“I said, ‘it’s exactly right. We’re both from Brooklyn.’”
“I believe a strong woman may be stronger than a man, particularly if she has love in her heart. I guess a loving woman in almost INDESTRUCTABLE.”
Great point made by a Swedish journalist on parenting:
“Actually, there is no biological connection whatsoever between the function of giving birth to and nursing a child and the function of washing its clothes, preparing its food, and trying to bring it up to be a good and harmonious person, Both men and women have one main role: that of being human beings”
That I know from reading Irwin Carmen and Shana Knizhnik’s exemplary book
This chick has some weird ass fetishes.
Erwin Chemerinsky’s Original Con Law ranks #4 in most necessary books to have
It is essential to my survival.
Constitutional Law II Outline
Thank you for excusing my personal little crap surrounding the occasional post meant for public consumption.
(Some due diligence that I can’t seem to get past feeling responsible to do, even for random verbal journaling.)
Sometimes called “Wild Bill,” Associate Justice William O. Douglass, appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1939 and who served through November 1975 (the longest term served by any SCOTUS judge) was, to say the least, an interesting Supreme Court justice.
What I’m focused on here is the extraordinary impact he had on our environment, not just legally, but as an influencer of public opinion. In one case, when Congress was pushing to fill and pave the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal to make a road, and The Washington Post was regularly editorially opining that this was a great idea, Justice Douglass dared the editorial board to go for a walk with him on the canal and quite publically bet them that if they would just do that, they would change their minds immediately.
They did and they did.
Not only did Congress’ bill go down in flames, but the canal was protected with the right of way of a national park.
Douglass also fought the Army Corps of Engineers when he saw a threat to the preservation of the beautiful Buffalo River in Arkansas “as a free flowing river in its natural state.” This helped the Ozark Society and the growing environmental movement to reach enough of a groundswell to convince congress to enact a designation of the Buffalo River as America’s first National River.
So, it should be clear that he was pretty cool.
This first clip is my 11 second exclamation on trees having standing:
Below is my whole “trees have standing” audio exposition, mixing Wikipedia with my constant editorializing, as well as such enlightening asides as,
In between all that is Douglass’ excellently reasoned legal rational for why, of course,
Along with other issues concerning the environment, free speech, and just “Wild Bill” Douglass in general.
And so now I will attempt to briefly set down my idea that could practically be accomplished right at this moment – depending on whether the U.S. Supreme Court could be persuaded to address the issue, which I believe they very well could be persuaded to do – of how we go about altering the course of human history.
Making a fairly simple change in argument via the lawsuit brought by appellees Sarsour, et. al. on the lawfulness of Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and seeking leave of the court to address a broader question of whether or not the courts should take international law more into account, something they actually already do – and how much they should take international law into account – including treaties and conventions of long standing recognition in the U.S. courts, up to and including the United States Supreme Court, we who believe in justice and humanity have a path available to us that could very well alter the course of humanity.
If there is anyone out there besides me and the set of lawyers who appear in front of SCOTUS in a near continual loop who still watch the Supreme Court and its jurists on a regular basis they will understand immediately why this is, quite truly and without hyperbole, a very, very real opportunity to alter everything. To change the future of the world.
And for those who do not watch these justices and want a head start, hint: his name is Justice Breyer.
But not only Justice Breyer. This court, as now comprised, despite the usual “liberal”/”conservative” labels, has quietly been doing some truly extraordinary things in the past 11 months. This court has surprisingly coalesced in ways I never thought possible. Hell, Justice Thomas read two opinions from the bench a few months back, and to be honest, I was not at all sure that Justice Thomas even had use of his voice box anymore. But the women up there are insanely brilliant, and both Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts have surprised me not only in many rulings of late, but perhaps more importantly, in many of the questions they’ve asked from the bench; questions that demonstrate beyond all doubt that in issues of human rights, both at home and internationally, they care deeply about justice and fairness and rule of law and that they understand the gravity of this moment in history and their place in it.
In fact, I say here now that everyone out there working on outdated assumptions about these justices need to come full stop and give these men and women a fresh start. We expect them to be fair minded and I am saying, as a vulgar, shock-loving heretic of all things, that it is our burden – BURDEN – as people of conscience, to now give the same measure of justice, fairness, and humanity we wish to receive to those from whom we fervently hope to receive it. I do not say that we should do it uncritically or that we might not, after an unprejudiced look, decide that they have not done their duty as arbiters of justice. All I say is that, not from some delusional wish or blind faith, but instead a wealth of experience in the weeds of this court – and not just as it is now comprised but historically as well – that these justices look poised to take on the most important issues that have ever faced that court, issues that will surpass the importance of everything else they have ever considered, because they will not only effect human and civil rights here but also internationally.
I hope that faith is not in vain.
Now, go play chess.
Just P.S., I want David C. Frederick to argue this. And my reasoning is simple: he rocks. My new favorite SCOTUS case, feat. David C. Frederick, is UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES AND MASSACHUSETTS, EX REL. JULIO ESCOBAR AND CARMEN CORREA, Respondents – the link contains both the original oral argument and the unanimous opinion read from the bench by Justice Thomas (!!!)
Over the past five days things have progressed, as I expected, quite rapidly. It was inevitable that this would go before SCOTUS.
I have some really excellent crowdsourcing ideas that I will delineate later.
There is work to be done.
The opening statements of the first two women senators to ever serve on the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun’s statement was unexpectedly moving.
History, my friends. True history.
Justice Ginsburg’s Senate Confirmation hearings were extraordinarily collegial, even for that time in history. Both Democrats and Republicans were awed by the extremely high ethical bar she set for herself, not only as a jurist in the D.C. Court, but also as an advocate in the years preceding her appointment to the bench.
Despite the overflowing praise heaped upon her by so many in her confirmation hearings, I chose this very short clip of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton’s introduction because of the fact that she so succinctly summarizes the impact – unfortunately unknown to most – that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had on women’s rights as an advocate. That impact is, without hyperbole, nearly immeasurable. The cases she argued before the court altered forever our understanding on what equal treatment before the law means not just for women, but for everyone. She did not argue any of the controversial cases that today are still a matter of contention. What makes her impact so astounding is that none of the decisions arising from her advocacy are controversial in the least.
Instead, we take them for granted. Which, in some ways, is what makes them so powerful.
But history moves so fast now that it is impossible to keep up with. Nonetheless, knowing it remains the duty of all citizens, so that we may learn from it.
I hope you will watch this clip, at the very least, so that you might have some understanding of where the rights we all take for granted originated, and appreciate what an ethical, knowledgeable, hard working, decent, and humane justice looks like.
Heroes are important. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by any fair reading of the term, is certainly a hero.
note: there are issues with the embedding that are, at least for now, apparently beyond my control. But although when you click the link it will momentarily appear as though the whole first section of the hearing is being pulled up, that is not the case. After the C-SPAN screen appears, it will go straight to the very short – approximately 2 minute – clip of Representative Norton (as well as, at times, the ability to see Justice Ginsburg beside her, seemingly simultaneously embarrassed and proud.)