an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman marty.lederman at comcast.net
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Without getting into the allegations now being made against Judge Edith Jones (of the Fifth Circuit), a pretty good argument can be made that George H.W. Bush's decision to nominate David Souter instead of her in 1990 was the most important constitutional action of the last two decades. According to media accounts, Souter and Jones were the two finalists, and the President made a list of "pros and cons" on a pad for each candidate before going with Souter. Imagine how different the Supreme Court's doctrine would look now if Justice Jones had been nominated and confirmed. Posted
by Gerard N. Magliocca [link]
I'm more interested in whether George H. W. had a "pros and cons" list for filling the Court's vacancy of Justice Thurgood Marshall's "seat" in 1991. Perhaps George H. W.'s "pros and cons" list for 1991 took into consideration his selection of Justice Souter year earlier.
I miss the good old days here at Balkinization during the Bush administration when the profs would voice almost daily outrage over the new national surveillance state the evil Republicans were imposing on the nation.
Mr. Obama has now extended data mining intelligence collection from telecommunications to the internet in a new program code named Prism, but all I hear now at Balkinization is the deafening sound of silence.
Our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) shows signs of needing a "hearing" aid or that his cries of "socialist," "caesarist," and other Obama negatives he has spewed going back to 1/20/09 crowd out the anti-national surveillance voices here and elsewhere. The "illegacies" of Bush/Cheney continue, alas, as very few presidents are prepared to surrender executive powers they have inherited.
Obama gets no pass from me on this issue, just because I voted for him. Our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) served literally as a tail-gunner for whatever Bush/Cheney did for their eight years of infamy ending with their Great Recession of 2008. [Note: Near the very end of those eight years, our SALADISTA like the proverbial rats left that ship of unstate.] Many liberals are like Will Rogers, who said he was not a member of an organized political party, that he was a Democrat. Our SALADISTA'a Tea Party dominated GOP base (truly base!) is organized to the point that it may implode due to the changing demographics.
What President has "surrendered" executive powers in place before taking office? Perhaps it will take a female President to take such a step. Also, consider Congress' reactions to what appears on the Verizon. While Democrats are included, the neocon hawks on the GOP side seem to have no problem as they had been the ones who had accommodated Bush/Cheney with such broad powers. Perhaps Mary Dudziak will soon provide a post on executive powers to discuss these recent events. And read Andrew Bacevich's latest contribution at Tom Englehardt's website.
Perhaps our SALADISTA (FKA our yodeler) doesn't get that African-Americans did get enslaved against their will and that they get the individual liberty provided by the 13th Amendment and that they get the liberties and benefits of the 14th and 15th Amendments and that they get the benefits of Brown v. Board of Education and that they get the benefits of the 1960s Civil Rights Acts, all individual liberties and benefits that whites had all along. What our SALADISTA doesn't get is changes taking place. Perhaps our SALADISTA's true "despair" is the fact that African-Americans exist and that one of them became President.
"Hispanics are up for grabs unless they become government dependents."
"I sometimes despair of ever getting African Americans. Even when they agree with the idea of individual liberty, they still vote for the Party of Government or in the case of Obama for race."
Maybe they think individual liberty is not necessarily threatened, and perhaps can be furthered, by Government? As to race it is likely more than that going on since when the GOP runs black candidates they often don't get much black support (see Lynn Swann's run for PA gov where he got 13% of the black vote), so it's likely what the person says not what the color of their skin is.
"Impeachment is proper. Also elections and revolutions."
I'd like to think our Founders left us with more options than that for dealing with a Ceasar.
I wonder how many judges - including "progressive" judges - will continue to participate in American Constitution Society conferences once word spreads more widely about how ASC, through its website, jumped so enthusiastically on the bandwagon to libel Judge Edith Jones.