Tomorrow, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, to take a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Originalists pretend they are not interpreting texts but that they can divine the Founders' intent. They use the dictionary as their ouija board.
Originalism is a political ploy to perpetuate the Founders' unconscionable political expediencies, at the cost of their progressive aspirations. In other fields of textual analysis, the notion of 'author's intent' has long been dismissed as inadequate to the task of interpreting of texts.
Textualism pretends that dictionaries fix the meaning of words for all time. In fact, dictionaries trace the trajectories of signification over social space.
At Nuremberg, there was a focus on prosecuting judges who had perverted German law to appease/serve the Nazi regime. The point was to spotlight the importance of an independent judiciary.
Any justice, or judge, in whose appointment Leonard Leo aka The Federalist Society has had a hand is suspect - not by serving a conservative construction of the Constitution, which is legitimate, but in perverting the law itself, particularly as regards civil rights and the separation of church and state.
"Originalism" could be called funerary monumentalism. It is legislating from the bench on behalf of the dead, versus the living.
This hypocritically disguised judicial activism has had the practical effect of transforming the 2nd amendment into a tombstone for many who would otherwise have lived.
Well, the problem with oracles is that there is no way to get them right! The majority of the dead, counting one vote each, without trickery like voter suppression, gerrymandering and electors, would outnumber the originalists by far I suppose, and the responsibility for listening comes back to the living. anyway.
'Justice Ginsburg Declares Herself an “Originalist” and then Schools Professor (and Justice Scalia) on the Meaning of the Equal Protection Clause'
'Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a tour de force performance, explaining that the Constitution’s text protects all persons, not only men, and demonstrating why Reed is a bedrock part of our law.'
'During the panel, co-sponsored by the National Women’s Law Center and others, Justice Ginsburg took on and demolished Prof. Earl Maltz’s argument that, under an originalist analysis, Reed was wrongly decided. Explaining that “I count myself as an originalist too,” Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that the our nation’s constitutional history – from the Declaration of Independence, to the invocation in the Constitution’s Preamble’s of “We the People,” to the Fourteenth Amendment’s universal guarantees of equality, and, finally, to the Nineteenth Amendment’s protection of a woman’s right to vote – supports the Court’s cases striking down state laws that denied women equal citizenship stature. Justice Ginsburg, in particular, emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of equality for all persons, and in particular the framers’ prohibition on legislation creating inferior castes, read together with the Nineteenth Amendment’s specific protection of women’s equal citizenship, fully supported Reed and its progeny.'
'Justice Ginsburg’s remarks echo CAC’s (Constitutional Accountability Center) new report, Perfecting the Declaration, released earlier this week, which examines the arc of constitutional progress: the principle of equality first stated in the Declaration of Independence, perfected in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further illuminated in the Nineteenth Amendment and other Amendments. As we demonstrate in this report, and as Justice Ginsburg rightly recognized in her remarks, the text of the Constitution as well as the full sweep of our nation’s constitutional history support a broad reading of the text’s command of equality for all persons.' (constitution.org) See link below.,
Thanks Fern, for another stellar post. I've always suspected that Originalists were kind of lazy, i.e. only interpreting a narrow set of 'facts' from an even narrower point of view.
Ted, that is the beauty of her argument. It is I think foolish to make fun or ridicule the originalists' antique ideas/white supremacy, but, instead, to reframe the argument in the simple and elegant way RBG did. It makes perfect legal sense and is a much better teacher. The didactic argument, which pleases a lot of democrats and progressives turns a large part of the public against it -- as didacticism it is the elite making fun of them, feeling superior and very unMAGA. RBG argument in all American, much less personal and 'political' looking.
Yup. Ur right. I feel as though the 6 Conservative justices are just doing the same as those obstructionist in Congress, using a cheap cop out, corrupting the court, impeding progress, and their inaction is threatening democracy.
lin's, description was an accurate portrayal, but RBG makes a persuasive legal argument. Without making her the star as she would be demonized, I think she provided an excellent tool for the understanding and practice of equality.
And Originalism has echoes of religious Fundamentalism, in which a bound document consisting of multiple re-translations into languages that didn't exist when much of it was originally written, of text from cultures dating back to early pastoral societies in the Fertile Crescent, serves as an infallible guide to moral living in this century. It takes decades of immersion into long-dead cultures to even begin to understand what many of these documents, stories, and theological visions meant to the people who wrote them down. Yet any layperson who picks up a Gideon Bible in a motel room is encouraged to pick it up and read -- and interpret -- The Inerrant Word Of God. As guided, of course, by the local pastor.
Much of the nonsense flowing through the extreme right has its source in nonsensical interpretation of the Word Of God. Why is abortion a sin? The Word Of God. Why are innoculations the work of the devil? The Word Of God. Why is the theory of evolution divisive? The Word Of God.
The US Constitution is, for many, just another Holy Writ, incomprehensible except as interpreted for us by the Supreme Priesthood that sits on the bench in Washington.
An easy way to see how the Bible has been twisted (may I say perverted?) is to go back to the first season of The West Wing, when President Jed Bartlet—who much resembles Joe Biden—takes apart a fake Evangelist visiting the White House, using biblical text. I don’t recall exactly which episode it was, but I’m hoping someone out there will.
This is a good scene, but the person whom Pres. Bartlet "takes apart" is not a fake Evangelist, just a fake. If I recall correctly, season 1 episode 1 has a scene in which Bartlet takes apart a fake Evangelist, in a different way.
Did you just find the episode? What a fully-substantiated history seminar Dr. Richardson's letters, enriched by her student commenters, has become. I'm in class every day.
Isn't it curious how failed far-right politicians "discovered" religion, turned from the soapbox to the pulpit, grew rich on tax-free support and succeeded so well in brainwashing their flock that they have entered and thoroughly polluted the political -- and judicial -- mainstream with their highly effective brand of tartuffery?
Perverted religion, perverted politics, and "We the people" get cast into outer darkness.
Originalism reminds me of how my friends and I ascribed deep meaning to the lyrics of "Hotel California". Years later I heard an interview with Glenn Frey who said "No, it's just a song about going to a hotel". Even more years later, I realized that the meaning of the song, and almost everything else I think about, has changed as I evolved as a person. How can a person, or a nation, not change and evolve over time? This nation is a living thing, not a stone monument. Thanks Lin, for pointing this out so eloquently.
Not exactly. "Evolution" in the biological sense just means "change". There is no overall goal or plan toward which it's progressing. It is simply ongoing adaptation.
Lin, u will luv this by Anne Applebaum. She wrote the new preface to ‘Origins of Totalitarianism’. I’m buying the copy. Maybe I should buy 6 to send to those originalist Justices?
May I please recommend Ken Krimstein's 'The Three Escapes of Hannah Arendt'? Krimstein expands on the graphic novel format, and biography genre, to present an intellectual history of the period. Well footnoted. Beautifully drawn.
ThankYou!!! Yes. Leo runs shell groups to distribute dark money to racist right wing religious extremists. He has been close to Clarence Thomas for decades. (Who believes 'separate but equal, up by your bootstraps, unregulated capitalism' is the way for Black men to succeed.) Leo himself has been associated with Opus Dei and other 'more Catholic than the Pope extremist groups.
The Washington Post has been good on reporting about him.
So why is Dark Money dark? Seems to me if you are doing/advocating popular things for the country, you'd be proud to show where your $$'s are coming from. Pardon me, my naivety is showing🤷🏼♀️
That's an interesting question, and I think it comes down to deceit.
A lot of dark money is just that: dark, "in the shadows," typically because it is associated with something immoral or illegal or both. I mention something to you, you mention it to your brother-in-law, he talks to a friend, and someone I don't like ends up conveniently dead. When I find out, I pay off that debt I owed you, from, oh you know, that time in the place, you remember? Well, it's just time I got it off my conscience. The money passes through the chain, and the killer gets paid. Dark money.
But there's another level of deceit, where money changes hands as a public donation to a charitable organization that promotes something illegal or immoral or destructive to the public or the world. It's all public, and legal. But it's sinister.
Yes of course there is Left wing dark money. But not nearly to the same extent - or with the same predatory impact on the judicial system. And of course, Kennedy was fatefully wrong in Citizens United.
Campaign finance reform is very much needed. And whatever can be done by a majority Democratic Congress, will have to get through the Leo courts.
It must be hard to read the words republican over and over in multiple paragraphs and the word left once in one paragraph and come to the conclusion that a group formed a few years ago to fight the right, are the ones corrupting the courts.
That's the problem I find with anyone supporting republicans, that their vocabulary lacks some useful words like irony for one.
Accountability is another and hypocrisy is a biggie on my list.
However, the biggest thing of all is lying. I'm not talking about the little white lies people tell to help pad their response, but those big lies, like the election was stolen and we don't want government intervention except when it's something we like.
It seems your vocabulary is missing quite of few of those words.
Here's another one you might recognize, gaslighting. Another one is troll and I know quite a few personally. I find that the best way to deal all of the above is to respond once and let the person know why it's also the last time.
Not seeing anything about the left here. The article describes Wellspring and other dark money groups working to reshape our legal system by supporting far right judges.
Where do you get "Left" from this article. Quote: "Since Wellspring’s birth from a short-lived union of the Koch network and GOP political operatives leading up to the 2008 election, it has accounted for more than 90 percent of JCN’s total funding." Enlarge & look closely at the interconnections in the graphic with particular attention to the lower right corner.
Lin, love your observations although I would venture to say that Originalists are only using the Ouija board and have forsaken the dictionary as too modern.
Hi Pamela. Your reply provoked a little 'dictionary' learning. There is more about its roots below.
'The oldest known dictionaries were cuneiform tablets with bilingual Sumerian–Akkadian wordlists, discovered in Ebla (modern Syria) and dated to roughly 2300 BCE, the time of the Akkadian Empire.[7][8][9] The early 2nd millennium BCE Urra=hubullu glossary is the canonical Babylonian version of such bilingual Sumerian wordlists. A Chinese dictionary, the c. 3rd century BCE Erya, is the earliest surviving monolingual dictionary; although some sources cite the c. 800 BCE Shizhoupian as a "dictionary", modern scholarship considers it a calligraphic compendium of Chinese characters from Zhou dynasty bronzes.'
The earliest dictionaries in the English language were glossaries of French, Spanish or Latin words along with their definitions in English. The word "dictionary" was invented by an Englishman called John of Garland in 1220 — he had written a book Dictionarius to help with Latin "diction".[19] An early non-alphabetical list of 8000 English words was the Elementarie, created by Richard Mulcaster in 1582.[20][21]
'The first purely English alphabetical dictionary was A Table Alphabeticall, written by English schoolteacher Robert Cawdrey in 1604. The only surviving copy is found at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. This dictionary, and the many imitators which followed it, was seen as unreliable and nowhere near definitive. Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield was still lamenting in 1754, 150 years after Cawdrey's publication, that it is "a sort of disgrace to our nation, that hitherto we have had no… standard of our language; our dictionaries at present being more properly what our neighbors the Dutch and the Germans call theirs, word-books, than dictionaries in the superior sense of that title."[22]'
'It was not until Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) that a more reliable English dictionary was produced. Many people today mistakenly believe that Johnson wrote the first English dictionary: a testimony to this legacy.[24] By this stage, dictionaries had evolved to contain textual references for most words, and were arranged alphabetically, rather than by topic (a previously popular form of arrangement, which meant all animals would be grouped together, etc.). Johnson's masterwork could be judged as the first to bring all these elements together, creating the first "modern" dictionary.[24]' (Wikipedia) See link below.
Your last paragraph says it all, Lin. We know who is perverting America’s law, that’s for dang sure! The judges who appease these laws that have been discombobulated by the Federalists (That’s who they are to me now.), should and must be prosecuted.
Interpretation of legislative intent (or drafters’ intent in the case of constitutional provisions) is a well-established principle, mainly as an excuse to reach desired results. But we need not argue the accuracy of the textualists’ version of the Constitution, because it suffers a more grievous fault: The theory ignores how the 14th Amendment re-defined the place of the Constitution in American life. As Heather has written in these pages, the Amendment gave new meaning to the Declaration of Independence and its declaration that all are equal—the point emphasized by Lincoln in his most famous (and justifiably so) address. The Amendment was a new Declaration, and given any fair reading it re-defined the balance between liberty and property (or power). In that sense, the current debate is a re-fighting of the Civil War. And we know which side must prevail.
Authors Intent is an Informal Fallacy. "Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit."
While being perpetuated by conservatives in the legal profession, it has been debunked elsewhere.
Biden criticized both Bjork and Thomas for their espousing Natural Law arguments. And voted against both of them.
I had Henry Hart for The Legal Process--or did before he passed away during the first semester. He thought that legislative intent was a crock (although he would have put it in more elegant terms). But it continues to be used.
‘Originalism is a political ploy to perpetuate the Founders' unconscionable political expediencies, at the cost of their progressive aspirations.’ Brilliant. Thank you.
I have been an attorney since 1977 and was a District Judge for 20 years. I read your column most every evening and am amazed at how much I have learned and how much of what I know has been reaffirmed. Thank you HCR.
That’s just one more reason that he doesn’t deserve to be on the SC, other than that he has the intellect of a nat, the word profound has no place in any sentence describing him except in the negative.
From tonight’s Letter: “But what is at stake with our current Supreme Court is far broader than the question of how a justice will vote on any one issue: it is whether the federal government can protect the rights of citizens from state laws taking away those rights.”
This sums up the major issue with the Supreme Court today. I used to believe that we were indeed UNITED States. I’ve come to realize that every state is basically a “mini country”, with their own laws and beliefs. Why is it illegal to get an abortion in Texas, but not in Michigan, for example. There is nothing “united” about the United States any longer.
"'... Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) warned that “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….'"
That is precisely what SCOTUS is planning... It sends shivers down my spine!
Cathy, Contrary to your HCR quote, I submit that our founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of “whether the federal government can protect the rights of citizens from state laws taking away those rights.”Rather, my understanding is that the founders sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the excesses of any one branch.
Take, for example, the late great Senator Ted Kennedy’s portrayal of “Robert Bork’s America” were Bork to have been seated on the High Court (see Rowshan’s comment within this thread). My understanding is that our Constitution grants powers to the Congress to codify protections against each of those stated abuses by a simple majority in both Houses, but that Congress, regrettably, has ceded much of its power to the judiciary and executive branches. Please note I stated “by a simple majority” because the framers had determined that most legislation should advance through both Houses by a simple majority. We know this because they listed the few exceptions they deemed should require a supermajority: 1) overriding a presidential veto, 2) adopting a proposed constitutional amendment, 3) convicting an impeached official, 4) ratifying a treaty, and 5) expelling a House or Senate member.
As I anticipate how the country, in 22, will write the next chapter of its story, my mind is fixated both on a question—whether mainstream institutions of American life will hold up to the coordinated effort to put in place a targeted veto to control the outcome of future elections— and also on a concomitant and, in my view, indisputable truth—that we’re in an untenable and precarious position, wherein our democracy cannot afford for the Democratic party to lose either House in 22.
Don’t forget Missouri’s 21st Century “Fugitive Slave Law” that women seeking abortions in other states may/must be caught, retained, and returned to their home state.
I cannot even believe this; I would say it is disgusting, but that word doesn’t come close to describing what it is. Is there even a word that could describe this?!?! I’m picturing a “caveman” clubbing his disobedient woman and dragging her by her hair. Have we sunk this low?? Do women have so little value??
Yes. The women never mattered to the anti-abortionists. Return is followed by “protective custody” for the unborn. Reporting pregnancies and searching mail to prevent ordering pills has to be next next on the agenda.
People don’t believe it could happen here—it already is. Can anyone see the current SCOTUS striking down this law?
I am not a historian with a deep understanding of our founders, but I do know that there was much disagreement and debate during the creation of the Constitution. When people claim to be Originalists I laugh to myself. To me the Constitution was created as a loose framework that we can improve upon over time as we recognize attitudes/practices that create inequalities in our society. That is when I am optimistic. When I am pessimistic, I think why are we still arguing about this hundreds of years later. When I am really down it becomes thousands of years. Humans have probably been having these same arguments for millenia.
The Founders did what they had to do to get the Constitution ratified and we are still stuck with part of that. The current court seems to be bent on returning to the Articles of Confederation and we are stuck with them. Some of them should not be on any court.
Alas, my originalist friends, the constitution was a compromise achieved not by consensus or blood oath. It was cobbled together as these learned men of their time found the Articles of Confedation weren't working for a country, a union of states. I do so appreciate Justice Stephen's (and his prodigy nominee) that all SCOTUS decisions should be predicated upon how a decision may contribute to democracy...for the well-being of the living rather than imortalizing of the dead.
Promoting democracy should be job 1 for all judicial appointees and federal legislators. Unfortunately despite their oaths to the contrary too many ignore that responsibility.
Thanks for bringing up “oaths” Bruce. It is one of Dr. Snyder’s ‘20 lessons” from ‘On Tyranny’. When ethics and oaths are broken, democratic norms and institutions begin to fail.
Were that so justice achieved under the law would not be so illusive and intents of laws (of legislators) would be more easily achieved. And, just maybe, we might need fewer laws in the end.
Heather, thank you for this Letter on the eve of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings. She is a solid choice to take a seat on the SCOTUS. I imagine it's too much to ask that the Republicans in the Senate treat her with the respect owed a woman of such tremendous accomplishment, particularly her focus on democracy.
All Americans would be wise to think deeply about Judge Jackson's words and what they really mean for us as a nation.
"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”
I keep hoping the rethuglicans will do the right thing and treat Brown Jackson with the respect she deserves, and confirm her appointment. Assuming all Dems vote for confirmation (and that is never a foregone conclusion), she'll be confirmed with a Harris tie break. So, why not give Brown Jackson the positive vote?
In December 1990, before the start of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush asked himself
“ How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’
I believe that this is the Hobson’s choice confronting President Zelensky at this moment. There is no question that Putin invaded independent Ukraine and that his ‘special military operation’ went dreadfully wrong. In any rational scenario, President Zelensky should stand firm in demanding that Putin order a cease fire followed by a swift withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.
However, President Zelensky is faced with a brutal Putin who seems determined to kill countless Ukrainian citizens while destroying key areas of the Ukraine.
Zelensky is faced with an heartbreaking personal dilemma: stand fast on his principled position regarding Putin’s calumny, while watching many more Ukrainian civilians being murdered and key urban areas being destroyed, or ‘make a deal” with murderer Putin to save innocent Ukrainian citizens and much of Ukraine’s physical and economic infrastructure.
It reminds me of Meryl Strep in Sophie’s choice in which she had moments to decide which of her two children to decide.
Would you wish to be in President Zelensky’s shoes? I wouldn’t!
In Congo in 1964 I was intimately involved with a situation in which Congolese rebels threatened to kill 3,300 foreign hostages, including five captured members of our Stanleyville consulate, if central government forces (and mercenaries) assaulted the rebel capital.
I co-authored the Action Memo that Secretary of State hand carried to President Johnson authorizing a joint Belgian/American paratroop brigade rescue operation. I insisted upon returning to Congo several months later to determine, for my own personal satisfaction, whether this was the most appropriate, life-saving action.
Whatever President Zelensky decides, I am certain that he will be plagued by second thoughts.
'The Russian invasion has devastated several Ukrainian cities, caused a humanitarian crisis and fueled insecurity around the world.'
New York Times
Keith, you opened your comment with a question, '... before the start of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush asked himself,
“How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’ 'I believe that is the Hobson’s choice confronting President Zelensky at this moment.' (Hobson's choice: a choice of taking what is available or nothing at all.) (Keith Wheelock)
“How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’ I don't know that I agree that the choice is only up to Zelensky. Don't Biden, NATO and Putin have roles in answering that question?
'Invoking America’s Darkest Days, Zelensky Pleads for More U.S. Aid'
'President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called for a no-fly zone and more weapons to combat Russia’s assault and implored President Biden to be “the leader of peace.”
‘We Need You Right Now’: Zelensky Appeals to Congress. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called on U.S. lawmakers to do more to help his country fend off Russia’s invasion, tying the defense of Ukraine to the defense of democracy.'
'President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine invoked the memory of America’s darkest days on Wednesday as he pleaded for more military aid to combat Russia’s “inhumane destruction” of his country, directly challenging President Biden and members of Congress to help by showing a wrenching video of the carnage in Ukraine’s cities'
'... Mr. Zelensky likened Russia’s three-week onslaught in Ukraine to Japan’s World War II air assault on Pearl Harbor, when “your sky was black from the planes attacking you,” and to Sept. 11, when “innocent people were attacked, attacked from the air.” (NYTimes)
'Advocates of a Polish MiG transfer say the United States should send its F-16s to Poland to as part of the deal. This would be intended to fill the airpower gap Poland would face from losing its MiGs.'
'In a conference in Washington March 9, Gen. Mark Kelly, head of Air Combat Command, said the Air Force does not lack F-16s that could theoretically go to Poland, if the administration decided to do so.' (DefenseNews) See link below.
“I call on you to do more,” Mr. Zelensky said, describing the conflict raging in Ukraine as an assault on the world’s civilized nations. Speaking directly to Mr. Biden, he added: “I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.” (NYTimes)
“How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’
What is our role in saving Ukraine? What is NATO's role? Who is responsible for supporting Democracies? Who is to save us from Putin and others like him? Is this all up to Zelensky?
It’s like the fire department watching your house burn. Your loved ones and all your history are there. You beg them to engage. They won’t. Wrong district. Your real choice will always have to be to save them. You may perish trying. But you will charge into that conflagration. I was not a politician I was a fireman we will always see things differently.
Yes, exactly expressed, Pat. You raised the curtain to reveal why we feel so helpless as people are annihilated before our eyes. More could have been done a month ago. Putin is failing and still calling the shots, while the Ukrainians are loosing their homes, their schools, their churches...without food and water...and dying wherever they are.
Fern and Pat, such important questions. Putin is a Hitler. No way to negotiate or even believe any negotiations he agrees to. He has no morals or conscience. He is watching and directing a complete destruction of a country and a people. And we in this world are witnessing the same destruction. And afraid to make a move that might take us to nuclear war. He’s playing his hand.
It’s not the world we want, is it. We begged General Louisell to take us to Hanoi and end the war. He said the military’s hands were tied. Congress was afraid of nuclear war with both Russia and China. Those being slaughtered continued to be slaughtered. Putin is using that very same strategy almost as if “It ain’t broke so don’t fix it.” Congress is using their same strategy. Nixon of course sent instructions to the North Vietnamese in Paris to abandon the peace accords because he would provide them with a better deal when he would soon be potus. They took him up on his gambit. We continued the war of attrition. The traitor leveraged himself into the presidency. Which all seems relevant to me in the war we are not fighting now. It is not my intention to draw parallels between Biden’s administration and Nixon’s. Rather to say here we are again watching the destruction of a nation of souls who will almost certainly be lost while we sit on our hands. The only good question was on the minds of the men of the USS Indianapolis as the sharks took them one by one, who will be next?
Pat, I don't agree with your analogy. Biden and other NATO countries are not standing back watching the house burn down. Pat, Fern, Kim what more would you suggest be done (specifics) given the fear of broad nuclear retaliation by a madman who knows he is failing? What more could be done?
Trust your generals. Secure the border. Send the Russian army home. Tell the Bully his game is over. Sue Russia for reparations. When all is done lift the sanctions. Let everyone in the world know why borders exist. Hang Putin. He does not get probation!
Zelensky laid them out. There are differences of opinion on a number of options and how timely the West was in providing help. My comment mentions the difference of opinion about providing planes to the Ukrainian military.
Zelensky asked for more weapons. More were given. He asks for a no fly zone repeatedly. I have read many articles written by military men who explain how it would not really help. And too risky. Air defense yes! Anti aircraft. I don't pretend to understand totally what strategically can be done. Given the level of fear of escalation I understand hesitation and it is a horrible situation which is a field of land mines to navigate.
Putin is being driven by his ego, not logic. Here he is trying to bring Ukrainians back into Mother Russia by murdering civilians. Does he expect to be welcomed with open arms at the war's conclusion? He has abolished a free press in his own country and jails dissenters. It's crazy time. He has cemented his title of Most Hated Man in the World. NATO is shaking in its boots over the notion that instituting a no-fly zone would lead to WWIII. Perhaps they know more than we do--that Putin has lost it and has an itchy nuclear finger. Countries don't start wars; people do.
Fern You describe other aspects of the dilemma that President Zelensky is facing. What are your thoughts on the core issue facing Zelensky—-‘How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’, as Putin is murdering your citizens and destroying major urban areas.
Putin will continue to do this, as death and destruction upon cities, and countries, is "fun" for Putin. Look at Syria and Chechnya.
Putin's goal is to rid Ukraine of Ukrainians, and replace Ukrainians with quiescent Russians. This was the same tactic used by Stalin AFTER Russia had invaded and taken control of the republics: remember that these countries were forcibly subjected to Russia.
In Mariopol, he prevents humanitarian aid from reaching residents, intentionally starving them and physically weakening them. Those who do not die will be shipped off to Siberia, dumped off at various points in the dead of winter, and told to find a place to live; while at the same time Siberian Russians will be instructed to not let these Inhuman Ukrainians into their homes.
Putin will then relocate Russians favorable to him to Mariopol. Victory through genocide. Step 2: move onto the next city.
Zelinskiy's resolve is the only possible response. As Poland's President Duda stated, Poland crawled away from Russia's influence and wants to remain free of it. The Ukrainians have already lived with Russian/soviet influence. They understand the Russian way of life, and their response is to flee into the arms of EU and NATO, to protect them from the Russian way. Ukraine has every reason to fight Russia's control, and to stand till the end to prevent any control.
I am sure that the memory of relatives who died as a result of Russia's manufactured famine in Ukraine, which killed millions, is still fresh.
Hi Keith, I believe that I was dealing with the core issue, when asking if Zelensky alone was responsible as civilization is being attacked and absolute moral principals defied on a mass scale. Putin's actions go far beyond Ukraine. I hoped to encourage more thinking about this subject and a broader sense of responsibly for acts, which may be genocidal in this instance.
Fern I agree that you identified a ‘core issue’ for the West. However, it is Ukrainians who are being slaughtered by Putin and Ukrainian urban centers that are being destroyed by Putin’s bloody relentlessness.
It is President Zelensky who must decide how much slaughter to accept of his people and distruction of his country. From his point of view, I doubt that his primary consideration is ‘what skin does the West have in the game.’
From my personal experience—including some ‘make my day’ encounters in the Congo—there are times when the choice is stark—A or B. The time for sophisticated ‘what if’ analysis has passed.
Horrifyingly, he likely has to consider whether or not civilian carnage in the east would provoke more western aid, making Ukrainian success in the western part of the country more likely. How could one possibly figure out where the greater good lies, and have any confidence in getting it right? I do not envy him, but damn, I admire him.
Sanctions won't stop Putin. At what point do we emerge from the sidelines as Putin destroys a country, and 'become a leader for peace,' as Zelinskiy says, by preventing Russia's aggression?
Pat Good question. You speak of ‘when Stalin got what he wanted.’ My understanding is that he always wanted more. In Ukraine in the early 1930s, he wanted to sell Ukrainian wheat and other food stuffs to obtain had currency to purchase industrial goods for his Five Year Plan. This starved to death 3-6 million Ukrainians.
Some Ukrainians fought with Hitler against Stalin. Stalin post-WW II dealt harshly with Ukraine, sending some Ukrainians to Siberia and sending some Russians to live in Ukraine.
Stalin had purges and ‘trials’ in which millions of Russians were killed or sent to gulags (concentration camps). Even when he died he was fomenting a ratissage of doctors (Jewish).
Stalin ruled by fear and harsh measures. His was a suspicious dictator—he never ‘got enough.’ Apart from WW II he killed millions.
I recall a book I read as a child. “A Day in the Life Of Ivan Denisovitch.” That was guttural and keeps trying to jump out now as Ukrainians face that stark bleak darkness. One for which no remedy exists.
Keith, you wrote "You speak of ‘when Stalin got what he wanted.’ My understanding is that he always wanted more."
This morning I read an article explaining how addiction works: the irrational seeking of the intensity of that first thrill leading to escalation of the thrill seeking behavior. The article began by addressing the drive to make money by people who have more money than they will ever need or use, but pointed out that this pattern, first understood by studying behavior of substance addiction/abuse, in fact explains a good many behaviors that are self-damaging and ultimately damaging to others, up to and including nations.
Addiction to power is one of them, and one of the most dangerous, because the only way to experience the thrill of power is to use it. Putin has this addiction. America has not been without that addiction (both to money and power), and used it to settle its western lands. America has been able to head off the worst of that kind of abuse and maintain the ability to move beyond it. (I hope we are not moving beyond the willingness to keep doing that.)
It remains to be seen if the Russian people will fear the possible Stalinesque consequences of allowing Putin to continue enough to resist. I admire the Russian people, and pray they do.
I really do not know what the most effective intervention would be; I do not have magical access to some special knowledge from the comfort of my drawing room. I have to trust the knowledge and skills of people whose responsibility includes evaluating the options available.
My job as a citizen is to first work with others to make sure that our democracy is in working order, and to use my voice to access democratic processes that decision makers need in order to know the values and goals we expect them to include in their decisions-making.
Moyers reported that Johnson told him that Presidents act on the best information they have, and it’s never the whole story. I’ve watched a lot of Moyers so I don’t remember when, or in what context, but no doubt about Viet Nam. Maybe he found out that McNamera was full of Schitt.
Jeri It was clear to me, in 1964, that there was no ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ in Vietnam. Because of my hands-on-experience in Congo (went alone into rebel-infested provinces, spoke French, demonstrated ability to handle M-16, and either stupid or fearless—in April 1965 our ambassador in Saigon ‘asked’ me to join him. I refused. Ditto in 1967.
Robert Shaplen and Bernard Fall had already written books highlighting that ‘nationalism’ was more powerful than ‘Western imperialism.’
Sam Adams, my counterpart in CIA on intelligence analyst during the Congo rebellion, later turned his talents to assessing the Viet Cong order of battle. The more he dug, the more he discovered that the military “intelligence’ was false. Sam (who I considered a superb analyst) found that the Viet Cong was 200,000-300,000 stronger than ‘official’ reports indicated.
Sam was blocked by General Westmoreland from distributing his findings. The CIA director ordered Sam not to distribute his truthful findings. Sam was soon forced out of CIA.
The August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which provided Congressional approval for our ‘war’ in Vietnam was based on lies. The purported enemy attack on American war ships probably did not occur—-the reporting suggested that this ‘attack’ was, in fact, computer clutter and our planes spotted no attackers. Moreover, our ‘innocent’ warships had, in fact [not reported to Congress] been supporting a covert South Vietnamese operation to land saboteurs into North Vietnam.
McNamara, when he realized that he was part of a falsified ‘house of cards,’ had what seemed like a nervous breakdown, resigned as SecDef, and was named head of the World Bank.
McNamara, Walt Rostov, General Westmoreland, LBJ, and others were full of Schitt. Meanwhile, tens of thousands more Americans died as long with millions of Vietnamese.
THIS WAS ALL OBVIOUS TO ME AND OTHERS IN 1964-1965.
Which was when I was among the first to Stand in protest. I learned the truth from returning veterans, not the media, who were at the time a cheering squad and keeper of the score. The vets I talked to were the same people who were to become the scapegoats for a war they didn't cause, they didn't want, and didn't volunteer for. They went not knowing and came back to start the anti-war movement.
Anne Might what you describe about some soldiers in Vietnam relate to Russian army conscripts who found themselves in a ‘cousin country’ and were blindsided? Perhaps a difference is that they have had this realization while engaged in this ‘special military operation’ that has escalated into a bloody war.
The news of this will swiftly leak through Putin’s curtain of misinformation.
Keith, I think that the two situations are so close in character as be near identical in outcome. I did not know a Nam vet that felt he/she had accomplished anything by their presence there. Many had tried and failed to get their superiors to respond to what was going on. The media didn't begin to cover until after the "non-combat advisors" had turned into battalions of teenage conscripts who indeed were blindsided by their own patriotism.
Disillusionment doesn't begin to describe it. Survivors came home damaged and ignored because their stories didn't match the media. Then free-lancer journalists went over and told the truth. Nam vets formed stand-ins, burned their medals, and insisted on speaking out. And people my age heard them because they were us and older folks who had been in war began to get that something was terribly wrong because this wasn't a war and there was no enemy except the distorted domino theory.
What is happening right now with Russia's invasion of Ukraine is all too much like that. Unfortunately it appears that Russian dissidents are leaving our of fear of Putin's retribution. But Russian soldiers are heading home, too. I hope the Russian public is a savvy as they seemed to be, and listen, and continue to rally and push against this war. With enough resistance, it might be possible for people inside to remove or disable Putin's influence, at the least. It's something to hope for. I'm slim on hope right now, but I still think this is possible.
Keith, I believe the citizens of Ukraine have expressed THEIR choice, and President Zelensky should lead them (and Democratic people everywhere) in achieving it. Instead of negotiating part of their country, their future, and their democracy away, he should tell the Russians to “get the hell out of our country, no deal.” Putin’s time is coming.
We are doing everything possible at this time. We have to trust our President and the leaders of NATO — and witness the most tragic, godawful, inspiring struggle of our lifetime.
This is what we are working to prevent here in this country; if TFG was still in office, there likely wouldn’t be a NATO right now, and Putin would have free reign in Europe, the R’s would be isolating us, and our own democracy would be on life-support. We know what we must lawfully accomplish; give Joe Biden two years with a majority Congress so he can lead this country back from the precipice.
I am with you all in this chaos of broken hearts. I would gladly give my life right now to save one Ukrainian child — and so would each of you, but we don’t get to make that trade. Let’s fix this country, in case it ever comes to that....
Gus Viscerally I agree with your thought that ‘the citizens of Ukraine have expressed THEIR choice—and that Zelensky should just tell the Russians to ‘get the hell out of our country, no deal.” Meanwhile Putin keeps murdering countless Ukrainians, destroying urban centers, and causing at least 10% of the population (so far) to flee the country. Should Zelensky wait indefinitely while this occurs and increasing millions of his citizens are starving and without power or heat in freezing weather? Remember, you are dealing with Putin, who cares not a whit for human life (except his own.)
It’s even worse than that, Keith. One in four (25%!) of Ukrainians have been displaced, internally and externally. I don’t have any answers, and thank god I don’t have to make these kinds of decisions. Like Zelenskyy, and also like individual Ukrainians themselves.
Christy Perhaps that is why a number of the ‘best and brightest’ are fleeing. I just read about 20,000+/- young adults fleeting to Armenia (not the most desirable spot in the world) and even some to Moldova, which seems like the pits.
Old Russians seem more accustomed to cruddy times. A wild hope is that the opposition leader who was poisoned and then imprisoned could be a catalyst for a grass movement when Putin goes. There’s a rocky road ahead (won’t try to sing the song!)
Could it be that Putin thought his cheating on tfg’s behalf would make it a shoo in and decided to do it anyway since Tfg is all set to regain power. His timing was disrupted but he is in for the long game. If tfg makes a comeback (even R gains in 22) guess who is in His pocket. Rupert still is….
Gus, I am so in agreement on “THEIR choice”. Leave your homeland or succumb to living (or just later dying) under a ruthless dictator. It’s brutal to see children maimed, dying and being displaced, but the alternative of being ruled by Putin is worse. Also, I would add to your excellent comment that the stronger our own democracy here at home the stronger it will be everywhere. I hope many US citizens will be able to finally see for themselves the incredible danger of succumbing to the lies and propaganda of a criminal as it is presented so forcefully across the ocean.
Christy Spot on! America has slipped considerably on the world democracy index. Perhaps we should tattoo our members of Congress with “It’s not what we say, it’s what we do,” and then focus on voting rights, modern-day judicial qualities, child and health care, climate change, and ….
The problem with making a deal, is Putin will not abide by it and it will only be made to the detriment of Ukraine. For Putin it is submission to him period.
Judy I agree that any ‘deal’ with Putin would be like a business deal with Trump—not worth the paper it’s written on. There could be firm assurances by the West on any such deal, but still that would not be reassuring with a weasel like Putin.
This is the immediate situation that confronts President Zelensky, as his citizens continue to be murdered and his country destroyed. What would YOU recommend that Zelensky should do? He is facing a heart wrenching choice.
Linda I believe that Putin is seeking to assassinate Zelensky. Already one assassination team was interdicted and eliminated. Zelensky knows that he is a target.
I believe that President Zelensky’s courageous stand has galvanized the Ukrainian people. Even if he is killed, his spirit will sustain Ukrainians. I am reminded of Viva Zapata. Even when Zapata was assassinated, his followers believed in the spirit of Zapata. So Churchillian Zelensky will remain a powerful symbol for Ukrainians, even were he to sacrifice his life for his country.
Keith, I firmly believe this is going to be the case. Particularly after Zelensky drew the line in the sand yesterday. I'm concerned that there isn't a Zelensky Part II to step in.
I'm not a religious person, but I hope to God they have taken his family to a safe harbor.
I’m afraid that without a significant compromise from Putin, any settlement would look like capitulation and would incentivize future aggression against Ukraine and other countries.
Ukraine can’t give any concessions. They will need to sustain the effort. Sadly, I see their only way to win is by destroying the Russian ground forces and tanks/artillery killing Russian soldiers, such that two anti Putin forces join: Russian mothers/people and sane Russian Generals ( if there are any).
The number of dead Ukrainians is growing, along with the number of orphaned children and people fleeing the country to find safety elsewhere.
'Russian forces are now present in all civilian neighborhoods in Ukraine’s strategic port city of Mariupol, where the battle for control has descended into house-to-house guerrilla warfare, Ukrainian military officials said. Mariupol authorities accused Russia of bombing an art school that was sheltering 400 residents. They also said Russian shelling destroyed the Mariupol Drama Theater on Wednesday, and images provided to The Post showed extensive damage. Traumatized evacuees from Mariupol described the horrors of Russian attacks to The Post.] (WaPo) See link below.
Fern, I feel what we are witnessing in Ukraine is akin to standing on the sidelines watching a kitten trying to cross a busy freeway. We know what the outcome with be. Yet, here we stand. This is crushing to me.
I could have no better sparring partner and will get back to you late this afternoon. I have a doctor's appointment and a few other things to do first, but we shall continue.
Hi Keith, I'm back. The following may seem like a repeat to you. In sum, I believe that NATO and Biden haven't provided enough of what Ukraine needs and what was given, as substantial as it seems, needed to be done sooner. Read what Zelensky has been begging for, with the exception of no-fly zone, that is what I talking about in terms of help. I believe that for humane purposes several no-fly zones need to be created just for that purpose.
Part of the following was addressed to someone else with whom I disagree. I wouldn't say that you and I are out of sync, but we shall see. As you read this post please keep in mind the other devils we've known, such as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot et al.
There are bound to be serious and passionate differences about how to deal with moral depravity on a mass scale -- the needless killing of many people, leveling cities and towns, starving people, while insuring that they have no heat or water and make it impossible to escape bunkers in flattening cities… Different opinions are expressed about when and how much Biden and NATO have supported Ukraine without being too uncool. We may have differing views about whether this all rests on Zelensky's shoulders or whether responsibly belongs to a wider circle when a large scale human catastrophe is taking place and impacting other countries -- just another example of genocide, with the potential to cause world wide hunger, along an untold number of deaths and a massive refugee crisis? Are humans to endure this whenever a devil is on the rampage?
I'm not having a 'sophisticated' talk with myself. Biden is going to Geneva, and I think part of the discussion there needs to be how much more substantially Ukraine needs to be helped by NATO right now.
Fern Hope your teeth are still in. My garbage is out.
1) The proposed ‘no fly’ zone would require U. S. And NATO planes to shoot down Russian planes. Don’t you think that ‘might’ spark escalation or even WWIII?
2) Less than a month ago President Zelensky and others didn’t believe that there would be a Russian invasion—then February 24th. I find it astonishing that Biden could order the military to provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of operational equipment on a Saturday and it started arriving the following Monday. Typical Pentagon procurement takes at least 6 months.
3) Once the invasion commenced, Biden sparked our NATO allies to commence a massive weapons supply. Now several of the delivery routes are being interdicted.
As I mentioned earlier, the focus is far more on prescription rather than description. In any such situation there is much that is unknown. Also, Kerensky’s concerns are primarily about Ukraine and Ukrainians, while the West has far broader considerations.
Try putting yourself in Kerensky’s shoes and ponder his rock-and-hard-place alternatives.
My take away from hearing Joe Trippi of the Lincoln Project and now also Join the Union movement inspiring talk is I would like to encourage everyone here to consider being a part of jointheunion.us , a grass roots organization to bring together all who want to defend democracy. This has nothing to do with political parties. It is above all that defending democracy itself. Groups can be members as well as individuals. They are looking for volunteers not donations to do the bottom up work of strengthening democracy. This was recently launched and already has 50,000 members. For me, this is the movement we need to bring millions of us together to hold on to democracy in 2022 and 2024. They are having a virtual townhall tomorrow Monday, March 21 at 7 pm eastern time on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pobsVKBcWTQ Sign up for it at https://jointheunion.us/townhall/ See you there!
Lincoln Project's The Union is inspired by these words: “When the people rise in masses in behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, truly may it be said, ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against them.’” ~ President Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861
More inspiring words: "You cannot do all the good the world needs, but the world needs all the good you can do." The world needs democracy, particularly as inspired by Ukrainians!
Thank you. I'm coming. When I opened my laptop this morning the link <jointheunion.us> magically appeared on my toolbar. No idea how it got there. Didn't know what it was until I just read your comment and clicked on the link. Now I have two. Something tells me I was meant to attend.
Bells...if you haven't seen this film yet, it has a scene of a monastery bell-ringer ringing all the bells as an emergency alert when the police started attacking the Maidan Square protesters, noting the bells had not been rung like that since the year 1240 when the Mongols invaded.
Here's from a comment I posted on Hubbell:
"Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom" (on Netflix) is a very worthwhile film to watch about the 2014 Maidan Revolution. It gives deeper context to what we see on TV--the quest to align with Europe instead of Russia, newscasts from Kviv's Maidan Square, the implementation of anti-protest laws for totalitarian repression of resistance and public demonstrations, bewilderment at being beaten and shot by fellow brethren in the regular police and Berkut special riot police, unity across regions, languages, and religions, and most of all, persistent resolve. Today's Ukrainians went through this just 8 years ago.
During the Maidan Revolution, the Parliament went from voting for anti-protest laws to 100% of its members voting 328 to 0 to remove President Yanukovych from office--after which he fled to Russia. The next president disbanded the Berkut riot police, many of whom today must be fighting against Russian soldiers.
Putin's war is on a much bigger scale and includes psychological operations used to deceive, confuse, disrupt and demoralize. Our resistance needs to include keeping cool heads.
Cathy, it was in TC's latest post. He joined, and so did I. I would have mentioned it here, but I was sort of waiting for TC to do it....they probably already put someone like him right to work! Thanks for posting the link. Maybe some of us still have a few hours to give....
Things get underway tomorrow morning at 11am EDT...I may tune in to hear her opening remarks. Once the Republican grandstanding starts--and we KNOW it will be on ample display--I may just follow and tune in and out. At least, Republican Senators, many of them, are not quite like the loonies in the House, so maybe things will be a bit more civil. I forget who's on this committee...if Cruz or Rubio are on it I will definitely tune out because they get on my last nerve...if Graham is present he may be on good behaviour, we can hope. From what I've seen and heard of Ms Jackson, I think she'll be able to deal with whatever is thrown at her. A VERY sharp lady. HCR's summation of some SCOTUS history serves as a reminder of what is at stake.
So agree, Bruce. I’ve got my pom poms out for Judge Jackson and a slipper to throw at TV just in case anyone gets stupid.
She will present herself well and I believe hers will be a judicious and fair voice on the court representing our democracy and its foundational supports.
The current SCOTUS of majority "originalists" are dismantling democracy piece by piece. 1. Citizens United making money "free speech" (seems an oxymoron to call money "free") thus legalizing bribery of candidates for elected office and our elected officials already in office. 2. In 2013 SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act giving state legislatures carte blanche to make voting less accessible and therefore less democratic. 3. SCOTUS decisions on Texas Anti-Abortion law which takes away the EXISTING Constitutional Rights of over half the population (women) is based on anticipating that they will soon take away those rights. It is untenable that they are making decisions based on Future Law! When (it's hard to say if here) they do overturn Roe v. Wade it will be the first Court to take away the rights of citizens. Unprecedented you might say! Conclusion is SCOTUS is dismantling democracy and promoting autocracy which is already a reality in 19 states. There is the original guarantee clause, Article IV, Section 4, in the Constitution that guarantees that the states of the United States will be a Republican form of government -- of the people, by the people and for the people. We the People, all of us this time.
Back in 2016, a fairly close work friend balked the majority and said she was voting for tfg because of the SC--of the very small minority of people there who supported him, she was the only one who had a valid reason (I highly suspect the few others were racist but chose not to say that as we worked in a highly diverse laboratory). Funny that now, this same woman seems to despise him and is highly critical of him, she is religious and tfg's morals finally seemed to wake her up.
I think that some ideas from the 18th century or earlier are still applicable in America in the 21st century. The 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments come to mind. But other ideas have no place in our country today --the most obvious of these are acceptance of slavery, the counting of enslaved people as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census and representation in the House and the denial of the rights of citizenship (owning property and voting) to women. These ideas have been dealt with by the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments largely addressed these deficiencies in our constitution. More controversial is the 2nd amendment. Could the Framers have envisioned, automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, or even grenade launchers and anti-tank weapons for that matter when they wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
What little I know about the law I gleaned from watching Law and Order on TV. One thing I remember from that show was the oft referenced Roscoe Pound's famous observation that "the law must be stable, but must not stand still." If we are compelled to interpret every law in terms of what the framers wrote in 1787 we are in deep trouble as a nation and as a society.
Having recently finished reading Jill Lepore's These Truths recently, I wrote down these two quotes as especially relevant to this point in our history. The first is from Jefferson, the second from Lincoln.
"in 1816, when Jefferson was seventy-three and the [religious] awakening was just beginning, he warned against worshipping the men of his generation. 'This they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead,' he wrote: '... the laws and institutions go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.' To treat the founding documents as Scriptures would be to become a slave to the past. 'Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched,' Jefferson conceded. But when they do, 'They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human.'" (These Truths, p 201)
"As a nation, we began by describing that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read is 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." (A. Lincoln letter to Joshua Speed, August 24, 1855, quoted in These Truths, p 266)
I must stand with Justice Breyer in his belief that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of how it advances democracy.
It has been my understanding as well that this whole dog and pony show was painstakingly assembled as a living entity. Almost respiring in its ability to change, oxygenating the future needs. Bloodlessly.
Thank you HCR. A very helpful summary. If only wishing could undo the 2016 election POTUS result. We knew then that the election was at bottom about the SCOTUS nominees. Enough people didn’t pay attention, and it’s panned out just as we feared with RBG the last to fall in the House of Cards. It’s been heading in a bad direction for so many years. I literally 🙏🏻 that KBJ has the strength to stand up for us, the people and write dissents for the ages. ❤️🤍💙
That was the very argument I made in 2016: dislike/distrust Hilary Clinton all you want; this election is for the future of the Supreme Court. One of my friends who sat out that election (because, Bernie) finally admitted he was wrong following the Texas abortion decision.
I am at a loss to understand the textual analysis applied by originalists. The clause in the 2nd amendment about a Well Regulated Militia might as well not exist.
And I'm blowed if the Citizens United decision is not "legislating from the bench". After all, the effect is to reduce individual citizens to less than 3/5 of a citizen.
“originalists” or “textualists" or "blickety-blank" is about the best I can do to describe them here. If I stated what they truly are, I believe Prof. Heather may truly ban me. Severe discrimination was not just confined to the state. It was rampant in places like Chicago too. I grew up there, attended an all-boys magnet school by the name of Lane Tech, a collection of boys from the north side. I graduated, decided against college for the time being and went to work with my dad on the scaffolds repairing the buildings or laboring. Late sixties.
Yeah, there is a story coming , , .
We were short-handed and they were always looking for experienced men. We were about the 20th story up and one day a window opened up and a man stepped on to the scaffold with his bag of tools. I did not think anything of it. He was black. My high school was integrated, no big deal.
I head the yelling coming from the far end of the cabled scaffolding. It was Marty Schleep calling this black man everything under the sun. That he would not work with him, etc. My 5'6" dad was no angel; but, he did treat people with respect and he taught us to be such too.
The man was leaving the scaffold through the same window he came out of and he looked at me as he left. That look of hurt has stayed in my memory for decades now. I can still see it. Yep, there was discrimination in the South. It was also prevalent in the large cities like Chicago, Detroit, etc. too. I did not know it, my dad never expressed it. We were on the northwest side of Chicago where there were few minorities.
Four months later I was in Marine boot camp along with every known type of person one could imagine. Just a bunch of mutts.
The sixties and seventies were tough times, the times of change.
Originalists pretend they are not interpreting texts but that they can divine the Founders' intent. They use the dictionary as their ouija board.
Originalism is a political ploy to perpetuate the Founders' unconscionable political expediencies, at the cost of their progressive aspirations. In other fields of textual analysis, the notion of 'author's intent' has long been dismissed as inadequate to the task of interpreting of texts.
Textualism pretends that dictionaries fix the meaning of words for all time. In fact, dictionaries trace the trajectories of signification over social space.
At Nuremberg, there was a focus on prosecuting judges who had perverted German law to appease/serve the Nazi regime. The point was to spotlight the importance of an independent judiciary.
Any justice, or judge, in whose appointment Leonard Leo aka The Federalist Society has had a hand is suspect - not by serving a conservative construction of the Constitution, which is legitimate, but in perverting the law itself, particularly as regards civil rights and the separation of church and state.
Lin, your ouija board analogy is spot on.
"Originalism" could be called funerary monumentalism. It is legislating from the bench on behalf of the dead, versus the living.
This hypocritically disguised judicial activism has had the practical effect of transforming the 2nd amendment into a tombstone for many who would otherwise have lived.
A massacre of innocents.
“… legislating from the bench on behalf of the dead, versus the living.“
Yup.
Funerary monumentalism—I love it!
+1
"Funerary monumentalism." Perfect.
There is a record of an advice from the oracle in ancient Delphi: "listen to the majority", meaning listen to what the dead would have said.
Extending legal granite into perpetuity, and binding future generations to the past, if I got it right. Just clever ways to rule from the grave…
Well, the problem with oracles is that there is no way to get them right! The majority of the dead, counting one vote each, without trickery like voter suppression, gerrymandering and electors, would outnumber the originalists by far I suppose, and the responsibility for listening comes back to the living. anyway.
Good. And that majority likely divided on what constitutes original. To wit, the deadest will win. 🙂
….the oracle of Delphi, you don't say!
Hearts to you, Peter.
Second that, as hearts do not seem to be working
Suggestion: try refreshing the page. It usually helps restore the hearts.
Wow that’s spot on, I couldn’t agree with you more 👍👍👍👍
'Justice Ginsburg Declares Herself an “Originalist” and then Schools Professor (and Justice Scalia) on the Meaning of the Equal Protection Clause'
'Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a tour de force performance, explaining that the Constitution’s text protects all persons, not only men, and demonstrating why Reed is a bedrock part of our law.'
'During the panel, co-sponsored by the National Women’s Law Center and others, Justice Ginsburg took on and demolished Prof. Earl Maltz’s argument that, under an originalist analysis, Reed was wrongly decided. Explaining that “I count myself as an originalist too,” Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that the our nation’s constitutional history – from the Declaration of Independence, to the invocation in the Constitution’s Preamble’s of “We the People,” to the Fourteenth Amendment’s universal guarantees of equality, and, finally, to the Nineteenth Amendment’s protection of a woman’s right to vote – supports the Court’s cases striking down state laws that denied women equal citizenship stature. Justice Ginsburg, in particular, emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of equality for all persons, and in particular the framers’ prohibition on legislation creating inferior castes, read together with the Nineteenth Amendment’s specific protection of women’s equal citizenship, fully supported Reed and its progeny.'
'Justice Ginsburg’s remarks echo CAC’s (Constitutional Accountability Center) new report, Perfecting the Declaration, released earlier this week, which examines the arc of constitutional progress: the principle of equality first stated in the Declaration of Independence, perfected in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further illuminated in the Nineteenth Amendment and other Amendments. As we demonstrate in this report, and as Justice Ginsburg rightly recognized in her remarks, the text of the Constitution as well as the full sweep of our nation’s constitutional history support a broad reading of the text’s command of equality for all persons.' (constitution.org) See link below.,
https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/justice-ginsburg-declares-herself-an-originalist-and-then-schools-professor-and-justice-scalia-on-the-meaning-of-the-equal-protection-clause/
Thanks Fern, for another stellar post. I've always suspected that Originalists were kind of lazy, i.e. only interpreting a narrow set of 'facts' from an even narrower point of view.
It worked for them, so it must be true!
I am so grateful for your shares, Fern. I learn so much.
Thank you, Gailee. I tend to do a fair amount of research and learn from other subscribers as you do..
Truth — you are a jewel, Fern 🌿
Cut that jewelry business. Good to see you, Ashley. 🟦🟨💓
Well, I meant a rare, organic treasure one may never even encounter; but ok. 🚫💎
Good one, Fern. Gotta love RBG.
Illuminating! Clarifying! Powerful! Thanks Fern!
Good to see you MaryPat and thank you.
Here's lookin' at you Kiddo! We have much good trouble to get into!
The 'peoples' work is never done.
Once again, my deepest gratitude to you, earnest Fern!
What a national treasure RBG was, like all great leaders she had the ability reframe the issue at argument in order to win the debate.
Ted, that is the beauty of her argument. It is I think foolish to make fun or ridicule the originalists' antique ideas/white supremacy, but, instead, to reframe the argument in the simple and elegant way RBG did. It makes perfect legal sense and is a much better teacher. The didactic argument, which pleases a lot of democrats and progressives turns a large part of the public against it -- as didacticism it is the elite making fun of them, feeling superior and very unMAGA. RBG argument in all American, much less personal and 'political' looking.
Yup. Ur right. I feel as though the 6 Conservative justices are just doing the same as those obstructionist in Congress, using a cheap cop out, corrupting the court, impeding progress, and their inaction is threatening democracy.
lin's, description was an accurate portrayal, but RBG makes a persuasive legal argument. Without making her the star as she would be demonized, I think she provided an excellent tool for the understanding and practice of equality.
Thank you, Fern. You are as amazing as Lin!
Thank you, Sharon. We support one another; that's part of our spirit and our strength 🌿
Thank you for this intelligent and thoughtful post.
Than you, Elise.
And Originalism has echoes of religious Fundamentalism, in which a bound document consisting of multiple re-translations into languages that didn't exist when much of it was originally written, of text from cultures dating back to early pastoral societies in the Fertile Crescent, serves as an infallible guide to moral living in this century. It takes decades of immersion into long-dead cultures to even begin to understand what many of these documents, stories, and theological visions meant to the people who wrote them down. Yet any layperson who picks up a Gideon Bible in a motel room is encouraged to pick it up and read -- and interpret -- The Inerrant Word Of God. As guided, of course, by the local pastor.
Much of the nonsense flowing through the extreme right has its source in nonsensical interpretation of the Word Of God. Why is abortion a sin? The Word Of God. Why are innoculations the work of the devil? The Word Of God. Why is the theory of evolution divisive? The Word Of God.
The US Constitution is, for many, just another Holy Writ, incomprehensible except as interpreted for us by the Supreme Priesthood that sits on the bench in Washington.
An easy way to see how the Bible has been twisted (may I say perverted?) is to go back to the first season of The West Wing, when President Jed Bartlet—who much resembles Joe Biden—takes apart a fake Evangelist visiting the White House, using biblical text. I don’t recall exactly which episode it was, but I’m hoping someone out there will.
https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs
That's it! Thanks.
It Is The Best!!
I just watched and listened. Thank you for sharing this! It was great!
This is a good scene, but the person whom Pres. Bartlet "takes apart" is not a fake Evangelist, just a fake. If I recall correctly, season 1 episode 1 has a scene in which Bartlet takes apart a fake Evangelist, in a different way.
Wow a fake fake? Be nice MaryPat. Will search.
❤️
Hope so too! Terrific scene!
Did you just find the episode? What a fully-substantiated history seminar Dr. Richardson's letters, enriched by her student commenters, has become. I'm in class every day.
Just mentioned to my wife that it was like sitting in on a Great Course's class discussion. Thank you all for sharing your insightful comments.
I am too or if I have something else at that time I can't wait to watch the video!
https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs
Yep, exactly. And we all weep
"Supreme Priesthood." And all that you said Joseph!! Thanks!
Your comment could hardly be more relevant.
Isn't it curious how failed far-right politicians "discovered" religion, turned from the soapbox to the pulpit, grew rich on tax-free support and succeeded so well in brainwashing their flock that they have entered and thoroughly polluted the political -- and judicial -- mainstream with their highly effective brand of tartuffery?
Perverted religion, perverted politics, and "We the people" get cast into outer darkness.
A profound truth.
Never seen it explained better. Thank you!
Originalism reminds me of how my friends and I ascribed deep meaning to the lyrics of "Hotel California". Years later I heard an interview with Glenn Frey who said "No, it's just a song about going to a hotel". Even more years later, I realized that the meaning of the song, and almost everything else I think about, has changed as I evolved as a person. How can a person, or a nation, not change and evolve over time? This nation is a living thing, not a stone monument. Thanks Lin, for pointing this out so eloquently.
Evolving?? horrors. How dare we do such a thing. The “granite statues” among us will have none of it. Surely a sin against “God.”
Evolving=progress. Very very scary to conservatives!😱🎃💩🤡
Not exactly. "Evolution" in the biological sense just means "change". There is no overall goal or plan toward which it's progressing. It is simply ongoing adaptation.
Exactly. And that is why the granite statues are being torn down, one white supremacist at a time.
….and go downhill, too!
❤️
Right back at you!!
Lin, u will luv this by Anne Applebaum. She wrote the new preface to ‘Origins of Totalitarianism’. I’m buying the copy. Maybe I should buy 6 to send to those originalist Justices?
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2022/03/arendt-origins-of-totalitarianism-ukraine/627081/
ThankYou. Yes. Anne Applebaum!
May I please recommend Ken Krimstein's 'The Three Escapes of Hannah Arendt'? Krimstein expands on the graphic novel format, and biography genre, to present an intellectual history of the period. Well footnoted. Beautifully drawn.
http://www.kenkrimstein.com/the-three-escapes-of-hannah-arendt
Ur Welcome! Of course! I could use a good novel these days.
Great article. Thanks.
SCOTUS is now a majority Bork Court. Not mentioned but quite widely known is that the Federalist Society is NOT a "charity." It is corrupt-it takes Dark Money. Please read this WaPo article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts/?utm_term=.be6161b83878&itid=lk_inline_manual_8
ThankYou!!! Yes. Leo runs shell groups to distribute dark money to racist right wing religious extremists. He has been close to Clarence Thomas for decades. (Who believes 'separate but equal, up by your bootstraps, unregulated capitalism' is the way for Black men to succeed.) Leo himself has been associated with Opus Dei and other 'more Catholic than the Pope extremist groups.
The Washington Post has been good on reporting about him.
So why is Dark Money dark? Seems to me if you are doing/advocating popular things for the country, you'd be proud to show where your $$'s are coming from. Pardon me, my naivety is showing🤷🏼♀️
That's an interesting question, and I think it comes down to deceit.
A lot of dark money is just that: dark, "in the shadows," typically because it is associated with something immoral or illegal or both. I mention something to you, you mention it to your brother-in-law, he talks to a friend, and someone I don't like ends up conveniently dead. When I find out, I pay off that debt I owed you, from, oh you know, that time in the place, you remember? Well, it's just time I got it off my conscience. The money passes through the chain, and the killer gets paid. Dark money.
But there's another level of deceit, where money changes hands as a public donation to a charitable organization that promotes something illegal or immoral or destructive to the public or the world. It's all public, and legal. But it's sinister.
Thanks, Joseph. Sinister, indeed.
Exactly.
Always has been
I just found an article about the Left doing a similar thing as the Federalist Society: Please read: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/05/an-influential-dark-money-group-turns-off-the-lights-for-the-last-time/
Yes of course there is Left wing dark money. But not nearly to the same extent - or with the same predatory impact on the judicial system. And of course, Kennedy was fatefully wrong in Citizens United.
Campaign finance reform is very much needed. And whatever can be done by a majority Democratic Congress, will have to get through the Leo courts.
It must be hard to read the words republican over and over in multiple paragraphs and the word left once in one paragraph and come to the conclusion that a group formed a few years ago to fight the right, are the ones corrupting the courts.
That's the problem I find with anyone supporting republicans, that their vocabulary lacks some useful words like irony for one.
Accountability is another and hypocrisy is a biggie on my list.
However, the biggest thing of all is lying. I'm not talking about the little white lies people tell to help pad their response, but those big lies, like the election was stolen and we don't want government intervention except when it's something we like.
It seems your vocabulary is missing quite of few of those words.
Here's another one you might recognize, gaslighting. Another one is troll and I know quite a few personally. I find that the best way to deal all of the above is to respond once and let the person know why it's also the last time.
Got no time for silly games.
Not seeing anything about the left here. The article describes Wellspring and other dark money groups working to reshape our legal system by supporting far right judges.
Where do you get "Left" from this article. Quote: "Since Wellspring’s birth from a short-lived union of the Koch network and GOP political operatives leading up to the 2008 election, it has accounted for more than 90 percent of JCN’s total funding." Enlarge & look closely at the interconnections in the graphic with particular attention to the lower right corner.
Couldn’t keep bringing a banana to a gun battle
Way past time if it’s true
Thank you Lin. An excellent unmasking of the history and true intent of originalism and a valuable contribution to another outstanding HCR letter.
Absolutely impressive comment Lin. Brilliant expansion Dr. Richardson’s timely subject. Thank you!
Lin, love your observations although I would venture to say that Originalists are only using the Ouija board and have forsaken the dictionary as too modern.
Hi Pamela. Your reply provoked a little 'dictionary' learning. There is more about its roots below.
'The oldest known dictionaries were cuneiform tablets with bilingual Sumerian–Akkadian wordlists, discovered in Ebla (modern Syria) and dated to roughly 2300 BCE, the time of the Akkadian Empire.[7][8][9] The early 2nd millennium BCE Urra=hubullu glossary is the canonical Babylonian version of such bilingual Sumerian wordlists. A Chinese dictionary, the c. 3rd century BCE Erya, is the earliest surviving monolingual dictionary; although some sources cite the c. 800 BCE Shizhoupian as a "dictionary", modern scholarship considers it a calligraphic compendium of Chinese characters from Zhou dynasty bronzes.'
The earliest dictionaries in the English language were glossaries of French, Spanish or Latin words along with their definitions in English. The word "dictionary" was invented by an Englishman called John of Garland in 1220 — he had written a book Dictionarius to help with Latin "diction".[19] An early non-alphabetical list of 8000 English words was the Elementarie, created by Richard Mulcaster in 1582.[20][21]
'The first purely English alphabetical dictionary was A Table Alphabeticall, written by English schoolteacher Robert Cawdrey in 1604. The only surviving copy is found at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. This dictionary, and the many imitators which followed it, was seen as unreliable and nowhere near definitive. Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield was still lamenting in 1754, 150 years after Cawdrey's publication, that it is "a sort of disgrace to our nation, that hitherto we have had no… standard of our language; our dictionaries at present being more properly what our neighbors the Dutch and the Germans call theirs, word-books, than dictionaries in the superior sense of that title."[22]'
'It was not until Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) that a more reliable English dictionary was produced. Many people today mistakenly believe that Johnson wrote the first English dictionary: a testimony to this legacy.[24] By this stage, dictionaries had evolved to contain textual references for most words, and were arranged alphabetically, rather than by topic (a previously popular form of arrangement, which meant all animals would be grouped together, etc.). Johnson's masterwork could be judged as the first to bring all these elements together, creating the first "modern" dictionary.[24]' (Wikipedia) See link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary
Love it
Wow - I have an actual linguistics degree, and I'm very impressed!
Your last paragraph says it all, Lin. We know who is perverting America’s law, that’s for dang sure! The judges who appease these laws that have been discombobulated by the Federalists (That’s who they are to me now.), should and must be prosecuted.
Interpretation of legislative intent (or drafters’ intent in the case of constitutional provisions) is a well-established principle, mainly as an excuse to reach desired results. But we need not argue the accuracy of the textualists’ version of the Constitution, because it suffers a more grievous fault: The theory ignores how the 14th Amendment re-defined the place of the Constitution in American life. As Heather has written in these pages, the Amendment gave new meaning to the Declaration of Independence and its declaration that all are equal—the point emphasized by Lincoln in his most famous (and justifiably so) address. The Amendment was a new Declaration, and given any fair reading it re-defined the balance between liberty and property (or power). In that sense, the current debate is a re-fighting of the Civil War. And we know which side must prevail.
Authors Intent is an Informal Fallacy. "Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit."
While being perpetuated by conservatives in the legal profession, it has been debunked elsewhere.
Biden criticized both Bjork and Thomas for their espousing Natural Law arguments. And voted against both of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/08/law-and-natural-law-questions-for-judge-thomas/5a55c9dd-da8c-4fec-9339-1a053860c92a/
I had Henry Hart for The Legal Process--or did before he passed away during the first semester. He thought that legislative intent was a crock (although he would have put it in more elegant terms). But it continues to be used.
Can’t ❤️ this but yes!!
Lin, how is it possible you know so very much and can remember it all? You are amazing!
She is learned and brilliant!!💞
‘Originalism is a political ploy to perpetuate the Founders' unconscionable political expediencies, at the cost of their progressive aspirations.’ Brilliant. Thank you.
+1 lin
Well said, lin, very well said indeed!
I have been an attorney since 1977 and was a District Judge for 20 years. I read your column most every evening and am amazed at how much I have learned and how much of what I know has been reaffirmed. Thank you HCR.
What do you think about Justice Thomas not recusing himself on cases involving plaintiffs having a relationship with his wife? https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/598843-ginni-thomass-activism-sparks-ethics-questions-for-supreme-court?amp
Thomas is currently resting comfortably in the hospital with an "infection". Can't say I wish him quick recovery.
That’s just one more reason that he doesn’t deserve to be on the SC, other than that he has the intellect of a nat, the word profound has no place in any sentence describing him except in the negative.
Good question for the judge!
From tonight’s Letter: “But what is at stake with our current Supreme Court is far broader than the question of how a justice will vote on any one issue: it is whether the federal government can protect the rights of citizens from state laws taking away those rights.”
This sums up the major issue with the Supreme Court today. I used to believe that we were indeed UNITED States. I’ve come to realize that every state is basically a “mini country”, with their own laws and beliefs. Why is it illegal to get an abortion in Texas, but not in Michigan, for example. There is nothing “united” about the United States any longer.
"'... Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) warned that “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….'"
That is precisely what SCOTUS is planning... It sends shivers down my spine!
Mine as well.
Erghhh, mine too.
Sending us backwards and undoing laws that protect us.
Planning and have pretty much achieved
And a pox on those who want that!
Like he wrote the game plan…
Cathy, Contrary to your HCR quote, I submit that our founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of “whether the federal government can protect the rights of citizens from state laws taking away those rights.”Rather, my understanding is that the founders sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the excesses of any one branch.
Take, for example, the late great Senator Ted Kennedy’s portrayal of “Robert Bork’s America” were Bork to have been seated on the High Court (see Rowshan’s comment within this thread). My understanding is that our Constitution grants powers to the Congress to codify protections against each of those stated abuses by a simple majority in both Houses, but that Congress, regrettably, has ceded much of its power to the judiciary and executive branches. Please note I stated “by a simple majority” because the framers had determined that most legislation should advance through both Houses by a simple majority. We know this because they listed the few exceptions they deemed should require a supermajority: 1) overriding a presidential veto, 2) adopting a proposed constitutional amendment, 3) convicting an impeached official, 4) ratifying a treaty, and 5) expelling a House or Senate member.
As I anticipate how the country, in 22, will write the next chapter of its story, my mind is fixated both on a question—whether mainstream institutions of American life will hold up to the coordinated effort to put in place a targeted veto to control the outcome of future elections— and also on a concomitant and, in my view, indisputable truth—that we’re in an untenable and precarious position, wherein our democracy cannot afford for the Democratic party to lose either House in 22.
This seems to be where we’re headed
Don’t forget Missouri’s 21st Century “Fugitive Slave Law” that women seeking abortions in other states may/must be caught, retained, and returned to their home state.
I cannot even believe this; I would say it is disgusting, but that word doesn’t come close to describing what it is. Is there even a word that could describe this?!?! I’m picturing a “caveman” clubbing his disobedient woman and dragging her by her hair. Have we sunk this low?? Do women have so little value??
Yes. The women never mattered to the anti-abortionists. Return is followed by “protective custody” for the unborn. Reporting pregnancies and searching mail to prevent ordering pills has to be next next on the agenda.
People don’t believe it could happen here—it already is. Can anyone see the current SCOTUS striking down this law?
I am not a historian with a deep understanding of our founders, but I do know that there was much disagreement and debate during the creation of the Constitution. When people claim to be Originalists I laugh to myself. To me the Constitution was created as a loose framework that we can improve upon over time as we recognize attitudes/practices that create inequalities in our society. That is when I am optimistic. When I am pessimistic, I think why are we still arguing about this hundreds of years later. When I am really down it becomes thousands of years. Humans have probably been having these same arguments for millenia.
The Founders did what they had to do to get the Constitution ratified and we are still stuck with part of that. The current court seems to be bent on returning to the Articles of Confederation and we are stuck with them. Some of them should not be on any court.
At least Blacks are no longer 3/5ths of a person.
Alas, my originalist friends, the constitution was a compromise achieved not by consensus or blood oath. It was cobbled together as these learned men of their time found the Articles of Confedation weren't working for a country, a union of states. I do so appreciate Justice Stephen's (and his prodigy nominee) that all SCOTUS decisions should be predicated upon how a decision may contribute to democracy...for the well-being of the living rather than imortalizing of the dead.
This is where I sit as well.
Promoting democracy should be job 1 for all judicial appointees and federal legislators. Unfortunately despite their oaths to the contrary too many ignore that responsibility.
Thanks for bringing up “oaths” Bruce. It is one of Dr. Snyder’s ‘20 lessons” from ‘On Tyranny’. When ethics and oaths are broken, democratic norms and institutions begin to fail.
An excellent, short book that should be required reading in tandem with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
We give them power and ignore consequences when they abuse it.
Were that so justice achieved under the law would not be so illusive and intents of laws (of legislators) would be more easily achieved. And, just maybe, we might need fewer laws in the end.
Heather, thank you for this Letter on the eve of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings. She is a solid choice to take a seat on the SCOTUS. I imagine it's too much to ask that the Republicans in the Senate treat her with the respect owed a woman of such tremendous accomplishment, particularly her focus on democracy.
All Americans would be wise to think deeply about Judge Jackson's words and what they really mean for us as a nation.
"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”
I keep hoping the rethuglicans will do the right thing and treat Brown Jackson with the respect she deserves, and confirm her appointment. Assuming all Dems vote for confirmation (and that is never a foregone conclusion), she'll be confirmed with a Harris tie break. So, why not give Brown Jackson the positive vote?
Nope. Condoning pedophilia and lenient sentencing to quickly return sex offenders is on the Republican agenda.
What’s with the 4 days of hearings? ACB got a day. Jones should too—should be new standard.
I hope the same thing, too, Pam. But I'm afraid they will badger Judge Jackson till the cows come home.
In December 1990, before the start of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush asked himself
“ How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’
I believe that this is the Hobson’s choice confronting President Zelensky at this moment. There is no question that Putin invaded independent Ukraine and that his ‘special military operation’ went dreadfully wrong. In any rational scenario, President Zelensky should stand firm in demanding that Putin order a cease fire followed by a swift withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.
However, President Zelensky is faced with a brutal Putin who seems determined to kill countless Ukrainian citizens while destroying key areas of the Ukraine.
Zelensky is faced with an heartbreaking personal dilemma: stand fast on his principled position regarding Putin’s calumny, while watching many more Ukrainian civilians being murdered and key urban areas being destroyed, or ‘make a deal” with murderer Putin to save innocent Ukrainian citizens and much of Ukraine’s physical and economic infrastructure.
It reminds me of Meryl Strep in Sophie’s choice in which she had moments to decide which of her two children to decide.
Would you wish to be in President Zelensky’s shoes? I wouldn’t!
In Congo in 1964 I was intimately involved with a situation in which Congolese rebels threatened to kill 3,300 foreign hostages, including five captured members of our Stanleyville consulate, if central government forces (and mercenaries) assaulted the rebel capital.
I co-authored the Action Memo that Secretary of State hand carried to President Johnson authorizing a joint Belgian/American paratroop brigade rescue operation. I insisted upon returning to Congo several months later to determine, for my own personal satisfaction, whether this was the most appropriate, life-saving action.
Whatever President Zelensky decides, I am certain that he will be plagued by second thoughts.
'Mariupol faces Russian onslaught'
Washington Post
'The Russian invasion has devastated several Ukrainian cities, caused a humanitarian crisis and fueled insecurity around the world.'
New York Times
Keith, you opened your comment with a question, '... before the start of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush asked himself,
“How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’ 'I believe that is the Hobson’s choice confronting President Zelensky at this moment.' (Hobson's choice: a choice of taking what is available or nothing at all.) (Keith Wheelock)
“How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’ I don't know that I agree that the choice is only up to Zelensky. Don't Biden, NATO and Putin have roles in answering that question?
'Invoking America’s Darkest Days, Zelensky Pleads for More U.S. Aid'
'President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called for a no-fly zone and more weapons to combat Russia’s assault and implored President Biden to be “the leader of peace.”
‘We Need You Right Now’: Zelensky Appeals to Congress. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called on U.S. lawmakers to do more to help his country fend off Russia’s invasion, tying the defense of Ukraine to the defense of democracy.'
'President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine invoked the memory of America’s darkest days on Wednesday as he pleaded for more military aid to combat Russia’s “inhumane destruction” of his country, directly challenging President Biden and members of Congress to help by showing a wrenching video of the carnage in Ukraine’s cities'
'... Mr. Zelensky likened Russia’s three-week onslaught in Ukraine to Japan’s World War II air assault on Pearl Harbor, when “your sky was black from the planes attacking you,” and to Sept. 11, when “innocent people were attacked, attacked from the air.” (NYTimes)
'Advocates of a Polish MiG transfer say the United States should send its F-16s to Poland to as part of the deal. This would be intended to fill the airpower gap Poland would face from losing its MiGs.'
'In a conference in Washington March 9, Gen. Mark Kelly, head of Air Combat Command, said the Air Force does not lack F-16s that could theoretically go to Poland, if the administration decided to do so.' (DefenseNews) See link below.
“I call on you to do more,” Mr. Zelensky said, describing the conflict raging in Ukraine as an assault on the world’s civilized nations. Speaking directly to Mr. Biden, he added: “I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.” (NYTimes)
“How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’
What is our role in saving Ukraine? What is NATO's role? Who is responsible for supporting Democracies? Who is to save us from Putin and others like him? Is this all up to Zelensky?
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/03/16/not-brain-science-heres-how-the-ukraine-fighter-swap-could-work/
It’s like the fire department watching your house burn. Your loved ones and all your history are there. You beg them to engage. They won’t. Wrong district. Your real choice will always have to be to save them. You may perish trying. But you will charge into that conflagration. I was not a politician I was a fireman we will always see things differently.
Yes, exactly expressed, Pat. You raised the curtain to reveal why we feel so helpless as people are annihilated before our eyes. More could have been done a month ago. Putin is failing and still calling the shots, while the Ukrainians are loosing their homes, their schools, their churches...without food and water...and dying wherever they are.
Fern and Pat, such important questions. Putin is a Hitler. No way to negotiate or even believe any negotiations he agrees to. He has no morals or conscience. He is watching and directing a complete destruction of a country and a people. And we in this world are witnessing the same destruction. And afraid to make a move that might take us to nuclear war. He’s playing his hand.
It’s not the world we want, is it. We begged General Louisell to take us to Hanoi and end the war. He said the military’s hands were tied. Congress was afraid of nuclear war with both Russia and China. Those being slaughtered continued to be slaughtered. Putin is using that very same strategy almost as if “It ain’t broke so don’t fix it.” Congress is using their same strategy. Nixon of course sent instructions to the North Vietnamese in Paris to abandon the peace accords because he would provide them with a better deal when he would soon be potus. They took him up on his gambit. We continued the war of attrition. The traitor leveraged himself into the presidency. Which all seems relevant to me in the war we are not fighting now. It is not my intention to draw parallels between Biden’s administration and Nixon’s. Rather to say here we are again watching the destruction of a nation of souls who will almost certainly be lost while we sit on our hands. The only good question was on the minds of the men of the USS Indianapolis as the sharks took them one by one, who will be next?
No truer words. We are seeing a Hitler, and our response is lacking.
Pat, I don't agree with your analogy. Biden and other NATO countries are not standing back watching the house burn down. Pat, Fern, Kim what more would you suggest be done (specifics) given the fear of broad nuclear retaliation by a madman who knows he is failing? What more could be done?
Trust your generals. Secure the border. Send the Russian army home. Tell the Bully his game is over. Sue Russia for reparations. When all is done lift the sanctions. Let everyone in the world know why borders exist. Hang Putin. He does not get probation!
And how will you accomplish this? It is a great picture.
Zelensky laid them out. There are differences of opinion on a number of options and how timely the West was in providing help. My comment mentions the difference of opinion about providing planes to the Ukrainian military.
Zelensky asked for more weapons. More were given. He asks for a no fly zone repeatedly. I have read many articles written by military men who explain how it would not really help. And too risky. Air defense yes! Anti aircraft. I don't pretend to understand totally what strategically can be done. Given the level of fear of escalation I understand hesitation and it is a horrible situation which is a field of land mines to navigate.
❤
Putin is being driven by his ego, not logic. Here he is trying to bring Ukrainians back into Mother Russia by murdering civilians. Does he expect to be welcomed with open arms at the war's conclusion? He has abolished a free press in his own country and jails dissenters. It's crazy time. He has cemented his title of Most Hated Man in the World. NATO is shaking in its boots over the notion that instituting a no-fly zone would lead to WWIII. Perhaps they know more than we do--that Putin has lost it and has an itchy nuclear finger. Countries don't start wars; people do.
Fern You describe other aspects of the dilemma that President Zelensky is facing. What are your thoughts on the core issue facing Zelensky—-‘How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?’, as Putin is murdering your citizens and destroying major urban areas.
Putin will continue to do this, as death and destruction upon cities, and countries, is "fun" for Putin. Look at Syria and Chechnya.
Putin's goal is to rid Ukraine of Ukrainians, and replace Ukrainians with quiescent Russians. This was the same tactic used by Stalin AFTER Russia had invaded and taken control of the republics: remember that these countries were forcibly subjected to Russia.
In Mariopol, he prevents humanitarian aid from reaching residents, intentionally starving them and physically weakening them. Those who do not die will be shipped off to Siberia, dumped off at various points in the dead of winter, and told to find a place to live; while at the same time Siberian Russians will be instructed to not let these Inhuman Ukrainians into their homes.
Putin will then relocate Russians favorable to him to Mariopol. Victory through genocide. Step 2: move onto the next city.
Zelinskiy's resolve is the only possible response. As Poland's President Duda stated, Poland crawled away from Russia's influence and wants to remain free of it. The Ukrainians have already lived with Russian/soviet influence. They understand the Russian way of life, and their response is to flee into the arms of EU and NATO, to protect them from the Russian way. Ukraine has every reason to fight Russia's control, and to stand till the end to prevent any control.
I am sure that the memory of relatives who died as a result of Russia's manufactured famine in Ukraine, which killed millions, is still fresh.
…and it is our responsibility to stand with Ukraine.
Hi Keith, I believe that I was dealing with the core issue, when asking if Zelensky alone was responsible as civilization is being attacked and absolute moral principals defied on a mass scale. Putin's actions go far beyond Ukraine. I hoped to encourage more thinking about this subject and a broader sense of responsibly for acts, which may be genocidal in this instance.
Fern I agree that you identified a ‘core issue’ for the West. However, it is Ukrainians who are being slaughtered by Putin and Ukrainian urban centers that are being destroyed by Putin’s bloody relentlessness.
It is President Zelensky who must decide how much slaughter to accept of his people and distruction of his country. From his point of view, I doubt that his primary consideration is ‘what skin does the West have in the game.’
From my personal experience—including some ‘make my day’ encounters in the Congo—there are times when the choice is stark—A or B. The time for sophisticated ‘what if’ analysis has passed.
Horrifyingly, he likely has to consider whether or not civilian carnage in the east would provoke more western aid, making Ukrainian success in the western part of the country more likely. How could one possibly figure out where the greater good lies, and have any confidence in getting it right? I do not envy him, but damn, I admire him.
Thank you for putting Zelensky's dilemma back into it's appropriate context, Keith.
Sanctions won't stop Putin. At what point do we emerge from the sidelines as Putin destroys a country, and 'become a leader for peace,' as Zelinskiy says, by preventing Russia's aggression?
Exactly. Many hearts.
Keith. How many lives did Stalin take after he got what he wanted?
Pat Good question. You speak of ‘when Stalin got what he wanted.’ My understanding is that he always wanted more. In Ukraine in the early 1930s, he wanted to sell Ukrainian wheat and other food stuffs to obtain had currency to purchase industrial goods for his Five Year Plan. This starved to death 3-6 million Ukrainians.
Some Ukrainians fought with Hitler against Stalin. Stalin post-WW II dealt harshly with Ukraine, sending some Ukrainians to Siberia and sending some Russians to live in Ukraine.
Stalin had purges and ‘trials’ in which millions of Russians were killed or sent to gulags (concentration camps). Even when he died he was fomenting a ratissage of doctors (Jewish).
Stalin ruled by fear and harsh measures. His was a suspicious dictator—he never ‘got enough.’ Apart from WW II he killed millions.
I recall a book I read as a child. “A Day in the Life Of Ivan Denisovitch.” That was guttural and keeps trying to jump out now as Ukrainians face that stark bleak darkness. One for which no remedy exists.
Keith, you wrote "You speak of ‘when Stalin got what he wanted.’ My understanding is that he always wanted more."
This morning I read an article explaining how addiction works: the irrational seeking of the intensity of that first thrill leading to escalation of the thrill seeking behavior. The article began by addressing the drive to make money by people who have more money than they will ever need or use, but pointed out that this pattern, first understood by studying behavior of substance addiction/abuse, in fact explains a good many behaviors that are self-damaging and ultimately damaging to others, up to and including nations.
Addiction to power is one of them, and one of the most dangerous, because the only way to experience the thrill of power is to use it. Putin has this addiction. America has not been without that addiction (both to money and power), and used it to settle its western lands. America has been able to head off the worst of that kind of abuse and maintain the ability to move beyond it. (I hope we are not moving beyond the willingness to keep doing that.)
It remains to be seen if the Russian people will fear the possible Stalinesque consequences of allowing Putin to continue enough to resist. I admire the Russian people, and pray they do.
I really do not know what the most effective intervention would be; I do not have magical access to some special knowledge from the comfort of my drawing room. I have to trust the knowledge and skills of people whose responsibility includes evaluating the options available.
My job as a citizen is to first work with others to make sure that our democracy is in working order, and to use my voice to access democratic processes that decision makers need in order to know the values and goals we expect them to include in their decisions-making.
How bout as your citizens are valiantly fighting and laying down their lives? Are Ukrainian men conscripted or volunteering? I have heard both
❤️
Excellent fern.
Thank you, Lynn.
Moyers reported that Johnson told him that Presidents act on the best information they have, and it’s never the whole story. I’ve watched a lot of Moyers so I don’t remember when, or in what context, but no doubt about Viet Nam. Maybe he found out that McNamera was full of Schitt.
Jeri It was clear to me, in 1964, that there was no ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ in Vietnam. Because of my hands-on-experience in Congo (went alone into rebel-infested provinces, spoke French, demonstrated ability to handle M-16, and either stupid or fearless—in April 1965 our ambassador in Saigon ‘asked’ me to join him. I refused. Ditto in 1967.
Robert Shaplen and Bernard Fall had already written books highlighting that ‘nationalism’ was more powerful than ‘Western imperialism.’
Sam Adams, my counterpart in CIA on intelligence analyst during the Congo rebellion, later turned his talents to assessing the Viet Cong order of battle. The more he dug, the more he discovered that the military “intelligence’ was false. Sam (who I considered a superb analyst) found that the Viet Cong was 200,000-300,000 stronger than ‘official’ reports indicated.
Sam was blocked by General Westmoreland from distributing his findings. The CIA director ordered Sam not to distribute his truthful findings. Sam was soon forced out of CIA.
The August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which provided Congressional approval for our ‘war’ in Vietnam was based on lies. The purported enemy attack on American war ships probably did not occur—-the reporting suggested that this ‘attack’ was, in fact, computer clutter and our planes spotted no attackers. Moreover, our ‘innocent’ warships had, in fact [not reported to Congress] been supporting a covert South Vietnamese operation to land saboteurs into North Vietnam.
McNamara, when he realized that he was part of a falsified ‘house of cards,’ had what seemed like a nervous breakdown, resigned as SecDef, and was named head of the World Bank.
McNamara, Walt Rostov, General Westmoreland, LBJ, and others were full of Schitt. Meanwhile, tens of thousands more Americans died as long with millions of Vietnamese.
THIS WAS ALL OBVIOUS TO ME AND OTHERS IN 1964-1965.
Which was when I was among the first to Stand in protest. I learned the truth from returning veterans, not the media, who were at the time a cheering squad and keeper of the score. The vets I talked to were the same people who were to become the scapegoats for a war they didn't cause, they didn't want, and didn't volunteer for. They went not knowing and came back to start the anti-war movement.
Anne Might what you describe about some soldiers in Vietnam relate to Russian army conscripts who found themselves in a ‘cousin country’ and were blindsided? Perhaps a difference is that they have had this realization while engaged in this ‘special military operation’ that has escalated into a bloody war.
The news of this will swiftly leak through Putin’s curtain of misinformation.
Keith, I think that the two situations are so close in character as be near identical in outcome. I did not know a Nam vet that felt he/she had accomplished anything by their presence there. Many had tried and failed to get their superiors to respond to what was going on. The media didn't begin to cover until after the "non-combat advisors" had turned into battalions of teenage conscripts who indeed were blindsided by their own patriotism.
Disillusionment doesn't begin to describe it. Survivors came home damaged and ignored because their stories didn't match the media. Then free-lancer journalists went over and told the truth. Nam vets formed stand-ins, burned their medals, and insisted on speaking out. And people my age heard them because they were us and older folks who had been in war began to get that something was terribly wrong because this wasn't a war and there was no enemy except the distorted domino theory.
What is happening right now with Russia's invasion of Ukraine is all too much like that. Unfortunately it appears that Russian dissidents are leaving our of fear of Putin's retribution. But Russian soldiers are heading home, too. I hope the Russian public is a savvy as they seemed to be, and listen, and continue to rally and push against this war. With enough resistance, it might be possible for people inside to remove or disable Putin's influence, at the least. It's something to hope for. I'm slim on hope right now, but I still think this is possible.
Keith, I believe the citizens of Ukraine have expressed THEIR choice, and President Zelensky should lead them (and Democratic people everywhere) in achieving it. Instead of negotiating part of their country, their future, and their democracy away, he should tell the Russians to “get the hell out of our country, no deal.” Putin’s time is coming.
We are doing everything possible at this time. We have to trust our President and the leaders of NATO — and witness the most tragic, godawful, inspiring struggle of our lifetime.
This is what we are working to prevent here in this country; if TFG was still in office, there likely wouldn’t be a NATO right now, and Putin would have free reign in Europe, the R’s would be isolating us, and our own democracy would be on life-support. We know what we must lawfully accomplish; give Joe Biden two years with a majority Congress so he can lead this country back from the precipice.
I am with you all in this chaos of broken hearts. I would gladly give my life right now to save one Ukrainian child — and so would each of you, but we don’t get to make that trade. Let’s fix this country, in case it ever comes to that....
Gus Viscerally I agree with your thought that ‘the citizens of Ukraine have expressed THEIR choice—and that Zelensky should just tell the Russians to ‘get the hell out of our country, no deal.” Meanwhile Putin keeps murdering countless Ukrainians, destroying urban centers, and causing at least 10% of the population (so far) to flee the country. Should Zelensky wait indefinitely while this occurs and increasing millions of his citizens are starving and without power or heat in freezing weather? Remember, you are dealing with Putin, who cares not a whit for human life (except his own.)
It’s even worse than that, Keith. One in four (25%!) of Ukrainians have been displaced, internally and externally. I don’t have any answers, and thank god I don’t have to make these kinds of decisions. Like Zelenskyy, and also like individual Ukrainians themselves.
The alternative is to be ruled by the monster or for many carted off to a camp in Siberia or murdered. There are no good alternatives.
Christy Perhaps that is why a number of the ‘best and brightest’ are fleeing. I just read about 20,000+/- young adults fleeting to Armenia (not the most desirable spot in the world) and even some to Moldova, which seems like the pits.
Old Russians seem more accustomed to cruddy times. A wild hope is that the opposition leader who was poisoned and then imprisoned could be a catalyst for a grass movement when Putin goes. There’s a rocky road ahead (won’t try to sing the song!)
Could it be that Putin thought his cheating on tfg’s behalf would make it a shoo in and decided to do it anyway since Tfg is all set to regain power. His timing was disrupted but he is in for the long game. If tfg makes a comeback (even R gains in 22) guess who is in His pocket. Rupert still is….
Gus, I am so in agreement on “THEIR choice”. Leave your homeland or succumb to living (or just later dying) under a ruthless dictator. It’s brutal to see children maimed, dying and being displaced, but the alternative of being ruled by Putin is worse. Also, I would add to your excellent comment that the stronger our own democracy here at home the stronger it will be everywhere. I hope many US citizens will be able to finally see for themselves the incredible danger of succumbing to the lies and propaganda of a criminal as it is presented so forcefully across the ocean.
Christy Spot on! America has slipped considerably on the world democracy index. Perhaps we should tattoo our members of Congress with “It’s not what we say, it’s what we do,” and then focus on voting rights, modern-day judicial qualities, child and health care, climate change, and ….
The problem with making a deal, is Putin will not abide by it and it will only be made to the detriment of Ukraine. For Putin it is submission to him period.
Judy I agree that any ‘deal’ with Putin would be like a business deal with Trump—not worth the paper it’s written on. There could be firm assurances by the West on any such deal, but still that would not be reassuring with a weasel like Putin.
This is the immediate situation that confronts President Zelensky, as his citizens continue to be murdered and his country destroyed. What would YOU recommend that Zelensky should do? He is facing a heart wrenching choice.
I think Zelensky will fight to the last. Even if they make an agreement, the punishment of the people of Ukraine will not end.
Judy, agreed. My question has been from the start of this invasion, what happens if/when Zelensky is killed?
Linda I believe that Putin is seeking to assassinate Zelensky. Already one assassination team was interdicted and eliminated. Zelensky knows that he is a target.
I believe that President Zelensky’s courageous stand has galvanized the Ukrainian people. Even if he is killed, his spirit will sustain Ukrainians. I am reminded of Viva Zapata. Even when Zapata was assassinated, his followers believed in the spirit of Zapata. So Churchillian Zelensky will remain a powerful symbol for Ukrainians, even were he to sacrifice his life for his country.
His courage is extraordinary.
Keith, I firmly believe this is going to be the case. Particularly after Zelensky drew the line in the sand yesterday. I'm concerned that there isn't a Zelensky Part II to step in.
I'm not a religious person, but I hope to God they have taken his family to a safe harbor.
Or worse, captured.
Putin can not be trusted. Ever.
EVER!
I’m afraid that without a significant compromise from Putin, any settlement would look like capitulation and would incentivize future aggression against Ukraine and other countries.
Ukraine can’t give any concessions. They will need to sustain the effort. Sadly, I see their only way to win is by destroying the Russian ground forces and tanks/artillery killing Russian soldiers, such that two anti Putin forces join: Russian mothers/people and sane Russian Generals ( if there are any).
I think Zelensky should break out of Anzio, attack Russia, capture Putin and hold the , Nuremberg trials. Go long!
As with WWI and WWII there are two types of Russian historian
1) Believe the war will be over by Christmas
2) Believe the enemy will be dead by mid-April
The rhyme of history will prove them both right, one way or another.
The number of dead Ukrainians is growing, along with the number of orphaned children and people fleeing the country to find safety elsewhere.
'Russian forces are now present in all civilian neighborhoods in Ukraine’s strategic port city of Mariupol, where the battle for control has descended into house-to-house guerrilla warfare, Ukrainian military officials said. Mariupol authorities accused Russia of bombing an art school that was sheltering 400 residents. They also said Russian shelling destroyed the Mariupol Drama Theater on Wednesday, and images provided to The Post showed extensive damage. Traumatized evacuees from Mariupol described the horrors of Russian attacks to The Post.] (WaPo) See link below.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/20/ukraine-russia-war-zelensky/
Fern, I feel what we are witnessing in Ukraine is akin to standing on the sidelines watching a kitten trying to cross a busy freeway. We know what the outcome with be. Yet, here we stand. This is crushing to me.
Heart-breaking
Fern What you write is descriptive, not prescriptive. How would this affect President Zelensky’s decision-making process?
I could have no better sparring partner and will get back to you late this afternoon. I have a doctor's appointment and a few other things to do first, but we shall continue.
Fern Looking forward to continuing our back-and-forth after your doctor’s appointment and I take the garbage to the curb. Ah, the realities of life.
Hi Keith, I'm back. The following may seem like a repeat to you. In sum, I believe that NATO and Biden haven't provided enough of what Ukraine needs and what was given, as substantial as it seems, needed to be done sooner. Read what Zelensky has been begging for, with the exception of no-fly zone, that is what I talking about in terms of help. I believe that for humane purposes several no-fly zones need to be created just for that purpose.
Part of the following was addressed to someone else with whom I disagree. I wouldn't say that you and I are out of sync, but we shall see. As you read this post please keep in mind the other devils we've known, such as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot et al.
There are bound to be serious and passionate differences about how to deal with moral depravity on a mass scale -- the needless killing of many people, leveling cities and towns, starving people, while insuring that they have no heat or water and make it impossible to escape bunkers in flattening cities… Different opinions are expressed about when and how much Biden and NATO have supported Ukraine without being too uncool. We may have differing views about whether this all rests on Zelensky's shoulders or whether responsibly belongs to a wider circle when a large scale human catastrophe is taking place and impacting other countries -- just another example of genocide, with the potential to cause world wide hunger, along an untold number of deaths and a massive refugee crisis? Are humans to endure this whenever a devil is on the rampage?
I'm not having a 'sophisticated' talk with myself. Biden is going to Geneva, and I think part of the discussion there needs to be how much more substantially Ukraine needs to be helped by NATO right now.
Salud,
Fern
Fern Hope your teeth are still in. My garbage is out.
1) The proposed ‘no fly’ zone would require U. S. And NATO planes to shoot down Russian planes. Don’t you think that ‘might’ spark escalation or even WWIII?
2) Less than a month ago President Zelensky and others didn’t believe that there would be a Russian invasion—then February 24th. I find it astonishing that Biden could order the military to provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of operational equipment on a Saturday and it started arriving the following Monday. Typical Pentagon procurement takes at least 6 months.
3) Once the invasion commenced, Biden sparked our NATO allies to commence a massive weapons supply. Now several of the delivery routes are being interdicted.
As I mentioned earlier, the focus is far more on prescription rather than description. In any such situation there is much that is unknown. Also, Kerensky’s concerns are primarily about Ukraine and Ukrainians, while the West has far broader considerations.
Try putting yourself in Kerensky’s shoes and ponder his rock-and-hard-place alternatives.
The people of Ukraine are also ´standing fast.'
Agreed, they are models for us all.
Thank you! Wonderful piece! Judge Jackson also said of Trump and Presidents; that they ‘are not Kings.’ She is correct!
My take away from hearing Joe Trippi of the Lincoln Project and now also Join the Union movement inspiring talk is I would like to encourage everyone here to consider being a part of jointheunion.us , a grass roots organization to bring together all who want to defend democracy. This has nothing to do with political parties. It is above all that defending democracy itself. Groups can be members as well as individuals. They are looking for volunteers not donations to do the bottom up work of strengthening democracy. This was recently launched and already has 50,000 members. For me, this is the movement we need to bring millions of us together to hold on to democracy in 2022 and 2024. They are having a virtual townhall tomorrow Monday, March 21 at 7 pm eastern time on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pobsVKBcWTQ Sign up for it at https://jointheunion.us/townhall/ See you there!
Lincoln Project's The Union is inspired by these words: “When the people rise in masses in behalf of the Union and the liberties of their country, truly may it be said, ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against them.’” ~ President Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861
More inspiring words: "You cannot do all the good the world needs, but the world needs all the good you can do." The world needs democracy, particularly as inspired by Ukrainians!
Thank you. I'm coming. When I opened my laptop this morning the link <jointheunion.us> magically appeared on my toolbar. No idea how it got there. Didn't know what it was until I just read your comment and clicked on the link. Now I have two. Something tells me I was meant to attend.
Lincoln’s words ringing the Liberty bell in my ears. I feel Ukraine saying the same words. Every hour. Every minute. Every second.
Bells...if you haven't seen this film yet, it has a scene of a monastery bell-ringer ringing all the bells as an emergency alert when the police started attacking the Maidan Square protesters, noting the bells had not been rung like that since the year 1240 when the Mongols invaded.
Here's from a comment I posted on Hubbell:
"Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom" (on Netflix) is a very worthwhile film to watch about the 2014 Maidan Revolution. It gives deeper context to what we see on TV--the quest to align with Europe instead of Russia, newscasts from Kviv's Maidan Square, the implementation of anti-protest laws for totalitarian repression of resistance and public demonstrations, bewilderment at being beaten and shot by fellow brethren in the regular police and Berkut special riot police, unity across regions, languages, and religions, and most of all, persistent resolve. Today's Ukrainians went through this just 8 years ago.
During the Maidan Revolution, the Parliament went from voting for anti-protest laws to 100% of its members voting 328 to 0 to remove President Yanukovych from office--after which he fled to Russia. The next president disbanded the Berkut riot police, many of whom today must be fighting against Russian soldiers.
Putin's war is on a much bigger scale and includes psychological operations used to deceive, confuse, disrupt and demoralize. Our resistance needs to include keeping cool heads.
Thank you, Ellie. With you virtually this evening. ☮️
Cathy, it was in TC's latest post. He joined, and so did I. I would have mentioned it here, but I was sort of waiting for TC to do it....they probably already put someone like him right to work! Thanks for posting the link. Maybe some of us still have a few hours to give....
Even a minute multiplied by millions makes up a heck of a lot of hours. That’s what a “union” of souls does.
United! 🇺🇸🇺🇦☮️💫
Things get underway tomorrow morning at 11am EDT...I may tune in to hear her opening remarks. Once the Republican grandstanding starts--and we KNOW it will be on ample display--I may just follow and tune in and out. At least, Republican Senators, many of them, are not quite like the loonies in the House, so maybe things will be a bit more civil. I forget who's on this committee...if Cruz or Rubio are on it I will definitely tune out because they get on my last nerve...if Graham is present he may be on good behaviour, we can hope. From what I've seen and heard of Ms Jackson, I think she'll be able to deal with whatever is thrown at her. A VERY sharp lady. HCR's summation of some SCOTUS history serves as a reminder of what is at stake.
Everything is at stake.
Judge Jackson is going to amaze and energize us tomorrow.
So agree, Bruce. I’ve got my pom poms out for Judge Jackson and a slipper to throw at TV just in case anyone gets stupid.
She will present herself well and I believe hers will be a judicious and fair voice on the court representing our democracy and its foundational supports.
We the People!
Graham Has taken residence on my last nerve
The current SCOTUS of majority "originalists" are dismantling democracy piece by piece. 1. Citizens United making money "free speech" (seems an oxymoron to call money "free") thus legalizing bribery of candidates for elected office and our elected officials already in office. 2. In 2013 SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act giving state legislatures carte blanche to make voting less accessible and therefore less democratic. 3. SCOTUS decisions on Texas Anti-Abortion law which takes away the EXISTING Constitutional Rights of over half the population (women) is based on anticipating that they will soon take away those rights. It is untenable that they are making decisions based on Future Law! When (it's hard to say if here) they do overturn Roe v. Wade it will be the first Court to take away the rights of citizens. Unprecedented you might say! Conclusion is SCOTUS is dismantling democracy and promoting autocracy which is already a reality in 19 states. There is the original guarantee clause, Article IV, Section 4, in the Constitution that guarantees that the states of the United States will be a Republican form of government -- of the people, by the people and for the people. We the People, all of us this time.
My ex-best friend voted for tfg based on how he would skew the SC. Unconscionable
Back in 2016, a fairly close work friend balked the majority and said she was voting for tfg because of the SC--of the very small minority of people there who supported him, she was the only one who had a valid reason (I highly suspect the few others were racist but chose not to say that as we worked in a highly diverse laboratory). Funny that now, this same woman seems to despise him and is highly critical of him, she is religious and tfg's morals finally seemed to wake her up.
Always good news that someone who once supported tfg now has changed her mind. I continue to hope there are many silent people just like her.
I think that some ideas from the 18th century or earlier are still applicable in America in the 21st century. The 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments come to mind. But other ideas have no place in our country today --the most obvious of these are acceptance of slavery, the counting of enslaved people as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census and representation in the House and the denial of the rights of citizenship (owning property and voting) to women. These ideas have been dealt with by the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments largely addressed these deficiencies in our constitution. More controversial is the 2nd amendment. Could the Framers have envisioned, automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, or even grenade launchers and anti-tank weapons for that matter when they wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
What little I know about the law I gleaned from watching Law and Order on TV. One thing I remember from that show was the oft referenced Roscoe Pound's famous observation that "the law must be stable, but must not stand still." If we are compelled to interpret every law in terms of what the framers wrote in 1787 we are in deep trouble as a nation and as a society.
Having recently finished reading Jill Lepore's These Truths recently, I wrote down these two quotes as especially relevant to this point in our history. The first is from Jefferson, the second from Lincoln.
"in 1816, when Jefferson was seventy-three and the [religious] awakening was just beginning, he warned against worshipping the men of his generation. 'This they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead,' he wrote: '... the laws and institutions go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.' To treat the founding documents as Scriptures would be to become a slave to the past. 'Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched,' Jefferson conceded. But when they do, 'They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human.'" (These Truths, p 201)
"As a nation, we began by describing that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read is 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." (A. Lincoln letter to Joshua Speed, August 24, 1855, quoted in These Truths, p 266)
I must stand with Justice Breyer in his belief that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of how it advances democracy.
It has been my understanding as well that this whole dog and pony show was painstakingly assembled as a living entity. Almost respiring in its ability to change, oxygenating the future needs. Bloodlessly.
Thank you HCR. A very helpful summary. If only wishing could undo the 2016 election POTUS result. We knew then that the election was at bottom about the SCOTUS nominees. Enough people didn’t pay attention, and it’s panned out just as we feared with RBG the last to fall in the House of Cards. It’s been heading in a bad direction for so many years. I literally 🙏🏻 that KBJ has the strength to stand up for us, the people and write dissents for the ages. ❤️🤍💙
That was the very argument I made in 2016: dislike/distrust Hilary Clinton all you want; this election is for the future of the Supreme Court. One of my friends who sat out that election (because, Bernie) finally admitted he was wrong following the Texas abortion decision.
Today there is NOT any justice being served @ the supreme court.
The R's have destroyed American's confidence in fairly representing the principles of our Constitution.
Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett ... are the political puppets dangling from the purse strings of the KKKoch's elite moneyed republican Klan.
I am at a loss to understand the textual analysis applied by originalists. The clause in the 2nd amendment about a Well Regulated Militia might as well not exist.
And I'm blowed if the Citizens United decision is not "legislating from the bench". After all, the effect is to reduce individual citizens to less than 3/5 of a citizen.
Decidedly, lex asinus est.
“originalists” or “textualists" or "blickety-blank" is about the best I can do to describe them here. If I stated what they truly are, I believe Prof. Heather may truly ban me. Severe discrimination was not just confined to the state. It was rampant in places like Chicago too. I grew up there, attended an all-boys magnet school by the name of Lane Tech, a collection of boys from the north side. I graduated, decided against college for the time being and went to work with my dad on the scaffolds repairing the buildings or laboring. Late sixties.
Yeah, there is a story coming , , .
We were short-handed and they were always looking for experienced men. We were about the 20th story up and one day a window opened up and a man stepped on to the scaffold with his bag of tools. I did not think anything of it. He was black. My high school was integrated, no big deal.
I head the yelling coming from the far end of the cabled scaffolding. It was Marty Schleep calling this black man everything under the sun. That he would not work with him, etc. My 5'6" dad was no angel; but, he did treat people with respect and he taught us to be such too.
The man was leaving the scaffold through the same window he came out of and he looked at me as he left. That look of hurt has stayed in my memory for decades now. I can still see it. Yep, there was discrimination in the South. It was also prevalent in the large cities like Chicago, Detroit, etc. too. I did not know it, my dad never expressed it. We were on the northwest side of Chicago where there were few minorities.
Four months later I was in Marine boot camp along with every known type of person one could imagine. Just a bunch of mutts.
The sixties and seventies were tough times, the times of change.