I’ve heard of the Blackstone Rangers but not of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, and I’d bet the former is a lot more ethical than the latter. For what it’s worth, originalism is a special kind of bullshit: it’s the legal equivalent of secret sauce, the experiment that can never be replicated, the miracle that the founders really meant what 21st century nutjobs believe in . What nonsense!
Alexandra Petri wrote her article in the Post today about this speech, but her too-precious sarcasm left me cold. Thank you for tackling ole Amy-wach-you-gonna-do with your surgical wit and analysis. Her speech makes me think she had someone ghost writing her law exams. It’s a stupid argument filled with one logical fallacy after another. I hope RBG haunts her every dream.
All those shadowy legal enterprises-the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, and the Federalist, should be barred from ever having any candidate nominated for the SC because they're not only partisan hacks but also religious fundamentalists operating under false pretenses.
We're closer to the Taliban than we'd like to think. Thanks to all those who pretend that there is no partisan hackery.
I wish sometimes Earl Warren had been cloned. At least we could have had some real legal jurisprudence in the court instead of slightly covered over religious mandates posing as legal doctrine.
And so religion is a part of our governing. I thought it was a separation of State and Religion! Thus having religious freedom but no religion would run things. I think someone revived King Henry the VIII!!! He executed women he didn’t want to be married to anymore! Republicans are somewhat acting like Henry the VIII. 🎶I’m Henry the VIII I am…🎶Henry the VIII I am I am🎶
In the great tradition of men not believing sexism exists (and if it does, they aren't sexists), and white people not believing racism exists (and if it does, *of course* they aren't racist -- how dare you even suggest it?), Amy Coney-Rabbit claims that partisan hackdom doesn't exist (and if it does, she and her reactionary colleagues are not partisan hacks). Got it: nothing to see here. Thanks for a great column -- I love to see my enemies skewered with style -- and especially the introduction to the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, of which I hadn't heard. I wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center would consider classifying them as a hate group?
Lucian, there are all sorts of weird associations, filled with people overly impressed with themselves, such as the Federalist Society, and now this group of miscreants, apparently whose sole purpose in life is to cancel the Enlightenment, and take the law back to the Star Chamber, the Inquisition, with, in order of precedence we have the dungeon, the rack, and the stake to which heretics and nonconformists were tied as they were burned to death on the order of civil and religious authorities, acting together. At least spiritually, Justice Barrett seems to fit within that tradition; you might also include Mary, Queen of Scots and Queen Mary Tutor, the latter of which presided over numerous pressings (where accused offenders were suffocated to death using heavy stones, much the way George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis 18 months ago); burnings and beheadings of those whose loyalty to the Catholic Church was deemed suspect, or loyalty to the sovereign was questioned, as was the case of Sir Thomas More, who opposed King Henry's divorce of his Queen, Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne him and Boleyn. These people didn't themselves more ecclesiastical than the Pope, because the papacy changes with the times even if the Roman Curia does not. These people are clear and present danger to republican principles as enunciated in the Constitution of the United States when it was drafted in 1787.
The idea, of course, was to sheathe the naked power of either the Sovereign, or the papacy in what was then the law of the time. It was a naked power grab, and independent-minded people had to keep their wits about them in order to keep their heads on their shoulders. Not too many years ago, in 1966, choose a film was made of Robert Bolt's adaptation of his dramatic stage play A Man for All Seasons, starring Paul Scofield As Sir Thomas More; Robert Shaw as King Henry VIII; Leo McKern, as Thomas Cromwell, and Susannah York, as Margaret More, Sir Thomas' daughter. Corin Redgrave plays William Roper, Sir Thomas' son-in-law, married to Margaret.
Thomas More's character stands for fealty to the law, and to his conscience, and for that, and for his refusal to give his blessing to King Henry's plan to annul his marriage to Catherine, Thomas is accused of treason and convicted on the false testimony of Richard Rich, and ultimately he is executed in the Tower of London. Him
These are the kinds of people we are dealing with, there is not a living faith, it is power, cloaked in dogma, and defended by a subtle casuistry that by intention and persistence erases moral and ethical, and legal, boundaries. The Trump administration was a paradigm of morally, ethically, and legally compromised behavior, by so many officials, and so pervasively across the board, that it is a wonder that we do not require GPS direction to get out of bed in the morning. In the situation of Justice Barrett, the law is clearly subordinate to her extreme Roman Catholic religious beliefs. The laws about allocation of powers, procedural requirements, boundaries that may not be transgressed, in addition to a pursuit of regular order and substantial justice. Barrett's religious predilections do end runs around those requirements, all in the name of a 'greater good'. That 'greater good' is Barrett's personal theology, I shared with her communicants who believe roughly the same thing. They are as un-American as the Ku Klux Klan. If given power, they would be the American Taliban. For these people, church and state merge by virtue of the shared power that they hold, or purport to hold. That is medievalist in outlook, and contrary to the dictates of the Constitution. This is a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion per se. The Drafters of the Constitution well understood the dangers of allowing religious zealots access to the levers of governmental power. On this basis alone Justice Barrett is disqualified from being a sitting judge, as she is allowing her religious beliefs in their most extreme form to limit and direct her judgment in cases coming before her.
We were warned about her from people who know her. But, hey! We also let REPUGS break laws and threaten democracy for 150 years without dealing with the threat—even before Nixon. Then, Reagan (and Cheney) pulled off Iran-Contra drug escapades and passed off their Koch Libertarian Lies about “trickle down economics.” For this, they were worshipped. I don’t need to rehash Bush-Cheney, but Boy! Cheney sure got rich…as has McCONnell. The Trump years now trump America’s all-time government corruption, yet we only hand out a slap on the Seditionists. Both Reagan and Trump were mentally incompetent while in office—nothing was done. We’ve handled this democracy shabbily. I don’t think it’s a democracy for much longer.
Originalism my ass. How come the 2nd amendment is redacted in black marker by the "originalists"? See par about "well regulated militia". Originalism is used when it fits the program.
Lucian, You've got to lighten up and believe someone who thinks differently than you. Are all conservatives "political hacks?" How about Edmund Burke.?
Well, as an "originalist", she shouldn't even be voting, much less sitting on the Supreme Court. Full of shit, indeed.......
I’ve heard of the Blackstone Rangers but not of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, and I’d bet the former is a lot more ethical than the latter. For what it’s worth, originalism is a special kind of bullshit: it’s the legal equivalent of secret sauce, the experiment that can never be replicated, the miracle that the founders really meant what 21st century nutjobs believe in . What nonsense!
Alexandra Petri wrote her article in the Post today about this speech, but her too-precious sarcasm left me cold. Thank you for tackling ole Amy-wach-you-gonna-do with your surgical wit and analysis. Her speech makes me think she had someone ghost writing her law exams. It’s a stupid argument filled with one logical fallacy after another. I hope RBG haunts her every dream.
All those shadowy legal enterprises-the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, and the Federalist, should be barred from ever having any candidate nominated for the SC because they're not only partisan hacks but also religious fundamentalists operating under false pretenses.
We're closer to the Taliban than we'd like to think. Thanks to all those who pretend that there is no partisan hackery.
I wish sometimes Earl Warren had been cloned. At least we could have had some real legal jurisprudence in the court instead of slightly covered over religious mandates posing as legal doctrine.
As a semi-sentient being, i feel very ill. One can only eat so much s**t
And so religion is a part of our governing. I thought it was a separation of State and Religion! Thus having religious freedom but no religion would run things. I think someone revived King Henry the VIII!!! He executed women he didn’t want to be married to anymore! Republicans are somewhat acting like Henry the VIII. 🎶I’m Henry the VIII I am…🎶Henry the VIII I am I am🎶
In the great tradition of men not believing sexism exists (and if it does, they aren't sexists), and white people not believing racism exists (and if it does, *of course* they aren't racist -- how dare you even suggest it?), Amy Coney-Rabbit claims that partisan hackdom doesn't exist (and if it does, she and her reactionary colleagues are not partisan hacks). Got it: nothing to see here. Thanks for a great column -- I love to see my enemies skewered with style -- and especially the introduction to the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, of which I hadn't heard. I wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center would consider classifying them as a hate group?
Lucian, there are all sorts of weird associations, filled with people overly impressed with themselves, such as the Federalist Society, and now this group of miscreants, apparently whose sole purpose in life is to cancel the Enlightenment, and take the law back to the Star Chamber, the Inquisition, with, in order of precedence we have the dungeon, the rack, and the stake to which heretics and nonconformists were tied as they were burned to death on the order of civil and religious authorities, acting together. At least spiritually, Justice Barrett seems to fit within that tradition; you might also include Mary, Queen of Scots and Queen Mary Tutor, the latter of which presided over numerous pressings (where accused offenders were suffocated to death using heavy stones, much the way George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis 18 months ago); burnings and beheadings of those whose loyalty to the Catholic Church was deemed suspect, or loyalty to the sovereign was questioned, as was the case of Sir Thomas More, who opposed King Henry's divorce of his Queen, Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne him and Boleyn. These people didn't themselves more ecclesiastical than the Pope, because the papacy changes with the times even if the Roman Curia does not. These people are clear and present danger to republican principles as enunciated in the Constitution of the United States when it was drafted in 1787.
The idea, of course, was to sheathe the naked power of either the Sovereign, or the papacy in what was then the law of the time. It was a naked power grab, and independent-minded people had to keep their wits about them in order to keep their heads on their shoulders. Not too many years ago, in 1966, choose a film was made of Robert Bolt's adaptation of his dramatic stage play A Man for All Seasons, starring Paul Scofield As Sir Thomas More; Robert Shaw as King Henry VIII; Leo McKern, as Thomas Cromwell, and Susannah York, as Margaret More, Sir Thomas' daughter. Corin Redgrave plays William Roper, Sir Thomas' son-in-law, married to Margaret.
Thomas More's character stands for fealty to the law, and to his conscience, and for that, and for his refusal to give his blessing to King Henry's plan to annul his marriage to Catherine, Thomas is accused of treason and convicted on the false testimony of Richard Rich, and ultimately he is executed in the Tower of London. Him
These are the kinds of people we are dealing with, there is not a living faith, it is power, cloaked in dogma, and defended by a subtle casuistry that by intention and persistence erases moral and ethical, and legal, boundaries. The Trump administration was a paradigm of morally, ethically, and legally compromised behavior, by so many officials, and so pervasively across the board, that it is a wonder that we do not require GPS direction to get out of bed in the morning. In the situation of Justice Barrett, the law is clearly subordinate to her extreme Roman Catholic religious beliefs. The laws about allocation of powers, procedural requirements, boundaries that may not be transgressed, in addition to a pursuit of regular order and substantial justice. Barrett's religious predilections do end runs around those requirements, all in the name of a 'greater good'. That 'greater good' is Barrett's personal theology, I shared with her communicants who believe roughly the same thing. They are as un-American as the Ku Klux Klan. If given power, they would be the American Taliban. For these people, church and state merge by virtue of the shared power that they hold, or purport to hold. That is medievalist in outlook, and contrary to the dictates of the Constitution. This is a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion per se. The Drafters of the Constitution well understood the dangers of allowing religious zealots access to the levers of governmental power. On this basis alone Justice Barrett is disqualified from being a sitting judge, as she is allowing her religious beliefs in their most extreme form to limit and direct her judgment in cases coming before her.
It’s the Federalist Society Lucian.
You are correct on every single count. Dems need to get moving and take back the court, by whatever legal means possible - NOW.
We were warned about her from people who know her. But, hey! We also let REPUGS break laws and threaten democracy for 150 years without dealing with the threat—even before Nixon. Then, Reagan (and Cheney) pulled off Iran-Contra drug escapades and passed off their Koch Libertarian Lies about “trickle down economics.” For this, they were worshipped. I don’t need to rehash Bush-Cheney, but Boy! Cheney sure got rich…as has McCONnell. The Trump years now trump America’s all-time government corruption, yet we only hand out a slap on the Seditionists. Both Reagan and Trump were mentally incompetent while in office—nothing was done. We’ve handled this democracy shabbily. I don’t think it’s a democracy for much longer.
I weep for our country.
The Scalia connection...all we need to know. She is a traitor to her sex, and it will get worse.
Originalism my ass. How come the 2nd amendment is redacted in black marker by the "originalists"? See par about "well regulated militia". Originalism is used when it fits the program.
Lucian, You've got to lighten up and believe someone who thinks differently than you. Are all conservatives "political hacks?" How about Edmund Burke.?
Dripping with irony. I like it.