Skip to main content

The Notorious RBG



So Ginsburg has spoken out against Donald Trump.

"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our President."

Yes, this is very unusual. By way of comparison, Justices Douglas and/or Black, not to mention Chief Justice Warren, spoke in no such way about Richard Nixon in 1968. Surely they despised him, and saw his then-still-hypothetical presidency as a threat to their judicial legacy. But they retained what is considered proper judicial decorum in such matters.

For a sober, professorial, discussion of why Ginsburg was in the wrong and why the defenses of her comments are also "mostly wrong," go to PrawfsBlawg.

But of course this is the Justice widely known as the "Notorious RBG." If she's not going to be the court's badass, who will be?






Comments

  1. Here is an article titled, "The criticism of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ignores much of the nation’s history":
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-criticism-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg-ignores-much-of-the-nations-history/2016/07/14/02ad6a6e-49c8-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

    In particular, it notes that, "In 1944, Justice William O. Douglas lost a convention fight to be Franklin Roosevelt’s vice-presidential candidate. Four years later, Douglas turned down Harry Truman’s offer to be his running mate, reputedly because Douglas wanted the top job for himself." That's not quite the same as criticizing (or praising) a candidate, but it could have raised similar conflicts concerning future cases that came before the Court.

    I do not endorse Ginsburg's actions, mostly because of the criticism that they have brought her. But, for three reasons, they don't trouble me much.

    First, because Trump is a threat to the Constitution and to our democracy, all justices, liberal and conservative, ought to be warning against him. If they all did, then they presumably none would recuse himself or herself from a case involving Trump.

    Second, Scalia and Thomas have spoken before the Federalist Society, and Scalia went hunting with Cheney (and then would not recuse himself). Why should liberal justices unilaterally disarm?

    Third, we all know that justices have political opinions, so why go through the charade of pretending otherwise? A judge would be incompetent if she could not separate her political biases from her legal analysis, and she would be unethical if she did not seek to do so. I realize that this argument would also justify a justice campaigning for a candidate, and that would seem to go too far. That's why I do not endorse Ginsburg's comments. But I think that far too much has been made of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One more thing. To blatantly decide cases on the basis of one's political biases is far more serious than to state one's political biases. Yet the right-wing justices do the former regularly. They did so, of course, in Bush v. Gore, and that seems to have given them a license to continue to do so. Yet they have not faced even a small fraction of the criticism that Ginsburg has faced for her lesser crime.

    Recent examples of this action by right-wing justices are Thomas's and Alito's dissents in this past term's Texas abortion case. Their legal analysis was so specious that they could not have believed what they wrote. They dissented solely to express their opposition to abortion or their support for the Catholic church's opposition to it.

    Their opposition to abortion is so strong that they feel that their duty to stop it overrides their duty to decide cases according to the law. As Supreme Court justices, they could have legitimately dissented on the grounds that they believe Roe v. Wade and Casey to have been incorrectly decided. But they didn't. Instead, they dishonestly pretended that those cases did not demand the result that the majority reached.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …