The year 1991 marked a dark spot in our nation’s history when it comes to the rule of law and the people who determine what the law is. I’m talking about the day Clarence Thomas was confirmed to that august body.
I've been thinking these very thoughts all evening and my fury at this man is once again at a furious boil. When I think of the Anita Hill hearings I can't stand it. I despise this man. Is he filled deep down with shame as well as anger? Is that possible? That buried shame against the ignorant man with no shame makes me want to weep. No. I'm too mad. Thks as ever for your words..
I was about to comment along the same lines, Lesley, but you expressed it better than I could have, I'd like to add though, what are your thoughts on the chances of Thomas recusing himself given his wife's support for the insurrection?
The chances of Thomas recusing himself are slim to none. The man is utterly shameless and there is no mechanism to force him to recuse or to push him off the Court other than impeachment, which ain't gonna happen.
It's astounding, even impressive in the way the most appalling serial killers are impressive, as the most terrifying of terrifying "bad ends" a supposedly innocent little neonate could possibly attain, or a mass murderer with no conscience like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and some others.
Sheesh, even Napoleon had some authentic grandeur and courage about him, Trump, Putin, the other classic dictator sociopaths, none of that - just tawdry, vicious buffoonery, but deadly, toxic, enough to mobilize a phenomenal resistance, too, as happened in occupied Europe and across Asia and the Pacific against the Tojo Fascist Clique, and of course by the Allies in WW2.
All the people you mention are psychopaths. They have in common a total lack of conscience and an inability to make meaningful connections with other human beings. Read “The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout, Ph. D. She asserts that about 4% of us are psychopaths to some degree… in most cases harmless… serial killers and the Stalins/HitkersPolPits comprise only a tiny fraction of 1% of that 4%. But if you know 100 people, probably four have some sociopathic /psychopathic traits.
So nothing's changed since my course on History and Systems of Psychology with Dr. Gerald Weiss at Macalester , ok, thanks for reminding me - although at that point I hadn't followed C. Peter Erlinder's (favorite professor at Billy Mitchell) recommendation to read THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM by Wilhelm Reich, didn't understand this area nearly as well, Art!
C. Peter Erlinder (born 1948) is an American lawyer, originally from Chicago,[1] who lives in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was Lead Defence Counsel for the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has represented several clients internationally, most notably several Rwandan opposition leaders, including Rwandan presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire.
Biography
Erlinder was born in Chicago. He received his bachelor's degree from Bradley University, then spent two years at Georgetown Law School. He graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law, and was a lecturer at the University of Chicago, before becoming a professor at William Mitchell College of Law. He retired in 2012.
Defendants
Erlinder specializes in high-profile crimes involving terrorism, the death penalty, civil rights, claims of government and police misconduct, and criminal defense of political activists. Some of the clients he has defended include:
The Mass Psychology of Fascism[5] (German: Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus) is a 1933 psychology book written by the Austrian psychoanalyst and psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, in which the author attempts to explain how fascists and authoritarians come into power through their political and ideologically-oriented sexual repression on the popular masses.[1][2]
Background
Main articles: Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany
Reich – originally from Galicia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and practicing psychoanalysis and psychiatry in Vienna – joined the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) in 1928. He joined the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) upon moving his psychoanalytic practice to Berlin in 1930. However, The Mass Psychology of Fascism was seen as being so critical of the communist regime in the Soviet Union that Reich was considered to be a liability to the KPD, and was subsequently kicked out of the party upon the book's publication in 1933.
Summary
The question at the heart of Reich's book was this: why did the masses turn to authoritarianism even though it is clearly against their interests?[6] In 1933, Reich set out to analyze "the economic and ideological structure of (particularly) German society between 1928 and 1933" in this book.[7] The healthy alternative, he proposes, is a form of "Workers Democracy", whereby those who 'do' the actual work make the decisions as to what, how and why.
Reich argued that the reason why German fascism (i.e., Nazism) was chosen over communism was that of increased sexual repression in Germany – as opposed to the somewhat more liberal (post-revolutionary) Russia. As children, members of the (German) proletariat learned from their parents to suppress nearly all sexual desire and – instead – expend the repressed energy into authoritarian idealism.[2] Hence, in adults, any rebellious and sexual impulses experienced would cause fundamental anxiety and – therefore, instead – social control is used to reduce anxiety. Fear of revolt, as well as fear of sexuality, were thus "anchored" in the 'character structure' of the masses (the majority). This influenced the irrationality of the 'people' and allowed (irrational) 'populistic' ideology to flourish, Reich argued:[6]
***** Hasta la pasta, I'm just 22 minutes into a rewatch of MEAN STREETS (1973) with De Niro, Keitel, directed by Scorsese, back later though & we can discuss in more detail, thanks for the reminder!
Please don't give up. The feral hogs want us all to succumb to despair; that's how they think they'll win. I will be 74 in a couple of months and have been organizing and agitating since 1966; although I've had many dark nights of the soul, I pick myself up and carry it on for the sake of those who will come after us. And when it all gets to be too much, I watch Duck Soup, laugh my ass off, and get back to work.
Haha, made me laugh out loud, Linda. But seriously, I am with you on that, I'm sure we all are. 74 eh? Just a kid :) I am 91. (edited: kid, not ked. I don't see the keyboard as well as I used to :)
And none too soon, you'll be spending the whole day at the races next and the evening at the circus, ordering room service at a grand hotel and eating coconuts instead of your porridge!
Horsefeathers, you are right indeed, right on your way to a life of crime , consider yourself warned, and none too soon! Next you'll be spending the whole day at the races , the evening at the circus, ordering room service at a grand hotel and eating coconuts instead of your porridge!
You'll come to a bad end swanning around demanding to spend a night at the opera, Miss Toffee Nose, instead of cleaning the stove and preparing the chimney for Santy Claus, mark my words you naughty girl!
It's up and down Linda, for sure. One day seems hopeful and the next, not so much. I'm in the same stage of life and protested VietNam....guess I haven't been tested as much since then, until now. Can't give up, won't give up. Duck Soup is a great cure-all, you're right. Thanks for the pep talk!
There is ONE mechanism to force Thomas to recuse himself - if his money lord (Koch, now supporting Nikki Haley, not trump) and political lord (Leonard Leo) tell him to.
My dream: Jack Smith makes a deal with Clarence - if he resigns, Ginny won't be prosecuted. Otherwise, the problem is that Roberts has no control over the Court.
Practically all of it applies in one way or another to Trump's psychology, but not that, instead, Trump has gone completely bonkers over the disappointment of finding sheer money alone isn't enough to impress a city as self-confident, collectively, as New York City.
He isn't owed any respect simply due to his inherited (and squandered!) wealth, but has never accepted that simple truth. What a monumental wimp, a clueless mook.
I feel the same way about Thomas. He is deeply, deeply angry—- look at his eyes looking back at you with burning and complacent contempt in his official portrait. He’s a disgrace to the court, racial matters aside. I watched the confirmation hearings, with pompous, supercilious Senator Danforth sitting by his side silently and gleefully listening to the claptrap coming from Thomas about “a 20th century lynching.” Oh, what a brilliant button to push with guilty, repentant America. How COULD we, with our collective guilt about slavery, EVER not believe a black man—ANY black man!—nominated as a justice to the exalted court? Anita Hill, reserved, intelligent, dignified, and probably embarrassed, was 100% credible then and is 100% credible today. Everyone I know, man and woman, myself included, believed her totally. Maybe with Thomas the hens are finally coming home to roost.
A reason for optimism is that Neal Katyal, who is a top Supreme Court litigator, “said on MSNBC the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have little choice but to apply their 'textualism' method of reading the Constitution to the Colorado case. … If they do, Katyal said, 'Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.'”
I fear that Katyal may be overestimating the commitment of the six Republican politicians on the Court to textualism. Then again, they don’t necessarily support Trump, just because they’re right-wing extremists. Textualism would give them an excuse for disappointing the MAGAts.
In 2020, Neil Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, applied textualism to find that the federal employment discrimination law protects gay people: “In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.”
The statute doesn’t ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it bans discrimination based on sex, and the former is a form of the latter. If an employer refuses to hire a man because he is married to man but hires a woman who is married to a man, then the employer is discriminating against the man based on his sex. Congress did not intend to ban discrimination against gay people, but the point of textualism is that that doesn’t matter. Only the text of the statute matters.
I believe they want to get rid of Po1135890 as much as we do...before he does away with the Supremes along with every other part of the government IF he gets elected....God forbid!!!
Thank you! I hope it's only the cold causing my keyboard to repeat characters in virtually every word, then add a period, triggering a cap in the next. Ugh.
Great column! It boils down to this salient observation: “These are issues of modernity versus antiquity.” So true. In the U.S. the law, in its inimitable form, generally evolves in ways that improve the lives of people, and has done so since the 1950s - witness Brown v. Board of Education, the Loving case, the cases initially upholding the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Acts, the ADA, the Affordable Care Act, Obergefell, and on and on. But more recently, we are on a downward slide, heading back to antiquity with decisions like Dobbs, Masterpiece Cake Shop, and many others.
As you note, the current majority on SCOTUS would take us all back to the 1850s if they had their way. Modernity is not their “thing.” It shows that elections matter.
So the answer is to keep fighting the court battles that need to be fought, and vote into office those who will look out for the welfare of Americans, and will appoint to SCOTUS learned scholars who respect the law and make decisions based on the law, and not politics. Only then can the image and prestige of the Court be restored.
Scalia joined the Court in 1986. That's when Originalism began to gain currency. Frankly, these jurists treat the Constitution as if it were an antique that they are guarding. And modernity in hegemony would render them irrelevant. It's trench warfare.
I was at the beginning of my career when the Anita Hill hearings took place.. it was big news. Reactions were varied. One relative of mine insisted that Anita Hill must have "asked for it". I lost my temper over that, having experienced a great deal of sexual harassment already in my short, young working life in a male-dominated profession. I knew full well I certainly hadn't "asked for it" and neither had Anita Hill. A man at work asked me what I thought about Anita Hill and I replied "I believe every word she said". He was taken aback and that ended the conversation. It was outrageous, and she was courageous, and she stands vindicated with proof of Thomas' venality in too many senses of the word.
If, and when, we get through this utterly disgusting convulsion of corrupt, power-hungry, misogynistic and racist men and women, we must enact ethics rules with teeth and strong barriers for other misconduct that comes to mind. I've never lost my fury over the Anita Hill hearings. Decades upon decades of Clarence Thomas' corruption and there is little we can do. The honor system is no longer enough.
A Freemason who endorsed the metaphysical concept of reincarnation - and stated it through his epitaph, let me see if I can find it online, just set up Windows 11 PC yesterday and today..
Richard, I had read this before. Yes he was. The founding fathers as a whole I think were mystical the dollar bill design has mystical symbols, the third eye etc., May of the world's leading thinkers believed in reincarnation. I remember reading Patton's biography where he talks about it. In the movie he stands in a spot he said he stood in before in a past life. I myself have had several very vivid remembrances of mostly deaths in various locations and as different ethnicities.
Yes, the experiences are frequently dismissed, but one obvious possibility is that some form of reincarnation is a kind of "default setting" in our kind of universe, or in "the universe" if none others exist. And that our sciences haven't yet reached the level of sensitivity with our current instruments, to detect and understand the processes involved.
Well let them mock away! By the way, our own singular individual existence - incarnated at least once, clearly - would seem to lead back beyond individual parents, grandparents, etc. back, how far, at least hundreds of thousands of years or even several million, if there's enough continuity of the human species to trace it that far.
And even taking the entire process back to some theoretical "pre-human" progenitors, well, that's a kind of "reincarnation." albeit we don't now have any known reliable way of remembering it - I mean, not before there were any recognizably human species, whether one or several, like the Neanderthals and one called I think the Denuvians . That one might be misspelled and it's getting late! But main thing is: in 2023 AD or 2023 C.E., we do not know enough to rule out SOME KIND of afterlife, very arrogant to pretend otherwise, same with reincarnation.
I do appreciate your extremely practical and I think, very wise admonition, that we should at least do our best to be good, balanced human beings, not so selfish we never engage in compassionate charitable work or donations, not so detached from "paying the bills and minding the store" that we don't take care of ourselves as best we are able. Certainly we can look on the likes of Trump and Justice Thomas as terrible examples for a career in public service, and really for any kind of serious, honest business at all. And appreciate your emphasis
on the NDE, the near death experience , as truly a crucial, life-changing event, despite rather witless persons who try to make fun of the idea, without really offering anything close to a "proof" it's just some kind of artifact of a serious illness or accident, and its treatment. I mean, events of all kinds that change a person profoundly happen when people get very ill, or have terrible accidents - are all of those also so easily dismissed as "just a kind of common realization of no real importance"? Why wouldn't it naturally be the case, that since the single most absolutely inevitable fact about, not just humans, but every single living creature that we know of, is their susceptibility to death, mortality - even if we can cite some obscure plants or ocean life that are alive for many hundreds of years or longer - that the event itself, and even a very "close call" where we experience more or less exactly what you described, is bound to cause deep reflections, about what we are hoping to accomplish, or avoid having happen in our life, or arrange to make better. It's a practically endless list, ay?
Again, why mock it, without really being able to conclusively "explain it away"?
This is the worst Court since Roger Taney and the Dred Scott decision, and is likely to do even more profound damage. Parenthetically, I must remind you that Joe Biden was part of the vicious and ignorant male cabal that confirmed Thomas. Has Biden ever made any sort of apology? Of course, it would be too little, too late. Didn't see any real push from Biden to codify Roe while the Dems held the House, either. Women are disposable in the eyes of the old men of both parties as well as the Court.
Bullshit. When did Dems hold the House and Senate with enough votes to codify Roe? Agree that Biden's behavior during the Thomas hearings was disgraceful. He has more than made up for it.
He has said he regrets his part in that. It means he’s grown, a trait he has embraced. Of course damage done. Women understood what was happening, very few men did - it not having been done to them in return. Denigrated, belittled, ignored.
The resurgence of the warped patriarchy the GOP embraces, so vindictive they are now charging a woman who miscarried with abuse of corpse. Really, fuck them. We need to fight this remnant of witch burners, inc.
There were men in the same law school classes with me at William Mitchell (now Mitchell - Hamline College of Law) in 1991 who "got it," but we necessarily represented a tiny percentage of men with a clear motive to watch the Thomas - Hill controversies unfold as closely as possible : law students.
The broader population - many thought she was just making it up (???) to get attention, or for allegedly being snubbed by Clarence romantically (???????????????????????).
Couldn't agree more, Linda. Biden could have followed the lead of WV Senator Robert Byrd, who sat on the committee and had planned to vote to confirm Thomas. After hearing Anita Hill testify he reversed course. He said simply that he believed her. Biden listened to the same testimony. I believe he has muttered some sorrowful sounds without apologizing.
"Sorrowful sounds", indeed. Cheap and easy, no remorse or further commitment required. I'll hold my nose and vote for Biden out of necessity, but I don't have to like it.
So good. The word "plotting" instead of "reasoning" is le mot juste. The Republicans among them completely sold out, some for political ideology, and one, maybe two (Alito) for filthy lucre. I was absolutely gobsmacked to read today that the black sheep of SCOTUS actually put out the word he was considering leaving the Court because he needed more money! Well, that was easily fixed. The Harlan Crows of the right wing decided it was worth keeping their sure thing happy - and on the bench.
I'm afraid that Thomas is a burning example of how mistaken it is to value tokenism (or as it would be call;ed today, diversity) as the primary focus in hiring. Had Thomas NOT been black, the first black SC nominee, he probably would not have been nominated or approved. But his backers valued partisanship above all other considerations and cynically calculated that his skin color would shield him from legitimate criticism a white candidate would have faced. This approach helps no one and as we are seeing creates a terrible legacy of corruption and unaccountability.
What was it he said that clinched it - something about a 'high tech lynching'?? No one could vote against him after that? Although what was 'high tech' about it, I don't know!
No joke at all except on the court. And the country. A vindictive move nominating him in retaliation for Bork imploding if I’m not mistaken. Which I may be. It’s late.
"And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old "....blah blah blah Esteemed Justice Thomas
If this were a civilized country, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch would be off the Court and in prison. But as we all know, this is not a civilized country.
McConnell is pure evil and giving us this Court was to be expected. Too many Senators voted for Trump's nominees knowing that they were blatant and brazen liars, but I find it hard to forgive RBG for her stubborn refusal to retire.
We're in a tight spot. Our forefathers lived harder lives than we have to form this country and our freedoms. To be the shining light on the hill. Time to go to work. Thanks IV.
Excellent piece, Lucian. I am surprised you did not mention that Joe Biden was the chairman of the committee that passed Clarence through to the seat he has held and abused since that day in 1991. I don’t think “we have to live” with anything, including their decisions. Women and men of good will have taken on the Roe v Wade debacle and I believe we will reinstate women’s right to decide their healthcare. Biden better make some good executive orders and push for law change nationally to protect we the people. Thank you for your excellent analysis.
Thomas is horrible but what really stings is we all know damn well the liberals were completely aware of the gross bribery going on and said not a gd thing.
There is no evidence that "liberals" knew about the bribery until ProPublica exposed it. How many "liberals" do you think were on Harlan Crow's yacht or at his Adirondack camp? Zero. I'm a pretty well plugged in "liberal" and I knew nothing.
They were (and continue to) be co workers over 4 decades in a notoriously insular institution whose members are constantly in intimate working conditions. Of course they knew.
Thank whatever-power-is-out-there for proPublica. Without that outfit, would *anyone* *ever* have dug into Thomas's activities? You're right, Runfastandwin—this crap has gone on … and on .… and on, blithely unexamined. But all six are beneath contempt.
I have long thought that if someone wrote a sci-fi script about a world governed by hewing to the original intents (sic) of a document written by some men 200+ years ago, and that script reflected all the legal, social, and technological changes America's seen since its inception, that script would be properly thought of as ridiculous bullsh*t. Un-filmable because it's unbelievable.
I’ve often said: would you use a 230-year old instruction manual for any club, machine, or organization? It’s elegant in many respects, but the CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.
I've been thinking these very thoughts all evening and my fury at this man is once again at a furious boil. When I think of the Anita Hill hearings I can't stand it. I despise this man. Is he filled deep down with shame as well as anger? Is that possible? That buried shame against the ignorant man with no shame makes me want to weep. No. I'm too mad. Thks as ever for your words..
I was about to comment along the same lines, Lesley, but you expressed it better than I could have, I'd like to add though, what are your thoughts on the chances of Thomas recusing himself given his wife's support for the insurrection?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/who-is-ginni-thomas-and-why-is-she-important-to-the-jan-6-hearings
The chances of Thomas recusing himself are slim to none. The man is utterly shameless and there is no mechanism to force him to recuse or to push him off the Court other than impeachment, which ain't gonna happen.
Yes, I'm afraid you are right. The man has no soul.
It's astounding, even impressive in the way the most appalling serial killers are impressive, as the most terrifying of terrifying "bad ends" a supposedly innocent little neonate could possibly attain, or a mass murderer with no conscience like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and some others.
Sheesh, even Napoleon had some authentic grandeur and courage about him, Trump, Putin, the other classic dictator sociopaths, none of that - just tawdry, vicious buffoonery, but deadly, toxic, enough to mobilize a phenomenal resistance, too, as happened in occupied Europe and across Asia and the Pacific against the Tojo Fascist Clique, and of course by the Allies in WW2.
All the people you mention are psychopaths. They have in common a total lack of conscience and an inability to make meaningful connections with other human beings. Read “The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout, Ph. D. She asserts that about 4% of us are psychopaths to some degree… in most cases harmless… serial killers and the Stalins/HitkersPolPits comprise only a tiny fraction of 1% of that 4%. But if you know 100 people, probably four have some sociopathic /psychopathic traits.
So nothing's changed since my course on History and Systems of Psychology with Dr. Gerald Weiss at Macalester , ok, thanks for reminding me - although at that point I hadn't followed C. Peter Erlinder's (favorite professor at Billy Mitchell) recommendation to read THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM by Wilhelm Reich, didn't understand this area nearly as well, Art!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Erlinder
C. Peter Erlinder (born 1948) is an American lawyer, originally from Chicago,[1] who lives in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was Lead Defence Counsel for the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has represented several clients internationally, most notably several Rwandan opposition leaders, including Rwandan presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire.
Biography
Erlinder was born in Chicago. He received his bachelor's degree from Bradley University, then spent two years at Georgetown Law School. He graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law, and was a lecturer at the University of Chicago, before becoming a professor at William Mitchell College of Law. He retired in 2012.
Defendants
Erlinder specializes in high-profile crimes involving terrorism, the death penalty, civil rights, claims of government and police misconduct, and criminal defense of political activists. Some of the clients he has defended include:
Mohammed Abdullah Warsame[2]
Sami al-Arian[2]
Victoire Ingabire[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mass_Psychology_of_Fascism
The Mass Psychology of Fascism[5] (German: Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus) is a 1933 psychology book written by the Austrian psychoanalyst and psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, in which the author attempts to explain how fascists and authoritarians come into power through their political and ideologically-oriented sexual repression on the popular masses.[1][2]
Background
Main articles: Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany
Reich – originally from Galicia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and practicing psychoanalysis and psychiatry in Vienna – joined the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) in 1928. He joined the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) upon moving his psychoanalytic practice to Berlin in 1930. However, The Mass Psychology of Fascism was seen as being so critical of the communist regime in the Soviet Union that Reich was considered to be a liability to the KPD, and was subsequently kicked out of the party upon the book's publication in 1933.
Summary
The question at the heart of Reich's book was this: why did the masses turn to authoritarianism even though it is clearly against their interests?[6] In 1933, Reich set out to analyze "the economic and ideological structure of (particularly) German society between 1928 and 1933" in this book.[7] The healthy alternative, he proposes, is a form of "Workers Democracy", whereby those who 'do' the actual work make the decisions as to what, how and why.
Reich argued that the reason why German fascism (i.e., Nazism) was chosen over communism was that of increased sexual repression in Germany – as opposed to the somewhat more liberal (post-revolutionary) Russia. As children, members of the (German) proletariat learned from their parents to suppress nearly all sexual desire and – instead – expend the repressed energy into authoritarian idealism.[2] Hence, in adults, any rebellious and sexual impulses experienced would cause fundamental anxiety and – therefore, instead – social control is used to reduce anxiety. Fear of revolt, as well as fear of sexuality, were thus "anchored" in the 'character structure' of the masses (the majority). This influenced the irrationality of the 'people' and allowed (irrational) 'populistic' ideology to flourish, Reich argued:[6]
***** Hasta la pasta, I'm just 22 minutes into a rewatch of MEAN STREETS (1973) with De Niro, Keitel, directed by Scorsese, back later though & we can discuss in more detail, thanks for the reminder!
It's too bad in this case that Thomas is not an old friend of Hannibal Lecter..... I'd donate the fava beans and a good Chianti.....
Despair again fills my soul!
Please don't give up. The feral hogs want us all to succumb to despair; that's how they think they'll win. I will be 74 in a couple of months and have been organizing and agitating since 1966; although I've had many dark nights of the soul, I pick myself up and carry it on for the sake of those who will come after us. And when it all gets to be too much, I watch Duck Soup, laugh my ass off, and get back to work.
Haha, made me laugh out loud, Linda. But seriously, I am with you on that, I'm sure we all are. 74 eh? Just a kid :) I am 91. (edited: kid, not ked. I don't see the keyboard as well as I used to :)
I bow to your superior age and wisdom. Made me feel young again.
Wow. In that case, at 70, I'm practically an infant! Kudos to you, sir...I can only hope I'm as sharp as you are when I reach that goal.
You inspire me. I’m 76, I’ll watch Duck Soup, and get back to work, too.
It's a sure cure for what ails you!
And none too soon, you'll be spending the whole day at the races next and the evening at the circus, ordering room service at a grand hotel and eating coconuts instead of your porridge!
Right with you.
Horsefeathers, you are right indeed, right on your way to a life of crime , consider yourself warned, and none too soon! Next you'll be spending the whole day at the races , the evening at the circus, ordering room service at a grand hotel and eating coconuts instead of your porridge!
You'll come to a bad end swanning around demanding to spend a night at the opera, Miss Toffee Nose, instead of cleaning the stove and preparing the chimney for Santy Claus, mark my words you naughty girl!
It's up and down Linda, for sure. One day seems hopeful and the next, not so much. I'm in the same stage of life and protested VietNam....guess I haven't been tested as much since then, until now. Can't give up, won't give up. Duck Soup is a great cure-all, you're right. Thanks for the pep talk!
Perfect.
There is ONE mechanism to force Thomas to recuse himself - if his money lord (Koch, now supporting Nikki Haley, not trump) and political lord (Leonard Leo) tell him to.
You used the exact words I said to myself when I read Mr. Evans comment.
My dream: Jack Smith makes a deal with Clarence - if he resigns, Ginny won't be prosecuted. Otherwise, the problem is that Roberts has no control over the Court.
Great idea!
They’re not slim. They’re none. Zero. He truly thinks he’s above any code of ethics.
Absolutely never.
No shame, just arrogance and entitlement, and self-loathing because he hates being Black.
Practically all of it applies in one way or another to Trump's psychology, but not that, instead, Trump has gone completely bonkers over the disappointment of finding sheer money alone isn't enough to impress a city as self-confident, collectively, as New York City.
He isn't owed any respect simply due to his inherited (and squandered!) wealth, but has never accepted that simple truth. What a monumental wimp, a clueless mook.
And DEEP insecurity that his benefactors paper over with luxuries.
I feel the same way about Thomas. He is deeply, deeply angry—- look at his eyes looking back at you with burning and complacent contempt in his official portrait. He’s a disgrace to the court, racial matters aside. I watched the confirmation hearings, with pompous, supercilious Senator Danforth sitting by his side silently and gleefully listening to the claptrap coming from Thomas about “a 20th century lynching.” Oh, what a brilliant button to push with guilty, repentant America. How COULD we, with our collective guilt about slavery, EVER not believe a black man—ANY black man!—nominated as a justice to the exalted court? Anita Hill, reserved, intelligent, dignified, and probably embarrassed, was 100% credible then and is 100% credible today. Everyone I know, man and woman, myself included, believed her totally. Maybe with Thomas the hens are finally coming home to roost.
Make that lynching. Obviously.
A reason for optimism is that Neal Katyal, who is a top Supreme Court litigator, “said on MSNBC the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have little choice but to apply their 'textualism' method of reading the Constitution to the Colorado case. … If they do, Katyal said, 'Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.'”
I fear that Katyal may be overestimating the commitment of the six Republican politicians on the Court to textualism. Then again, they don’t necessarily support Trump, just because they’re right-wing extremists. Textualism would give them an excuse for disappointing the MAGAts.
In 2020, Neil Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, applied textualism to find that the federal employment discrimination law protects gay people: “In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.”
The statute doesn’t ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it bans discrimination based on sex, and the former is a form of the latter. If an employer refuses to hire a man because he is married to man but hires a woman who is married to a man, then the employer is discriminating against the man based on his sex. Congress did not intend to ban discrimination against gay people, but the point of textualism is that that doesn’t matter. Only the text of the statute matters.
I believe they want to get rid of Po1135890 as much as we do...before he does away with the Supremes along with every other part of the government IF he gets elected....God forbid!!!
Depends on what their masters want.
Koch et al have $witched their $upport to Nikki Haley. I think the $upremes will get the me$$age.
To fix a comment you've posted, look under it on the right margin. Click on the three dots to edit or delete.
Thanks. Now you can fix the spelling of "margin." ☺
Thank you! I hope it's only the cold causing my keyboard to repeat characters in virtually every word, then add a period, triggering a cap in the next. Ugh.
Great column! It boils down to this salient observation: “These are issues of modernity versus antiquity.” So true. In the U.S. the law, in its inimitable form, generally evolves in ways that improve the lives of people, and has done so since the 1950s - witness Brown v. Board of Education, the Loving case, the cases initially upholding the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Acts, the ADA, the Affordable Care Act, Obergefell, and on and on. But more recently, we are on a downward slide, heading back to antiquity with decisions like Dobbs, Masterpiece Cake Shop, and many others.
As you note, the current majority on SCOTUS would take us all back to the 1850s if they had their way. Modernity is not their “thing.” It shows that elections matter.
So the answer is to keep fighting the court battles that need to be fought, and vote into office those who will look out for the welfare of Americans, and will appoint to SCOTUS learned scholars who respect the law and make decisions based on the law, and not politics. Only then can the image and prestige of the Court be restored.
Let's do it!
Scalia joined the Court in 1986. That's when Originalism began to gain currency. Frankly, these jurists treat the Constitution as if it were an antique that they are guarding. And modernity in hegemony would render them irrelevant. It's trench warfare.
I was at the beginning of my career when the Anita Hill hearings took place.. it was big news. Reactions were varied. One relative of mine insisted that Anita Hill must have "asked for it". I lost my temper over that, having experienced a great deal of sexual harassment already in my short, young working life in a male-dominated profession. I knew full well I certainly hadn't "asked for it" and neither had Anita Hill. A man at work asked me what I thought about Anita Hill and I replied "I believe every word she said". He was taken aback and that ended the conversation. It was outrageous, and she was courageous, and she stands vindicated with proof of Thomas' venality in too many senses of the word.
If, and when, we get through this utterly disgusting convulsion of corrupt, power-hungry, misogynistic and racist men and women, we must enact ethics rules with teeth and strong barriers for other misconduct that comes to mind. I've never lost my fury over the Anita Hill hearings. Decades upon decades of Clarence Thomas' corruption and there is little we can do. The honor system is no longer enough.
Agree 1,000%.
"A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin (my personal hero)
A Freemason who endorsed the metaphysical concept of reincarnation - and stated it through his epitaph, let me see if I can find it online, just set up Windows 11 PC yesterday and today..
The Body of
B. Franklin,
Printer;
Like the Cover of an old Book,
Its Contents torn out,
And stript of its Lettering and Gilding,
Lies here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be wholly lost:5
For it will, as he believ’d, appear once more,
In a new & more perfect Edition,6
Corrected and amended7
By the Author.
He was born Jan. 6. 1706.
Richard, I had read this before. Yes he was. The founding fathers as a whole I think were mystical the dollar bill design has mystical symbols, the third eye etc., May of the world's leading thinkers believed in reincarnation. I remember reading Patton's biography where he talks about it. In the movie he stands in a spot he said he stood in before in a past life. I myself have had several very vivid remembrances of mostly deaths in various locations and as different ethnicities.
https://youtu.be/XRoMjoxK5v4
Yes, the experiences are frequently dismissed, but one obvious possibility is that some form of reincarnation is a kind of "default setting" in our kind of universe, or in "the universe" if none others exist. And that our sciences haven't yet reached the level of sensitivity with our current instruments, to detect and understand the processes involved.
Well let them mock away! By the way, our own singular individual existence - incarnated at least once, clearly - would seem to lead back beyond individual parents, grandparents, etc. back, how far, at least hundreds of thousands of years or even several million, if there's enough continuity of the human species to trace it that far.
And even taking the entire process back to some theoretical "pre-human" progenitors, well, that's a kind of "reincarnation." albeit we don't now have any known reliable way of remembering it - I mean, not before there were any recognizably human species, whether one or several, like the Neanderthals and one called I think the Denuvians . That one might be misspelled and it's getting late! But main thing is: in 2023 AD or 2023 C.E., we do not know enough to rule out SOME KIND of afterlife, very arrogant to pretend otherwise, same with reincarnation.
I do appreciate your extremely practical and I think, very wise admonition, that we should at least do our best to be good, balanced human beings, not so selfish we never engage in compassionate charitable work or donations, not so detached from "paying the bills and minding the store" that we don't take care of ourselves as best we are able. Certainly we can look on the likes of Trump and Justice Thomas as terrible examples for a career in public service, and really for any kind of serious, honest business at all. And appreciate your emphasis
on the NDE, the near death experience , as truly a crucial, life-changing event, despite rather witless persons who try to make fun of the idea, without really offering anything close to a "proof" it's just some kind of artifact of a serious illness or accident, and its treatment. I mean, events of all kinds that change a person profoundly happen when people get very ill, or have terrible accidents - are all of those also so easily dismissed as "just a kind of common realization of no real importance"? Why wouldn't it naturally be the case, that since the single most absolutely inevitable fact about, not just humans, but every single living creature that we know of, is their susceptibility to death, mortality - even if we can cite some obscure plants or ocean life that are alive for many hundreds of years or longer - that the event itself, and even a very "close call" where we experience more or less exactly what you described, is bound to cause deep reflections, about what we are hoping to accomplish, or avoid having happen in our life, or arrange to make better. It's a practically endless list, ay?
Again, why mock it, without really being able to conclusively "explain it away"?
This is the worst Court since Roger Taney and the Dred Scott decision, and is likely to do even more profound damage. Parenthetically, I must remind you that Joe Biden was part of the vicious and ignorant male cabal that confirmed Thomas. Has Biden ever made any sort of apology? Of course, it would be too little, too late. Didn't see any real push from Biden to codify Roe while the Dems held the House, either. Women are disposable in the eyes of the old men of both parties as well as the Court.
Bullshit. When did Dems hold the House and Senate with enough votes to codify Roe? Agree that Biden's behavior during the Thomas hearings was disgraceful. He has more than made up for it.
He has said he regrets his part in that. It means he’s grown, a trait he has embraced. Of course damage done. Women understood what was happening, very few men did - it not having been done to them in return. Denigrated, belittled, ignored.
And the denigration continues. It make me tired as well as angry.
The resurgence of the warped patriarchy the GOP embraces, so vindictive they are now charging a woman who miscarried with abuse of corpse. Really, fuck them. We need to fight this remnant of witch burners, inc.
Witch burners indeed. Fuck all of them.
They've hit some of the lowest of low points in American history, and they are gleefully still at it.
There were men in the same law school classes with me at William Mitchell (now Mitchell - Hamline College of Law) in 1991 who "got it," but we necessarily represented a tiny percentage of men with a clear motive to watch the Thomas - Hill controversies unfold as closely as possible : law students.
The broader population - many thought she was just making it up (???) to get attention, or for allegedly being snubbed by Clarence romantically (???????????????????????).
That was the implication they employed to reduce her to a ‘woman scorned’ yes
Yes. That nasty ploy, as throughout history, worked.
Couldn't agree more, Linda. Biden could have followed the lead of WV Senator Robert Byrd, who sat on the committee and had planned to vote to confirm Thomas. After hearing Anita Hill testify he reversed course. He said simply that he believed her. Biden listened to the same testimony. I believe he has muttered some sorrowful sounds without apologizing.
"Sorrowful sounds", indeed. Cheap and easy, no remorse or further commitment required. I'll hold my nose and vote for Biden out of necessity, but I don't have to like it.
Exactly.
Well spoken, Lucian, and so true...
So good. The word "plotting" instead of "reasoning" is le mot juste. The Republicans among them completely sold out, some for political ideology, and one, maybe two (Alito) for filthy lucre. I was absolutely gobsmacked to read today that the black sheep of SCOTUS actually put out the word he was considering leaving the Court because he needed more money! Well, that was easily fixed. The Harlan Crows of the right wing decided it was worth keeping their sure thing happy - and on the bench.
Pudgy Clarence, happy at last.
It was a kind of extortion.
I'm afraid that Thomas is a burning example of how mistaken it is to value tokenism (or as it would be call;ed today, diversity) as the primary focus in hiring. Had Thomas NOT been black, the first black SC nominee, he probably would not have been nominated or approved. But his backers valued partisanship above all other considerations and cynically calculated that his skin color would shield him from legitimate criticism a white candidate would have faced. This approach helps no one and as we are seeing creates a terrible legacy of corruption and unaccountability.
What was it he said that clinched it - something about a 'high tech lynching'?? No one could vote against him after that? Although what was 'high tech' about it, I don't know!
What's particularly bitter is that Thomas replaced the giant, Thurgood Marshall, a deliberate slap in the face by the Republicans.
Was thinking that earlier today. What a joke it was his succeeding Marshall.
Unfortunately it was not a joke; it was a deliberate insult to Marshall and his extraordinary legacy.
No joke at all except on the court. And the country. A vindictive move nominating him in retaliation for Bork imploding if I’m not mistaken. Which I may be. It’s late.
As was Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ginsburg.
Yeah, and I pleaded mentally for RBG, whom I held in celestial esteem, to retire when she could be replaced under a Democratic
president.
Yes, and a deeply cynical and abhorrent move by Bush #1.
I said “20th century” above. Maybe It was “high tech.” If so, I misquoted our esteemed “Justice” Thomas.
"And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old "....blah blah blah Esteemed Justice Thomas
If this were a civilized country, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Barrett, and Gorsuch would be off the Court and in prison. But as we all know, this is not a civilized country.
We can thank Mitch McConnell for this court as well as RBG not retiring.
McConnell is pure evil and giving us this Court was to be expected. Too many Senators voted for Trump's nominees knowing that they were blatant and brazen liars, but I find it hard to forgive RBG for her stubborn refusal to retire.
We're in a tight spot. Our forefathers lived harder lives than we have to form this country and our freedoms. To be the shining light on the hill. Time to go to work. Thanks IV.
Yep lots of shits gone down since 1600.
Squanto
Excellent piece, Lucian. I am surprised you did not mention that Joe Biden was the chairman of the committee that passed Clarence through to the seat he has held and abused since that day in 1991. I don’t think “we have to live” with anything, including their decisions. Women and men of good will have taken on the Roe v Wade debacle and I believe we will reinstate women’s right to decide their healthcare. Biden better make some good executive orders and push for law change nationally to protect we the people. Thank you for your excellent analysis.
YES ! Just commented to that effect.
Josh, I agree...re rbg😭
Thomas is horrible but what really stings is we all know damn well the liberals were completely aware of the gross bribery going on and said not a gd thing.
There is no evidence that "liberals" knew about the bribery until ProPublica exposed it. How many "liberals" do you think were on Harlan Crow's yacht or at his Adirondack camp? Zero. I'm a pretty well plugged in "liberal" and I knew nothing.
They were (and continue to) be co workers over 4 decades in a notoriously insular institution whose members are constantly in intimate working conditions. Of course they knew.
Thank whatever-power-is-out-there for proPublica. Without that outfit, would *anyone* *ever* have dug into Thomas's activities? You're right, Runfastandwin—this crap has gone on … and on .… and on, blithely unexamined. But all six are beneath contempt.
Yes.
I have long thought that if someone wrote a sci-fi script about a world governed by hewing to the original intents (sic) of a document written by some men 200+ years ago, and that script reflected all the legal, social, and technological changes America's seen since its inception, that script would be properly thought of as ridiculous bullsh*t. Un-filmable because it's unbelievable.
Yet this is where we are.
I’ve often said: would you use a 230-year old instruction manual for any club, machine, or organization? It’s elegant in many respects, but the CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.
Amen, brother Lucian! Amen