MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Adam Clark @ NJ.com, Oct. 5, with video clips
The U.S. Supreme Court must guard its image of being fair and impartial or it risks losing its legitimacy in an era of extreme political polarization, Justice Elena Kagan said Friday on the eve of a controversial vote that could reshape the court for a generation.
In an appearance with Justice Sonia Sotomayor at Princeton University, Kagan said the court's strength has been the perception that it can stay "above the fray."
"It's an incredibly important thing for the court to guard, is this reputation of being fair, of being impartial, of being neutral, and not being simply an extension of the terribly polarized political process and environment that we live in," Kagan said. She added that the court has long had at least one justice who is seen as the ideological center and could vote either way. "Going forward, that sort of middle position ... it's not so clear we will have it," Kagan said.
Sotomayor agreed with Kagan and added that justices must "rise above partisanship" in a their personal relationships.
The justices, both Princeton alumna, were speaking as part of the university's She Roars conference, a weekend of celebrating women at Princeton [....]
Comments
Better piece on same: Kagan fears Supreme Court losing swing justice
By Josh Gerstein @ Politico.com, 10/05/2018 08:25 PM EDT
by artappraiser on Fri, 10/05/2018 - 8:53pm
It's a good piece, thanks for pointing it out. Made me think more about what I've been wondering: how do the other eight feel about him joining the club? I mean really think? They're people, after all, and I have to think they have their own opinions about who's part of the clique - especially since they have no choice - and whether or not they want to spend that much time listening to them, debating them and just generally considering them. I mean really, even in high school we got to choose who we sat with at lunch and who we ignored.
Kinda interesting to think of the Supreme Court that way ... a very select group of people with the power to shape our laws for decades or more, granted that power for as long as they want it or until they die ... still unable to choose who they work with. And those who have been around for awhile see their friends/enemies come and go and yet must maintain some sort of, at least a semblance of, continuity.
A weird spot of people, all given their positions through political means with a directive to be at all times non-partisan. Given the strength of their vote to dispatch justice ... but they have no say about who they sit with at lunch.
by barefooted on Fri, 10/05/2018 - 9:28pm
Before Roberts I used to pay a lot more attention to their personal socializing, catching bits and pieces here and there, most notably I remember an interview on C-Span with Ruth Bader Ginsburg describing the "company" picnics and other get togethers with clerks included. Birthday cakes or the like for each other, having dinner at each other's homes, sharing wine, etc.
It is well known that Ruth was good friends with Alito, for example--they enjoyed going to the opera together and he liked to go shopping with her!
The way Kagan spoke about Roberts here, and a few weeks ago at a similar function (where she also basically said "we need a centrist again for the club to work properly") suggests to me they are still a quite friendly bunch. And I believe I mentioned it somewhere here after seeing Kavanaugh's response to Ford, that I didn't think he'd be welcome. Emotion is not their thing, nor is partisan passion, because: they are scholars, and see themselves as such, even more than they see themselves as judges. They basically are judging the quality of the scholarly work of lower judges, then they do dueling scholarly papers on the same, based on the Constitution. So more like an academic department at a university. Even Clarence pretends to that role.
by artappraiser on Fri, 10/05/2018 - 9:57pm
Not sure that how they present themselves in public appearances is quite the same as how they really feel about each other - aka vent at home with loved ones. Yet I do agree that (hopefully) they consider their responsibility as, in part, the responsibility to work together for the greater good. Or maybe I don't. Ask me tomorrow.
Yes, you mentioned the possible dislike of Kavanaugh somewhere else, and I think I commented. I really think it's a thing - if members don't like or (especially) trust another member how does it work? Not to mention that we now have on public record Justices having issues ... or at least posing questions?
by barefooted on Fri, 10/05/2018 - 10:08pm
P.S. Comes to mind you see the same thing in a small city courthouse when supposed opposing lawyers all seem to know each other quite well and get along quite well and you think: OIC now, this is just a game where they play a role but then they are actually all pretty collegial behind the stage. It is when someone does not live up to professional standards, that is when they are spurned by the "club" as persona non grata. This is why I was so fascinated by the reactions I posted on this thread, starting with Benjamin Wittes, who thought he knew Kavanaugh quite well, and respected him, and refused to come out against him until the last minute, finally did so. And then like 2,400 law professors; that was simply such a black mark; those people try their utmost not to be preferential to any one ideological bent. The "no" votes on that thread are all incredibly damning, temperament is the most important quality.
by artappraiser on Fri, 10/05/2018 - 10:11pm
I think you meant to pair Ginsburg with Scalia
https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466848775/scalia-ginsburg-opera-commemorates-sparring-supreme-court-friendship
Kagan and Alito May be the new frenemies
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/supreme_court_frenemies_elena_kagan_and_samuel_alito_are_the_next_ginsburg.html
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 10/05/2018 - 11:30pm
right, Scalia is what I meant. Thanks for the correction and adding the links. And Kagan and Alito is news to me.
by artappraiser on Sat, 10/06/2018 - 10:09am
The Breakfast Club. I guess Brett was auditioning for that tearful confessional, though coukdn't figure out if he was Emilio Estavez or that cool/abused Judd character. But somehow I don't thing the female judges will appreciate him trying to nibble their panties under the table. And something happened to Ally Sheedy, character and non-, and no one seems to know what.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 10/06/2018 - 7:50am
by artappraiser on Sat, 10/06/2018 - 5:17pm
Somehow I feel this is a metaphor for our times - why can't we just stop?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/fe46907b-d860-4a72-ae32-809a1da4c1eb
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 10/06/2018 - 7:25pm
I’m with you about just stopping. Even if I hadn’t changed ammonia-scented diapers for three children, I am well aware that the kidneys filter out stuff that should not go back into the circulatory system. Picture a mesh filter that you might use to catch particles of sand, and smaller nasties that might be in water when you are camping. Then picture throwing it all back into the pot and drinking it just because you thought it was the cool thing to do.
Well, I’m thinking kidney stones either way....PAINFUL!!!
by CVille Dem on Sat, 10/06/2018 - 10:33pm
I was thinking our political intrigues are as tasteful as drinking our own urine. But thanks for the deep dive - think i'm ready for coffee now...
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/07/2018 - 1:27am
Michael Tomasky, on a different legitimacy threat to the Supreme Court:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court...
The way the Electoral College and the 2 senators-per-state rules have functioned of late, ordinary voting for greater numbers of citizens may feel like voting in the Senate does to senators on many votes: it isn't enough to have a majority. You have to have a supermajority to prevail.
I find it an interesting argument in part because to many, the Supreme Court is seen as an important brake and safeguard against abuses of majority rule (difficult to see how voting Kavanaugh down would have been anything of the sort.). Yet the justices themselves are also acutely aware of the danger they can cause to their own legitimacy if they stray too far from public opinion.
by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/07/2018 - 2:33pm