Hamilton and the other Framers envisioned a Supreme Court that was immune to public opinion, the arguments of presidents and senators, and great wealth alike - but today's GOP has a different plan…
Thanks Thom, You have just added valuable info to my database. I knew so little about the history of the supreme court
While at it, could you republish your take down of Ayn Rand, the sociopath. Some time ago I had a correspondence with a contributor to the Bulwark, he is not listed as a writer today. He had published a glowing tribute to Ayn Rand, and I responded by sending him a link to your article (before you started using substack)
His immature and ignorant response was that he doesn't pay attention to bloggers. I informed him that you are more than blogger, have published over 20 books, have your own radio and TV programs.
Then crickets, I also provide Charlie Sykes the same info about Rand's idolization of William Edward Hickman.
Charles doesn't respond to emails, he must get tons.
Thanks for sharing your correspondence to the Bulwark. It is important to know what happens when those who are esteemed on TV and publications respond to comments and requests made to them without a spotlight.
Another thoughtful laying-out of how it all came down. With all the phony “originalist” bs we’ve had to listen to over the last 20 years, it’s so good to have you correct the record of the framers and the Warren Court and its successors which did so much to improve our politics and personal freedoms. I was unbelieving as Scalia and his colleagues took our crucial modern cornerstones down one by one--but you’ve
Did Warren and the other conservatives change into liberals as a result of their independence after their appointments, or were their rational applications of constitutional theory actually conservative? Were Brown v. Board, prohibiting official prayer in schools, Roe v. Wade, and all those other good judgments really liberal, or just good old fashioned protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, like the founders intended?
IMO it's a stretch to think those protections were "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" or that this was what the founders intended." Keep in mind, for instance, that a major motive behind the 2nd Amendment was maintaining slavery in the South. However, and to their ever-lasting credit, the drafters and the rest of the founders didn't see the Constitution as static either. Most of them realized that the country would evolve and the Constitution needed to be flexible enough to accommodate that.
The "good old fashioned protections" that we (fingers crossed) have today mostly came about because those of us who weren't in on the drafting (and, pace Abigail Adams, were barely in the thoughts of those drafters) organized and fought for them. The text of the Constitution alone did not bring about the Warren Court -- don't look now, but that's exactly what the "originalists" abhor about liberal jurisprudence. What Warren, Brennan, and others did was read the Constitution through the lens of what was happening in the real world, which I believe is what most of the drafters intended.
I stand corrected. You are right. I believe you are saying that the Constitution is a framework and a starting point for achieving “a more perfect union” through innovation and change brought about by debate, advocacy, objection, and compromise. My point was that we who identify as liberals are the real conservatives when it comes to essential rights and protections. Those decisions should not be seen as liberal so much as they are in conformity with the stated ideals of the framers, however poorly they were originally practiced or implemented.
Agreed! Liberal/conservative is a bit of a conundrum anyway. I don't see the current crop of Republicans as conservatives in any sense of the word. "Reactionaries" is more like it -- is there any such thing as a "utopian reactionary"? Someone who wants to go back to a past that never existed? Long time ago, reading Edmund Burke for the first time, I admired and often agreed with his insights -- antiwar activist though I was, and radical feminist in the making. I never believed in "blow it all up and start over," though I knew some people who did (mostly guys), back in the day. I didn't believe in it because I already knew enough history to realize that it never works out the way the dreamers want it to. The goal matters but how you get there matters at least as much.
"No man treats a motorcar as foolishly as he treats another human being. When the car will not go, he does not attribute its annoying behavior to sin; he does not say, "You are a wicked motorcar, and I shall not give you any more petrol until you go." He attempts to find out what is wrong and to set it right. An analogous way of treating human beings is, however, considered to be contrary to the truths of our holy religion."
- Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (18 May 1872-1970)
The key question: if Manchin and the Arizona turncoat are still in office even after the hoped-for Democratic victory in ‘24, do you think they will go along with any legislation to expand? I suspect not as they too appear to be creatures bowing to big money.
This is why we need to get an overwhelming vote and add several senators. Obama had, as I recall, 60 democrats: there's a chance we can do that again...
Bullseye, as usual. Sad, but too very true. I wonder if we will ever emend the constitution to kill Citizens United and restore representative democracy. Corporations are not people anymore than robots are.
"Killing Citizens United" would just be chopping one head off the Hydra. The challenge is to impose -- or reimpose -- the restraints on big money that will prevent it from trumping (sorry, that word keeps coming up) the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branches of government.
Thanks Thom, You have just added valuable info to my database. I knew so little about the history of the supreme court
While at it, could you republish your take down of Ayn Rand, the sociopath. Some time ago I had a correspondence with a contributor to the Bulwark, he is not listed as a writer today. He had published a glowing tribute to Ayn Rand, and I responded by sending him a link to your article (before you started using substack)
His immature and ignorant response was that he doesn't pay attention to bloggers. I informed him that you are more than blogger, have published over 20 books, have your own radio and TV programs.
Then crickets, I also provide Charlie Sykes the same info about Rand's idolization of William Edward Hickman.
Charles doesn't respond to emails, he must get tons.
Thanks for sharing your correspondence to the Bulwark. It is important to know what happens when those who are esteemed on TV and publications respond to comments and requests made to them without a spotlight.
Another thoughtful laying-out of how it all came down. With all the phony “originalist” bs we’ve had to listen to over the last 20 years, it’s so good to have you correct the record of the framers and the Warren Court and its successors which did so much to improve our politics and personal freedoms. I was unbelieving as Scalia and his colleagues took our crucial modern cornerstones down one by one--but you’ve
Amen!
... but you’ve put it together in a clear and detailed story.
Did Warren and the other conservatives change into liberals as a result of their independence after their appointments, or were their rational applications of constitutional theory actually conservative? Were Brown v. Board, prohibiting official prayer in schools, Roe v. Wade, and all those other good judgments really liberal, or just good old fashioned protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, like the founders intended?
IMO it's a stretch to think those protections were "guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" or that this was what the founders intended." Keep in mind, for instance, that a major motive behind the 2nd Amendment was maintaining slavery in the South. However, and to their ever-lasting credit, the drafters and the rest of the founders didn't see the Constitution as static either. Most of them realized that the country would evolve and the Constitution needed to be flexible enough to accommodate that.
The "good old fashioned protections" that we (fingers crossed) have today mostly came about because those of us who weren't in on the drafting (and, pace Abigail Adams, were barely in the thoughts of those drafters) organized and fought for them. The text of the Constitution alone did not bring about the Warren Court -- don't look now, but that's exactly what the "originalists" abhor about liberal jurisprudence. What Warren, Brennan, and others did was read the Constitution through the lens of what was happening in the real world, which I believe is what most of the drafters intended.
I stand corrected. You are right. I believe you are saying that the Constitution is a framework and a starting point for achieving “a more perfect union” through innovation and change brought about by debate, advocacy, objection, and compromise. My point was that we who identify as liberals are the real conservatives when it comes to essential rights and protections. Those decisions should not be seen as liberal so much as they are in conformity with the stated ideals of the framers, however poorly they were originally practiced or implemented.
Agreed! Liberal/conservative is a bit of a conundrum anyway. I don't see the current crop of Republicans as conservatives in any sense of the word. "Reactionaries" is more like it -- is there any such thing as a "utopian reactionary"? Someone who wants to go back to a past that never existed? Long time ago, reading Edmund Burke for the first time, I admired and often agreed with his insights -- antiwar activist though I was, and radical feminist in the making. I never believed in "blow it all up and start over," though I knew some people who did (mostly guys), back in the day. I didn't believe in it because I already knew enough history to realize that it never works out the way the dreamers want it to. The goal matters but how you get there matters at least as much.
Susanna, "Gentleman in Moscow" is now streaming and makes your point about how go wrong.
Good point, Robert.
Before I get into comments. Congrats Thom it seems everyone is readiing your newsletter, joining substack was a smart move. Take this offering from the Bulkwark the Brutality Primary. here, Brutality is the point https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/the-brutality-is-the-point-really?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
"No man treats a motorcar as foolishly as he treats another human being. When the car will not go, he does not attribute its annoying behavior to sin; he does not say, "You are a wicked motorcar, and I shall not give you any more petrol until you go." He attempts to find out what is wrong and to set it right. An analogous way of treating human beings is, however, considered to be contrary to the truths of our holy religion."
- Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (18 May 1872-1970)
The key question: if Manchin and the Arizona turncoat are still in office even after the hoped-for Democratic victory in ‘24, do you think they will go along with any legislation to expand? I suspect not as they too appear to be creatures bowing to big money.
This is why we need to get an overwhelming vote and add several senators. Obama had, as I recall, 60 democrats: there's a chance we can do that again...
Bullseye, as usual. Sad, but too very true. I wonder if we will ever emend the constitution to kill Citizens United and restore representative democracy. Corporations are not people anymore than robots are.
"Killing Citizens United" would just be chopping one head off the Hydra. The challenge is to impose -- or reimpose -- the restraints on big money that will prevent it from trumping (sorry, that word keeps coming up) the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branches of government.