Thursday, June 08, 2017

Political update for June, 2017

               I haven’t done a political update in quite a while, so you are probably not knowing what to make of the world. Let me help.

               Obviously, the story is almost always going to be Trump, Trump, Trump. He excites the media, which also loathes him. One morning I decided to do my own test and counted ELEVEN! negative news stories about Trump (or in a few cases Republicans in general), above the virtual fold in my longtime favorite media source, The New York Times, against no positive ones. Even in the recent Harvard study which showed that most media sites were almost entirely negative about him, the most balanced one, Fox News, was still slightly more negative than positive – 52-48%.

               The commenters, that is, the readers, many anonymous, are worse even than the one-sided columnists (including the ones who claim to be conservative but somehow, never approve of any Republicans or conservatives). Just as facebook has “like” buttons to click, the NYTs has “recommend” buttons to click. I may, some days, see a handful of people to click recommend on mine (ironically, on non-political articles with little traffic I sometimes get more than anyone else), but I’m always surprised I get any. Sometimes, even saying that I don’t like Trump, my desire to be fair or not rush to judgment leads to my getting a number of people replying to me, most of them furious that I took anything but a straight liberal line on stories.

The way to get hundreds, sometimes thousands of recommends is to say something extremely disparaging about either Trump, Bush or Republicans (and one other). It doesn’t have to make sense. The recommends aren’t important in themselves – the “typical” Times’ reader, and this has been quantified, is liberal and it is expected that this is what they want to hear (although it would be completely the opposite on a conservative site) but it is interesting to me what people get excited or angry about. The worst part of the comments and what the “Recommends” indicate delights the readers, is anti-Americanism, sometimes blatant anti-Americanism.

               I consider myself an independent moderate who leans slightly libertarian, in that I don’t think much of either party, usually find myself somewhere in the middle of their policy disputes – sometimes for this side, sometimes for the other and at least preach waiting on the facts before I decide who’s guilty or not.  If there is a liberty interest at stake, there should be a default in favor of freedom, overcome by a good reason. If it is constitutionally protected, like speech, it has to be a damned good reason and carefully crafted to have the least negative impact on it – that’s a rough summary of the law, anyway. There are many good reasons for laws and regulations. The best example of that is lead paint and traffic regulations. I’m fine with reasonable regulations on them. Doesn’t mean we will agree what is reasonable, of course.

               And, as a moderate/independent, I didn’t have anyone to vote for this election. Trump is probably the least knowledgeable, least eloquent and most character flawed president we have had in a long time. The only ones I can think of who had the depth of his personality conflicts were LBJ and Nixon, both who were at least extremely knowledgeable and adept politicians.  Although, if it true that B. Clinton raped Paula Broderick (I know, she reneged, but then said she did so in fear of them) and/or has been abusive to women as claimed by others, then his character might even be worse, but no one doubts his intelligence or his eloquence.
               
                I didn’t care if Trump won or Clinton. I wanted both to lose: him because – well, you know all the reasons beginning with narcissism and ending with ignorance of almost everything one should know if you are going to run at all. She, on the other hand, was entirely competent to the job, but was as dishonest as he was, if it was not quite as frequently displayed, and it appears to me that she did violate the law with respect to handling classified data, did put the country at risk by using a server and did engage in .some form of pay for play as Secretary of State – at the very least, she gave out the impression of it. Last, her campaign plainly cheated against Sanders. More so than all of that, I did not want a continuation of the Obama policies, which was assured if she was elected
               
                 In any event, I was going to be unhappy no matter who won and I was. But, I had a saving grace for both of them. If she won, at least we wouldn’t have a complete novice in the WH. And if he won, the media would get the slap in the face it deserved for abandoning its watch dog role and taking sides.  Despite how shabbily members of the press said Obama’s administration treated them – they still worship him and despise, detest, loathe Trump.
                
                All that being said – Trump was elected fair and square. Despite his insecure ramblings about fraud, it doesn’t appear that any fraud, if it occurred, affected the election. He won and that’s all there is to it.

               What resulted from it – the so-called “resistance,” is far worse than Trump (and that is hard to say). In fact, it has crept over into fascism. By using the word fascism, which is used by people to mean a variety of things but always related to a totalitarian gov’t or a group seeking that status. My definition, because I think this is what most people mean by it, is a political group that seeks to gain authority to enforce its will by violence and intimidation based upon a justification of race or ethnicity.

               And what I mean by worse than Trump is that the left seems most exorcised – I’d say hysterical – about his comments respecting Mexicans and Muslims (not that they made me comfortable – I just didn’t contemplate suicide or break anyone’s windows). Of course, he also largely took them back. In return, some members of the left, and I presume it is a great minority (but still way too many) engage in things like chanting “death to cops” and actually killing cops, rioting (braking windows, burning cars, beating up people), generally acting hysterical (again, just read the comments), opposing everything he does politically far more so than even the Republicans did under Obama, attacking and drowning out speakers, taking over and attacking political rallies, even arguing that free speech means the right to stop others from speaking in ways they find offensive and other equally obnoxious behaviors. Amazingly, they are in uproar at the punching of two intruders who were interrupting Trump rallies, while those on the left have attacked and closed down rallies, and admittedly tried to bait conservatives (although recorded surreptitiously).

               Being a moderate/independent does not mean that the parties are always equal or that I always feel equally about them. Admittedly, I often find I loathe most the minority party, because they are trying to unseat the majority and behave in undesirable ways. I couldn’t vote for a Republican at the end of the 1990s because I so detested the political way they went to impeach Clinton. And I despised Democrats most when they beat up Justice Thomas in his confirmation hearing and acted as if George W. Bush stole the election. I also thought the Republicans, in the majority, were idiotic in their Javert-like persecution of Hillary Clinton over Benghazi – although, admittedly, interesting and worthwhile facts came out really not related all that much to Benghazi.

               But, nothing has so irritated me as the behavior of the left in their recent minority status. A few things that they have done are among the most heinous I’ve seen in politics since the political assassinations of the ‘60s. One seems innocuous enough, but for the fascism abounding – and that is their silence in the face of the list of heinous acts I mentioned above. Many on the left simply see nothing wrong with those things I’ve listed above, while denying they are done by those on the left at all (anarchists some claim – without the slightest proof – one wonders why the anarchists are directing themselves against conservatives).

               Another thing poo-pooed by the press was something I thought one of the worst things I have ever seen in politics during my lifetime – the taking over of congress’s floor by Democrats in the minority because they didn’t get their way. They should have been arrested, as taking over the floor of congress is protected speech under the constitution any more than beating up someone because you wish to make a political point is protected. Amazing to me, these “protesters” acted as if they were on some kind of 1960s freedom ride, when they were just the bullies they used to detest.

               If anything would break down our system of government, it is the minority taking over the congress. It’s called a putsch. You can imagine if the Republicans in congress did that to a Democratic majority, how the NYTimes would have reacted. The words fascists and putsch would have been all over the home page.

               Two things that happened during the campaign which the Democrats have remained silent about speaks volumes to me of the corruption of their party. Where is the hysteria and anger over the cheating that went on in the Democratic primary? They are so worried about the Russians (and I have no idea if Russia was Wikileaks’ source – but there’s zero proof known to the public) but seem complacent that the fox was in the henhouse during Clinton’s defeat of Sanders? No one on the left even seemed to be outraged over Donna Brazile abusing her position with CNN to steal a debate question (although she was fired by CNN – what choice did they have?) The other heinous act though was Bill Clinton’s brazen interference with the investigation of his wife by the Justice Department. They are incensed that Donald Trump was irregular in his behavior with his own subordinates, but it is fine with them that a private citizen who still had tremendous clout and might be the next “first spouse” went to see the Attorney General on her airplane, away from all ears and with incredible timing – just before the decision on his wife’s investigation.

               But, with the press on your side, these things blow over quickly, and they did. And that is one of the problems the Republicans have always had – the media has always been on the side of the left in my lifetime – generally speaking - and now is really part and parcel of it. More than anything else that has developed since the 2016 campaign is the fall from grace of the press – not that it was ever on a pedestal. But, in the past two years it has become so one-sided, it has lost almost all political credibility with me and many people I know, including some liberals (almost mostly older ones). Let me give one example. The past week, despite there not even being a leak to base it on, the press has been full of warnings that Trump would use executive privilege to prevent Comey to testify before the Senate on June 8th, 2017. I watched mirthfully, certain that if it would have happened, it would have happened already. That is only common sense. The press knows this as well. It did not deter them at all. Today (6/7/17) I am watching the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee grill the heads of the FBI, Justice, U.S. Cyber Command and National Intelligence. All were asked whether they had discussions with the White House concerning executive privilege. All said no. I expect Comey to testify likewise, although I may not post that before he testifies. [In fact, I didn’t – but I left that as is]

               But, what of Russia and the whole election? To be honest, I don’t get it. As far as we have been told, there is no – none – zippo – evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. And though Alan Dershowitz is not someone I have often agreed with (though he’s not as obnoxious as he once was), he has been outspoken that whatever rumor is leaked about the WH and Russia – even if true – none of it is criminal.   Most of the things we learn in the media about it turn out to be false, so I’m completely skeptical until I see a smoking gun. In fact, the only crimes we know of seem to be that one of a few officials or intelligence officers are leaking classified material to try to harm the president.

               Don’t get me wrong. Is collusion more likely with a knucklehead like Trump? Intuitively, I would say absolutely it does. He might not even have realized it was a crime. Of course, I say this because of my poor opinion of him – it is not objective at all and history teaches us that predictions or intuitions are frequently wrong.  And, as with all potential crimes, I like to see or hear some actual evidence before I condemn. I’d be pleased to do so here, if there was evidence.  
   
            Republicans are, of course, capable of all the chicanery and bad acts that Democrats are. I have long felt that tactically the two parties and ideologies are the same, relying on hyperbole, appeal to emotion and character assassination.  But, since the advent of Trump, the Rs haven’t had opportunity to display it. At least most don’t. In fact, because Trump took no prisoners in the campaigning, even many Republicans loathe him, and clearly a good number of them are deeply embarrassed by him. On account of that, they have not given the cover to him they afforded to George Bush. In fact, they seem happy to go along with Democrats on many specifics and don’t seem to have a lot of heart to fight back.

COMEY

               I want to get to Comey, because he is the news of the day and I am just stunned at what he said (AGAIN – the first time was when he described what Clinton did regarding her server as a crime and then said, of course, no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute it – claiming there was a bad intent aspect that no one else seems to have heard of before).

               Today, with the press and his adversaries ravenous and even Republicans seemingly tepid about defending him, Comey testified. If demeanor and personality count, he hit it out of the park. He is eloquent and humble and good looking guy.

               But what he said was shocking and NO ONE I can see, even Alan Dershowitz, who immediately posted, saying see – no crime, picked up on this.

               Comey said, that Trump said to him, that he “hoped you can see your way clear,” to letting go of Flynn because he was a “good guy.” Comey took that to be a direction – that is, an order to end the investigation into Flynn. But, he also said:
-       
      That Trump could lawfully order him to stop an investigation in various ways.
-         That he never reported what Trump said to him to the AG or WH counsel, or his own leadership  team.
       That he did not obey the order. 
       That if an FBI agent knows a crime has been committed, he must report it.
-        That Donald Trump was not under investigation by the FBI.
-        That Trump never followed up about it.
-        That rather than report it, he kept notes about his meetings with Trump.
-         That e did not offer to resign as he did after he refused to sign the intelligence order and blocked others from getting Ashcroft to do it while he was in the hospital.
-        That after being fired, he gave the notes to an unnamed friend (but a friend who is a professor at Colombia University, to leak to the press (NY Times).
      
      I still don’t understand how people missed what I am about to say –

If Comey believed, as he said, that Donald Trump that Trump was giving him an order – why didn’t he follow it? He simply disobeyed an order given to him by the president. He never even told anyone about it. That’s what he’d have you believe.

Frankly, I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that Trump saying “I hope you can see your way” would be taken by a directive by Comey. If he wasn’t sure, why wouldn’t he ask? If it was true, why didn’t Trump follow up? And why didn’t Comey? It looks more like to me that Trump said exactly what he thought – his hope, and it was not an order.

Comey has lowered the bar for himself by describing himself as cowardly for not answering Trump about Flynn or for speaking with him alone (which he continued to do on the telephone). But, cowardly is not a good excuse. Remember, this is the same guy who rushed to the hospital to stop top presidential aides from getting to his weakened boss. That doesn’t sound cowardly. Same guy who handled organized crime and terror cases?

Several people asked him why he simply didn’t speak up. He answered that he wasn’t Captain Courageous and was cowardly. What an excuse.

Comey settled a lot of hash today. Maybe he was just telling the truth. He said the press got a lot wrong about the Russia Russia (Nooooo, really?), he said he went public about the Clinton email scandal result because he thought AG Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Clinton made her not credible. He also said she asked him to call it a “matter” rather than an investigation, which he noticed was what the Clinton team wanted it called.

And he also helped Trump by confirming that Trump did not try to squelch the Russia investigation, even suggested that he'd be interested in knowing if anyone of his own people had done something wrong. And also by knocking the press.

And there were a lot of things he could not answer – why he didn’t speak up, why the only thing not leaked about the investigation was that Trump wasn’t being investigated, why he didn’t resign?

In the end, I know that people who hate Trump and need him to fail will see this testimony as damning, because he called Trump a liar (Nooooo, really?) and said he defamed the agency. And because he said that Trump “directed” him to let go of the Flynn matter (and, again, but never followed up?)

I like Comey. Despite his failures in judgment in my view (which, frankly, until today, most politicians seemed to agree with) I like him a lot better than Trump. I think he’d be a lot better president than Trump. But, that doesn’t mean he’s perfect. And his failings the past year, have been “Huuuuge.” One of them is not really telling the truth at this hearing. I'm just not buying it.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Who said it XV

"'Well, I'm back,' he said."  So uttered Sam to end The Lord of the Rings. But, no this isn't yet another LOTR post. I'm just borrowing it to explain that I've been delinquent here because I had my daughter's wedding a few weeks ago, which really started in terms of gathering together a couple of days after my last post. Then a few days after her wedding we left for another wedding in Minneapolis, which was followed by a week of touring the Midwest - Minnesota, S. Dakota, Wyoming, Iowan and Illinois (lot of driving, definitely over 2000 miles). Then I came home and got sick for a while. And all during that time, I didn't write anything. Well, I'm back.

This is the 15th such game. The usual "rules" apply and I try to make the four multiple choices famous people pretty much everyone with a reasonable education has heard about. I have to have it somewhere in my own library (though I cheat sometimes) and I admit if I didn't know the answers, I would have to guess too for the most part.  Some of the questions are inspired by the current news cycle, Russia, Mexico and civil rights being so much in the news these day, but that won't help you solve these. Answers are below after the last questions. Write down your own answers on something before you look.

1. 

"The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy, is the result of Discoveries, Inventions, AND Improvements. These, in turn, are the result of observation, reflection and experiment. For instance, it is quite certain that ever since water has been boiled in covered vessels, men have seen the lids of the vessels rise and fall a little, with a sort of fluttering motion, by force of the steam; but so long as this was not specially observed, and reflected and experimented upon, it came to nothing. At length however, after many thousand years, some man observes this long-known effect of hot water lifting a pot-lid, and begins a train of reflection upon it. He says “Why, to be sure, the force that lifts the pot-lid, will lift any thing else, which is no heavier than the pot-lid. “And, as man has much hard lifting to do, can not this hot-water power be made to help him?” He has become a little excited on the subject, and he fancies he hears a voice answering “Try me” He does try it; and of that tremendous, and now well known agent, called steam-power. This is not the actual history in detail, but the general principle."

a. Lincoln  b. Teddy Roosevelt  c. Einstein  d. Trump

2.

"The more I see of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Mikado, the better I am content with democracy, even if we have to include the American newspaper as one of its assets – liability would be a better term. Russia is so corrupt, so treacherous and shifty, and so incompetent, that I am utterly unable to say whether or not it will make peace or break off the negotiations at any moment. Japan is, of course, entirely selfish, though with a veneer of courtesy and with infinitely more knowledge of what it wants and capacity to get it."

a. Lincoln b. Teddy Roosevelt  c. Einstein d. Trump

3.

"My skepticism is based on the fact that it was America that lent expression itself to pronounced reservations regarding the effectiveness of conferences. Without doubt, the greatest council of all time was the League of Nations. It was the will of an American president that created this body. All nations of this world together were to solve the problems of mankind at its council table. However, the first state to withdraw from this endeavor was the United States. And this was case because President Wilson himself already had voiced severe misgivings about the possibility of solving truly decisive international problems at the council table."

a. FDR  b. Adolph Hitler  c. Winston Churchill  d. Trump

4.

"It is the shallow fashion of these times to dismiss the Tsarist regime as a purblind, corrupt, incompetent tyranny. But a survey of its thirty months' war with Germany and Austria should correct these loose impressions and expose the dominant facts. We may measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the battering it had endured, by the disasters it had survived, by the inexhaustible forces it had developed, and by the recovery it had made. In the government of states, when great events are afoot, the leader of the nation, whoever he be, is held accountable for failure and vindicated by success. No matter who wrought the toil, who planned the struggle, to the supreme responsible authority belongs the blame or credit."

a. FDR  b. Adolph Hitler  c. Winston Churchill  d. Harry S Truman

5.

"I know these Latin Americans. I grew up with Mexicans. They'll come right into your back yard and take it over if you let them. And the next day they'll be right up on your porch, barefoot and weighing one hundred and thirty pounds and they'll take that, too. But you say to 'em right at the start, 'Hold on, just wait a minute,' they'll know they're dealing with somebody who'll stand up. And after that you can get along fine."

a. Harry S. Truman  b. JFK  c. LBJ  d. Trump

6.

"In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

a. Leon Trotsky  b. Hermann Goring   c. George McGovern  d. Trump 

7.

During the "Freedom Rides," in 1961 a little problem developed. They couldn't find anyone to drive the bus from Birmingham to Montgomery, Alabama and then to Mississippi. A frustrated politician complained to Mr. Cruit, a Greyhound bus superintendant. It didn't take long for him to explode.

"[Cruit]: Drivers refuse to drive.
[Politician]: Do you know how to drive a bus?
[Cruit]. No.
[Politician] Well, surely somebody in the damn bus company can drive a bus, can't they? . . . I think you should --had better be getting in touch with Mr. Greyhound or whoever Greyhound is and somebody better give us an answer to this question. I am--the Government--is going to be very much upset if this group does not get to continue their trip. . . . Under the law they are entitled to transportation provided by Greyhound . . . . Somebody better get in the damn bus and get it going and get these people on their way. Mr. Cruit, I think that if some of your people would just sit down and think for a few minutes that somebody would be able to drive a bus 80 or 90 miles."

That politician was:
a.  Bobby Kennedy   b. LBJ  c.  George McGovern  d. "Bull" Connor

8. 

"Jefferson thinks he shall by this step get a reputation of a humble modest, meek man, wholly without ambition or vanity. He may even have deceived himself into this belief. But if the prospect opens, the world will see . . . he is as ambitious as Oliver Cromwell. . . . Though his desertion may be a loss to us of some talent, I am not sorry for it on the whole, because his soul is poisoned with ambition."

a. Alexander Hamilton  b. George Washington c. John Adams  d. Benjamin Franklin

9.

"Our friendship was not easy, but I will miss it. If you end it today, that doubtless means that it had to end. Many things drew us together, few divided us. But these few were still too many. Friendship, too, tends to become totalitarian. It insists upon either total agreement or total discord. And even the partyless behave like militants in an imaginary party. I shall not go through all this again: it is in the order of things. Bur precisely for this reason, I would have so much preferred that our present quarrel went straight to the heart of the matter, without getting confused with the nasty smell of wounded vanity. Who would have said, much less thought, that everything would finish between us in a petty author's quarrel . . . I did not want to reply. Who would I be convincing? Your enemies certainly, perhaps my friends. And you, whom do you hope to convince? Your friends and my enemies."


"    a. Jefferson to Adams   b.  Thoreau to Emerson  c. Sartre to Camus   d. Olivia de Havilland to Joan Fontaine

10. 

"I say again that I'm not a racist. I don't believe in any form of segregation or anything like that. I'm for brotherhood for everybody, but I don't believe in forcing brotherhood upon people who don't want it. Let us practice brotherhood among ourselves, and then if others want to practice brotherhood with us, we're for practicing it with them also. But I don't that we should run around trying to love somebody who doesn't love us."

a.  Gandhi    b. George Wallace    c. Malcolm X   d. Trump

_________________________________________________________________________________

Answers

1. 


"The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy, is the result of Discoveries, Inventions, AND Improvements. . . . 

a. Lincoln.  He liked technology, trains and such. Given how limited his formal education was - virtually none - his mind was a marvel. I can easily see Einstein or Roosevelt having written this.

2.

"The more I see of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Mikado, the better I am content with democracy, even if we have to include the American newspaper as one of its assets – liability would be a better term. Russia is so corrupt, so treacherous and shifty, and so incompetent, that I am utterly unable to say whether or not it will make peace or break off the negotiations at any moment. Japan is, of course, entirely selfish, though with a veneer of courtesy and with infinitely more knowledge of what it wants and capacity to get it."

That was b. Teddy Roosevelt  I thought this was a gimme. Why would it be Lincoln or Einstein? Only Roosevelt was arbitor between Russia and Japan. I guess it could be Trump, given the broad assessments, but I think even he knows there is no Czar, Kaiser and Mikado right now.

3.

"My skepticism is based on the fact that it was America that lent expression itself to pronounced reservations regarding the effectiveness of conferences. Without doubt, the greatest council of all time was the League of Nations. It was the will of an American president that created this body. All nations of this world together were to solve the problems of mankind at its council table. However, the first state to withdraw from this endeavor was the United States. And this was case because President Wilson himself already had voiced severe misgivings about the possibility of solving truly decisive international problems at the council table."

This could have been FDR or Churchill but it was a very sober sounding b. Adolph Hitler. If you read everything he said before and after this paragraph it would't seem that way. But, I cheat. In any event, he has his facts wrong too. Wilson fought for it in America against opposition from those who felt it was giving up sovereignty. It was a noble idea, but he handled it badly. 

4.

"It is the shallow fashion of these times to dismiss the Tsarist regime as a purblind, corrupt, incompetent tyranny. But a survey of its thirty months' war with Germany and Austria should correct these loose impressions and expose the dominant facts. We may measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the battering it had endured, by the disasters it had survived, by the inexhaustible forces it had developed, and by the recovery it had made. In the government of states, when great events are afoot, the leader of the nation, whoever he be, is held accountable for failure and vindicated by success. No matter who wrought the toil, who planned the struggle, to the supreme responsible authority belongs the blame or credit."

This time it could have been FDR, Hitler or Truman. But it was c. Winston Churchill.

5.

"I know these Latin Americans. I grew up with Mexicans. They'll come right into your back yard and take it over if you let them. And the next day they'll be right up on your porch, barefoot and weighing one hundred and thirty pounds and they'll take that, too. But you say to 'em right at the start, 'Hold on, just wait a minute,' they'll know they're dealing with somebody who'll stand up. And after that you can get along fine."

This time I could see Truman, LBJ or Trump, but not JFK.   It was  c. LBJ, who really made Trump look like a true gentleman in some ways.

6.

"In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

      Okay, if you thought that was Trump you have to read something other than the NY Times. It was a. Leon Trotsky.

7.

During the "Freedom Rides," in 1961 a little problem developed. . . . 

I love this quote just because it is fun watching the pol blow up in frustration. I don't know if McGovern would have sounded like that.  LBJ and Bobby Kennedy fit because they were both relentless arm-twisters and explosive. Why would it be Bull Connor (if you know who he was)?
      It was Jack's little brother, a.  Bobby Kennedy. I wonder if he really thought there was a Mr. Greyhound who owned the company or if he was just being sarcastic. In any event, he did get a driver eventually - I don't know who or how they did it because death was quite likely. The violence the riders, even reporters and feds faced makes you sick to read about. And the local police just watched. This was one of America's most despicable and heroic periods. Most of the heroes are nameless or forgotten. 

8. 

"Jefferson thinks he shall by this step get a reputation of a humble modest, meek man, wholly without ambition or vanity. He may even have deceived himself into this belief. But if the prospect opens, the world will see . . . he is as ambitious as Oliver Cromwell. . . . Though his desertion may be a loss to us of some talent, I am not sorry for it on the whole, because his soul is poisoned with ambition."

Certainly Hamilton felt that way and I think Washington came to eventually. Frankly was more subtle in taking down a man and he and Jefferson got along well, maybe b/c Jefferson was such an admirer and did not see Franklin as an opponent. I think this was a gimme if you've read much about the founders. Adams badmouthed almost everybody - especially the other founders.  c. John Adams

9.

"Our friendship was not easy, but I will miss it. If you end it today, that doubtless means that it had to end. Many things drew us together, few divided us. . . .


"    Jefferson and Adams had a long feud, which they famously patched up with a long correspondence. But neitherwrote this at the end of the first friendship. It could have been Thoreau. I've written here before about some of his and Emerson's issues.  Olivia de Havilland to Joan Fontaine are Hollywood sisters who stopped talking long ago. I think de Havilland was a bit of an author. I don't know if Fontaine wrote her own auto-biography. In any event, there estrangement has been the subject of several books. The usual crazy story, but it's mostly about a dysfunctional family, sex and sibling rivalry. Fontaine died a few years ago, but the older of the two, de Havilland is over 100. In any event, he answer was c. Sartre to Camus, more particularly Sartre's reply to Camus, all published. Like so many groups of famous men and/or women, they seem to stop talking to one another eventually over petty spats. Come to think of it, though it's not that long of a list, the number of people I talk to has gotten smaller too, either by their choice or mine. So maybe it's everybody and we just know about them because they are famous.  Some people just can't stand being disagreed with, no matter how small the issue or how much more they have in common and some great "thinkers" seem very sensitive in this way. The arguments among these French existentialists were pretty much idiotic. 

10. 

"I say again that I'm not a racist. I don't believe in any form of segregation or anything like that. I'm for brotherhood for everybody, but I don't believe in forcing brotherhood upon people who don't want it. Let us practice brotherhood among ourselves, and then if others want to practice brotherhood with us, we're for practicing it with them also. But I don't that we should run around trying to love somebody who doesn't love us."

Trump was not the answer to any question. Sorry. I can't see the answer being Gandhi because who thought he was a racist and frankly everything in the quote sounds the opposite of his philosophy. George Wallace was for segregation, at least before he was shot and paralyzed. After that I know he came around, but I suppose it could have been him at some transitional point, unless he had a sudden transition - I don't really know how it happened but he ended up asking blacks to forgive him. If you don't know who he was do some reading, because he was an important figure, if a negative one, in the 1960s-70s. He ran for president four times and thankfully lost each time. The answer was c. Malcolm X. If the answer doesn't sound like the Malcolm X you are used to hearing about, he also changed quite a bit after he was thrown out of the Nation of Islam. This speech was just after his former friends burned his house down and just before they shot him dead. His is a fascinating story, and though initially very angry, he had some very valid points too. His autobiography, written with Alex Haley, has been criticized as fanciful in parts. But, I would bet there are not a lot of autobiographies that couldn't be criticized if you took the time. I couldn't imagine the diversity of opinions, facts and mostly criticism you'd get about me if someone took the trouble to interview my friends, never mind those who completely hate me.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

New Miss Malaprop V

From time to time I post here on my amazing gf aka my 25 to life sentence, my girl-fuhrer, my ball and chainsaw and her favorite (which she has co-opted for me), my insignificant other. She has, among other talents, an amazing ability to mix metaphors, say things just about right - but not quite and other verbal propensities that just slay me. If you haven't read The New Miss Malaprop I, II, III or IV, they are worth it and frankly, probably better than this group. Still, below is a slice of my life. I usually say a few things first when I go do these posts: First, don't be offended for her. I understand it can be read as my being condescending to her, but it really doesn't feel like that when it is happening. Think of it more George and Gracie (she calls herself Gracie). Besides, even if I am, you have no idea of what I go through every day with my beloved - I'm a martyr, and she loves it when I tell these stories. Second, I swear I am not making them up. I write them down as closely as I can, as soon as I can. Third, most of them aren't technically Malapropisms. But who cares, if they are funny? Here we go:

One day - well, actually every day, she complains I don't help her. She's right. I can't help her because nothing I can do will be right and I don't feel like being mocked or scolded the entire time I am helping her, even if she has no idea what she's doing and I am actually right. It's too punishing. But, this day I decided to tease her about it, not even realizing myself the cunning of her mind when it comes to me:

P: I have no one to help me.
D: If I help you, you’ll say I did it wrong. If I don’t help it’s wrong too. So, I might as well do the one that’s easier.
P: I don’t say you always do it wrong. You need to learn.
D: Learn what?
P: To do things correctly.
D: And I do it the opposite of correctly?
P: Yes.
D: What’s the opposite of correctly?
P: Wrongly.
D: Yet somehow you don’t see my point. Amazing.

Once, forced to admit an error herself, she explained it more succinctly: "We were both right, but you’re wrong."

The following is another one of her famous idioms:

D: (Looking at a left over potato) I wish this was baked instead of mashed.
P: You know the old saying.
D: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?
P: No. Beggars can’t be choosy.
D: Actually . . . that’s not the saying.
P: Sure it is.

We do a NFL playoff contest every year in which you have to pick the games every week from the Wild Card round through the Super Bowl. Of course, every week, the teams who will play each other have changed depending on who won the week before.  She just doesn't understand sports very well. I walked in on her while she was looking at the email reminder I sent in which I asked everyone to remember to pick that week's games. 

D: Hello.
P: What are you talking about?
D: I shouldn't say hello?
P: No. With this email?
D: (I look over her shoulder) You have to pick this week's games.
P: We did that last week.
D: How is it possible someone can know as little about sports as you do? 
P: No, you asked me questions last week and I already gave you my picks.
D: Okay (holding my head), these are new games. You couldn't pick them until this week because you couldn't know who would be in them until last week's games were over.
P: Well, how do I know who is playing?
D: I sent you an email a few days ago with the games.
P: Oh, I just delete those.
D: I'll send it again. We done here? 
P: It's ridiculous.
D: I don't care.
P: It's ridiculous to have to do it again.
D: Still don't care. Bye.

The amazing thing is, she won the contest that year, which tells you how much skill is involved. Another day we are watching an NFL playoff game. She is only interested because she wants to win the contest again. She has learned that Aaron Rodgers is the Packers' quarterback and he's really good. But, at one point this conversation happened:

P: So, why aren’t they playing Rodgers?
D: Umm, because the other team has the ball.
P: So, when are they going to put him back in?
D: When his team has the ball.

I suppose if you don't watch football you don't get that one. 

Still, another day we are watching Veronica Mars. It's a show I like a lot and have told her the name of it at least twice before this when we were watching it. I can never watch anything without having to constantly explain things to her, so sometimes I am a little petulant about it and just hit pause and dramatically put down the remote to look at her:

P: What's the name of this show?
D: Same as her name.
P: Which is?
D: Okay. (I hit pause and put down the remote). Her first name is the same as one of your sisters' middle names, remember?
P: Marie? Ann? Oh, Veronica.
D: Right. Last name is one of the planets.
P: Veronica Moon?
D: Really? Patty, what are planets?
P: Stars?
D: Yes, exactly, the stars are planets. Same thing.
P: (knowing my sarcastic voice). Wait, Veronica Mars.
D: So you knew it?
P: I guess.

Yet another day and I’m listening to Bach’s Cantata no. 8 when she walks downstairs past me on one of her endless self-imposed chores.
P: You really should have been born in a different century.
D: Okay, I'll bite, why?
P: Because of the type of music you like.
D: Patty, it's Bach. Lots of people still like him. I promise you they don't record it just for me.
P: Bach?
D: Yeah, he was the composer something like 300 years ago.
P: Really. That's strange, because it sounds like a woman is singing.
D: It is a woman singing. He was the composer. How could they record him 300 years ago?
P: Okay, but that's still a woman.
D: Oh boy.

Another day and I am commenting on her strangely acute hearing. She nods and proudly says  
"I have x-ray hearing." I don't bother to challenge it. I like it.

We have plans to go to the movies one day. I usually pick the movies. I am telling her what we are going to see - a remake of a western classic.

D: So we are going to see The Magnificent 7 tomorrow.
P: Oh, okay. I saw the one they made in 2015 yesterday.
D: You did?
P: Yeah, I think it was called The Fantastic 4.

Again, please understand, she's not kidding. She doesn't do puns. And I have to admit, there is that strange logic to it - a superlative followed by a number in both cases. If it was on purpose, I'd have to say she was really clever. 

Sometimes, it is not what she says is mixed up; it's just scary. For example, she kind of likes to kill.

P: Do you know when I was coming in the garage before I saw two crickets waiting to get in?
D: Uh, okay.
P: So, I killed both of them.
D: You're mean.
P: Gonna kill them all.
D: Didn't you ever see Pinocchio? (Of course, I meant something like - Wasn't Jiminy Cricket cute?)
P: Yes. Going to kill him too.

That will do it. Check out 4/26/07, 6/1/12, 11/29/13 and 10/13/15 for previous adventures with the New Miss Malaprop.

Saturday, April 01, 2017

It's a right (says the left)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, 
Chapter 6)    

This post was inspired by the claims of politicians lately that health care is a right. When I started this I was watching a call-in program on C-Span where it is being discussed. It is quite obvious that liberals and conservatives were thinking about “rights” in different ways. It seems like a simple question. But as I learned when I’ve asked students what “democracy” meant, there are more than one answer. And if there is more than one answer, then it is not as simple a question as it appears.

There was a time when I was young when I would have fully agreed that health care was a right. I was very liberal and also very politically uneducated. As unorthodox as I was in many ways, and relatively immune (I said relatively) to peer pressure and believing what I was told, I pretty much adopted my family’s views on politics. That’s because I really wasn’t interested and never really heard other views until I was fairly well indoctrinated. Back then, I even thought there might be a “Constitutional right” to a clean environment. You never stop educating yourself about policy or politics if you are so inclined, but my own education started when I was a young lawyer in my mid-20s. Best I can remember I started looking at the “other side,” who I thought of as the bad guys, on the right then because I was amazed that so many people liked Ronald Reagan.  I never became a conservative. Just there religious views would be enough for me to generally reject their philosophy. But, I ceased being a liberal too. In fact, it was a long slog to become a moderate because it is so hard to admit to yourself that the opinions you had formed – just might be wrong or even that there were other valid opinions out there. I’ve written elsewhere about my political development and won’t repeat myself much, but I call myself a moderate, not because I am more “fair” than others (everyone thinks they are fair) but because I seem to disagree with both conservatives and liberals roughly the same and often, sometimes even when they know me well, they tend to see me as the opposite of what they are.

But, just because you are a moderate or independent (that is, no party allegiance) doesn’t mean you don’t think that some ideas of one party or the other is plain wrong or that they haven't gone off the deep end about any particular issue or in general. I felt that way about Republicans when they were in heat over impeaching Clinton because he had sex outside his marriage and even – as if the White House was a church – in the Oval Office. And I kind of feel that way about liberals right now (although both parties gave us the worst choices for president in history).

Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, John Lewis and Bernie Sanders have been very vocal that health care is a “right.” I find that preposterous, unless we mean by a "right," something the government has provided by legislation that we are “entitled” to as a member of our society or class. But, that’s not what they mean, because there is no such law right now which says healthcare is a right – not even Obamacare.

When they say it is a right, or someone else says it is not a right, I’m pretty sure they mean by it the same thing they mean when they talk about a right to free speech or other rights that some people think are “God given,” and others think are just part of our social contract. It is something you have, not something you are given or can be taken away. And that’s generally what I will talk about here. But, to determine if people have a “right” to health care, you have to better define what it is. In this case, I will try to define what liberals and conservatives each mean by it.

When I bother to try to define something, I am not always that interested in the dictionary definition, but what I think people really mean by it. Sometimes it is the same, but sometimes different. Words do not exist except as symbols, which are concepts in our minds, or ideas. We seem programmed to learn language, at least most people are, and most young people can effortlessly learns several at a time. Just as example, the letters of the word “key” in that order do not have to mean a tool for opening a locked door or critical information in order to understand something or an island on a coral reef. In fact, the word “key,” as a door opener, is not so in French (“clef,” if my high school French is still current) and the sound of the word in Spanish can mean “who?” And, of course, as with “key,” one sound often has different meanings. A “right” too has different meanings. For example, it is a means of orienting as in right and left. But, even when talking about it in the political sense, people mean different things when they use it.

Consequently, when we say what a word means, or answer a question like “what is a right?” we have to acknowledge that it can mean different things to different people and at different times and places. And even a single person in one place and time can use it in different ways.

Conservatives and liberals, which probably describe the majority, but not a plurality of voters, use “right” or “rights” very differently, although it might also be said, as Humpty did, that it means exactly what they say it means. If we are talking about political parties or ideologies, there is not a lot of consistency. They change their own minds if it is politically expedient, and then cite the opposite as authority. So, there are always exceptions. I’m making generalizations, because that is usually the best you can do.

What is a right is an important question because it is fundamental to understanding liberals and conservatives as well. You could take the essence of the meanings (and I haven’t even gotten there yet) and apply it to other issues. For example, the purpose of government is closely related. So is the issue of Constitutional interpretation.

And, I am only speaking here of the broadest sense of rights, that is, the individual’s relationship to government, not particular rights found in positive laws.

Conservatives generally have two related ways of defining rights in the larger sense. One is -- those prohibitions on the government that are embodied in the Constitution or so generally recognized in the nature of our type of government such that we are entitled to them, many of which are embodied in the Constitution. The other is – those prohibitions on government to us given to us by God (I am having the argument here about whether God exists – they believe he does and have assigned this role to him). Another way to say that is that there are prohibitions on government and freedoms that “God” gave us, or are “unalienable” and no one can take away from us. Note that it is almost always framed in the idea of a prohibition against government.  The government can’t make us do something or deprive us of something we have. I’ll leave aside limitations for now. This view explains why so many conservatives believe in textualism or originalism. It is a fixed number of rights that do not change over time unless the Constitution is amended. The Constitution set a template and congress can make laws provided for in it, which are sometimes called “powers.” Limits are, in the abstract anyway, are found in the text or as historically preserved or as reason would dictate.

Liberals also generally have two related ways of defining rights. One is the same as the first one I stated Republicans believe concerning the Constitution and our society. The other is where the real differences lie. Liberals tend to believe that rights include those things which are consistent with what they feel is “good government” or make sense in the modern world. They tend to read these into the Constitution. Whether a theorist might say that it is because the Constitution is a “living document” (and no, they do not think it has consciousness or is actually alive – it is a metaphor) or that the founders set a template and it has to be interpreted by reference to modern values, doesn’t matter so much as the result. It is a broader reading which does not require amendment for change to occur, because it allows congress to go beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution (powers). Some seem to think that there are no limitations on what congress can do if there is a rational explanation why it needs to change. Congress knows few bounds beyond what is expressly restricted (and even there, the restrictions are looser, even where express). That also means “rights” can be prohibitions against government, but also entitlements from government.

Again, whether we are talking about rights, or Constitutional interpretation or the purpose of government, the very same general approach applies to each parties. Even the way they speak of the general welfare clause in the preamble to the Constitution (the “We the people” clause), reflects this understanding. They agree that government can be restricted from doing certain things. Sometimes they even generally agree (as when the NSA was recording data from our phone calls). They more so disagree more on the other end – whether rights includes entitlements.

I will say here that generally, I think in the abstract that the conservatives are more right, solely because, if limits do not have some firm, if not arbitrary, boundaries, it lends itself to government being more important than individuals. Moreover, the Constitution provides for its own modification. 

That being sad, conservatives are always fighting a rear guard action. It is the nature of the two ideologies that one is more offensive in changing our culture or overarching laws – the liberals (because they are trying to change or progressive) – and the other more defensive  – the conservatives (trying to conserve or keep the status quo). I didn’t come up with that myself. It’s inherent in their philosophy.  I always recommend the essay “Why I am not a conservative,” by Hayek, which you can find online. I’ve written on it before. It is a poorly named essay because it presupposes people knew he wasn’t a progressive – in fact was closer to the conservatives. It is also a difficult essay to understand if you don’t understand by “liberal” he meant what we call “libertarian.” What we call liberals or progressives, he calls “progressives” or “socialists.”  I refer you to my previous posts (5/23/11, 7/25/11 and 8/28/11) if you want to know more. I haven’t re-read recently (I frequently go back and correct my embarrassing grammar I didn’t edit when I posted) but I believe I set out much of my political philosophy.

So much for the abstract. In reality, the liberals have their own claims. If you believe that the Declaration of Independence helps illuminate the Constitution, and many scholars and commenters have thought just that, numerous phrases come to mind, particularly from the second paragraph – “all Men are created equal,” “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” “Safety and Happiness,”  -  and you consider the general welfare clause in the preamble of the Constitution, there is an argument to be made that the more expansive view of rights is what moves us towards “a more perfect union.” think of all of the social advancements our society has made since Teddy Roosevelt, and in so many cases I can’t help think, thank God (said the atheist) for the liberals. The end of many forms of discrimination, the right to collectively bargain (although as applied I often rue it), the increased sexual and concomitant freedoms, not to mention the loosening of social mores. The reason the liberals seem to always win in the end is because people like these things in general.

I’m not suggesting the conservatives also don’t play an important role too though. But for them, the progressive notions of the left would have swapped out capitalism and a number of individual rights for socialism and the demands of the state long ago as has often happened in places where it has been tried. And even now, it seems to me that having succeeded with so many changes in our society for which I am glad (and I think most Americans are), they want to enforce these views on everyone, not just in terms of prohibitions, but personally. That’s what the health care mandate is; that’s what hate crimes laws are, that’s what some supposed anti-discrimination laws are. You are now required to participate in something; in some cases you are now required not to think a certain way and forced to participate.

Since 1788 we’ve been slowly trying to balance the two ideologies under different names, but usually represented by two dominant parties. And like many things on a long path, they ebb and flow, while heading in a general direction. Unfortunately for conservatives, even though there are periods of push back, the general direction is left. And to make those new ideas into Constitutional law, liberals have relied on a number of strategies, the most successful of which has been deeming certain rights in the Constitution as “fundamental,” that is, to put it one way, inherent in our system of government. Conservatives, or at least many of them, have jumped upon that bandwagon in order to find their beloved 2nd Amendment fundamental status. In doing so, they have abandoned the argument that there is no such thing as a fundamental right in Constitutional law.

Again, I have to point out, that because of the nature of political parties with their win-win mentalities, these are all generalities, and either party, often both at the same time, will spin on a dime theoretically to try to win something it wants. I usually use as an example Bush v. Gore, when all of a sudden the Republicans thought that the federal government would decide the outcome of Florida’s election though normally they are all about state’s rights and the Democrats all of sudden thought the state should decide, though they are normally all about federal control of pretty much everything. The reason – Republicans had a majority of judges on the Supreme Court and Democrats on Florida’s high court.

I do have a personal opinion. I don’t know anyone (I think) who would not like to have good health care for everyone if they thought it possible. I mean, why not, if we could afford it as a country. Some obviously believe it is a right, but, in order to do so, they have to argue that it is a new one based on principles of natural law. And to some extent this just means they want what they want, and calling it a right is an effective way to get there. Ultimately though, I can’t adopt this meaning of right, at least when I use it. Because if we can have anything anointed Constitutional, then all bets are off – there is no rule of law, just the rule of men and what they think should be a right as defined by the political majority. I doubt very much the left would like a right to life extended to fetuses (which it has not been), or a right discriminate. I’m sure we can go on.


As always, I await your comments (usually when I say that, no one has one – but . . . .)

Friday, March 24, 2017

My feelings have nothing to do with it! The Gorsuch nomination hearing.

I was expecting Justice Gorsuch to be a little more stoic. He was friendlier, smiled more and was quicker to engage with the usual lack of wit it seems most public figures are saddled with than I had expected.

I just spent four days watching the hearings. The first day was speeches by the senators and the last one by the judge. The second and third day was the senators questioning the judge - the left trying to make him sound like a nightmare and the right like the Lord's right hand man. If you read The Passion Play of Sonia Sotomayor, which I wrote after her nomination hearing (like him, I thought her qualified) you will see it is all nonsense. There it was the Republicans trying to make her sound biased and unsuitable for the job and the Democrats finding her not answering questions just fine - the exact opposite of this week's hearing. Today, for example, Senator Grassley, the chairman, prepared the judge to be asked a lot of questions he couldn't answer. With Sotomayor, Grassley was one of the senators trying to pin her down so that she could never rule in a way he didn't like. It never works! To be fair to him, he admitted in this hearing that he has done what the Democrats did at Gorsuch hearing himself. Read the Sotomayor post for more details. And Sen. Schumer, who has taken the floor to excoriate Gorsuch, did exactly the opposite when Sotomayor took the same stance as Gorsuch on answering questions.

Senator Graham also spent some time criticizing his left leaning associates for how they were treating the judge. But, if you watched the Sotomayor hearing (or read my post) you will see he too has played the same game. There is a difference in that Graham and Grassley were a lot more polite than some of the Democrats, particularly Sen.Whitehouse and Franken. The other Democrats on the committee were at least polite, if critical, which is always fine.

Frankly, the side that is defending the judge always looks nicer and the other side always looks angry and ideological. But, most are biased. There questions and demeanor often depends on who is nominated. I have no doubt that if Justice Garland had had his hearing, the roles would have been reversed.

I did go back and read my Sotomayor post. I think I was fair. I criticized her a lot (because she did seem a little more ignorant of constitutional law and legal philosophy than other past nominees), but I thought she was qualified too. The one thing I got wrong about her was that I did not think she would be as ideological as others thought. She is, as much as any of the rest of the them, if not more so than some others.

Gorsuch is obviously qualified by education and experience. His adversaries acknowledge that. What they are doing is attacking his character and judgment by taking a few cases of his 2700 - maybe 3 or 4 of them, and thereby finding him "for the big guy" and to have poor judgment. To the contrary, his former clerks, his judicial peers and friends assure us he is the nicest man who ever lived and "only follows the law" - ruling sometimes for the little guy, sometimes for the big guy, and never taking into consideration the "identity" of the litigant. And that is clearly what this is about, as are many conservative-liberal issues. If you listen to the Democrat senators questioning him, that is pretty much the nature of the opposition. The result, not the analysis matters to them. If he will not become a liberal and pledge to rule for unions, LGBT, minorities, plaintiffs, etc., then he is too biased to be a judge, in their view. It's ridiculous, of course, and they don't actually say it out loud, but that's the way these hearings always are for a long time.

I am critical of Gorsuch for a number of tactics which are mostly common to all nominees. First, his mantra that he is following the law and his personal views don't matter is ridiculous, whatever the measured tones he repeats it in. What does follow the law even mean? They all say they are doing that. They obviously differ as to what the law means. It is a fantasy that who they are and what they think does not fit into it. There is no coal black line for the justices to follow in controversial cases. To be fair, every Supreme Court nominee and judge, every senator, insists on the same fantasy. I covered this in detail in the Sotomayor post and won't repeat it all here, but, in short, judges are humans who bring their experiences to the bench. To suggest that they are stoic marvels who do not let emotion affect their opinions is like saying athletes who perform well under pressure do not feel any. The only bigger fantasy is that some hard-rock law exists that they can follow. 

Another phony mantra is that precedent controls. All hail precedent. Well, clearly we need precedent or none of us would have any idea what the law is at all. We need consistency, even when it is arbitrary, as it often is. But, most of us don't want the courts to follow precedent when we are passionate about the result. For example, some judges break the rules about not saying whether they approve of cases when it comes to Plessy-Brown, Dred Scott and Griswold (prophylactics). Some go as far as saying they agree with them. I think they do this not because they are settled law now, but because they are culturally settled and no one will blame them for saying it. Some just say that they are precedents that are due great deference. But, in truth, most of the controversial cases are about overturning precedent or finding some way to diverge from it. For example, Brown overturned Plessy. Roe diverted from the traditional rule of law that only actual cases or controversies could be decided, as it had to in order to make a decision - after all, the pregnant woman had to have long delivered a baby or aborted it at the time of the court's decision. We now know in fact she had an abortion.

Gorsuch followed this tactic with Roe. We can reasonably surmise that no Republican president is going to nominate a judge unless he knows he or she is is pro-life, even if they wouldn't talk about his personal feelings. But, Gorsuch, recognizing he had to say something, was effusive in stating that Roe was long held precedent, upheld numerous times. He did the same with Brown. When asked why Justices Roberts and Alito said they agreed with some cases and he wouldn't he fell back on - there is no daylight there - in other words he feels the same as them, but he felt he shouldn't say it out loud. So, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, as long as I don't say it, I can hint it. The truth is that it is hard not to say that you agree with important cases that virtually everyone agrees with when a senator is asking you to do so. He could have said, Roberts and Alito bowed to pressure when they felt it was safe and that he would not. 

Both sides hate precedent when it results in a ruling they don't like. It is rich to hear these senators and witnesses complain about what they see as fixed precedent. Almost all of the revolutionary cases involving the bill of rights, free speech, religion, freedom of unlawful search and seizure, right to counsel and so on or the 14th amendment (due process and the like). Many were decided in the Warren Court years, and involved overturning long held precedent. The liberals won these cases over conservative opposition. Now, there are many conservatives who are more passionate in defense of these rights than Democrats. Not only Brown, but many of the cases involving voting rights or the Civil Rights Acts involved overturning precedent. Sometimes they carve out exceptions, in other cases they twist words, and sometimes they expressly overturn rules. It all comes down to the same thing. They change the law because it has become socially or politically untenable.

The law of precedent is a labyrinth which can be summarized briefly. Justices follow prior case law up to the point that they feel they can substitute it with rulings with which they are more comfortable. There is almost always a way to justify it with precedent. If they can't find any, they just ignore it and apply "common sense," or accepted American values or some such other nonsense. 

But, back to Gorsuch's demerits. He is wrong that Bush v. Gore was precedent. It has been used as precedent, but it expressly states that it was not precedent.  

His answers were often robotic. Perhaps he thought giving the same slow answers about his feelings not mattering and precedent controlling was effective. It was not. It did make him look like he was trying to drag it out. Once he gave that answer, he could have just said same answer and not wasted time. But that would mean more questions, so it is probably taught to them. 

I did not really like his jokey manner much. He is entitled to it and I don't think it means he shouldn't be a judge, but I thought he was a little too ready to make a joke. Don't joke in public unless you are funny - and few are.  I especially disliked his Fozzy-Bear voice he uses when emphasizing something. It's not that I don't have annoying vocalizations (I've heard myself on tape), but I'm not in a nationally broadcast hearing to confirm me for one of the most sanctified, if not the most sanctified office in the world. We want sober nominees and not so much giggling ones. Frankly, he did not come off as genuine at all. I found many of the other justices in these hearings much more genuine. Sam Alito comes to mind as very matter of fact. But this is no reason to reject him either.

The Democrats fixated on a few cases where they didn't like the result. I thought this spoke very highly of him. If out of 2700 hundred cases they could criticize only a few, he must be some justice. He pointed out how often he was in the majority and even part of a unanimous decision. He had been reversed only once by the Supreme Court (though few cases get up there), in a way twice with yesterday's ruling on the education law.

And, I have to say, looking at the cases they picked on, I though he was wrong too. Foremost of them, perhaps because it was easiest, was the "Maddin" case, about a truck driver, who was fired after the brakes on his trailer froze. Against orders, he unhitched the trailer and drove the truck to safety (rescue came 15 minutes later, but he couldn't know that) rather than wait there to freeze and possibly die or to unsafely tow the brakeless trailer. He alone dissented from a ruling favoring the truck driver under a whistle-blower safety act because he said, in driving the truck, he operated it - the act protected him from refusing to drive in an unsafe situation - not driving it.  Talk about splitting hairs. The guy reported the problem and had to save his own life.  It was clear to the majority what he was refusing to drive was the truck hitched to the trailer, and that was clearly within the meaning of the Act. 

I also thought he was wrong in the education case involving the autistic boy who was not getting sufficient services under the law. The boy's father was one of the witnesses on the last day. Without going into too many details, his view of the law seemed exactly the opposite of what congress intended, as the Supreme Court found during the hearing, though on appeal of another case. The father of the boy put it best - why would they have even bothered to pass an act if the schools weren't going to really be required to do anything much?

He also disagreed with the Hawaiian Dem. Senator, Mazie Hirono, who was quite annoying, but absolutely right that in a magazine article he had criticized liberals and intimated that only extraordinary cases should be brought. He said at the hearing that it didn't sound like him. Well, it doesn't, if you go by him now, but he used to be much more partisan before he was a judge. In fact, the Democrats spent a lot of time criticizing his memos from when he worked for Bush. They were pro-torture for one thing, which is a little uncomfortable. It is not an unfair criticism, because it does describe how he felt as an adult, but it has to be tempered with the fact that being a judge does change a man (as he pointed out). His own claim sounds awfully questionable - he was a lawyer stating his client's position.

His strongest point is that he has been involved in 2700 cases and been reversed once (he says maybe once) and the Supreme Court decision yesterday would count as two, even if it is a different case. If a few cases to criticize is all they can find, that is pretty good. Even the Buddha probably stumbled once in a while.

The last criticism I have of him - though, again, I would vote to confirm - is that he would not acknowledge that it is important whether a Democrat or Republican president appoints a judge. He refused to get involved with politics and insisted that he doesn't see judges as Democrat or Republican. Nevertheless, it is so obvious it matters, how can it be denied. Trump probably would not have been elected if he did not promise to nominate conservative judges. That is something some people cared deeply about - some voted for him only because of it. And, as we know, the Republicans refused to even give a hearing to Justice Garland, who probably is as decent and impressive a nominee as could be found on either side.

The bottom line. These hearings are mostly a total waste of time. You learn almost nothing and get to hear a lot of speeches from the senators. Even floor speeches by senators are a waste of time. In the real world, if they want us to know something, they tweet it, or maybe hold a press conference. Me and a handful of other people watch C-Span. Very few people have ever listened to even one speech from a senator or member of congress.

If I haven't said it before in this evalovin' blog, I am for a constitutional amendment which would give all presidential nominees of any kind an up or down vote in a maximum of 30 days or they would be automatically confirmed, just the way presidents only have a certain amount of time to veto a bill.

Obviously, that is not going to happen. Amendments are far and few between. In the meantime, though I know Sen. Reid exercised what is called the nuclear option with respect to getting rid of the filibuster on votes for certain lower justices, it was the right call. And I hope, if the Democrats filibuster Gorsuch, that McConnell exercises it with respect to all judges - I'd prefer all nominees.

I fully expect Gorsuch will be a Supreme Court Justice soon. And I seriously doubt that all three Justice Ginsburg and Breyer are both going to last the entire four years of Trump's term, particularly Ginsburg. He will probably get another. And, if the Democrats are going to filibuster anyone he puts up and not vote for him (it used to be that almost every judge was unanimously approved), Trump may go very conservative indeed.

In modern times, even if you count Justice Garland as a 46-54 rejection (that is, count all R votes as no and all D votes as Y) Democrats have historically tougher on Republican nominees than visa versa. I start with Reagan, simply because that is when I became politically aware, or more so anyway, and also because it is reasonable to call that modern times in terms of the Supreme Court (if you go back further though, it really doesn't change much - . He nominated 5 justices. 3 were unanimous. O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy - Scalia being the shocker, as he was already a little contradictory.

Rehnquist's Chief Justice nomination was, unlike the other 3, controversial. In the end, he won, but nowhere close to being unanimous - 65 to 33. Of the 33 no votes, 31 were Democrats.

Justice Bork, the only Justice to lose a floor vote since Nixon's two failed appointments, lost 42-58. 52 of the nos were Democrats - all but 2. Personally, I found Bork a little weird, which may not be fair, as he was "borked" and it may have given me a bad impression. I was also still very liberal. But, some of his opinions seemed so 19th century.

George H.W. Bush got two nomination. Souter won easily, 90-9, but Thomas was roasted for allegedly telling a few dirty jokes (see last week's post) and barely won, 52-48. 46 of the 48 nos were Democrats.

We now turn to the first Democrat President's nominees. Clinton nominated Breyer and Ginsburg. She was confirmed 96-3 and he was confirmed 87-9. Only a few nos, but all Republican.

George W. Bush had much greater trouble. He nominated three and two were confirmed. Harriet Miers was clearly unqualified and had to be withdrawn. Of the two that got votes, Justice Roberts (CJ), widely considered to have had the most impressive performance of any nominee, could only must a 78-22 win. All 22 nos were Democrats. Sam Alito had even more trouble. He won 52-48, but 24 senators voted to filibuster - 23 Democrats and one independent who caucused with the Democrats. In the floor vote, all nos were Democrats except for the same independent and one Republican who later became a Democrat.

With Obama, for the first time, Republicans started getting into the partisan game when it comes to the Supreme Court, but until Garland, still not as lock step as Democrats. Sotomayor won 63-31 (all nos Republican) and Kagan 63-37 (all nos Republican except Ben Nelson, who frequently voted with Republicans).

Garland, of course, the Republicans blocked, refusing to have even a hearing. But even if we count him as 54-46 against, with all Republicans voting no, historically, the Democrats clearly have given Republicans a much harder time in the last 30 or so years than the Republicans have given Democrat nominees. I think at this point, all gloves are off, although I suspect Senator Graham and a few other Republicans might have voted for Garland. He possibly could have won although doubtful.

That's all, folks.

About Me

My photo
I started this blog in September, 2006. Mostly, it is where I can talk about things that interest me, which I otherwise don't get to do all that much, about some remarkable people who should not be forgotten, philosophy and theories (like Don Foster's on who wrote A Visit From St. Nicholas and my own on whether Santa is mostly derived from a Norse god) and analysis of issues that concern me. Often it is about books. I try to quote accurately and to say when I am paraphrasing (more and more). Sometimes I blow the first name of even very famous people, often entertainers. I'm much better at history, but once in a while I see I have written something I later learned was not true. Sometimes I fix them, sometimes not. My worst mistake was writing that Beethoven went blind, when he actually went deaf. Feel free to point out an error. I either leave in the mistake, or, if I clean it up, the comment pointing it out. From time to time I do clean up grammar in old posts as, over time I have become more conventional in my grammar, and I very often write these when I am falling asleep and just make dumb mistakes. It be nice to have an editor, but . . . .