Famous liberal law professor says conservative SCOTUS nominee is actually awesome even though the prof thinks he's wrong about everything — because he's super smart!
*Five grafs in: Did I mention he was my law school student?
Famous liberal law professor says conservative SCOTUS nominee is actually awesome even though the prof thinks she's wrong about everything — because she's super smart!
*Four grafs in: Did I mention we clerked on SCOTUS together?
It's a remarkable denial of the raw political fact — accepted by every other player here — that the Supreme Court is an extraordinarily powerful force governing the lives of Americans, not an elite debating society for your generation's most spectacular legal minds.
"I would like to have a legal abortion."
"Oh, I'm sorry, the Supreme Court just decided you can't have one. But does it soften the blow if I tell you the person who decided that is, in many other contexts, thoughtful and kind?"
"I would like to be able to vote in my mostly black neighborhood without having to stand in line for 9 hours."
"Ooh, that's tough, the Court says they can close all the nearby precincts. Does it help to know John Roberts chose not to gratuitously take away your healthcare too?"
"I'm gay, and my boss just fired me when he found out."
"Sorry to hear! For the record, Samuel Alito thinks that's just fine and you should just deal. On the other hand, he is also lauded for his interpretations of Justice John Marshall Harlan II's writings, so cut him a break."
Would "I think you're totally wrong about all important issues, but you are SUPER SMART, so here, have all the power" make sense in *any* other political context?
Would McConnell ever say: "Senator Warren, we don't agree on much, but you're so bright — you be Majority Leader"?
It's fine to aspire to a less politically charged court.
But to go out of your way to endorse someone you think will make the lives of Americans *worse* — because you both worship the same meritocratic god and they're a pleasant colleague — man, that's something else altogether.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The debate was over whether Louisiana should reverse a 1958 law that had mandated labeling blood donations as "Caucasian," "Negro," or "Mongoloid" based on the race of the donor.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made that illegal — but Louisiana hospitals kept on segregating blood.
The feds were now threatening to withhold Medicare funds if Louisiana didn't reverse the blood-segregation law.
(The state had 1 Black state legislator at the time, Dutch Morial.)
Re: trans people, a 57-43 split is an example of a "clear majority" and "political jet fuel" for the GOP.
Re: debt ceiling, a 58-26 split is...something to mention in the sixth graf, after leading with a predictably partisan (er, "divided") horserace number.
The judge in the E. Jean Carroll/Trump case asked all the potential jurors about where they get news. Fascinating sample of real people's media habits.
Some examples:
— Randomly. Internet.
— AM radio
— Not a big news guy.
— News is tough with a 2 year old.
— Channel 7...
— CNN
— Facebook
— I watch CBS News. And CNN. Read Cape Cod Times.
— No news.
— I like Fox News.
— CBS News Radio
— "The channels"
— Instagram and TikTok
— I scroll my phone
— Cable news, ABC and BBC
— I listen to The Daily...
2/3
— Barely watch the news.
— Fox, CBS, not too much
— local TV and social media
— Internet, TV
— CNN, Fox, MSNBC
— social media
— I don't have a TV, but when I can, I try to sample a lot.
— PBS and NPR
— Channel 12
— Twitter
3/3
Here's the letter from @theatlantic to Du Bois, January 26, 1942.
The editor says Du Bois' article draft is too radical to publish after Pearl Harbor — and that Black Americans might just have a "biological handicap to contend with," not just "social and political" barriers.
"When you say that 'Hitler's race philosophy and methods are exactly the same as ours,' you make an assertion which will antagonize literally 49 out of 50 readers."
"Your purpose in writing such an article is to make people aware of an injustice existing between citizens of a democratic state. But you won't gain a single convert if you say that we are part and parcel of Hitler's gang."