"Bankrobber" - The Clash
Break your back to earn your pay and don't forget to grovel."
- It's nice to see the intellectual leader of the conservative judiciary showing his continued grasp of the fine points of the law. What a fucking fatuous gobshite this clown is. That he is taken seriously as a judge is a measure of just how far we have fallen. The notion that he is somehow a brilliant jurist rather than a transparently political hack really should be put to rest after this argument and the one over ACA.
- Speaking of right wing intellectual clownishness, Pierce, in brilliant fashion, finishes what Michael Sean Winters began -- the complete and utter gutting of Ross Douthat's newly minted, spectacularly ahistorical piece on America's loss of its good old fashioned religious wisdom circa 1950. Douthat, like his intellectual soul mate at the Times, David Brooks, has pretensions to being an intellectual, but, alas, possesses the withered mind and soul of the propagandist. Facts are selectively distorted or omitted to fit Ross's thesis, which is that once there was a golden age in which Protestants and Catholics of all stripes joined together and denounced sexy time and made us a better nation for it.
- And to continue picking on right wing Catholics, both the U.S. Conference of Bishops and the faculty at Georgetown University seem to have an issue with the budget proposed by Paul Ryan, the man Pierce memorably describes as the "zombie-eyed granny starver," who tried to claim that his work was consistent with Catholic notions of social justice. The Georgetown faculty begged to differ in rather stark terms:
“Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” says the letter, which the faculty members sent to Mr. Ryan along with a copy of the Vatican’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church — “to help deepen your understanding of Catholic social teaching.”
Ouch.
What else is going on out there?
Ouch.
Nice to know they had the balls to put him in his place while also kindly offering him an education he shouldn't need.
Posted by: oddjob | April 25, 2012 at 04:09 PM
What a fucking fatuous gobshite this clown is.
That this line of questioning is coming out of the mouth of someone whose surname ends in a vowel is more than a bit gobsmacking.
I mean, not to be crass but doesn't "WOP" stand for "without papers"?
Posted by: oddjob | April 25, 2012 at 04:19 PM
oddjob,
You made me laugh.
Sadly, many of my fellow Irish-Americans and our Italo-American brethren have forgotten completely where they come from -- and have completely suppressed the fact that they were once commonly viewed in this country as an alien people, savage and primitive -- not really white, as it were.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 25, 2012 at 05:57 PM
I am now rethinking the idea of SCOTUS appointments for life. I think maybe there should be fixed terms or at minimum mandatory retirement at 75. Not because the Justices necessarily get feeble-minded, but because they get jaded. Scalia's contempt for the very government which pays his salary is evidence of that.
Posted by: Linkmeister | April 25, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Linkmeister,
Here is my problem with term limited justices. One, they will then be for sale to corporate benefactors, something we have avoided to date. And two, it will I suspect create even more battles over the Court.
I remain a believer to date in the wisdom of the lifetime appointment provision.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 25, 2012 at 10:08 PM
How would they be more open to sale if they have an expiration date?
Posted by: Crissa | April 26, 2012 at 02:06 AM
I echo Crissa's question. Also, I'm personally of the opinion that Mr. Justice Alito has already been bought by various corporate sponsors, and Mr. Chief Justice Roberts may have his tongue hanging out waiting for treats from them himself.
Posted by: Linkmeister | April 26, 2012 at 03:21 AM
I think a Supreme Court term limit should be a very long one, long enough that even Clarence Thomas wouldn't be looking for a second career after retiring from the bench if it applied to him. I'm thinking 25 years. I can't see how a limit like that would make Justices more for sale than they are now.
I don't want an age limit because we can see what's already happening: Republicans appoint the youngest Justices they think they can get away with. An age limit would simply encourage that approach.
I also think that there should be a time limit on any one Administration's impact on the composition of our courts.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 26, 2012 at 07:46 AM
many of my fellow Irish-Americans and our Italo-American brethren have forgotten completely where they come from
And I can't ever forget because I vividly remember a very ugly fight my mom had with her parents over their bigotry while we were on vacation when I was seven years old. (That family is all very WASP and can trace itself back to colonial days.) I didn't understand what the fight was about until I was older, but I still remember how ugly it was.
Posted by: oddjob | April 26, 2012 at 09:25 AM
This is excellent. Clear, concise comparisons between GW Bush’s legacy and Mitt Romney’s promises. Just read it and am still shaking in fear of a Romney victory.
Posted by: Paula B | April 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Only trouble is you can't trust what Romney says he intends to do because next week he says something that contradicts what he first said.
Posted by: oddjob | April 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM
as for scotus, i have often myself praying that certain justices hold on until a republican administration is over.
there are a number of justices who began very conservative and their thinking evolved over time because of their experiences on the court. scalia, obviously, will not be one of those justices. but, for example, justice blackmun concluded that the death penalty is unworkable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. justice stevens came to the same conclusion.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 26, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Larry Sabato's early take on the presidential election.
Hat tip, Sully.
Posted by: oddjob | April 26, 2012 at 11:43 AM
"...you know all those arguments we’re always having about supply-side, trickle-down economics? Like every day in the Congress, on the campaign trail, and on cable TV? Well, scholars have actually looked at this stuff and come up with consistent and compelling answers. So, if we can just find our way back to The-Land-Where-Facts-Matter, we might be able to make some smart choices around tax policies...."
Hat tip, The Plum Line.
Posted by: oddjob | April 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM
great, oj! good ammo. Add that to the bush v. romney fact sheet above, and you've got campaign dynamite. if only voters read.
Posted by: Paula B | April 26, 2012 at 01:15 PM
Why Are Democrats So Useless At Persuasion?
Posted by: oddjob | April 26, 2012 at 01:55 PM
I think that if you term limit justices they are going to be forced to seek careers in the private sector after leaving the bench -- something that they virtually never do now. I think it would be ugly -- and damaging to the institution -- to see a bunch of former Supreme Court justices shilling for large law firms and corporations. I think it would make their decisions seem even more suspect than what has gone on to date with the four horsemen of reaction on the Court.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 26, 2012 at 06:10 PM
oddjob,
Re: Sabato.
I have a hard time imagining that Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin are truly going to be in play. The Republicans haven't won in the first two since 1988 and in the latter since 1984. I don't think Romney changes their fortunes much in any of these spots -- especially Michigan.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 26, 2012 at 06:14 PM
Sir C, You could very easily have the justices chosen from the existing circuit courts for a period of years after which the justices would return to their circuit courts. There's no need to require justices to go into the private sector.
Posted by: Joe S | April 26, 2012 at 06:20 PM
But that would forever preclude any non-judge (or presently non-sitting judge) from ever serving and we already have a court that's wildly out of step with SCOTUS history because it's so top-heavy with justices who have so little non-judicial professional experience. I think it's extraordinarily unhealthy for the court to be constructed this way. It makes the court much more pin-headed than it ought to be.
Posted by: oddjob | April 26, 2012 at 06:32 PM
SC, I think it makes more sense to say Clinton (54 on 1/20/2001), Bush II (62 on 1/20/2009), or Obama (55 on 1/20/2017) would have damaged the institution of the Presidency by making decisions calculated to win them a second career after their Constitutional term limit.
Seriously, if we limited a Justice's tenure on the Supreme Court to 25 years retroactively (and I doubt a shorter limit would have any chance at all), even Clarence Thomas would be 68 when forced to retire from the Court. Only twice has a President from Lyndon Johnson onward nominated someone under 50 to the Supreme Court, the other one being Rehnquist. So we're mostly talking about the possibility of Justices of age 75 or older seeking a second career.
I can't say that worries me terribly.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 26, 2012 at 07:07 PM
Maybe this rant from inside the Beltway explains a bit about the fine mess we're in.
No need to even mention names is there?
Also. How some elected and self-elected citizens celebrated Inauguration Eve 2009: not sure I understand when naked partisanship heads toward treason, but from my untrained perspective this looks like a willing plot, in the middle of world financial crisis, to sacrifice the country's economy for political purpose if need be. There must be a name for this besides politicking. Wickedness works for me.
I suppose the silver lining is that with the tale now out in book form, we'll get to witness these proud citizens in their attempts to 'claim' their patriotic actions, and see how that goes down.
Didn't think it possible to be any further shocked by the sheer intentional carelessness at work here. Wrong.
Posted by: nancy | April 26, 2012 at 08:08 PM
l-t c,
I think the Supreme Court is different even from the presidency. (And presidents by and large don't usually gravitate to the private sector -- they give speeches for boatloads of money and write books.) I also think the type of people who sit on the Supreme Court are not the types to retire -- even when they are 70-75.
I really dislike the idea of Supreme Court justices going off and doing what Judge Luttig did -- taking the money from Boeing.
Joe,
They could sit by designation in the Circuit Courts. There is a precedent for retired Supreme Court justices doing that.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 26, 2012 at 09:12 PM
nancy,
I love the Ackerman rant. I've given that one a time or two or twenty in my thirty years here. Often aided by substantial amounts of alcohol.
He's right that unofficial Washington can be a wonderful place. I've had great friends here over the years and had a great time amongst people who were really far removed from this stuff.
(I've also been on the periphery of people who are deeply in the belly of the beast here too --many of whom individually are good people, but collectively they suffer from all of the weaknesses Attackerman points out.)
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 26, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Wolcott on our cabalists mentioned above. The "Conspiracy to Commit Legislative Constipation."
I certainly hope this is the talk of the town in lots of towns. Who is Robert Draper anyway?
Maybe my stupid Congresswoman Cathy will come to regret all those Cantor, token- female-front-and-center photo ops. Oopsy.
Posted by: nancy | April 27, 2012 at 08:29 PM
It's hopeless. Red carpet for the Villagers. Autographs? Memorabilia? Stardust?
Posted by: nancy | April 27, 2012 at 09:16 PM
It had to be said, at last: http://wapo.st/Iyl2gT
Posted by: Paula B | April 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM
More excellent commentary about the must-read commentary of Paula's link.
Now, if this sort of thing can become a drum beat, maybe we can avoid going over a cliff with the crazed.
Posted by: nancy | April 28, 2012 at 06:55 PM
great links, paula and nancy.
nancy, did your son make it home OK? has your blood pressure returned to what passes for normal amongst parents of persons with incomplete frontal lobe development?
Posted by: kathy a. | April 28, 2012 at 08:18 PM
SC @ 6:10 pm.
Are you serious, you think these so called jurists are above corruption and graft? Thomas has an obvious incestuous relationship with citizens united which he in fact broke the law to hide for some ten years if my recollection is correct.
If you are so dumb that you can't understand what has to be given on a disclosure form, should you really be deciding constitution issues that affect millions of people?
Scalia, well, nothing wrong with being paid handsome fees to preach righ wing ideology to a stealth lobbying group whose actual purpose it to simply buy the legal means to take away the rights of citizens in favor of, guess who, the corporations who you pandered to.
And on the issue of lying to the congress let us consider Chief Justice Roberts who made the claim that he would only act as an "umpire". Except when he didn't. Gore v. Bush was the most blatently partisan court decision in history. C.U. kicked another leg out from under the platform of so called democracy. Elections are now free market commodities up for bid. Whomever has the deepest pockets can now buy what they want.
There are two big problems here. The first is you can only abuse people so much until they start to realize what is happening and react against it. The second is the rest of the world, which by an measure outweighs our pathetic fixation on our internal squabbles, looks upon us with utter disdain, and contemplates how they can exact retribution for the injustices they have suffered in the past.
We live in interesting times.
Posted by: KN | April 29, 2012 at 01:25 AM
kathy a. -- thanks for asking. blood pressure has probably plateaued. if all goes well, no more glitches (he got sick and was sheltered this week by friend's parents, bless them), he should arrive home on a flight tomorrow.
they are already talking up plans for Coachella next year, at which point i will be planning to be out of the country.
Posted by: nancy | April 29, 2012 at 08:51 PM
nancy -- /faint/ this is about the place where i start sputtering things like, "not on my dime, buster" and "didn't you learn anything?" i've found that my son does fewer stupid things as he grows older, but removing financial support that can be diverted to bad choices helped things along. the sputtering alone is both embarrassing and does zip.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 29, 2012 at 09:56 PM
kathy a. -- right. i'm thinking dairy farm internship at this point might be appropriate.
although, he really is a good kid who will head back to graduate school next year. he and his pal paid their own ways to soCal young person music heaven, woodstock circa 2012.
once. i get it. repeat, not so much.
Posted by: nancy | April 29, 2012 at 11:04 PM
?
Posted by: KN | April 30, 2012 at 01:33 AM
?
Posted by: KN | April 30, 2012 at 01:33 AM
I only clicked subit twice.
Posted by: KN | April 30, 2012 at 01:36 AM
questions abound in this world
Posted by: big bad wolf | April 30, 2012 at 08:09 AM
Except when he didn't. Gore v. Bush was the most blatently partisan court decision in history.
Except that Roberts was nominated by Bush and wasn't involved with Bush v. Gore.
Posted by: oddjob | April 30, 2012 at 09:04 AM
After some debate, I've decided to clean up the KN comments.
But I must admit, the many question marks seem perfect.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM
KN asked all the big ones.
Posted by: Paula B | April 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM
I decided that two was the perfect number.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM
oddjob - you are absolutely right, I stand corrected. I really intended to cite his expansionist interpretation of the CU case which was about the most overt judicial activism imagineable. But it is a much more complex argument than the Bush V. Gore thingy which was just a plain joke. Equal protection my flaming patootie.
So thanks for setting the record strait, perhaps Prup would care to expound upon the convoluted reasoning in the CU decision?
Posted by: KN | May 01, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Am I a mouse to you cats?
Posted by: KN | May 01, 2012 at 12:21 AM