![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Could someone come up with an alternate explanation for me?
[Public]
I'm really, really trying to avoid the "Democrats=Good, Republicans=Bad" arguments. It gets us nowhere. Life's more complex than that. There are great views on each side, if they are analyzed carefully. There's also a lot of stupid views on both sides.
That being said, there is a particular...thing...going on with Republicans right now that just baffles the crap out of me. During the ongoing Supreme Court confirmation hearings, top Republicans complained about a judicial activist, someone whose views were out of the mainstream, a judicial philosphy that concerned them greatly.
No, not Elena Kagan. They were talking about THURGOOD MARSHALL. They mentioned him 35 times. As a side note, Justice Marshall was already confirmed by the Senate...43 years ago. The man died in 1993.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html?waporef=obinsite
I don't get it.
Elena Kagan is going to be confirmed. It's pretty well guaranteed, unless she sets the table on fire during questioning or jumps onto the table to do a strip-tease. Republicans could say nothing, or read a magazine, it wouldn't change the outcome one whit.
So why, repeatedly, would they talk badly about one of the most well-known and honored justices of the last century? One who happens to be a major Civil Rights leader. Who is the first African-American justice on the Supreme Court. He's the lawyer who argued Brown v. Board of Education and won! Ended "separate but equal"! Appeared before the Supreme Court 32 times, and won 29 of them! Won Browder v. Gayle, which ended the Montgomery bus boycott! Seriously, go look up Thurgood Marshall in Wikipedia. He was crucially involved in so many civil rights victories.
Republicans want to clarify that they are against THIS?
And, just to make the optics worse, one of the Repblicans leading these charges is Jeff Sessions. Properly known as Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III from Alabama. You can't get a better "Old South" name than that.
I mean, was there a point to this? All I can see is cranky old white people fussing about the world being different from the 1950's, and they don't like it, with a nice dose of "uppity black people" thrown in.
Is there something there other than that? I really want there to be. Help me out.
I'm really, really trying to avoid the "Democrats=Good, Republicans=Bad" arguments. It gets us nowhere. Life's more complex than that. There are great views on each side, if they are analyzed carefully. There's also a lot of stupid views on both sides.
That being said, there is a particular...thing...going on with Republicans right now that just baffles the crap out of me. During the ongoing Supreme Court confirmation hearings, top Republicans complained about a judicial activist, someone whose views were out of the mainstream, a judicial philosphy that concerned them greatly.
No, not Elena Kagan. They were talking about THURGOOD MARSHALL. They mentioned him 35 times. As a side note, Justice Marshall was already confirmed by the Senate...43 years ago. The man died in 1993.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805129.html?waporef=obinsite
I don't get it.
Elena Kagan is going to be confirmed. It's pretty well guaranteed, unless she sets the table on fire during questioning or jumps onto the table to do a strip-tease. Republicans could say nothing, or read a magazine, it wouldn't change the outcome one whit.
So why, repeatedly, would they talk badly about one of the most well-known and honored justices of the last century? One who happens to be a major Civil Rights leader. Who is the first African-American justice on the Supreme Court. He's the lawyer who argued Brown v. Board of Education and won! Ended "separate but equal"! Appeared before the Supreme Court 32 times, and won 29 of them! Won Browder v. Gayle, which ended the Montgomery bus boycott! Seriously, go look up Thurgood Marshall in Wikipedia. He was crucially involved in so many civil rights victories.
Republicans want to clarify that they are against THIS?
And, just to make the optics worse, one of the Repblicans leading these charges is Jeff Sessions. Properly known as Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III from Alabama. You can't get a better "Old South" name than that.
I mean, was there a point to this? All I can see is cranky old white people fussing about the world being different from the 1950's, and they don't like it, with a nice dose of "uppity black people" thrown in.
Is there something there other than that? I really want there to be. Help me out.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't think the argument is meant to score points with the general public. The general public really doesn't much care about the judicial philosophy of supreme court judges. I think the argument is meant to score points with the Republican base, especially since the Republicans know that the appointment of this particular pro-corporate centrist is going to go through. And with the Republican base "judicial activist" = someone who "created new rights with Roe v. Wade".
And in that context, connecting to Thrugood Marshall is no longer a random non sequitir.
no subject