I attended public schools, which are funded through public tax dollars and, therefore, demonstrably socialist. So, it’s little wonder that I was miseducated into the belief that Thurgood Marshall was a national hero, a tremendous lawyer, and damn fine judge. Fortunately, I have people like Jon Kyl, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, John Cornyn, and Chuck Grassley to give me proper instruction in history.
“Justice Marshall’s judicial philosophy,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, “is not what I would consider to be mainstream.” Kyl — the lone member of the panel in shirtsleeves for the big event — was ready for a scrap. Marshall “might be the epitome of a results-oriented judge,” he said…
…Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) declared Marshall “a judicial activist.” So did Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Marshall’s approach to the law “does not comport with the proper role of a judge or judicial method.”
Now, in a better country with less assholes, Thurgood Marshall never would have had to go begging for his rights to a bunch white, male judges because Congress would have passed laws (and enforced them) that assured him of his rights. Unfortunately, the Congress was filled with bigots who couldn’t be bothered to protect black people from systemic racism.
There is an argument that the courts are an inappropriate place to settle large societal debates and that efforts to resolve such disputes in the courts are ‘judicial activism’ or ‘legislating from the bench.” A generous treatment of this view would hold that the Supreme Court was right to step in to resolve the civil rights era but they should intervene in that manner as seldom as possible. You might make the same argument about Roe v. Wade. But, without providing such context, the attacks on Thurgood Marshall sound like a defense of Jim Crow (or worse, slavery).
In particular, Marshall had characterized the Constitution as having been “defective” as it related to issues like slavery. Republicans hoped to use this to attack Kagan, and the RNC’s Michael Steele demanded to know whether Kagan’s reverence for Marshall included “support for statements suggesting that the Constitution ‘as originally drafted and conceived,’ was ‘defective.'”
When it appeared the RNC’s line was indirectly pro-slavery, the party quickly dropped the criticism.
When Jon Kyl says that Thurgood Marshall was not a mainstream judge, I think he means that most judges serving in the current era are more reticent about contradicting Congress or stepping in to resolve irresolvable disputes. That’s true, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s always preferable for Congress to act on issues rather than let them languish for lack of the power to settle them one way or the other. It’s better to rely on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than on Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka. But that doesn’t mean that the Court erred in siding with Thurgood Marshall or that Marshall was wrong to believe that justices should make those types of decisions.
The Republicans would be on safer ground if they made clear that it was the fault of Congress that made the judicial activism of the 1950’s-1970’s necessary. But they’ll never admit that because they are still the same assholes they were back then.
This is what happens when your coalition gets too small and inward-looking. It’s akin to East Coast liberals being shocked that Ronald Reagan was elected when “nobody they knew” had voted for him.
If you’re a conservative (as defined these days), you aren’t expected—even by us progressives—to regard Thurgood Marshall as a national hero and one of the towering figures of 20th century constitutional law.
But it’s not healthy for you, your movement, your political party (or even the nation, but let’s set that aside for now) to be so tone-deaf to the sensibilities of the American electorate as to make Marshall the villain in your set-piece narrative for a Supreme Court nominee committee hearing.
Well, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee thought the Ku Klux Klan was okay until he discovered that they smoked pot.
So, tone deaf might not be the problem here.
Jefferson:
Beauregard:
Sessions:
Was Teddy on the Judiciary Committee back when Sessions was up for a Federal judge-ship? I wonder why Democrats won’t call Sessions out on his bullshit.
I’m almost sure that he was.
He really is seeing his way of life slip away. Poor guy. not.
Truly amazing. And curiously, according to that Wikipedia article Jefferson and Beauregard hated each other at the end of their lives.
The next time a conservative is nominated for the SCOTUS, I’d like to see a Democrat ask him/her “Do you consider Justice Marshall to have been an ‘activist’ judge?” “How would you define ‘judicial activism’?” “Do you believe the principle of ‘stare decisis’ equally applies to opinions that were decided by justices whom you consider to have been ‘activist’?” I’d like to know the answers to those questions.
“suggesting that the Constitution ‘as originally drafted and conceived,’ was ‘defective”???? I don’t suppose there’s a chance that any Dem ventured to reply “Damn Tootin” and then ask moron boy whether he’d consider the 3/5 rule or the protection of slavery a defect? Yes or No. Enough with the kneejerk piety awready. It’s no wonder this has become such a nation of idiots — you can’t get educated when all you hear your whole life is stupidity, lies, and serial psychotic episodes.
The sad thing is, an intelligent discussion wouldn’t even have to go there. Without labelling the constitution “defective” (which it clearly was, but some people would only hear the pejorative), you can point out that the process of making amendments was clearly included by the founders because societal standards (like the acceptability of slavery) and needs change over time, and a legal framework cannot survive and remain relevant over generations unless it can adapt.
In other words, times change, and legal standards have to change as well. When and how much is a valid debate. What’s not valid is to pretend that the founders ever expected or wanted their work to be immutable, let alone sacred. But then, intelligent discussion isn’t the point (or strength) of these clowns, is it?
As a wild guess, these are many of the same people who take every word of the Bible literally, especially the ones that suit their purposes. It beats thinking. That’s all confusing and shit.