Sunday
Feb142016
The Commentariat -- Feb. 15, 2016
January 20, 2009, a few moments before Barack Obama took the oath of office, Photo by Pete Souza.... CW: Let us take a moment out of our busy Presidents' Day buying sheets or shoes (or in my case, going to the dump) to be thankful that on this particular Presidents' Day, we have a president who is pretty, pretty good. Let us also hope that today is not the last Presidents Day we can say that.
Julie Makinen of the Los Angeles Times: "President Obama on Monday will kick off a two-day summit with 10 Southeast Asian leaders at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, the first-ever such meeting on U.S. soil. The White House is framing the confab with the leaders of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, as another key step in Obama's effort to 'rebalance' foreign policy toward the Asia-Pacific, shoring up U.S. economic and security ties in the region -- and asserting American leadership -- as China exerts its military and financial might there too."
His hands were sort of almost folded on top of the sheets. The sheets weren't rumpled up at all. It was just like he was taking a nap. He just went to sleep and didn't wake up. -- Resort owner John Poindexter, who found Antonin Scalia's body
... Jason Whitely of WFAA, in USA Today: "The death certificate for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will list myocardial infarction -- a heart attack -- as the official cause of death, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara told WFAA on Sunday." ...
... Molly Hennessy-Fiske of the Los Angeles Times describes "Scalia's last moments on a Texas ranch." ...
... Eva Moravec, et al., of the Washington Post: "... as details of Scalia's sudden death trickled in Sunday, it appeared that the hours afterward were anything but orderly." The judge who declared him dead, by phone, "rebutted a report by a Dallas TV station that quoted her as saying that Scalia had died of 'myocardial infarction.' In an interview with The Washington Post, she said she meant only that his heart had stopped."
... CW: I thought we'd hear soon enough that President Obama killed Justice Scalia, & sure enough, we have. But as digby points out, there's a bit of a discussion over there in Right Wing World as to which "liberal" killed Scalia -- Obama or some Clinton. I wonder why Obama didn't do so sooner or some Clinton didn't do it later. Whoever the assassin may be, his/her timing seems off. I think I'll pick Bill Clinton, whose is now trying to cover his tracks by claiming, "I always kind of liked" Justice Scalia. I've read here & there that John Poindexter, who owned the Cibolo Creek ranch, and found Scalia's body, has contributed to Democrats. ...
... Dahlia Lithwick of Slate: "Whether you choose to think of [Antonin Scalia] as a hero or a hater, a fully-realized ideological visionary, or a caricature of an arch-conservative..., for years, the law and the other justices will shadow box with him, reckon with his vast intellectual legacy, and perhaps -- if the arc of the universe indeed bends toward tolerance and fairness and generosity -- eventually put him to rest."
Carl Hulse & Mark Landler of the New York Times: "An epic Washington political battle took shape on Sunday after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as Senate Republicans dug in and refused to act on any Supreme Court nomination by President Obama. But the White House vowed to name a nominee within weeks." ...
... Paul Krugman: "Once upon a time, the death of a Supreme Court justice wouldn't have brought America to the edge of constitutional crisis. But that was a different country, with a very different Republican Party. In today's America, with today's G.O.P., the passing of Antonin Scalia has opened the doors to chaos.... If divided government persists, it's really hard to see how we avoid growing chaos. Maybe we should all start wearing baseball caps that say, 'Make America governable again.'" ...
... CW: As usual, Krugman uses his column, which is mostly about the nutso GOP, to take a swipe at Bernie Sanders. Maybe he should start wearing a baseball cap that says, "Make America Clinton's again." ...
... ** Paul Waldman: "Republicans are all in agreement that they should refuse to allow Barack Obama to fill Scalia's seat, on the grounds that he's Barack Obama. But they could well refuse to fill the seat even for the next president.... If that sounds unlikely, then you might want to familiarize yourself with today's Republican Party. They haven't just grown more ideologically conservative in recent years, they've also grown more procedurally radical. Again and again, they've decided that the system of formal and informal norms that make the government work can be discarded if it becomes inconvenient. Shut down the government? You bet! Filibuster every bill more consequential than the naming of National Earwax Awareness Week? Sure! Bring America to the brink of defaulting on its debt? Why not!... the next president could get to fill two, three, or even four seats. Or maybe she won't get to fill any at all." ...
... Never Let the Facts or the Constitution Get in the Way. New York Times Editors: "The latest Republican talking point is that for 80 years it has been 'standard practice' not to confirm any Supreme Court nominee in an election year. Besides being untrue -- Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 1988 -- the claim actually insults Justice Scalia, whose originalist, text-based approach to the Constitution would surely have found room for one of a president's explicit constitutional obligations." ...
... David Savage & David Lauter of the Los Angeles Times: "As President Obama moves to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the vow by Senate Republicans to block any nominee is providing him with a powerful incentive to focus on more liberal candidates." ...
... Robert Barnes & Terri Rupar of the Washington Post: "Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death Saturday flips the dynamics of the Supreme Court and undermines conservative hopes for far-reaching victories on important social controversies such as abortion, immigration and unions." ...
... Emily Bazelon of the New York Times: "The election is the Constitution's answer for preventing any long-term crisis. The voters will get to punish or reward whichever party they choose. But a year or more of a Supreme Court vacancy would expose the creaks in the joints of the Constitution.... If Supreme Court justices served 18-year terms instead of life tenure, their appointments could be staggered so that each president would get two. The process would be more predictable and more orderly. But the chances for that kind of constitutional amendment are probably lower than the odds of the next justice sailing to his or her confirmation. Hardball, here we come." ...
... E. J. Dionne: This fall, Americans will not just be picking a new chief executive. They will be setting the course of the court of last resort for a generation." ...
... Linda Hirshman in the Washington Post: "President Obama has stacked the lower circuit courts with Democrats.... Fate has handed him the opportunity of any presidency -- to swing the balance of the Supreme Court from conservative to liberal.... Leaders [of the Senate], and also most GOP presidential candidates, are already making clear that they intend to block Obama. But they may not realize that leaving Scalia's seat vacant plays right into his hands.... A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue.... That's why the effect of an equally divided court has enormous potential to strengthen Obama's hand in dealing with the Republican Senate.... If Obama signals that he's willing to take advantage of the situation by taking actions like passing new environmental rules or moving for rehearing in the pending cases, he'll put pressure on the Senate by getting what he wants without his court pick." ...
... OR How about This: Recess! Lyle Dennniston of ScotusBlog: "President Obama may ponder the possibility of putting on the Court a new Justice of his choosing, to serve temporarily. The problem, though, is that less than two years ago, the Supreme Court severely narrowed the flexibility of such temporary appointment power, and strengthened the Senate's capacity to frustrate such a presidential maneuver. It is true that one of the Justices regarded as a giant on the Court's history, William J. Brennan, Jr., actually began his lengthy career with just such a short-term appointment. The chances of that happening again today seem to have diminished markedly." In an update, Denniston notes, "The Senate is currently in recess until February 22. The recess began on Friday. Whether this opens an opportunity for a recess appointment depends upon how Senate leaders interpret an adjournment resolution approved last Friday. That will determine whether it will meet for brief activity during the recess, which could close that opportunity."
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President. -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, arguing that the Constitution does not require the Senate to do its job if the POTUS is black or something
... CW Update: Contributor David highlights a Facebook post by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, that, as David writes, "pretty much sums up the situation." As I don't think I can isolate Facebook posts & as public officials' remarks are not copyrighted, I'm republishing her post in full:
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.
Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says '...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President.'
Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that -- empty talk. ...
... Charles Pierce: Of course, this is all my bollocks. In 2012, the 'American people' decided that Barack Obama should appoint justices to the Supreme Court to fill any vacancies that occurred between January of 2013 and January of 2017. Period. Just because Mitch McConnell is a complete chickenshit in the face of his caucus doesn't obviate that fact.... This is now a presidential election to decide the course and purpose of government for the next 30 years. That makes it the most consequential election of recent times." ...
... Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker: "Scalia brought with him the concept of 'originalism' -- that the Constitution should be interpreted as its eighteenth-century framers understood it. In practical terms, originalism gives constitutional sanction to conservative politics. It amounts to no protection for abortion rights, no recognition of gay rights, and no sanction for affirmative action or protective legislation to benefit racial minorities and women.... In interpreting laws, he was the leading spokesperson for 'textualism,' the idea that, when interpreting laws, courts should look not to legislative history, or congressional 'intent,' but rather only to the words of the law itself. While originalism remains controversial..., textualism won support from nearly all his colleagues (all except Stephen Breyer). This means that the Justices will limit the reach of laws to their precise terms, expanding the court's power over Congress."
I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation, but I hope he sends us someone smart.... Let me put a finer point on it: I hope he sends us Elena Kagan. -- Justice Antonin Scalia, to then-presidential advisor David Axelrod, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, 2009. President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Wesley Lowery & Kevin Stankiewicz of the Washington Post: Black Lives Matter activists fight racist policies & depression, a condition that can be exacerbated by the realities their activism highlights. Last Monday, Ohio Black Lives Matter activist MarShawn McCarrel killed himself on the steps of the state's capitol building.
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Driftglass reports on the Sunday morning showz. Featuring "Ron 'Severe Dementia' Fournier" & "the still-inexplicably-employed neocon hobgoblin, Bill Kristol."
Presidential Race
Yamiche Alcindor of the New York Times: "In the battle for Nevada, which will hold its Democratic caucuses on Saturday, the fight is largely being waged by young Latinos, many of them immigrants, who by the hundreds are seizing on the chance to focus attention on the hardships they have faced and to play a potentially pivotal role in electing the next president.... With Republicans pledging to deport millions of people who are in the country illegally, and Donald J. Trump promising to build a wall to keep rapists and criminals from sneaking across the border from Mexico, volunteers and campaign workers describe the Nevada Democratic contest, in starkly personal terms, as a chance to make a powerful statement about the place they occupy in American society.... Mrs. Clinton's Nevada operation is building on a foundation laid eight years ago, when she defeated Barack Obama in the popular vote (though he won the delegate count).... Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton will both appear Thursday in a televised forum on Telemundo and MSNBC.... Mrs. Clinton's huge advantage in name recognition among Latinos continues to challenge Mr. Sanders's campaign here."
Revolt of the Sandernistas: Daniel Strauss of Politico: "Pro-Sanders threads on Reddit have been burning up with calls for action [against the Democratic party's superdelegate system], with some supporters even reaching out to superdelegates (who are typically Democratic governors, members of Congress, and top state and national party leaders) to lobby them on the Vermont senator's behalf. Progressive groups are also taking a stand: There are currently two petition campaigns designed to urge superdelegates to reflect the popular vote, rather than the sentiment of party elites. In one of them, MoveOn.org activists are targeting undecided and committed Hillary Clinton superdelegates with a clear message: wait until all the votes are counted before throwing support behind a candidate."
Brian Stelter of CNN: "Saturday night's GOP demolition derby on CBS was the highest rated primary debate since December, according to Nielsen." ...
Wrong is considered right and right is considered wrong. -- Marco Rubio in closing remarks, GOP debate Feb. 13, inadvertently describing Right Wing World
... Charles Pierce: "During the ninth debate of the Republican candidates for president, we saw actual facts booed (by my count) three times before the first commercial break. We saw two sons of Cuban emigres duke it out over who can make the lives of Hispanic immigrants more miserable. We saw a vulgar talking yam dare to tell the truth about C-Plus Augustus while standing next to his brother, and we later saw the vulgar talking yam call Ted Cruz the biggest liar he's ever seen. And still, after it was over, serious people got on the electric teevee machine to talk about who had the best night, and who won and who lost, and not one of them mentioned the obvious fact that one of our two major political parties suffered a complete mental meltdown on national television." ...
... Elizabeth Bruenig of the New Republic pegs "the moment CBS News lost control" of the debate. "'We're in danger of driving this into the dirt,' moderator John Dickerson warned, but of course the bus was already deep in the mud":
... Robert Costa & Philip Rucker of the Washington Post zero in on Pierce's "obvious fact": "A day after a debate marked by a series of personal, petty exchanges -- and a day before former president George W. Bush was set to make a high-profile return to the national scene -- Republicans were grappling with their core beliefs on a host of issues, as well as the image they were broadcasting to the country. The infighting was ignited at the debate Saturday night by front-runner Donald Trump, who was unrelenting in his criticism of both how well the 43rd president kept America safe before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and of the hawkish Republican worldview in general.... The increasingly harsh discussions ... amount to an existential crisis within the Republican Party and reflect the growing influence of non-ideological, populist voters who have flocked in particular to Trump's nationalist 'Make America Great Again' message." ...
... Here, belatedly, is Driftglass's liveblog of the debate (I looked for it earlier). CW: Increasingly, it is nearly impossible to tell Driftglass's snark from the actual transcript. The following, ferinstance, is what those bozos really said.
Look, I won the lottery when I was born 63 years ago, looked up, and I saw my mom. My mom is the strongest woman I know. -- Jeb!
She should be running. -- Donald
... CW: As far as I can determine, the debate can be summed up: "Yo' mama!" "Liar, liar." "Am not!" "Are too." ...
... Rasputin-o'er-Hudson. Jonathan Chait: During the Saturday night Republican debate in South Carolina, Donald Trump committed GOP heresy: "Not only did he call the Iraq War a failure, but when Jeb Bush insisted his brother kept the country safe, Trump pointed out that the 9/11 attack happened on [George W.] Bush's watch, and that Bush lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and then returned to the point again.... By the normal standards of politics, Trump swallowed enough poison to kill himself ten times over. If he survives, it will be the strongest evidence that he has forged a connection with Republican voters that resides beyond any plane visible to the rest of us." ...
... Jimmy LaSalvia, a self-described Republican, in Salon: The RNC-picked establishment audience at the presidential debate booed Trump repeatedly, but according to Matt Drudge's unscientific poll, Trump won the debate. The Drudge wing of the party now outnumbers the dwindling establishment/RNC wing. "If Trump can blame 9-11 on establishment icon George W. Bush and then win the South Carolina primary, then we'll know that the old Republican Party just doesn't exist anymore. If that doesn't sink his campaign, then nothing will, and he will be the GOP nominee. We'll know for sure on Saturday, but the Drudge Poll today has given us a hint."
Janell Ross of the Washington Post explains why Marco Rubio (& Jeb!) often speak Spanish to constituents & why Ted Cruz does not. CW: Ross is a bit long-winded, but my own observations comport with her thesis: it's a cultural thing. There's no shame in speaking Spanish in Florida; in the Southwest, it still can be taboo. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Ben Carson Believes Everything He Reads. And everything he reads is the Right Wing News. Gregory Krieg of CNN: "Ben Carson referenced a line he said came from Joseph Stalin, a quote that's believed to have gained prominence as a conservative social media meme, during his closing statement at Saturday night's Republican debate. 'Joseph Stalin said if you want to bring America down you have to undermine three things -- our spiritual life, our patriotism, and our morality,' Carson said.... The mythbusters at Snopes.com, in a recently updated review, state that the line, which Carson is reported to have used before, have little evidence to back up that it came from Stalin. The CNN Reality Check team rated its attribution to Stalin as 'false.'" CW: Bear in mind that Carson's fake quote came during his prepared remarks; it was not an ad lib or heat-of-date moment in which one understandably might make a mistake. His research material is right-wing fantasies.
Senate Races
Nate Cohn of the New York Times: "The impending battle over replacing Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court will undoubtedly loom over this year's presidential contest. But it may have an even larger role in an often overlooked 2016 election contest: the fight for control of the Senate.... The Democrats aren't favored to retake the Senate. They would need to gain five seats (or four if they retain the presidency). But they have a real opportunity to win because a large number of Republicans from competitive or Democratic-leaning states are up for re-election. These Republican senators could have strong electoral incentives to support Mr. Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- otherwise, their opposition will be used against them." ...
... Burgess Everett of Politico: "New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from a state that supported President Obama, announced on Sunday evening that she opposes confirmation of a new Supreme Court nominee before the election."
Beyond the Beltway
Allegedly, Eliot Spitzer Is Still Eliot Spitzer. Jonathan Dienst & Tim Stelloh of NBC News: "Authorities are investigating allegations that disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer assaulted a woman at a Manhattan hotel, sources told NBC News. A spokeswoman for Spitzer denied the report. Spitzer, who resigned from office in 2008 following revelations of his involvement in a prostitution ring, is accused of choking a woman in her mid-20s at the Plaza Hotel, the sources said. They said there may be video of Spitzer going up to the hotel with the woman."
References (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: ICC T20 Live Cricket
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (16)
I want to see the logic behind Bitch McConnell. So our current POTUS wasn't elected by the American people?
My question, how do humans say such totally irrational statements?
I think Elizabeth Warren's post on Facebook pretty much sums up the situation:
https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/?pnref=story
Marie, I too was thinking of the conspiracy in the 'murder' of Scalia. Now that there will apparently be no autopsy let the lunatics have some fun!
So if, according to Republican logic, President Obama is not allowed to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court because it's an election year and he won't be president after 1/20/17, can my senator who's up for reelection, Kelly Ayotte, vote on any bill that comes before the Senate? After all, she may not be there after 1/20/17 either, and therefore any of her votes during this election year shouldn't count. Right?
I'm entering the "stages of grief" process about our country, between Denial and the beginnings of Acceptance. Scalia's death really has created a constitutional crisis. If not resolved, the republic really will collapse.
"What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?"
"A republic, if you can keep it."
In a republic, the plan was to have the congress act as a screen to keep the rabble from having too much direct power, so that reason would prevail. Now the madmen are in the congress while the general populace seems to have the more rational attitude at to what governance is and what it should do.
I feel like the mother rock in that ancient episode of Star Trek: Spock finds out that the rock's name is Uhurta, and she is only trying to protect her babies from destruction at the hands of the greedy miners on some distant planet who were trying to extract what they thought was valuable mineral rock.
She grieves for the baby rocks, which if killed, would make her species extinct: "Cry, cry for the children!" is what Spock learns from his Vulcan mind meld about why she has been killing the miners.
I may have to cry, cry for my republic. I'm having trouble accepting this. What helplessness. We're facing extinction.
So many different thoughts:
It's time for Chief Justice Roberts to point out to the Confederates that the law of the land is that the President will nominate someone and the senators will do their jobs.
Hirschman's phrase that President Obama has "stacked the lower courts with Democrats" makes it sound like he has done something wrong when, in fact, he has been rather slow to fill vacancies.
This conspiracy talk that Obama or Clinton somehow murdered Scalia opens the door to alternative conspiracies. "The sheets weren't rumpled at all" seems like an odd detail. If I were inclined to conspiracies I might wonder if he had been alone at the time of his passing, but I'm not so I don't.
The raw hatred of Obama, and by extension, the United States of America, shown by Republican "leaders" regarding their vow not to hold hearings for ANY nominee warrants impeachment.
@Victoria, et al.: It is stunning that before the sheets were changed on Justice Scalia's bed, the Senate Majority Leader would tell the American people that the President of the United States, who still has nearly eleven months to serve in the office to which they elected him, has no right to fulfill a duty assigned to him in the Constitution, a duty which his predecessors carried out without controversy or disruption.
Of course, McConnell has been attempting to delegitimize this President since the day of his first inauguration, but heretofore much of that effort has been either sub-rosa or framed in less alarming terms. Even when, in September 2012, McConnell admitted that "his number-one goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president" (rather than, you know, having as his number-one goal carrying out his Constitutional responsibilities to the best of his ability), he was not posing a Constitutional challenge but a political one.
What Republicans, led by McConnell & their presidential candidates, are claiming now is that there is a legitimate reason to suspend the Constitution. This is closer to anarchy than to nullification. Moreover, as many have pointed out, the move was entirely predictable given the past behavior of Republican leaders. Justice Scalia might be rolling in his grave at the crisis his death has engendered but for the fact that he isn't in it yet.
Marie
As a counterpoint to the predictably anti-Clinton Dowd piece linked yesterday, here's a thoughtful endorsement of Hillary by Laura Clawson of Daily Kos, "How Bernie Sanders Lost me...and Hillary Clinton Won Me Over."
@Victoria: I totally agree with you about the stages of grief. Even if a Democrat holds the WH, just the fact that the Republican field is composed of pea-brains who couldn't find their way out of the Situation Room is cause for depression. Ben Franklin, indeed!
@Nisky Guy: the conspiracy theory you hint at crossed my mind as well. The difference with the right is that they take an inchoate thought and run with it; my thought was, I'll wait till there is at least a scintilla of proof.
@Victoria D. & Nisky Guy: It is true that a former Republican VPOTUS died when alone with a woman who was not his wife, & a former aide put it, "in undeniably intimate circumstances." The cause was reportedly a "heart attack," & here again the family would not consent to an autopsy. Now look at how amazing the parallels are:
According to the L.A. Times report linked above, the resort-owner Poindexter "invited Scalia to the ranch on the suggestion of a mutual friend, a lawyer, who came with Scalia." Poindexter refused to name the lawyer. Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that "Just after 11 a.m., Mr. Poindexter and a friend of Justice Scalia’s tried the door again, again to no answer." That's when they went into the room. Same "friend"? OMG! Just how "friendly" were the lawyer & the Justice? And how conveeeenient! Poindexter & the secret "friend" persuaded a judge who was miles away & never saw the body to issue a death certificate attesting to death by "natural causes." Case closed. Almost
But now -- wait for it -- Michele Bachmann's favorite news source, World Net Daily, reports that Poindexter said, “'We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled.' said Poindexter." Never mind that WND completely made up that bit about the pillow over Scalia's head. I'm pretty sure this proves foul play was the cause of the death of a justice who thought he was going to Texas for some fowl play -- killing little birdies. Now we just need to find the connection between the diabolical lawyer & whichever Democratic leader engineered this murder.
Scalia's death should keep the conspiracy theorists going for months, if not years. His "assassination by pillow" will become part of the fabric of our lives. I think we need Donald Trump's birther team to investigate.
Marie
@Nisky Guy: You make an excellent point re: CJ Roberts. For several years, Roberts noted in his annual reports that the lower federal courts were desperate to have vacancies filled. It would be entirely appropriate for him to issue a statement, after Scalia's funeral, urging the President to timely put forward a nominee & the Senate to quickly fulfill its duties to advise & consent.
Meanwhile, if I were the president (& the nation is lucky I'm not), I would make an interim appointment this week. No muss, no fuss. Ha ha on the "fuss" part.
Marie
Turin, in northern Italy, is the home of the Shroud, the famous winding cloth on which is imprinted what is taken to be the image of Christ after the crucifixion. Carbon dating has shown that the cloth is no older than the thirteenth century. This fact, however, has not hampered hundreds of people who visit the site nor has it changed people's belief in it's authenticity.
John Gray, the British philosopher, writes well about human folly and delusion and especially our unflagging fondness for conspiracy theory. Millions of people, he says, firmly believe that behind the facade of a disorderly world, everything is being orchestrated in secret by all-knowing and all-powerful forces (in religion, it's a god). The belief that there is some hidden cabal directing the course of events. If someone is pulling the strings behind the stage, the human drama is not without meaning. Therefore, it is no surprise that Scalia's death will now be suspected as a murder. Since his death will change the course of history, and a course that the right fear most, the blame for this change, this death, must be put on the ones they hate and fear the most––Obama and Clinton. Of course, we say, well, these are the real loonies that will say this–––perhaps, but that hate and fear will manifest itself in the fight the right will put up to stop nominations during Obama's term and that, of course, is worse.
@Victoria D. Very good piece by Clawson––well thought through. Thanks.
Something about Bernie I recall said by Barney Frank some time ago has stuck with me. "Bernie alienates his natural allies...His holier than thou attitude––saying in a very loud voice, he is smarter than every one else and purer than everyone else––really undercuts his effectiveness."
Takes one to know one: Someone said of Barney––you gotta love him to like him––. SNAP!
@Victoria D. - Your mention of pea-brains and the Situation Room made me think of an early episode of the West Wing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtrX9rZl-j4
Everyone, EVERYONE, has thoughts of grandeur, vengeance, and invincibility. The follow-up to this clip (couldn't find it) was Admiral Fitzwallace proposing something HUGE, President Bartlett coming to his senses, and the implementation of the Proportional Response. I can't see any of the Republican candidates coming to their senses.
@P.D.Pepe: My husband, whom I would describe as a reasonable man, was born in Turin & grew up there. He was not a Christian believer. I'm pretty sure I had heard of the shroud first from him, & once when we were in Torino, I visited the replica of the shroud, which is what's usually on display there (I think they got the original out of the closet for a short period in recognition of some anniversary -- maybe the 2000 jubilee).
When I first read that scientists from IBM, I think it was, had carbon-dated the shroud to the 13th or 14th century, I didn't think that was controversial at all, but I did think it was interesting enough to mention to my husband. He didn't believe it! He was quite certain the shroud was a first-century artifact & the scientists got it wrong. Okay, then.
Some irrational beliefs -- even ones that don't fit into a recognizable belief structure like religion -- are indeed unshakable. I suppose IBM intruded upon my husband's culture -- his identity with his heritage -- since the carbon-dating had nothing to do with his theological beliefs.
To me, one of the benefits of growing old has been to find the answers to a few mysteries, & in those answers, I have usually found that I had for years or decades mis-guessed the "real reason" for whatever it was I had misunderstood. Maybe for that reason, I find it fairly easy to accept new information, even when that new info doesn't conform to my long-held understanding -- Oh noes! Pluto isn't a planet! But I can see that it is more difficult -- or impossible -- for others, at least in situations that sit close to some "emotional truth."
Marie
In the early predictions for the Scalia replacement, Srikanth Srinivasan seems to be 1st on everyone's list. My personal favorite would be Goodwin Liu who has heavy weight credentials but is seen, true or not, as a flaming liberal. I trust Obama will engage his brain, his wiles and his temperament to choose carefully, with an eye toward the nominee's confirmation. I take solace in the fact that he has shone brightly in what was supposed to be the "lame duck" period of his presidency. If there is a way to paradox the asswipes into confirming a nominee, Obama will find it.
I am a bit surprised that it was Scalia who died. I expected Clarence Thomas, who appears perpetually angry, to be the 1st fatal heart attack. Ginsburg is amazing, she just keeps on ticking.
@Marie: I appreciate your comments. I have a close friend, a retired professor of Medieval Studies, who married an Irish Catholic, (from Ireland) an extremely intelligent fella who was a high level chemist at Bristol Meyers and also wrote novels in Gaelic. As their relationship developed in the early stages of courtship there began to be murmurs of distention over certain –-what my friend described as religious myths––, but her to- be- husband believed fervently as facts. They had terrible arguments, so heated that she finally walked away from the relationship for a period of time. But love–-and it was strong–-drew them back together, but from that experience my friend decided any religious discussion was verboten. He is also a conservative while she is, perhaps not a progressive, but certainly a liberal. So they maintain a relationship without too much rancor ––sans Jesus, Saints and politics.
I, on the other hand, having been fed a lot of baloney during my early years, yearned for truths––and like you, can accept new information more easily than many. I've worked hard to throw off the many coats of warm comfort––and it continues.