> By 1991, nearly a quarter century after he became the first Black Supreme Court justice, the venerable Thurgood Marshall saw the coming right-wing takeover of the courts for what it was: a legal coup powered by a bad-faith interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would one day allow the American right to roll back the civil rights gains of the 20th century. Marshall in the early '90s was largely alone in calling out what he correctly saw as a coordinated, well-funded effort to stack the federal courts with judges trained in the ultimate bad-faith tradition: Constitutional originalism.
President carter warned in the 80s that we did not have free open democratic elections by international standards. The press practically banned him. He was my favorite president of my lifetime.
I'm going to risk sounding like an obstinate ass, but I can get how the general public found Hillary's warning hard to take seriously, since the messaging was coming out of the mouth of an unequivocally +very+ wealthy lady who lives in a posh part of Long Island, who herself seemed to be campaigning (intentionally or inadvertently) for the establishment of a "political dynasty" in all but name; she acted every bit like her being "a Clinton" would be enough to let her sail effortlessly past Trump's campaign and into the presidency.
In stark contrast, Marshall lived through the worst of American segregation & his warning should've been the political equivalent of a Civil Defense siren warning about an incoming nuke.
"Dynasty" was such a great catch phrase for republican propaganda. All of her experience is a "dynasty". Ok. Hope you're enjoying the current political environment.
Sir/maam/none-of-the-above, not only is your comment the most Reddit comment I've ever gotten so far on this platform, but in no way am I encouraging republican propaganda.
Clinton was the better choice between her & Trump, 100%. I'm just saying that as a certified Wealthy White Suburban Woman, Clinton seemed all hat & no cattle at best and hypocritical at worst - not +to me,+ but to the people who only engage with federal-level politics every 4 years.
The shared article has to do with Thurgood Marshall, and my point is that Marshall has/had much more direct, lived experience with all the evils of conservatism than Hillary Clinton ever did, and he was STILL IGNORED. Importantly: everyone/mainstream democrats ignoring Marshall's incredibly wise warning up to now NEVER should have happened!
You just don't see the way republicans completely destroy democrats. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1967. Hillary was a close ally of John Lewis. Do you think John Lewis was wrong? Marshall a staunch liberal, he frequently dissented as the Court became increasingly conservative.
How did that happen? People increasingly voted republican. That's how the court became a supermajority. No connection in voters minds. I do always find it interesting, the republican dog whistles. Here we are. Here we'll stay unless you folks get together.
This has always been a republican ploy since Nixon. Destroy the competition.
...bro (gender-neutral,) what in heaven's name are you on about? I know online dogwhistles are a thing, but I'm just genuinely sharing my opinion. I never use a dogwhistle because (a) I'm nowhere near conservative or hateful and (b) I mean exactly what I'm saying, but I don't blame you for thinking the worst of me because "the internet's the internet." It's fine.
In fact, pardon me in suspecting that you might be a bot...I'm only being mostly sarcastic.
I don't think mainstream dems' +leadership+ can be considered the victim here. It takes two to tango, and you're overlooking important recent events like, oh, I dunno, the Dems never leading a push to eliminate the Supreme Court's lifetime appointments, leading to the SC overturning the Gore popular vote in 2000, in direct conflict with the +voting majority.+
Voters should be held to accounting for how they vote, sure! But I'll never hold voters in more contempt than a party leadership that abdicates doing the job of...y'know...leading. I'm not voting red anytime soon, but I can also criticize Dem leadership as I see fit.
A lot of current republicans ideas and propaganda came from Nixon. Many trained with him. If Nixon had republican majorities and this supreme court, you'd be surprised how similar it would look.
It didn’t have to be this way. For example, RGB could have resigned when dems had the ability to put another liberal judge on the court. But pride kept her from doing that so she died and opened the space for a conservative judge. Liberals need to think in terms of winning rather than being a hero.
Voters had an opportunity to head off trumps supermajority in 2016. Could have done that. Republicans would never have allowed anyone close to RGB. But republicans sure love it that you repeat the propaganda.
Voters chose the candidate they did and it’s no point blaming them (us) I hate when people talk about how stupid voters are when Dems have done everything possible to alienate them. It’s speculated that RBG was waiting for Hillary to be elected to retire which shows just how out of touch with reality she was.
Of course you hate it. You'll twist into a pretzel to pretend you're correct. You'll consume every bit of republican lies. And its always someone else's fault.
First of all, RGB would have had to resign back when Clinton was president to do that. The Dems weren't allowed to even have another SC Justice under Obama. Second, stop blaming people for not throwing away their careers and lives to make up for voters being morons and Republicans breaking precedent.
I agree. Its repub propaganda that certain "progressives" picked up from propaganda bots in their subs. As bad as maga. Will never believe anything else.
No, Obama had a Democratic Senate from 2009 through 2014. The filibuster was at play, but eventually the Senate got rid of it for SCOTUS picks (2017).
“Dems weren’t allowed another SC Justice under Obama.” There’s a major difference between the circumstances that RBG had versus the circumstances Merrick Garland faced—namely that Garland faced a Republican Senate. This wasn’t the case for RBG.
It’s perfectly valid to criticize tactics and strategy in politics. No one should be above reproach, not even trailblazers. She made a decision, which many of her colleagues also faced and decided differently. Perfectly fair to say she made the wrong choice and that her decision had serious consequences.
The guy you were responding to did it, too, that's why I bothered to mention. When it's one person doing it you figure it's a typo, but when it propagates through a comment chain then sometimes that means something has gone wrong heh.
Apparently nothing. LBJ nominated Marshall. We have been warned and warned yet voters decided it would be great if Trump chose Supreme Court justices. So they'd have a supermajority. Successful repub propaganda. I say, very sadly.
Great article. Thurgood Marshall was probably the last great Supreme Court Justice. The tragedy of him being replaced with Clarence Thomas is just a perfect encapsulation of what has become of his legacy. It’s honestly really sad.
This hits the nail:
> A jurist can simply say that this is what the Founders wanted, and that they have no choice but to rule this way or that way. All of these rulings just happen to fall perfectly in line with the goals of the Republican Party in the third decade of the 21st century. That there are myriad ways to apply the Founders’ guiding legal principles to matters of modernity never enters the equation.
But what’s missing in this article is the alternative method of constitutional interpretation. It’s like people have completely forgotten the ideas of legal realism and living constitutionalism that Marshall and his fellow liberals on the court believed in and ruled by. This famous speech by Marshall is worth quoting:
>... I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental today ... "We the People" no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty", "justice", and "equality", and who strived to better them ... I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.
[OP] paxinfernum | a day ago
> By 1991, nearly a quarter century after he became the first Black Supreme Court justice, the venerable Thurgood Marshall saw the coming right-wing takeover of the courts for what it was: a legal coup powered by a bad-faith interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would one day allow the American right to roll back the civil rights gains of the 20th century. Marshall in the early '90s was largely alone in calling out what he correctly saw as a coordinated, well-funded effort to stack the federal courts with judges trained in the ultimate bad-faith tradition: Constitutional originalism.
oldaliumfarmer | 22 hours ago
President carter warned in the 80s that we did not have free open democratic elections by international standards. The press practically banned him. He was my favorite president of my lifetime.
Laura9624 | 21 hours ago
Hillary Clinton referenced a vast right conspiracy and nobody listened.
ChipsnJax | 6 hours ago
I'm going to risk sounding like an obstinate ass, but I can get how the general public found Hillary's warning hard to take seriously, since the messaging was coming out of the mouth of an unequivocally +very+ wealthy lady who lives in a posh part of Long Island, who herself seemed to be campaigning (intentionally or inadvertently) for the establishment of a "political dynasty" in all but name; she acted every bit like her being "a Clinton" would be enough to let her sail effortlessly past Trump's campaign and into the presidency.
In stark contrast, Marshall lived through the worst of American segregation & his warning should've been the political equivalent of a Civil Defense siren warning about an incoming nuke.
Laura9624 | 4 hours ago
"Dynasty" was such a great catch phrase for republican propaganda. All of her experience is a "dynasty". Ok. Hope you're enjoying the current political environment.
ChipsnJax | 3 hours ago
Sir/maam/none-of-the-above, not only is your comment the most Reddit comment I've ever gotten so far on this platform, but in no way am I encouraging republican propaganda.
Clinton was the better choice between her & Trump, 100%. I'm just saying that as a certified Wealthy White Suburban Woman, Clinton seemed all hat & no cattle at best and hypocritical at worst - not +to me,+ but to the people who only engage with federal-level politics every 4 years.
The shared article has to do with Thurgood Marshall, and my point is that Marshall has/had much more direct, lived experience with all the evils of conservatism than Hillary Clinton ever did, and he was STILL IGNORED. Importantly: everyone/mainstream democrats ignoring Marshall's incredibly wise warning up to now NEVER should have happened!
Laura9624 | 2 hours ago
You just don't see the way republicans completely destroy democrats. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1967. Hillary was a close ally of John Lewis. Do you think John Lewis was wrong? Marshall a staunch liberal, he frequently dissented as the Court became increasingly conservative.
How did that happen? People increasingly voted republican. That's how the court became a supermajority. No connection in voters minds. I do always find it interesting, the republican dog whistles. Here we are. Here we'll stay unless you folks get together.
This has always been a republican ploy since Nixon. Destroy the competition.
ChipsnJax | 2 hours ago
...bro (gender-neutral,) what in heaven's name are you on about? I know online dogwhistles are a thing, but I'm just genuinely sharing my opinion. I never use a dogwhistle because (a) I'm nowhere near conservative or hateful and (b) I mean exactly what I'm saying, but I don't blame you for thinking the worst of me because "the internet's the internet." It's fine.
In fact, pardon me in suspecting that you might be a bot...I'm only being mostly sarcastic.
I don't think mainstream dems' +leadership+ can be considered the victim here. It takes two to tango, and you're overlooking important recent events like, oh, I dunno, the Dems never leading a push to eliminate the Supreme Court's lifetime appointments, leading to the SC overturning the Gore popular vote in 2000, in direct conflict with the +voting majority.+
Voters should be held to accounting for how they vote, sure! But I'll never hold voters in more contempt than a party leadership that abdicates doing the job of...y'know...leading. I'm not voting red anytime soon, but I can also criticize Dem leadership as I see fit.
Edit, clarified some phrasing.
Laura9624 | 2 hours ago
I get it. You don't recognize repub propaganda when you see it.
intronert | a day ago
The Powell Memorandum was written in 1973 and has been the blueprint for this reactionary backlash for the last 53 years. It has wildly succeeded.
Laura9624 | 21 hours ago
Yes. Nixon administration got them going strong. And here we are.
SeeMarkFly | 20 hours ago
I can't believe that I miss Nixon. We have fallen this far.
I remember chanting "Don't change dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon it '72".
Laura9624 | 20 hours ago
A lot of current republicans ideas and propaganda came from Nixon. Many trained with him. If Nixon had republican majorities and this supreme court, you'd be surprised how similar it would look.
jgrant68 | a day ago
It didn’t have to be this way. For example, RGB could have resigned when dems had the ability to put another liberal judge on the court. But pride kept her from doing that so she died and opened the space for a conservative judge. Liberals need to think in terms of winning rather than being a hero.
youre_soaking_in_it | a day ago
I wonder if Alito or Thomas are going to retire in the next two years to head off another Ginsburg scenario.
jgrant68 | 23 hours ago
Great question. Conservatives seem to be better at playing the long game
Laura9624 | 21 hours ago
Voters had an opportunity to head off trumps supermajority in 2016. Could have done that. Republicans would never have allowed anyone close to RGB. But republicans sure love it that you repeat the propaganda.
jgrant68 | 21 hours ago
Voters chose the candidate they did and it’s no point blaming them (us) I hate when people talk about how stupid voters are when Dems have done everything possible to alienate them. It’s speculated that RBG was waiting for Hillary to be elected to retire which shows just how out of touch with reality she was.
Laura9624 | 21 hours ago
Of course you hate it. You'll twist into a pretzel to pretend you're correct. You'll consume every bit of republican lies. And its always someone else's fault.
[OP] paxinfernum | 22 hours ago
First of all, RGB would have had to resign back when Clinton was president to do that. The Dems weren't allowed to even have another SC Justice under Obama. Second, stop blaming people for not throwing away their careers and lives to make up for voters being morons and Republicans breaking precedent.
Laura9624 | 21 hours ago
I agree. Its repub propaganda that certain "progressives" picked up from propaganda bots in their subs. As bad as maga. Will never believe anything else.
mallardramp | 18 hours ago
No, Obama had a Democratic Senate from 2009 through 2014. The filibuster was at play, but eventually the Senate got rid of it for SCOTUS picks (2017).
“Dems weren’t allowed another SC Justice under Obama.” There’s a major difference between the circumstances that RBG had versus the circumstances Merrick Garland faced—namely that Garland faced a Republican Senate. This wasn’t the case for RBG.
It’s perfectly valid to criticize tactics and strategy in politics. No one should be above reproach, not even trailblazers. She made a decision, which many of her colleagues also faced and decided differently. Perfectly fair to say she made the wrong choice and that her decision had serious consequences.
Murrabbit | 15 hours ago
Can we stop typing 'RGB'? It's RBG, that's Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not Ginsburg Bader.
jgrant68 | 14 hours ago
Yeah, sorry about that. Funny enough I said it correctly as I was tying it. Go figure.
Murrabbit | 11 hours ago
The guy you were responding to did it, too, that's why I bothered to mention. When it's one person doing it you figure it's a typo, but when it propagates through a comment chain then sometimes that means something has gone wrong heh.
Delicious-Desk-6627 | 16 hours ago
Cool. What are we doing about it
Laura9624 | 4 hours ago
Apparently nothing. LBJ nominated Marshall. We have been warned and warned yet voters decided it would be great if Trump chose Supreme Court justices. So they'd have a supermajority. Successful repub propaganda. I say, very sadly.
espinaustin | 2 hours ago
Great article. Thurgood Marshall was probably the last great Supreme Court Justice. The tragedy of him being replaced with Clarence Thomas is just a perfect encapsulation of what has become of his legacy. It’s honestly really sad.
This hits the nail:
> A jurist can simply say that this is what the Founders wanted, and that they have no choice but to rule this way or that way. All of these rulings just happen to fall perfectly in line with the goals of the Republican Party in the third decade of the 21st century. That there are myriad ways to apply the Founders’ guiding legal principles to matters of modernity never enters the equation.
But what’s missing in this article is the alternative method of constitutional interpretation. It’s like people have completely forgotten the ideas of legal realism and living constitutionalism that Marshall and his fellow liberals on the court believed in and ruled by. This famous speech by Marshall is worth quoting:
>... I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental today ... "We the People" no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty", "justice", and "equality", and who strived to better them ... I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.