They also show that Scalia bent constitutional law to fit his right wing political agenda. Age, it is said, moderates people’s views, but that obviously wasn’t the case with Scalia it only made him more intemperate and closed minded. What are we to make of Greenhouse’s observations? First, Scalia was an extremely backward person, whose worldview, if you can believe it, became more mean-spirited and anti-democratic as he became older and deaf to anything outside of his right-wing echo chamber. The message was that courts have no business recognizing new rights. “His ability to invoke originalism as a mobilizing tool outside the court, in speeches and in dissenting opinions.In an interview with the writer Jennifer Senior in New York magazine in 2013, Justice Scalia said he got most of his news from the car radio and from skimming The Wall Street Journal and the conservative Washington Times.” “His frequent parroting of right-wing talking points in recent years may have reflected the contraction of his intellectual universe.Most observers of the court had expected it to rule against that in June. Greenhouse also alludes to the University of Texas admissions program that allows race to be a consideration in admissions. Among those cited are rulings on President Obama’s deportation-deferral program, executive actions on climate change, and voting rights. “I’ve become increasingly concerned, as my recent columns have suggested, that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution.” She goes on to mention recent decisions that underscore this point.What especially caught my eye were the following observations: With precision, subtlety, and seeming detachment, she describes the destructive role of Antonin Scalia and the conservative majority on the court of which he was the most outspoken member. I will actively work to prevent any legislation from passing rather than see my opponent get anything he or she wants) winning elections.Linda Greenhouse, the former New York Times reporter who covered with great acuity the Supreme Court for many years until her recent retirement, shows that acuity once again in an oped in the Times. Instead, they can appeal to the most extreme in their party, leading to people who hold the most extreme positions (e.g. As districts become more polarized, those running don't have to appeal to people holding different opinions or valuing different issues. In a democracy, I can't see how this is anything but bad, bad news.Īdd in that obstructionism is going hand in hand with lopsided elections. As Congress does less and less, the President has to do more, and as the President does more, it becomes more normalized for the President to do more. Presidents have become more like legislators, and Executive Orders are becoming more like legislation as time passes. The result is actively changing how we govern. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the evidence seems to show that this is something the Republicans are engaging in more than Democrats, but it is something that both parties engage in. Far more damaging (to the health of the nation-state as a whole) than a bomb on a city bus or in a courthouse. Without going into the semantics of what constitutes terrorism, I think that obstructionism is really damaging to the country. But suffice to say that violence is a universal component of the proposed definitions. If you want to go read BV's post, that should settle it. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It means an idea that is generally not agreed upon. The term has changed its meaning frequently in the past two centuries. There are also manifold executions of terrorisms each with different forms, ideals, manifestations and practises. The lack of an accepted definition is linked to delegitimization and criminalization of the groups exercising the concept. Political legal and social science opinions are often conflicted or diverging. Terrorism is a contested concept there are many actions that could be deemed terrorist in one man's eyes to be deemed the act of a patriot to another. Terrorism as defined by Oxford: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |