I’ve read about some of the names bandied about for a replacement for the late Atonin Scalia, and am nauseated by repeated praise I see of Sri Srinivasan as a “pro-business moderate”. And that’s because in our current climate “pro-business” is anything but.
Fitting it into the broad global spectrum, the American adjective “pro-business” means rabidly conservative on economic matters. Possessing a point of view that would disqualify you from serious consideration in any other part of the world expect some of East Asia. If this guy is “pro-business”, we can expect him to complete the dismantling of our democracy, be it through campaign finance, regulatory oversight, or right to organize. He will continue the 5-vote corporate extremist majority on the Court.
I’d rather have an “anti-business” judge who’s conservative on social issues — the tide is decisively against that, and there are five votes for social modernity thanks to Kennedy’s libertarian leanings — then someone else to back the Goldman Sachs-ization of this country.
pro or anti, and simply has good character, knowledge, and judgement, conducive to the ability to clearly and fairly look at arguments that come before the court and analyze the constitutionality of those arguments.
Expect your words to be copied, often sincerely, by every Senator regardless of how they vote. That’s because what you mention are great adjectives, but one person’s idea of “good judgment” may be different from another’s. I doubt Scalia thought his opinions showed poor judgment though I may believe so. It’s just as soon be upfront and call them for what they are — values. Yes, desegregating schools was an “agenda”. Recognizing the rights of all humans is an “agenda”. I have no problem with agendas.
Anybody who has gotten far enough without through law to be worthy of consideration for SCOTUS either has a cogent theory about law and its application, or is brain-dead. I want the next justice to possess a cogent theory that counters the dominating narrative that corporate “persons” have such freedoms as to outweigh yours or mine. To me, that is good judgment.
which I imagine is what you’re referencing – is it a problem of the court or the legislature. It’s not the job of the court to limit the damage of a shitty law or push forward good laws, but to decide if a law can exist with or is counter to the constitution.
The great thing about laws is we can change them. Yes – I know this is a gross oversimplification, but I think we’ve become reliant on using the courts in these situations due to their efficiency and speed.
That’s why I think a constitutional monarchy would be a much better form of government then this supposed republican democracy of ours.
Well, Citizens is part of a large issue. SCOTUS has decided that any form of money equals protected speech, and that essentially any restriction on political spending or political contributions save a direct donation limit is unconstitutional. Why that’s the case here and virtually nowhere else in the democratic world I don’t know.
There are also the restrictions on political organizing through Quinn and what would likely have been an anti-union decision in Freidrichs. Decisions declaring that the cross or phrase “under God” aren’t religious elements. It’s great to change laws as long as SCOTUS doesn’t override democracy. Four votes against Obamacare? Really? That is due to the agendas of judges and those that put them on the bench. Let’s recognize that and play on that reality, not amorphous talk of values.
that we don’t see elsewhere, and vice versa. I think the comparisons aren’t productive.
This, actually, I agree with 100%. Many aspects of Christianity nowadays are valued for their cultural, rather than religious significance. Reminds me of an argument I had with a girlfriend in college.
Girl: Aw Joe, you know I love you, but we could never get married because you’re not Jewish.
Me: But [redacted], neither are you. You’re atheist.
Girl: No, I’m Jewish.
Me: Do you believe in God?
Girl: No
Me: well, then you aren’t Jewish.
Now of course, I understand Judaism as an identity, rather than a religion. I think many symbols of Christianity have adopted a similar characteristic.
Christians value Christian declarations as “cultural”. Non-Christians see them as exclusive. Perhaps some American use “under God” as synonymous with “under the sun”, but that’s not what it says. It’s the same attitude that says a peach-colored crayon can be called “flesh”, and that “all men” is a phrase that includes more than 49% of the population. It’s just more privilege unseen by those who have it.
There are numerous examples of Jesus welcoming in those who society has cast out. The two greatest commandments of loving God and neighbor are found with slight variations of phrasing in all the major religions. There is more than one color for flesh, but under God is pretty generic and I for one assume people are smart enough to distinguish the contexts between when all men refers to the entire species and when it really does mean specifically the male half of the species.
The Christianity that exists in the real world would rather use our government to impose its rules upon the rest of us, despite the principle of a Separation of Church and State that goes back to the founding of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware prior to the War for Independence. As a recovering Catholic/Atheist, I find the current reality of “Christianity” to be similar in its approach to society as Sharia Law in its approach to casting out anyone who does not agree. The examples you sited above, I believe, represent a view of Christianity as you would want it to be in a perfect world, but we do not live in such a Utopia.
You are actually describing a VERY NARROW slice of Christianity that happens to be pretty active and vocal. It does NOT apply to most Mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, or Orthodox Christians, which constitute the overwhelming majority of Christian membership and attitude. If you just look at the Court’s Catholic membership you see the entire spectrum of belief and how it informs public life. For example, if Bishop Guertin when you attended were anything like it was when I attended, you would know that while we were required to attend an occasional Mass and know ABOUT Catholic teaching and practice, they actually very much avoided proselytizing, trying to convert, etc. That matches my experience with Catholicism overall.
I’m happy to stipulate your claims about “most Mainline Protestants”. It is irrelevant to the role that religion plays in politics, governing, and voters.
I suggest that the over-representation of the Roman Catholic church has led to a corresponding over-representation of at least the following themes in today’s society:
– Homosexuality is a sin and homosexual men and women are evil (although lesbian women are far more acceptable than gay men).
– ANY non-procreative sexuality is bad and should be avoided and discouraged
– Consenting sex among uncommitted participants is bad
– Contraception, especially among unmarried women, is bad
– Women are better care-givers than men
– A woman’s place is in the home
– The most important role for a man is breadwinner
– The most important role for a woman is mother
– The best jobs for the highest pay should go to men because men ought to be breadwinners
I don’t care what attitudes our Supreme Court justices or government officials profess while they’re in church. What matters to me is what attitudes they bring to the exercise of their office.
I think if our Supreme Court was more representative of the religious belief of our culture it would have been making VERY different decisions, especially in the past decade or two.
The group of Americans that I suggest is most egregiously under-represented is AGNOSTIC (not “atheist”) Americans — those who don’t know and don’t care whether a deity exists. In my view, it is that group that finds the court’s posture towards issues like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, gender bias and discrimination, and so on to be grossly biased towards religiously-grounded prejudice.
I (perhaps infamously on BMG) used to hold more conservative personal views on sexuality and abortion, but I always felt THE LAW had to be agnostic. I’ve never wavered in my view that the state had no say on the abortion question nor did it have a role imposing the definition of marriage my church holds on the rest of the populace.
I find it downright bizarre more conservatives typically skeptical of government power don’t feel the same way. It’s why I agree with folks like John Dean or even Barry Goldwater who both say “this isn’t conservatism” when discussing the activism of folks like the late Scalia. Souter, O’Connor and Kennedy were more traditionally conservative judges who respected the historic understanding of church and state separation and that individual rights to privacy trumped the states imposition of sectarian morality, even if such laws were sanctioned by the voters or their representatives. Scalia used to believe this too in the peyote case, but by Hobby Lobby he defined corporations as religious entities which is something no originalist worth his or her salt could credibly argue the founders believed.
…many of the examples you cite as overrepresented were the majority view in this country? I think that first we are rapidly moving away from that and in some cases are already there, and second plenty of American Catholics don’t subscribe to those views.
Where do you get the idea that these pernicious ideas need majority support to be influential?
What do YOU think drove the most recent assault on Planned Parenthood by the GOP?
if that makes sense.
These symbolic debates aren’t important to me, and I’m befuddled they matter so much to people. Christians in the Middle East are getting slaughtered and having their three millenia culture wiped out because of the blowback from an arrogant and unjust war launched by the most vocally “born again Christian” president we ever had. And yet right wing Christians in this country are angrier about baking cakes for gay couples or Starbucks cups not having snowflakes on them like the bible intended.
Similarly, atheists are being jailed in Russia and Egypt yet the ones here think their religious freedom is being grossly infringed upon by something a coin or pledge says that most Americans don’t pay attention to. I agree with you on the merits sabutai, I would’ve voted against changing the pledge and agree with Teddy Roosevelt that it’s simulataneousky unconstitutional and blasphemous to put the lords good name on money. But on my list of policy priorities and as a litmus test for the Supreme Court it’s a way on the bottom compared to choice, gay rights, or getting money out of politics.
It seems to me that existence and religious identity of Israel is the single most divisive aspect of today’s world.
A HUGE part of that existence is the direct result of the fervently-held belief by an ENORMOUS number of American voters that the existence of Israel is required by the Bible, that The Rapture is coming and will begin in Israel, and similar superstitions.
I suggest that fervent religious belief plays a similarly significant role in America’s shameful denial of human-caused climate change. An enormous number of American voters believe that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that “man” cannot threaten the Earth because their God tells them so.
I fear you greatly understate the dominant role that American-style religious belief plays in endangering humanity.
What I am going to downplay is the binary between “religious” and “not religious” somehow occupying the same spectrum as “conservative” and “liberal”. A large minority of Americans hold the views you find dangerous, and a large minority of Christians specifically hold those views. They are loud, better organized and more politically connected to one of the two parties and some of the business community, but they are neither a majority of Americans nor a majority of American Christians. But boy are they better at politicizing religion than we are, precisely since so many moderate and liberal Christians find the very idea distasteful and unconstitutional.
So I respect the danger. Mainline Protestants and the moderate majority of American Catholics have not been vocal about who they want on the court in the same organized way. Precisely because we recognize the separation of church and state and feel awkward about injecting our faith into politics. It’s really easy for me as a socially liberal Catholic and you as an agnostic to hold signs outside the court saying respect the right to choose, Freedom to marry, etc. without having to disclose our very different personal views on faith.
Probably because we agree with the atheists and the nones on these issues and it’s easier to organize ourselves together as “liberals” or “progressives” or even “moderates” rather than a particular religious bloc. And frankly I’d prefer working with you on these issues as a fellow progressive rather than claim the bible justifies the “religious lefts” views on social issues.
Where I do think the religious left can be an effective voice and has been in the past is on promoting peace, opposing state violence against blacks, opposing mass incarceration, and promoting a more just and equitable distribution of wealth. Moral Monday, occupy Wall Street, and many of the BLM protests have been infused with members of the progressive Christian tradition. And I think it’s better to welcome us as allies than insist we leave our faith in the privacy of the home or worship space. Especially since we can go places, particularly in the black and Latino communities where it’s more difficult for liberal atheists to be effective.
I think personal choices are best left to individuals, even if government can be an effective ‘nudge’ in designing policies it can’t impose choices on others. That’s a basic Millian/Rawlsian view of negative liberty. So on the hot button cultural issues I differ to individuals and ask communities to conform to accompany them.
But when it comes to communal responsibilities I do feel faith based groups form part of the little pontoons that Burke and Oakschott allude to. And they do have a role in improving the well being of all of society. And in those instances I think the faith community has a big role to play in political
life in assuring that everyone has access to the means of prosperity and takes care of one another.
I agree with and appreciate this comment.
I think it’s important for us to be explicit about the narrative framework we use. We have a tendency, driven by the right, to set up a dichotomy with “fervent believer” on one extreme and “fervent atheist” on the other. The issue with this scale is that it presupposes the phenomena it attempts to measure.
Let me draw an analogy. Suppose we are discussing a similar range to describe reactions of people to the “hypothesis” that heavy objects and light objects fall at the same speed:
1. Fervently believe
2. Somewhat believe
3. Don’t care one way or the other
4. Somewhat doubtful
5. Fervently disagree
The problem with this narrative is that incorporates “belief” into a question where belief is explicitly excluded. A key purpose of science is to EXCLUDE belief from matters of science.
My agnosticism is not a different place on a belief scale that affects government policy towards, for example, matters of sexuality. It is, instead, an assertion that, like the science of falling objects, religious belief about sexuality should have little or no influence on government policy. Science explicitly excludes belief in its search for truth. I suggest that government should explicitly exclude religious belief in its search for good policy.
In my view, an appropriate role for government is to provide assurance that a product that claims to be a contraceptive is safe and effective. I similarly think that an appropriate role for government is to provide assurance that abortion, like every other surgical procedure, is safe and effective.
I think that the government should NOT be advocating for or against contraception or birth control, just as I think government should not be advocating for or against statins or heart surgery.
I enthusiastically share your preference for working on these issues together without regard to the motivations that bring us into agreement.
A kind of ‘golden rule’ morality that can still exist without the structure of a defined belief system, but it’s hard to argue that kind of morality doesn’t stem from a Western (re, Judeo and Christian) framework at some point historically. We can jettison the elements of that tradition that don’t make sense (state churches, sexual policing, etc.) while embracing the elements that still do (care for the commons, care for one another, care for the downtrodden, etc.)
This is why I think the civil rights movement, the disability advocacy movement, and many others have religious and moral dimensions but decidedly non-sectarian undertones and can/will continue to/should contribute to civic life. Science divorced from ethics can still lead to bad public policies, forced sterilizations, eugenics, the near incarceration of the mentally ill, lobotamies, etc. were all ways the scientific community approached questions of public policy in the past in ways we would clearly see are immoral now. So there should be a moral dimension to policymaking, I take my cues from FDR and Lincoln when they refer to better angels and the four freedoms which were directly inspired by a papal encyclical. I decidedly don’t take them from the charlatans of my faith from Falwell to Cardinal Law.
It’s why I prefer the term secular humanist as a way for atheists or agnostic or others who identify themselves as not belonging to a faith tradition but still incorporate the Western tradition into their value system and suppose a public morality, even if it’s devoid of an animating spiritual guide. I’m terrified many of the ‘nones’ of my generation are being seduced by objectivism and libertarian traditions and rejecting the communitarian ethos as a product of a bygone superstitious age. There are gaps the harm principle doesn’t address.
This stuff (defining what it means, to you, to be a Christian liberal) is where you are at your best, jconway!
Thanks to this post, I’m committing right now to calling myself a “secular humanist” and not an “atheist” from now on. I certainly believe in the importance of following the Golden Rule and do “suppose a public morality”!
I appreciate the feedback! And feel free to connect via email or Twitter, your input and insights are always valued.
I agree with you about morality in public life.
I very intentionally chose the phrase “religious belief” when I wrote, for example, “religious belief about sexuality should have little or no influence on government policy”.
I’m fine with “secular humanist”. I also find that the very ancient pre-Christian “Pagan” Celtic traditions have much to offer (I particularly like “Panentheism”, the belief that the divine may be found in contemplation of EVERY material object), as do many of the Native American (especially Navaho) and Buddhist faith traditions.
I agree that morality (and therefore our collective value system) must be a key aspect of governance. It is the claim that religious belief — and in particular Abrahamic belief — has some unique positive insight to that morality that I reject.
…I have been known to identify myself as a Christian humanist since I use Christian ethics as my route to humanistic outcomes.
Thanks for the link, it does seem a bit broad if it can include folks like Chesterton and Spoong, but perhaps that’s why it’s a good viewpoint. Ironically the founders would probably fall into this bucket, their Deism was definitely centered on a Christian understanding of the deity, though ironically they would fail the stricter belief tests of most American denominations these days.
…because the UN found just cause to recognize a Jewish State to accommodate a people subject to centuries of extreme persecution, including the then very recent Holocaust. There’s nothing inherently wrong or undemocratic about a state religion; even the UK has that. Let’s not derail this thread into Israel issues, though as I don’t think it’s relevant to a Court that doesn’t have much if any role in foreign policy.
In my view, your comment utterly misses the point. Your comparison between the “state religion” of the UK and Judaism in Israel is absurd. The role of the Church of England in the 18th century is perhaps more relevant, and the very existence of the US is the obvious response.
We are discussing how beliefs, especially religious beliefs, influence government policy. Refusing to include Israel — and, by implication, Judiasm and Islam — in that discussion is an extreme case of denialism, as extreme as any climate change denial practiced by the right wing.
Suffice to say, there was a tension inherent in it’s founding and a devils bargain between the secular Zionists who wanted a safe haven and were largely socially democratic in politics and humanist in ethics and faith, with the religious Zionists who wanted to fulfill a biblical destiny. It’s a tension that still affects their politics to this day, and is likely the main domestic barrier to a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. Unfortunately the secular traditions in both nationalist movements are falling way side to the fundamentalists in both camps. The rise of Hamas over Fatah and Likud’s dependency on religious and settler parties to maintain it’s coalition are examples of that.
Yup, it reminds me of all the people who just nod and smile when they hear the term “Liberal Media”. If we had a “liberal media”, the news would have a business section/segment and a labor section/segment.
pro-business. If he is, I’m against him. However, it seems like his “pro-business” credentials are based on his private practice cases. This may be indicative of a pro-business bias, but I’m pretty sure you it’s intellectually risky to judge an attorney based on his clients. His specialty seemed to be arguing in the Supreme Court.
In 2013, Jeffrey Toobin wrote:
Toobin could be wrong. Srinivasan’s record on the bench could reveal a pro-business bias, but I haven’t seen anything other than clients and the echo chamber to suggest he is.
…that Srinivasan would make a more reasonable Republican appointment than a Democratic one?
reading about the guy beyond BMG?
That he doesn’t foam at the mouth disqualifies him as a GOP nominee.
This particular diary is titled “I don’t want a pro-business judge”.
In my view, that is very legitimate Democratic stance, coming from the dead center of the Democratic Party I grew up with. I have, in fact, been reading about him beyond BMG. I agree that he doesn’t foam at the mouth, and I agree that today’s GOP would not, therefore, appoint him.
Still, in my view he strikes me as on balance more Republican than Democrat. The behavior of every Supreme Court justice is notoriously difficult to predict prior to confirmation. I’d rather take my chances with a nominee who at least appears to be a solid liberal Democrat (such as Loretta Lynch).
I think the reason Mr. Srinivasan seems to be so attractive is because of a perception that it will be easier to get votes for him from the GOP side of the Senate aisle. That is the same reason that makes me tend to agree with christopher that he seems more like a Republican than a Democratic appointment.
I think we should not cave to GOP pressure before a nominee has even been offered. I think we should nominate somebody our party genuinely wants, and call the GOP bluff. Put them on record opposing the nomination of the sitting Attorney General. Let’s see how that plays in today’s electorate and the current election season.
There’s always time to adjust and negotiate later.
Which is fine by me, aside from an early embrace of the death penalty and the Kelo decision where the right wing bloc was in the right, he’s been a fairly center-left judge who brings a level of policy nuance and legislative acumen absent in the other justices.
Having served as an legislative aide to Ted Kennedy he actually knows how the sausage gets made and isn’t evaluating the legislature like a theologian the way Scalia did. O’Connor as a former state senator shared this perspective. Pretty sure I predicted Sotomayor and Kagan would be too centrist and have been happily surprised my initial impression was wrong. Anyone on the Democratic judicial spectrum would move the court significantly leftward from Scalia. A successful confirmation should be the end here, though I agree that hardball may be a better means than compromise.
when people share their impressions without citing some sort of evidence.
We’re getting into that wasteland that appears when people have different, legitimate preferences. It’s the same with the Democratic Primary. Given that our preferences will have absolutely nothing to do with the eventual nominee, it’s not worth arguing. I’ll be happy if Obama causes substantial political damage to the GOP after their obstruction.
I’m still not arguing in favor of Srinivasan, though I am arguing against the idea that he is moderate or conservative. (See Toobin for counter-evidence). There’s no evidence for these judgements. I also think that, although justices may be informed by ideology, jurisprudence is equally, if not more, important.
I particularly like your middle paragraph.
Yes, I’ve read a bit about him outside of BMG. He is certainly reasonably qualified for anyone to nominate him and in a different time he probably could have achieved unanimity in the Senate regardless of which President of either party nominated him. It just seems that his background is on balance more Republican than Democratic and I’m not sure it is our responsibility to nominate the people the GOP would have if they were still a reasonable party.
What a damn shame Andrew Sullivan is not blogging and Jon Stewart is not commenting on this campaign.
I’m not sure how much traction Dems gain by this, because SCOTUS is just an abstract issue for all but the activists. But it does seem that making a transparently “FU” appointment of a purely political nominee would squander whatever advantage might be gained. That rules out the appointment of politicians and ex-politicians, like Gov. Patrick.
At the same time, nominating someone that seems reasonable enough to most people, and thus provoking a summer-long GOP temper tantrum, in the midst of a Trump campaign and convention, is too good an opportunity to pass up. It might also balance some of the activist energy on the appointment, which will be weighted in favor of the GOP. I say that because “They will overrule X!” as a scare tactic tends to work better than “We might achieve lasting change for the better!” in getting the choir agitated. For many years, Dems were able to use “They might overrule Roe! as a fear-based campaign issue. Now, the GOP will be able to scare their voters with “They will overrule Heller!”
Even so, the long experience of Roe and SCOTUS nominations suggests that the overall impact on the campaign will be minor.
Jon Stewart ought to consider an election special or two. I watched a couple episodes of Samantha Bee’s show. I liked her on the Daily Show. She’s potentially awesome on this show, but she doesn’t have Stewart’s writers.
I’be been following the political angle of the SCOTUS nomination. His opinion keeps changing. I still think the smart money is on Srinivasan, but what do I know?
With that said, you’re right about the average not caring much. As a teacher, I didn’t want the Friedrich’s case harming unions. My colleagues are blissfully ignorant of the case and the potential impact. We also need to protect voting rights. None of this is sexy to the average voter.