My one ESPN column this week is a free one, covering my awards picks for 2017, excluding NL Rookie of the Year, the ballot I was assigned (again). I also held a Klawchat on Friday.
I reviewed Azul, one of my favorite new boardgames of the year, for Paste, which will be my last review for them until November. I will continue to post reviews here in the interim.
My book, Smart Baseball, is out and still selling well (or so I’m told); thanks to all of you who’ve already picked up a copy. And please sign up for my free email newsletter, which is back to more or less weekly at this point now that I’m not traveling for a bit. I also have a new book signing to announce: October 14th at Changing Hands in Phoenix.
And now, the links…
- Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are disasters after Hurricanes Irma and Maria swept through the northern Caribbean. The New York Times has had several superb (if horrifying) articles on the islands, like the massive economic toll in the Virgin Islands or the devastation of Puerto Rican farms.
- Meanwhile, Nero is fiddling, and San Juan’s Mayor is done being polite, and the U.S. Army general in charge of relief efforts says he hasn’t been given enough troops or equipment. The Washington Post documents how the government’s response was delayed while the President played golf.
- Longread of the week: Nicole Chung, who was born here to Korean immigrants and then adopted by white parents, writes about what it means to be “American” and dealing with family members who voted for Trump. Some of what she’s gotten back from family members, including her adoptive parents, is just appalling; I doubt I’d ever speak to my parents again if I were in her shoes.
- A pair of must-reads on the Kaepernick/NFL/protest story from the New Yorker: Jelani Cobb on “ungrateful” as the new “uppity,” and David Remnick on Trump’s race-baiting demagoguery on the issue.
- A Colorado University study found that vaccine denialists are getting louder and more pervasive on Twitter. Those of us who live in the real world and rely on evidence need to be just as loud in our defense of vaccines – and to fight to eliminate non-medical exemptions for schoolchildren.
- A nurses’ union in Boston is suing Brigham & Women’s hospital for mandating flu shots. If you’re not willing to get a flu shot – safe, effective, and important for health-care workers – perhaps find a field other than medicine?
- Jezebel looks at a new denialist ‘documentary’ about fraudster Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license in the U.K. after fabricating data that he then claimed showed that the MMR vaccine causes autism (it doesn’t, just to be ab-so-fucking-lute-ly clear on the topic.)
- A fake Boston “antifa” account accidentally outed itself as Russian-based this week, but that’s far from the only fake leftist account run by Russian trolls.
- Wild Beasts’ Boy King was my #2 album of 2016, but it’s also going to be their last as the British quartet announced that they’re calling it quits, with a new EP of leftover Boy King tracks to represent their final release.
- The headline: “A Southwest passenger complained about dogs on her flight. Police forced her off the plane.” The full story: She claimed she had a serious dog allergy but didn’t have the required medical certificate. All the news coverage I saw made Southwest Airlines the villain, but it seems to me that the passenger was unreasonable. (And the police, but that’s another matter.)
- Iraqi Kurds voted overwhelmingly for independence, a referendum that was quickly denounced by the Iraqi government and the Turkish government, the latter of which has a decades-long history of oppressing the Kurdish minority and whose autocratic President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is already threatening to starve them. If the Kurds do declare independence, this could be a Timor-esque situation and potential genocide … and our current President has done nothing but express admiration for Turkey’s dictator. Oh, and one of his resorts hosted a Turkish Airlines golf event last week.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch voted to uphold the death sentence of a man convicted by a racist jury. Slate points out here how Gorsuch lied in his confirmation hearing because that’s just how it goes these days: Say whatever it takes to get elected/confirmed, then do what you wanted to do all along afterwards.
- Swamp update: Trump nominated a candidate to head the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance who has previously worked for a Church of Scientology-funded health “board”. It’s a con – all of Scientology is – and while it may qualify him for this administration, we shouldn’t hire fraudsters for the DoJ.
- Trump’s tax “reform” plan includes eliminating the estate tax; Bloomberg wrote in December how repealing it would be a huge windfall for him, his family, and his Cabinet.
- Keith Olbermann argued that the President is using the Pittsburgh Penguins as his own political pawns (video).
- The unelected official known as Ivanka Trump is taking steps to hide which Chinese suppliers manufacture Ivanka merchandise.
- A number of Harvard professors have come out to publicly criticize the University’s handling of Michelle Jones and Chelsea Manning, revoking Jones’ admission and Manning’s invitation to speak in apparent bowing to public pressure.
- FiveThirtyEight’s Rob Arthur has a deeper look at the juiced baseball in MLB this season.
- CBS Sports’ RJ Anderson looks at catcher concussions and MLB’s battle with head trauma.
- Columbia Journalism Review looks at how “pivoting to video” doesn’t really pay off.
- Ugandan President (who has been in power since 1986) spoke about how genetically modified organisms will be critical to meeting his country’s food needs. You can buy non-GMO if you want, but don’t be fooled: It’s not better for you, and we will need GMOs to feed the world.
- Roy Moore is the Republican candidate to fill the open U.S. Senate seat from Alabama. He believes homosexuality should be a crime. He’s also probably going to win.
- St. Louis police practices have come under fire recently, such as these sweep arrests that brought in many innocent people last week.
- In the wake of Hugh Hefner’s death, the Washington Post revisited the murder of Playmate Dorothy Stratten, shot by her ex-husband after her career took off.
- With the Law and Order brand name now applied to a true-crime miniseries, The Ringer looks at how the original format found success by avoiding challenge, and how that formula won’t work with this current iteration.
- Some local news: A Delaware mom says she was never informed her son was bullied or got in a fight at Maple Lane Elementary School in Claymont, the town at the northeastern-most tip of the state. The school officials appear to have failed to fulfill their obligations under state law here, which, of course, makes me wonder if this is an isolated incident.
- Cape Cod isn’t exactly known for good food, but the Chatham Bars Inn, a well-known luxury resort on the eastern edge of the Cape, has started its own farm a few miles away in Brewster.
- This started a few weeks ago but I just caught it last Saturday – Iowa Hawkeyes fans have a new and wonderful tradition: After the first quarter of each football game, they turn and wave to watching patients at the neighboring children’s hospital. Hey Iowa, you may produce some of the worst politicians in the country, but I’m glad you’re nice to sick kids!
Keith, I think you’re being way too hard on the President and the administration. After all, it’s pretty obvious that those Puerto Ricans just want everything done for them! They need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!
I’m nitpicking, but – Nicole’s birth parents are Korean immigrants, and Nicole was born in the US.
Fixed it. This is a problem for me when I read something on Wednesday and try to summarize it on Saturday.
I went on a date with a nurse who said that, while she advocates getting the flu shot every year, the medical community isn’t 100% sure they are safe long term because unlike most vaccines, one receives the flu one so frequently. Is there any truth to that? I haven’t found anything with quick Bing searches.
As a microbiologist, I don’t see how unless you were allergic to one of the components (and you would certainly know if you were having an allergic reaction). We are confronted with so many antigens on a daily basis that vaccines do not really contribute much above that very high baseline.
Curious how you think that link shows Gorsuch lied. You can certainly say that his interpretation of the equal protection clause isn’t as broad as you would like, but to say that vague statement to the Senate is a lie, thereby accusing him of perjury, is not supportable. For the record, I think the three no votes got the law wrong, but calling people liars rather than engaging on the issue is how certain people get elected and not productive.
Reasonable people may disagree, but to me it seems clear that his confirmation statements are directly at odds with his position in Tharpe’s appeal case. I would conclude one of the following: that Gorsuch actively misrepresented himself in the confirmation hearings, he is internally inconsistent with his own stated beliefs, or he changed his mind between the confirmation hearings and hearing this case. Perjury may be the only formal crime of the bunch, but may actually be the least worrisome option.
calling people liars rather than engaging on the issue is how certain people get elected
Funny, I thought voter suppression, gerrymandering, dog-whistling, and promising impossible or undeliverable policies were how ‘certain’ people get elected.
SCOTUS confirmation hearings have become a joke, mostly because nominees fear they will get borked. I can’t really blame them. That’s the legislature’s and media’s fault, not the judiciary’s.
Still, I don’t see how Gorsuch lied or how “his confirmation statements are directly at odds.” He gave vague answers, like they all do now. He’s an originalist. We all knew that. Don’t be surprised when he puts limits on equal protection. That article was an unfair and unnecessary shot by Slate. Tony said it better than I could have.
Nicholai, small nitpicking, but there was no hearing in this death penalty stay. They just voted based on the lower court record.
*Nickolai, sorry
Honest question: How is putting limits on equal protection for African Americans consistent with an originalist interpretation vis a vis the 14th amendment?
The death penalty stay isn’t an equal protection issue; it’s a 6th Amendment impartial jury case applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. So, I meant equal protection generally, especially when it comes to minority groups that aren’t African American.
Originalists, I think, almost universally agree that the 14th Amemdment applies to race above all. If Gorsuch ruled against African Americans on an equal protection matter, it would be fair to criticize him. He probably wouldn’t do that–Scalia didn’t and Thomas doesn’t–which sort of undercuts the narrative that he has a racist agenda.
Sorry, I misunderstood your argument re: equal protection. So just to be clear, the presumably originalist argument of Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch is that direct evidence of racial bias by a jurist does not run contrary to jury impartiality guarantees by the 6th amendment? I’m not arguing that their agenda is racist, I’m just trying to understand their legal reasoning (and to be clear, I have zero training in constitutional law). I’m most definitely not an originalist, but I don’t understand how their legal arguments are originalist and not so-called “judicial activism.”
You, and others, should read the dissents in Pena-Rodriguez if you’re interested. Not enough people learn about constitutional law straight from the source. Most of the justices make their arguments very accessible. Too often people see the result of a SCOTUS decision (and read a flawed or biased article like that Slate one) and criticize or applaud without evaluating the process. Judging is sometimes a garbage in, garbage out business.
I only skimmed the dissents, but I think the crux is that a defendant’s lawyer has a chance to remove impartial jurors during voir dire, not through a juror affidavit later. That’s the proper process. Alito specifically says he empathizes with the defendant, but process matters. If you don’t like it, pass laws or guidelines.
Gorsuch mentioned in his confirmation hearing that sometimes a judge will rule in a way he doesn’t like. That’s the way it should be. Too often the liberal wing of the Court makes things up as they go to fit the result they want. If you read those opinions and the dissents, you can see how flimsy their arguments can be.
This is a clear tangent to the point you’re making here, but I’m curious because I think your answers so far point in this direction: If a defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, and his lawyers failed to object to some error or incongruity at the appropriate time during his trial, then would you still argue for the capital sentence to be carried out even though the process was flawed?
I think that’s what you’re saying, and boy, do we disagree on that if so.
“Too often the liberal wing of the Court makes things up as they go to fit the result they want.”
Did you seriously write this with a straight face? If you believe that conservative justices are invariably 100% faithful to the law, their personal opinions and politics be damned, while the liberal justices twist things to suit their own agendas, then I absolutely have no use for anything else you have to say on this subject. I have no need to read or consider the words of a propagandist.
However we want to describe the process by which justices reach their conclusions–from “honest people can honestly disagree” to “twisting the law to suit an agenda”–then both wings do it.
“If you believe that conservative justices are invariably 100% faithful to the law, their personal opinions and politics be damned”
Really nice straw man. Where did I say that? Also, I’m definitely not a propagandist.
You and Mat G are kind of making my point. Read Kennedy’s opinions in the DOMA and gay marriage cases. You may like the result (as do I), but the legal reasoning is gobbledygook. Congress and the states could easily have made gay marriage legal through legislation.
Keith, I hate the death penalty. It’s barbaric and it’s a stain on the U.S. that we still have it. But why don’t we outlaw it in Congress and state legislatures? Why is it a judge’s job to fix a deeply flawed process? That’s not the system we have, especially when the Constitution explicitly allows for the death penalty. The jury system has always been flawed and always will be, in capital cases or otherwise. It’s inherent in our democracy. The solution in this case is to get the governor to stay the execution or commute the sentence–I’d be fine with either–or get Georgia to make the death penalty illegal. Don’t blame Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito.
Michael:
You wrote, “Gorsuch mentioned in his confirmation hearing that sometimes a judge will rule in a way he doesn’t like. That’s the way it should be. Too often the liberal wing of the Court makes things up as they go to fit the result they want.”
In that context, you could have written “Too often the justices make things up as they go.” But you specifically included the qualifier “liberal.” That STRONGLY implies that non-liberal justices are exempt from your declaration. If you are claiming you don’t see this, you’re either naive, or being disingenuous.
Similarly, falling back on the old line that, “It’s the legislature’s job to make the laws, so if we want the law changed then they should do it,” is again either very naive or very disingenuous. Sometimes, the legislators either cannot or do not do the right things, because they are beholden to political concerns. Sometimes they even deliberately do the wrong things. The Court, with lifetime appointments and immunity from the wrath of the voters, has the ability to make unpopular decisions. See a little case called Brown v. Board, for one example among many.
In the end, everything you’ve written since my original comment persuades me that while you’re presenting yourself as someone who is open-minded, here for a discussion, etc., all you’re really doing is peddling your point of view. “Propagandist” may have been strong, but it wasn’t all that far off.
Nope. That’s not a logical interpretation of what I said. I do believe though that liberal justices are more guilty of it if you want to criticize that. Judges are human. They’re not perfect. But a judicial philosophy that believes in a living Constitution begs for legislating from the bench. If you’re okay with that, then fine. We can disagree. But remember that that line of thinking can just as easily entrench something in the Constitution you don’t agree with.
Please don’t assume I’m naive or disingenuous. I’ve read the Federalist Papers, skipping around a bit, like 5 times. The Framers purposely left a lot of things, even very difficult subjects like abortion and healthcare and the death penalty, to the legislative process. That’s where they wanted those issues resolved. By the people. The amendment process was set up to provide extra protection for certain rights. Jefferson, for one, would be horrified at what the present Court does. Again, if you’re okay with an oligarchy of unelected judges who are in no way representative of the U.S. population deciding rights not mentioned in the Constitution, then fine. (For the record, it’s probably not a bad idea and they’d almost certainly do a better job than say a future senator from Alabama). But that’s not the system of government the Founders risked their lives and fortunes for. They wanted to rule themselves.
Brown is such a lame example and I’ve pointed out why in past links. The 14th Amendment, passed by the people, clearly protects race. Almost every originalist, even Bork, agrees/agreed with Brown.
Just answer one question, if nothing else: is polygamy protected by the Constitution? (I’m not comparing gay marriage to polygamy, so don’t throw that in my face, and assume that all husbands and wives are mature, willing participants.)
I guess I shall just have to defer to your superior knowledge of these subjects. After all, you’ve kind of read the Federalist Papers. Five times, no less! That clearly trumps my expertise. After all, all I’ve done is study U.S. history for four years as an undergraduate and eight as a grad, and then teach the subject for 14 years. I’m truly humbled to be in your presence, sir.
And sure, I’ve written/edited a few essays and books and encyclopedias and the like, but even with over 5 million words in print, I think it’s fair to say that my reading comprehension skills are elementary school level at best. So, again, I shall have to defer to your superior ability to explain to me how others (like me) interpret your words.
However, since we are apparently allowed to declare what is “lame” in this conversation, I think I shall point out a few things:
1. Your explanation of how things I don’t like just might accidentally get enshrined into law is lame. Again, I don’t have your *extensive* background in this subject, since I’ve only read the Federalist Papers three or four times, but I’m quite clear on how things work. There are quite a few SCOTUS decisions I don’t care for, but on balance, I think they get it right more often than not, and they sometimes serve as a key corrective to the flaws of the other two branches. Further, I spend fairly little time worrying about how things should be, and I concern myself with how they actually are. We have the system we have, and it’s not going to be changing.
2. Your insistence on the primacy of the founders is lame. Why, again, should the philosophy of a group of wealthy white guys who lived 250 years ago take precedence over all else?
3. Your objection to my point about Brown is lame. Whether or not modern-day conservative justices agree with that decision is UTTERLY irrelevant to my point. Whether or not it’s got a strong basis in law is UTTERLY irrelevant to my point. Since you are such a master of reading comprehension, then surely you must understand my real point, which is that the Warren Court was able to do what the other branches could not or would not do in 1954. If you think desegregation was imminent in the 1950s, absent court intervention, then you literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe that’s because the 1950s aren’t covered in the Federalist Papers, and so are beyond the scope of your scholarly background.
4. Your “one question” is lame. I have no answer to that question, and I don’t have the information at hand that I would need to provide an answer. And you know who else would have no answer? George Washington. James Madison. Benjamin Franklin. So, anyone who seeks to discover “their” answer in the Constitution is being intellectually dishonest.
5. It is not germane to your lame argument that Jefferson would be horrified by the way the government currently works, because he had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. I’m surprised, given your impressive CV, that you don’t seem to know that. Also, there’s no particularly good reason to think your assertion is correct. Mr. Small Government was just fine with an activist government the moment it suited his political needs; i.e. the Louisiana Purchase.
CB, you’re not even worth a response. Layering that post with passive aggression and sarcasm when only you’ve engaged in personal attacks and straw men is pathetic. Here’s my one ad hominem: I feel bad for your students given how close-minded you are.
1. You clearly have no idea what a straw man is. You should stop using the term.
2. You’re allowed to make it personal, but I’m not. Ok, got it!
3. I mocked your bit about the Federalist Papers because it shows how clueless you really are about how your writing comes across.
4. I’ve managed to become the highest-rated professor at two different large public universities. That’s #1 among about 1,800 in one case and about 3,000 in the other. My students do not require your sympathy.
One other thing: I fail to see where I have been closed-minded in any of this.
Have I disagreed with you? Yes. Do I clearly have a different opinion about the court than you? Yes? Have I been snarky, sarcastic, and dismissive? Yes. But closed-minded? I don’t see it.
Oh, and note correct grammar:
http://grammarist.com/spelling/closed-minded/
You obviously had a field day with me mentioning that I read the Federalist Papers, but don’t you realize I only said that because you called me naive (or disingenuous)? I wasn’t puffing out my chest, which funnily (can I say “ironically”?) enough you proceeded to do over the next 3 posts.
You also had a field day with the word “lame.” Was that not proper usage? Too colloquial for you?
To poke fun at you, I would probably put (bad split infinitive) random words in all caps for emphasis, but I’ll try to reel in my vanity.
In response to your sarcastic and passive-aggressive post:
1. SCOTUS does serve as a key corrective for the other 2 branches. But I think they should only serve that function when they have a basis in the Constitution or some statute. If you want them to have more power than that, we simply disagree on a fundamental issue. I stand by the assertion that the Founders would not approve of nor did they set up a body consisting of a group of unelected judges re-writing and introducing laws for them.
You say you’re concerned with the system we have now. How is judicial interpretation not an incredibly important and relevant subject for the present Court and the future of the Coirt? How we interpret the Constitution could, in fact, drastically change the system we have.
2. Uh, because they wrote the Constitution, the thing that governs our entire democracy. Most states have relatively recent constitutions. If you want to start completely fresh with a new federal constitution, I largely would stop caring about white wealthy guys from 250 years ago.
3. You’re completely missing the point. Citing Brown is lame (or weak, is that better?) because that was exactly a case SCOTUS could rule on. The 14th Amendment gave them the constitutional basis. I agree that the other 2 branches and the states had failed up to that point.
4. You can’t answer that question, despite the fact that you have such a strong opinion on proper constitutional interpretation and the role of the Court? I can’t help but think you do exactly what I suspect of most Americans: wait for the SCOTUS decision, see if you like the result or not, and then give a thumbs up or down, regardless of the reasoning used to get there. I brought up polygamy because there’s really way to reconcile gay marriage being protected by the Constitution, but not polygamy. It goes to my earlier point that the liberal wing (and Kennedy) often makes it up as they go.
Actually all those Founders probably would have had an answer: leave it to the legislative process.
5. Jefferson can’t have an opinion on the Supreme Court (he was in France during the Constitutional Convention, right?), even though he didn’t write the Constitution? Considering how much he disliked the Marshall Court, I think it’s safe to say he would disapprove of the Warren Court especially.
The straw man above was clear as day. You assumed that I thought conservative judges were 100% non-political. I never said that and you used it to discredit my argument.
My ad hominem was a joke of sorts at the end. You’ve littered your posts to me with personal attacks, sarcasm, and a tone of superiority, and I took one pretty justified shot given with advanced (I better not write “advance”) notice. I’m wondering though: how would you treat me if I were one of your students and I came to your office hours? I’m a math major, so I have little experience with history in academia, but your attitude and yes, “closed-mindedness” would certainly turn me off.
To close, I had no idea you also taught Pedantry 101 at what, UT or U of M? I’ll be sure to enroll in my next life. I could (or couldn’t?) care less where you teach, how many articles you’ve written, or how you’re evaluated as a professor. It’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I love debating law and American history. I could do it forever. But I really could have used without the sarcasm and personal stuff. It’s pretty unbecoming and if you’re as good a professor as you think you are, you and your students would be better off without it.
You assumed that I thought conservative judges were 100% non-political.
That’s not true. You chose to single out “liberal” judges, which implicitly exonerates “conservative” judges. You chose those words deliberately, so own them. I took it exactly the way everyone else here did.
I really don’t know how to talk to someone who would allow the execution of a wrongly or unfairly convicted person to go through simply because stopping it would violate protocol. This is a philosophical chasm I can’t bridge.
I’m growing bored with you, so I will just say three quick things:
1. I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse, or if your observations reflect your true thought process. But your misreading of, well, everything is…concerning. To take a small point, do you really not understand that putting something in all caps is a way of achieving emphasis? I did that two times, with the same word each time, because I wanted to underscore it. Similarly, the problem with “lame” was not that you used it incorrectly, it’s that it was an ad hominem personal attack.
2. There is absolutely a way to distinguish between polygamy and gay marriage. A valid basis for jurisprudence is societal harm. I am clear that the research shows that gay marriage does no harm to society. I do not know the equivalent research on polygamy, which is why I can take no position.
3. You can take your presumption that you know how good I am at my job because you’ve read a few Internet posts, and you can shove it up your ass. I don’t deny that, after you hit me with the “lame” remark, my comments turned sarcastic. But I did not presume to attack your identity, nor your personhood, nor your competence at your profession. Doing so crosses a line, buddy boy, and frankly, I could have “used without” it.
I’m gonna call a ceasefire here. If you think calling an argument lame and explaining why is an ad hominem attack, then I’m wasting my time. Sorry. What’s hilariously ironic is that you are the one (I guess unconsciously) engaging in personal attacks and logical fallacies. If you’re serious and not trolling, then wow.
One last point: I, in no way, said anything good or bad about you as a professor. I haven’t the slightest idea who you are, nor do I care. If I guessed correctly about UT and/or U of M that was only because they’re large public schools. I do think you’re closed-minded (and I think that’s fairly obvious to anyone who labored through our “discussion”).
I would destroy whatever drivel you said above about the issues, but it’s falling on deaf ears.
Keith, read what CB said and explain why that is not a straw man. If I said that Republicans often engage in gerrymandering, does that mean that Democrats are 100% innocent in that regard? No. By singling out Republicans, does that exonerate Democrats? No. That’s some faulty logic, Keith. How do you know how “everyone” took it?
For the record, I do think conservative justices make stuff up, or give into political pressure. Bush v. Gore comes to mind, Kennedy has been a disaster on social issues, and Roberts’ Obamacare cases could possibly be viewed as politically motivated.
You can’t talk to me because we disagree on process when I specifically said I abhor the death penalty, would outlaw it, and in this case, would push for the governor to commute the sentence?
I’ve said before that I admire you, Keith, and really respect your work. But to swoop in and defend CB when I thought he was completely inappropriate (I guess different people can come to their own assessment of him) really diminished my opinion of you. Regardless of whether you agree with me or him, he diluted an intellectual argument with unnecessary snark, personal attacks, and logical fallacies–all things you repeatedly point out to others.
But to swoop in and defend CB
I haven’t defended CB, or said anything at all about anyone’s behavior on this thread. I responded to one specific point. That’s all. Much of what you’re discussing, regardless of tone, is beyond my knowledge and I don’t think I have anything to add to it.
You can’t talk to me because we disagree on process
I can’t talk to you about this issue if you’re comfortable with a judge declining to stop or overturn an unfairly-imposed death sentence because doing so would exceed the bounds of his job description. I think, and correct me if I’m wrong, you would call that judicial activism. I’d call it saving a life at the potential cost of the judge’s own job, and I’m good with that.
Keith, that’s a perfectly reasonable human response. I think we both agree that executing someone is terrible, especially when he was given an unfair trial. I guess I respect process so much because it can also protect against a judge or government official from doing something bad. To take an example, Roy Moore disregarded courts to keep the Ten Commandments up and not issue gay marriage licenses. He shouldn’t have done that. You’re obviously right and he’s obviously wrong, but if you think about it, you’re both acting on deeply-held beliefs. Allowing people to act on nothing but their own convictions can be dangerous.
Michael, I appreciate that you pointed out that dissents were essentially procedural and not a convoluted originalist argument. I did look at the original decision and don’t have a whole lot to add to the conversation. My understanding of common law legal arguments is well outside of my expertise. I will say that I philosophically disagree with procedural arguments interfering with whether an unfairly-imposed death sentence is overturned. If that is judicial activism, well, that is why I often part ways with originalists. I will say that there is a difference in Roy Moore’s judicial activism and this type of case–namely the intent of the law. The 6th amendment protects the right to an impartial jury, and the Pena-Rodriguez majority decision fit within the, ahem, intended scope of that amendment. Roy Moore argues for the favoritism of (his brand of) Christianity at the expense of other religions, which is well outside the scope of the 1st amendment, both in an originalist or living constitution context.
So, you’re going to call a ceasefire, and as long as you’re doing that, you’re going to take a swipe at me, calling what I said “drivel.” Doesn’t seem like a ceasefire to me.
The sentence that started our argument has now been read in exactly the same way by three different people. I have explained to you exactly why we read it that way, and so has Keith. For someone who has accused me of being closed-minded, you certainly don’t seem to be open to the notion that just MAYBE your choice of wording was poor, and that the objections to it are not “straw man” arguments or logical fallacies or any of the other things you keep tossing out there in order to avoid taking ownership for what you wrote.
Similarly, if you call an argument “weak,” or “not supported by evidence” or “problematic,” then that is within the bounds of polite discourse. If you call it “lame” or “retarded” or “moronic” or “stupid,” you have now crossed into the realm of personal attacks. It’s also another example showing that you don’t really seem to understand the implications of your word choices.
And you say you said nothing negative about my teaching? How about, for example, this: “I feel bad for your students given how close-minded you are.” How is that NOT about my teaching?
A Salty Scientist, I wasn’t saying that Roy Moore had any constitutional or procedural leg to stand on. Sorry if I didn’t explain that well. Keith said he was willing to violate his constitutional duty to do what he perceived as right. Well, if you ask Moore he was doing the same thing. Taking that approach can just as easily be bad as good if you have no legal basis for what you’re doing. See what I’m saying?
“Too often the liberal wing of the Court makes things up as they go to fit the result they want.”
Seems fairly clear that you have no real interest in having an honest debate when you go down that road, Michael.
Tell me where I’m going wrong. You’re dismissing me without making any point, which isn’t useful to anyone. That sentence by the way is a fairly common criticism of judges who believe in a living Constitution, as Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg do.
You know who else it’s a fairly common criticism about? Justices who believe in originalism, as Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts do.
That’s true. But I wouldn’t accuse someone who disagrees with originalism of being a propagandist or having no real interest in having an honest debate as you and Mat G did.
I’m aligned with them politically, Michael, but you’re right about their blind spot. They don’t see the damage they do.
Justice Neil Gorsuch voted to uphold the death sentence of a man convicted by a racist jury. So did Clarence Thomas.
Point being?
My point is that Gorsuch could be a bad guy and a racist or he could be a judge ruling on a trial based on how he interprets the law. I don’t know enough about him to make a determination but saying he upheld a verdict by a racist jury when it was one asshole on the jury who made racist comments after the fact isn’t enough to cast Gorsuch in that light. I’m assuming we all dislike the Trump regime and for good reason but we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of shaping things to a certain narrative. This administration has given us plenty of reasons to be shocked and offended but I’m not sure this is one of those situations. Gorsuch wasn’t the only judge to rule in this way so to suggest his decision was racist implies everyone who voted in the manner that he did is also a racist. That’s obviously hard to believe considerinig Clarence Thomas is a black man. That slate article and the manner in which it was linked imply something that simply isn’t true. It’s a stretch to say this decision nullifies Gorsuch’s testimony before congress and it’s incorrect to claim the entire jury was racist. The lone racist juror that we know about was not the only one to vote the way he did in the original conviction and his statements, while abhorrent, don’t nullify the fact that the defendant was convicted of murdering someone and nobody seems to be disputing his actual guilt. Sorry this went so long but, in hindsight, my original comment was too brief to really get my point across.
The gentleman in question in case anyone is interested:
Keith Leroy Tharpe, 39, was sentenced to death in January 1991 in Jones County for the shotgun slaying of his 29-year-old sister-in-law, Jacqueline Freeman.
On Sept. 25, 1990, Mr. Tharpe, who had repeatedly threatened and harassed his estranged wife and her family, used his vehicle to force his wife’s car off the road. After shooting Ms. Freeman twice, he kidnapped and raped his estranged wife.
Thanks, but it really isn’t germane to the SCOTUS ruling. His guilt (which he has admitted) is immaterial – even the guilty retain their Sixth Amendment rights.