality changes. It has to! No lawmaker anticipates all the possible applications of the law. So naturally, laws have to be read in non-obvious ways. To claim the text on one’s side so often seems obtuse at best, presumptuous as hell otherwise.
Trickle up says
They deliberately used undefined and ambiguous terms like “cruel and unusual punishment” to create a living document.
So, so-called originalism is not originalist, it is just fake piety about something.
SomervilleTom says
The concept of “originalism” is, in my view, an essentially religious concept wrongly copied from the equally incorrect theological concepts of “inerrancy” (of the Bible), “literalism” and “fundamentalism”.
The latter are very recent responses to the complexity of modern life and science and, again in my view, fail miserably. The proponents of “originalism” strike me as the same people who fall into the seductive intellectual quicksand of literalism and fundamentalism.
The “originalists” are idolatrous, even by their own intellectual constructs (which I reject), because the US constitution is not and was not ever holy scripture. The premise of “originalism” requires elevating the constitution to the same status as the Bible.
That approach is idolatrous if one accepts the premises of theism. It is simply absurd if not (as Mr. Franken so effectively demonstrated).
Christopher says
…the Congress cannot provide for an Air Force since the Constitution only mentions the army and navy; what we write on this blog is not protected by the 1st Amendment which refers only to “speech” and “press”; wiretapping electronic communications is fine because the 4th Amendment refers only to “papers”. (There are probably other examples.)
johntmay says
Exactly.
I use this example often. To the Founders, an electric chair or lethal injection would be seen as unusual and probably cruel.
petr says
… It has nothing to do with what the Right feels (i.e. “piety”), but rather an invented obstruction to prevent the Left from making use of the ‘living’ part of the document to address the changing nature of the law and the people. Textbook definition of the word, ‘Conservative,’ actually…
Conservatives are not going to spend the intellectual and cognitive energy necessary to address the changing nature of the law, the language and the people, rather they’ll declare victory in the original and simply resist changes to that. And, yes, I am saying the Lefts methodology takes more intellectual and cognitive (and, incidentally, moral) energies and abilities…. and courage.
Christopher says
…is in the religion clauses of the first amendment. The prohibition on establishing religion means we can’t have a Church of England – no paying clergy from the public coffers, no automatic government offices for prelates, and no government interference in the operations of religious institutions. It does not mean that no religious or spiritual references will or can ever be made in a public context. The free exercise guarantee means you can walk into a house of worship and participate in the rituals of your faith (assuming such does not harm others) without fear of arrest rather than resorting to catacombs or your neighbor’s house in the dead of night. It does not mean a free pass in the rest of your activities, especially in a public capacity, to use your religion as an excuse to deny or abridge the freedom and well-being of others.
The historian in me is confident that the founding generation knew exactly what they did not want given their experiences and I think that if we returned to taking establishment and free exercise the way they understood the terms we would have an appropriate settlement in a pluralistic society. In my view, liberals often interpret the establishment clause too broadly, while conservatives often do likewise to the free exercise clause.
mannygoldstein says
We need to replace the ClintonDNC with something of, by, and for the 99% if we’re to stop this decades-long descent into… well, this.
sabutai says
Do you think Hillary Clinton nominated Gorsuch?
Or is it because she only won by 3 million votes after beating Bernie Sanders by much more than that (in a smaller electorate)?
Gorsuch is the Republicans’ baby, and even as suspicious a Democrat as Chuck Schumer has figured that out.
mannygoldstein says
is why we’re at the precipice of having a dangerous piece of work like Gorsuch on SCOTUS bench.
Christopher says
The DNC did NOT hold a gun to the heads of any primary voters or caucus goers nor did superdelegates decide the outcome of the nomination process. Neither debate scheduling nor ill-advised staff emails had any bearing on the outcome either. Sore loserdom is so unattractive.
jconway says
I think the Democrats are more united than they have been in awhile and are begging to get how they lost and how to prevent it.
Christopher says
n/t
stomv says
Folks laughed at the “I had a career in identifying absurdity.” But the better line was “I know it when I see it.”
Great 8 minutes by Senator Franken.
jconway says
I certainly can. A longtime friend of the Clintons who sounds like Bernie on economics and is from a Rust Belt swing state. He’s an underrated presidential candidate IMHO.
petr says
… Franken as VP. Sigh.
Donald Green says
The presidential campaign got its public start during the summer of 2015 with concerns directed an the aging of SC Justices. Most of that concern focused on the more liberal judges. It was during that time that HRC had her strongest following. However with Scalia’s death in Feb, 2016 it became a mixed bag. Both sides of the political class were grinding their axes. Of course, the GOP Senate thought they should have ownership of that seat. Maybe they were privy to the efforts underway to fix the election towards Trump’s way.
The game plan got jumbled again when Trump got elected. So this leaves two directions. Should there be righteous resistance by Dems showing they can play similarly or should they show more classy behavior by just letting a simple majority rule the day.
IMO a filibuster puts off the inevitable, and the slime that is being attached to the GOP may rub off on Dems as the public decides all politicians are the same in the way they act. The real fight will come when a Justice retires who is a champion for individual rights over the rights of non human entities (corporations) or state governments that suppresses the vote.
terrymcginty says
…since I was one (First Class – couldn’t do the knots).
But, it is a thing beauty to watch the questioning of Judge Gorsuch by Sen. Franken just now on C-Span. Franken undressed the ersatz veil of political innocence carefully designed to shroud Judge Gorsuch’s face, by citing to Gorsuch his own resume, which amply demonstrates that Gorsuch was 100% political for literally decades on end.
This included volunteering as a lawyer for the Bush campaign during its notorious campaign in Ohio in 2004, when the campaign not only began its current campaign of voter suppression, with mammoth lines that were an international embarrassment (I know. I was in Tajikistan for that year), and which also featured the shameless pairing of anti-marriage equality referenda to boost right-wing turnout.
There is nothing wrong with volunteering as a lawyer in various roles in a campaign. I did it myself for Obama in Portsmouth in 2008 and 2012. But Gorsuch’s act of golly-gee purity from partisan politics was an outright fraud, and this fraud was rightly disrupted by Franken. A political Boy Scout he is not.
terrymcginty says
…since I was one (First Class – couldn’t do the knots).
But it’s not good to pretend you’re innocent when you’re not. It is a thing of beauty to watch the questioning of Judge Gorsuch by Sen. Franken just now on C-Span. Franken undressed the ersatz veil of political innocence carefully designed to shroud Judge Gorsuch’s face, by citing to Gorsuch his own resume, which amply demonstrates that Gorsuch was 100% political for literally decades on end.
This included volunteering as a lawyer for the Bush campaign during its notorious campaign in Ohio in 2004, when the campaign not only began its current campaign of voter suppression, with mammoth lines that were an international embarrassment (I know. I was in Tajikistan for that year), and which also featured the shameless pairing of anti-marriage equality referenda to boost right-wing turnout.
There is nothing wrong with volunteering as a lawyer in various roles in a campaign. I did it myself for Obama in Portsmouth in 2008 and 2012. But Gorsuch’s act of golly-gee purity from partisan politics was an outright fraud, and this fraud was rightly disrupted by Franken. A political Boy Scout he is not.
terrymcginty @ Sat 25 Mar 1:34 PM
fredrichlariccia says
according to The Hill on March 23.
Fred Rich LaRiccia