Below the paywall fold because it is just a draft, and outside my wheelhouse anyway. An irritable gesture provoked by a very sharp person—Steve Vladeck—looking at his feet rather than at what is...
It doesn't seem surprising that Vladeck has very conservative views (but views that make him a leftist radical in the eyes of some parts of the federal judiciary). In any case, a decent jumping-off point for this discussion. Staying in our wheelhouses would be what the Germans under Hitler referred to as an "inner immigration." All hands on deck
I don't think Justice Barrett is a "a deeply hierarchical, patriarchal, and deferential-to-Republicans unpredictable loose cannon", because I don't believe any such creature exists. To be, well, rude, I can't put much trust in the "analysis" of anyone who uses such contrived, incoherent, and indeed self-contradictory terminology. Barrett is simply a Republican "moderate", an old-fashioned country club Republican--though she is Catholic, which is a bit of a shift. She voted for perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in our history, the aptly titled "Trump v. United States", "concurring" and pretending that Roberts' disgusting sell out to Trump's authoritarian rule wasn't as bad as it was. Like Roberts, she is a coward and a hypocrite, and she is helping to destroy the Constitution of the United States, which, I predict, will be a dead letter long before she is.
I don't think so. I think Justice Barrett is much more complicated than a mere country-club moderate Republican:
> Alan Vanneman: I don't think Justice Barrett is a "a deeply hierarchical, patriarchal, and deferential-to-Republicans unpredictable loose cannon", because I don't believe any such creature exists. To be, well, rude, I can't put much trust in the "analysis" of anyone who uses such contrived, incoherent, and indeed self-contradictory terminology. Barrett is simply a Republican "moderate", an old-fashioned country club Republican--though she is Catholic, which is a bit of a shift. She voted for perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in our history, the aptly titled "Trump v. United States", "concurring" and pretending that Roberts' disgusting sell out to Trump's authoritarian rule wasn't as bad as it was. Like Roberts, she is a coward and a hypocrite, and she is helping to destroy the Constitution of the United States, which, I predict, will be a dead letter long before she is...
I recall that early in the 20th century Emma Goldman was deported for unamerican activities and various other offenses. I assume these laws are still on the books. It will be interesting to see how a modern court handles this.
Goldman participated in the attempted assassination of an industrialist, and was arrested multiple times for "incitement to riot." I bet the U.S. would deport her today, too.
I share your outrage. One copy-edit note: You inadvertently wrote Mahmoud Abbas (rather than Khalil) twice, just above the numbered list.
It doesn't seem surprising that Vladeck has very conservative views (but views that make him a leftist radical in the eyes of some parts of the federal judiciary). In any case, a decent jumping-off point for this discussion. Staying in our wheelhouses would be what the Germans under Hitler referred to as an "inner immigration." All hands on deck
I don't think Justice Barrett is a "a deeply hierarchical, patriarchal, and deferential-to-Republicans unpredictable loose cannon", because I don't believe any such creature exists. To be, well, rude, I can't put much trust in the "analysis" of anyone who uses such contrived, incoherent, and indeed self-contradictory terminology. Barrett is simply a Republican "moderate", an old-fashioned country club Republican--though she is Catholic, which is a bit of a shift. She voted for perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in our history, the aptly titled "Trump v. United States", "concurring" and pretending that Roberts' disgusting sell out to Trump's authoritarian rule wasn't as bad as it was. Like Roberts, she is a coward and a hypocrite, and she is helping to destroy the Constitution of the United States, which, I predict, will be a dead letter long before she is.
I don't think so. I think Justice Barrett is much more complicated than a mere country-club moderate Republican:
> Alan Vanneman: I don't think Justice Barrett is a "a deeply hierarchical, patriarchal, and deferential-to-Republicans unpredictable loose cannon", because I don't believe any such creature exists. To be, well, rude, I can't put much trust in the "analysis" of anyone who uses such contrived, incoherent, and indeed self-contradictory terminology. Barrett is simply a Republican "moderate", an old-fashioned country club Republican--though she is Catholic, which is a bit of a shift. She voted for perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in our history, the aptly titled "Trump v. United States", "concurring" and pretending that Roberts' disgusting sell out to Trump's authoritarian rule wasn't as bad as it was. Like Roberts, she is a coward and a hypocrite, and she is helping to destroy the Constitution of the United States, which, I predict, will be a dead letter long before she is...
I recall that early in the 20th century Emma Goldman was deported for unamerican activities and various other offenses. I assume these laws are still on the books. It will be interesting to see how a modern court handles this.
Goldman participated in the attempted assassination of an industrialist, and was arrested multiple times for "incitement to riot." I bet the U.S. would deport her today, too.