Great poem. Also: 1) I live in Croton. I hope 55 years ago someone helped her out here! 2) She recited her poetry to my high school some 20 years ago. A couple jerks started fake coughing, then a lot more. She cut her reading short, saying “I feel as though I’ve been in a ward.”
The awful fake cough epidemic began because she was reading so softly into the mic no one could hear her in the auditorium, which had invited otherwise engaged high schoolers to express their dissatisfaction in a most insolent way.
And she was so soft spoken that even her somewhat louder final words to us, just barely cutting through the fake coughing fits, sounded to all of us like “I feel as though I’ve won an award.” Which, of course, made no sense.
All’s to say: I was not one of the coughers, but I was one of the students who wanted to hear her and was upset both by how softly she was reading and by my schoolmates’ disrespect, and I am very glad to learn Gluck did win an award—THE NOBEL!—this year.
Ugh also the poem was published 53 years ago not 55 years ago but I’ll just pretend the blown tire she wrote about happened in 1965 so I don’t have to delete thread and start over
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2005: Then-GOP Sen. Specter at then-Judge Roberts' confirmation hearing described Roe as a "superduper precedent." As proof, he made a chart of 38 times Roe was reaffirmed.
2020: Judge Barrett & Senate Rs say all those challenges mean it's not even a "super precedent."
1) Don't call precedents "superduper" or "super." It's dumb.
2) Roberts totally dodged the question.
3) In 2010, Roberts laid out his formula for overturning precedent in his Citizens United concurrence to the majority's doing just that.
4) It's the Roe reversal blueprint.
Alito cited Roberts' Citizens United concurrence 4 times when the Court's conservative majority overturned a 40-year-old precedent they themselves spent 6 years pretty much sua sponte weakening it
Everyone who follows the Court - AND I MEAN EVERYONE - knows what Justice Scalia meant by "perpetuation of racial entitlement" in Shelby County...BECAUSE HE EXPLAINED IT DURING THE ORAL ARGUMENT AT LENGTH supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
In this regard, those who've tried to paint Scalia as racist with this particular brush are wrong, but to defend him would be admitting something unattractive about the political allies and movement he spoke for
Scalia made the same argument in Biblical rather than racial terms when the Voting Rights Act's preclearance provision first came before the Court in 2009: supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…
Barrett has refused to directly answer straightforward questions over whether (1) a President can unilaterally delay an election, (2) voter intimidation is illegal, and (3) a President should commit to the peaceful transition of power upon losing.
She knows these questions all have easy, yes-or-no answers.
She knows the answers.
But she doesn't want to upset the man who nominated her, because he could just as easily un-nominate her if he doesn't like her answers.
Sasse says, "what I want is to have a judge that doesn't want to take away the job of a legislature that's accountable to the people."
It's a talking point that once meant something. Now it's just empty caloric content.
Judicial Restraint, a history:
Lochner Court: stop striking down progressive state laws and the New Deal
Warren Court: stop banning segregation and school prayer
Burger Court: stop striking down abortion bans
Rehnquist/Roberts Courts: do what we want, don't do what we don't want
Can't be calling for a conservative originalist to restrain herself when today's conservative originalism backed Parents Involved, Heller, Citizens United, Shelby County, etc however hard they insist those decisions were compelled by the constitution's original public meaning