A Genital Reminder

" The day after that press conference where {President Nixon} tried to frame the thirty-fifth president of the United States for murder, as Americans absorbed the Attica massacre, he received the resignation of eighty-five-year-old Supreme Court justice Hugo Black. Almost simultaneously, Justice John Marshall Harlan announced that he, too, would retire.

"John Mitchell proposed Richard Poff of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, who had offered amendments to strip from the 1966 civil rights bill the power to sue for civil rights violations. Poff decided he didn’t welcome the confirmation fight, so Nixon cast his eye over Democrat Robert Byrd: another thing for the Dems to scratch each other’s eyeballs out over. ‘He’s a real reactionary. The Democrats just made him their whip. And he was in the Ku Klux Klan when he was young. Send them a message.’ (That was George Wallace’s slogan.) A list of six candidates leaked to the American Bar Association revealed the political opportunism: Byrd, who’d never been admitted to the bar or practiced law; three undistinguished women, a nod to the ERA ferment (one was a segregationist leader); an appeals court judge who’d built his reputation defending Mississippi governor Ross Barnett against contempt charges when he’d refused to let James Meredith attend Ole Miss. Chief Justice Burger said he’d resign if any of them were appointed. ‘Fuck him,’ Nixon responded. ‘Fuck the ABA.’ Which somehow made it into the New Republic. Which received a prompt letter from John Ehrlickman: ‘The simple fact is that in the many hours I have spent with the President I have never heard him use the word attributed to him in Mr. Osborne’s piece.’

"Nixon was deferential enough to the ABA to change course: one of the eventual nominees was a former ABA president, the Virginian Lewis Powell. The other was the Justice Department’s William Rehnquist. Both were received well by the experts. The White House heaved a sigh of relief: two conservatives passed the smell test. Powell was the author of a memo to the Chamber of Commerce arguing that ‘the American economic system is under broad attack ….from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectuals and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.’ He proposed a multipoint plan(‘a long road and not one for the faint-hearted’) to ideologically monitor universities and the media, push for more aggressive pro-business intervention in the courts, and politically organize corporations. Rehnquist had reportedly called for law and order in times of domestic insurrection ‘at whatever cost in individual liberties and rights.’

" ‘Rehnquist is pretty far right, isn’t he?’ Kissinger asked Haldeman.

" ‘Oh, Christ,’ Haldeman replied. ‘He’s way to the right of Buchanan.’ "
--Rick Perlstein; Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America; pages 604-605.

The next President of the United States will probably appoint two justices to the United States Supreme Court. More, he will decide numerous other federal court appointments. The public will decide if John McCain or Barack Obama will determine the nature of those federal court justices. And those individuals will define Constitutional Law for the next generation.

"But it has to be noted that the US Constitution is only what those who warm the bench say it is. At present, we have two right-wing zealots on the bench; two right-wingers (we’ll know later if they are zealots); one normal, moderate Republican; and four ordinary, sensible people. So we have four justices who are frightening or potentially frightening, and five who are not.

"America should realize that if one of the five retires or dies, and Bush (or any conservative successor of his) appoints only one more right-winger to take his or her place, America, incrementally, will become a different nation, for the worse, to live in. We are that close, just one justice, from waking up in the morning to a new America. Hypothetically – and I’m not saying that five right-wing justices would necessarily make such a ruling – if a search and seizure case came before the court in which the police, though having time to get a search warrant, broke into an American home without one, and the court held that this was not an ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, America would change overnight."
--Vincent Bugliosi; The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder; page 248.

We simply cannot afford to have John McCain in the Oval Office. Let’s dedicate ourselves to the effort to elect Barack Obama this fall. There is far too much at stake here to do otherwise.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

woman. Speak for yourself instead of constantly claiming you speak for some group. Or don't you have enough faith in yourself to do that one simple thing?

It was a lengthy quotation from an interesting book distorted by a silly title.

The post's conclusion was, however, one that we might all be able to agree on.

But what are you talking about?

There are MANY women AND MEN, who need to understand the ramifications of a McCain presidency and loss of more rights--reproductive, privacy, and other-- via the Supreme Court is high among them.

Water on the brain?
Or what?

(Stop with the divisive posts please.)

Can't say the play on words in the title is a good one, but try reading more than the title. It's clear that you didn't. Rather amusing as you love to scold others for not reading a certain posters long winded screeds.

I have even read the book from which this extensive quotation was taken.

The use to which it was put - signalled by the silly header - was superfluous condescension. Divisive by definition.

Time to stop the divisive molespeak and get Obama elected.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

your opinion--none whatsoever.

You've saved me an enormous amount of time.

should control.

I think that was the point of the OP.

And unless I'm missing something, it was an anti-McCain post; so how would that be divisive here?

McCain has said what type of justices he would appoint. Democrats should keep in mind that McCain, who in 2000 called the extreme right-wing christian leaders intolerant, has since shown himself willing to humiliate himself by courting the likes of Jerry Falwell. When we look at people like Jerry Falwell, and consider the influence of his "moral majority" and the teachings of "Liberty University," it should be obvious what direction the federal courts will move in if McCain becomes president.

It is mighty curious how a group of people who were very vocal about the need to insure proper appointments to the federal benches during the primary season -- including some here who said that one of another democratic candidate's strong points would be US Supreme Court nominations -- now claim that this topic is a "scare tactic," and rely upon tortured misinterpretations of my post to attack me now.

prez shit-for-brains...both times he was put into the White House. If the elections had been more decisive, they might not have been able to have been stolen...
It is very sad, and scary as hell to think of another Supreme Court Justice being appointed by a repuke.

A few thoughts:

{1} "genital: (3) of, relating to, or characterized by the stage of psychosexual development ...."--Webster's. In my humble opinion, the average democrat is at a distinctly different level of development than the right-wing, conservative injustices that the republican machine has placed upon the US Supreme Court.

{2} The next two appointments to the US Supreme Court will determine much of the future of our country. As noted in the OP, this includes things such as the political power of corporations, the right to privacy, and the right to dissent. It will also include other extremely serious Constitutional issues, including the separation between church and state (and the ability to that right-wing, religious republican machine to impose their beliefs on others); reproductive rights; and issues regarding the rights of adults to get married to the person they love.

{3} Talking about these issues should not be viewed as "divisive" or "offensive" to progressive and liberal democrats. On a forum such as the Democratic Underground, it strikes me as bizarre that some would view the OP as cause to attack me. It is, however, no coincidence that those people who are so terribly offended are those who continue to express opinions that I strongly disagree with. But that's okay: there are always going to be people who have values that are very different from my own.

and ensure that corporate-loving judges aren't appointed and confirmed.

When Obama is elected President, it certainly isn't the end of our work. In reality, it will just be a change in options that allow us to advocate for our goals and democratic values.

The appointments to the federal courts -- especially the US Supreme Court -- define how the Constitution will be interpreted in the future. Months ago, many democrats who were advocating for one candidate were focused on the need to protect repruductive rights. Curiously, this has changed. No problem: we can look at another related area of Constitutional law that should be important to every sincere democrat.

The US Supreme Court will determine the power of corporations in our culture, including corporations that we call "churches." Just as some corporations want full access to all natural resources in the public domain, the corporate churches want to exercise control over issues that can be viewed as "church and state." One example is gay marriage: they want to restrict adult American citizens to marry the person they love, if they are gay/lesbian couples.

That is based entirely upon an unconstitutional position that reflects their twisted views on "marriage." It imposes their religious beliefs on the entire society. There are many, many religious people who favor recognizing the absolute right of gay people to marry. More, marriage can and does take place both in religios settings (church) and civil settings (justice of peace).

I do not agree with Obama's position on marriage. But I know that he is more likely to appoint judges that will rule based on the Constitution, than is John McCain. And once Obama becomes president, I do not plan to sit back and think, "I've got mine." I will continue to work towards repairing the foundation of our Constitutional democracy.

progressive agenda. right now, I feel up against a brick wall.

An Obama presidency means that the work finally gets to begin, after all this id-borne interruption is over.

Seems your thoughts have provoked quite a discussion, good to see there is one going on in these environs rather than only reactions. Living in the era of the sound bite stops potentially valuable intercourse. I have disagreements with some of Obama's positions and even some of his strategies, but that does not blind me to the fact that if he isn't elected, we can kiss this country goodbye, once and for all, under that small, white haired man's presidency. And that is where the focus need be. I don't personally care for quite a number of opinions on this board but recognize the right to them, nor do I relish the role of schoolmarm where I critique others' thought processes. It is a given, here, that with the exception of trolls, we all seeking the same outcome. So to quote Brother Autorank, I say, PEACE, and let's get on with getting Obama elected.

were sorely offended when John Lennon sang, "Give Peace a Chance." He wrote in bed, you know, and there were those who were convinced he meant something bad (very bad!).

Did you know that on the night he died that all the people in the Dakota put lit candles in their windows? Not to take your thread off course, but I just found that out.

As to what people think, we all know how afraid people were of what Malcolm and Martin were saying. and look at Howard Dean, boy didn't they jump down his throat, pukes and dems alike, when he dared to say the war was wrong and a mistake. Inconvenient truths make people uneasy.

that when he make certain people shriek, he knew he was saying the right things.

Obama nominee to the Supreme Court? I would find him unacceptable. Maybe if he is chosen, he might could be prevented from taking the bench (since Democrats did little to stop GOP court extremists, maybe they would be more willing to stop a Democratic nominee's)? Great post by the way. It is a major reason not to let McCain take office.

enough with him to really have real opinion of him. I have read some things about him, but I haven't read any of his books. My impression is that he has focused a lot on economics, and that is not an area where I have much of any insight. He also seems to have been in agreement with some of the Bush-Cheney policies, and that is enough to cause some concerns for me.

I think that there are numerous choices that would be better suited for the US Supreme Court.

He is problematic for me in that he agrees some with executive abuse of power. I appreciate your opinion.

Their enduring influence is vital to consider, these justices.

There cannot be another fascist appointed to the court.

In fact, once that's taken care of by an Obama victory, the task becomes to rid our great nation
of those who stole the 2000 election for Bush. Their decision, the five, was counter to previous
decisions based on a long established history. It's not hard to figure out. They modified their
judicial philosophy to give Bush the election.

Therefore, they must be impeached at the earliest opportunity. All five of them, including that
total wimp Kennedy.

Between you and Buliosi we'll get rid of all the nasties

I don't know what happened. I read your passionate sentiments, thought about your election honesty work, considered the horror of McCain, and this came out. Thanks for your efforts to slay the Collaborwock, Autorank!



With a nod to Peter Jones, Brussels, Belgium, who sent me a copy of "Grabberwocky" years ago!

"One, two! One, two. Your Constitution will not do.
For faithless folk, repent your lack,
The pride you hold will give no clue,
The world you knew will not come back."

Three, four.
They've slammed the door.

Thank you so, so much. This is outstanding and filled with more truth than I can utter in
a dozen or so fortnights;)

We've got a cranky, bitter man telling the nation he's the ruin we've experienced is nothing
compared to what we have to offer, and they tell us it's close.

Nevertheless, we persevere in the illusion about us.

Slammed doors *have* been unslammed, when there's a will to find a way.

"We've got a cranky, bitter man..." Shall we colloborate on "Crabberwocky"? :)

Recommended.

... Barack Obama. It'd be an apt post-Presidential role for him. Thus, I'd like to regard any appointments that a President Obama might make as his future co-workers.

I think that there are a large number of qualified people, and I think Obama is the type of individual that would be best for the country. I used to think that former NY Governor Mario Cuomo would make a great Supreme Court justice. When President Clinton was prepared to nominate him, I thought it was a good move. Cuomo, of course, declined the offer.

There was talk earlier this summer about the possibility of Senator Clinton being interested in a position on the Supreme Court. I think that if she is not picked as VP, or for another administration position, that she would be a good appointment.

:evilgrin:

He is very much the lesser of two evils in my view, but I will vote for him, and hope that in addition to a youthful demeanor, charm, intelligence, and humor, he will remember his grounding in constitutional law, and not stray too far down the path that the religious right wants him to follow. It's well and good to make talk about a "post-partisan future" in which we all get along, but Saddleback should have given Obama a bit of a clue about what it means to lie down with posturing fundamentalist "dogs," and what you will rise up with.

In spite of my concerns about Obama (and understanding that his choices are probably not as broad as I would like), I will support and work for him because the specter of McCain in the Oval Office, and the possibility of his health causing his VP to have to take over, is a nightmare for us all.

We have serious business to worry about and half the responses are too busy clamoring some PC bullshit about sexism in the title to even get to the issue? Good God Y'all. I don't know if you realize this folks, but we have quite a few problems in this country that rank slightly higher than your perceived outrage at DU post titles. If you really want to battle the very real sexism in our culture, ranting about a play on words with the word genital is really going to get you taken seriously. Seriously.

... to avoid using that word -- "genitals" -- because someone might be offended, much more than if we use the words "ear" or "coccyx" (although that last one is bordering on the unspeakable, too).

My first gut response, before reading, was that you might be making reference to the fact that the Supreme Court is not exactly balanced "genitally," both in terms of just what kinds of genitals each of its members have (do we really know what's under those robes?), and metaphorically in terms of the fact that the feminine principle is not exactly at play in most of their decisions. One or two more "Good Old Boys" on that court, and we're all in trouble.

Great article. If some don't get your metaphorical references, well, you can try again another day! Maybe *I* didn't get your references. But good article, anyway. And a little levity does not say we aren't all concerned out of our minds over what we may be facing if Obama doesn't make it to the Oval Office!