Shorter Linda Greenhouse
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Law — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I mean, honestly, how else do you interpret the following passage?
Prof. William H. Chafe, a historian at Duke University, published a book last year, "Private Lives, Public Consequences: Personality and Politics in Modern America," in which he presented portraits of prominent 20th-century Americans, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
Professor Chafe argued that trauma or tragedy strengthened them and gave them the qualities of leadership they displayed later in life. Could adversity temper a jurisprudence that critics of the chief justice have discerned as bloodless and unduly distant from the messy reality of the lives of ordinary people who fail to file their appeals on time?
So the Chief Justice didn't deny appeals because a careful reading of the law informed him that those appeals were not filed on time. He denied them because he's just not a nice guy. And now that the "Golden Boy Trajectory" has been disrupted, the Chief Justice might possibly give people a break--the plain reading of a particular statute notwithstanding--and be deemed a good person in Linda Greenhouse's world, even as he substitutes Greenhouse's view of what the law should be for a plain reading of what the law is.
That, supposedly, is non-"unduly distant" and non-"bloodless" jurisprudence.
And Linda Greenhouse's writings on that score supposedly constitute the pinnacle of journalistic excellence.
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | More On Moe Green's Best Friend — Comments (9) »
Shorter Linda Greenhouse 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Greenhouse's reasoning, if one can call it that, is that Justice Roberts has now SUFFERED. He had, according to Greenhouse's idea of his life, led a cold, charmed-yet-eventless, Mr. Spock-like existence.
But now he has experienced pain, "vulnerability," and can now empathize with society's victims, such as women and minorities. His rulings on abortion, sex discrimination in the workplace, affirmative action, etc., were cold and emotionless. But now he can identify with the victims, and presumably will (or should) render bleeding-heart liberal rulings, now that the milk of human kindness is running through his formerly "bloodless" veins.
Actually, in the abortion ruling, the majority did show a little empathy and emotion for the victims. The liberals just favor the wealthy abortionists. Nevermind the countless women who have been harmed for life by abortion, much less the children they love to know are being stabbed to death with no anesthetic. Talk about "vulnerable" "victims."
As for race, how is there any sympathy in a system that inconveniences one group when the policy could even more easily inconvenience no group?! How exactly were minorities hurt? Had the minorities been inconvenienced in the effort to achieve racial quotas, I'm sure she would be singing a different tune.
Did Greenhouse not have any criticism for the Kelo decision? Her favorite justices really empathized with society's "victims" there, didn't they?
So Roberts is "Bloodless" because he voted to hold that the filing deadlines were jurisdictional (and hence the Court lacked the authority to allow filings after the deadline), and that causes of action under Title VII run from the initial discriminatory decision, not each successive paycheck reflecting that decision.
As far as I can tell, neither Democratically controlled house of Congress has proposed bills to "fix" either of these issues. How long does it take to draft a stand alone bill stating that the filing deadline is jurisdictional or one stating that the SOL runs anew from each discriminatory check? I don't think there is any real likelihood that Pres. Bush would veto either of these in a stand alone bill.
This highlights the difference between the typical 5-4 conservative decision from the Court and the 5-4 liberal one. When liberals have their way we get new constitutional "rights" whose limitation is beyond the powers of the other branches (and the people). When conservatives do something Congress doesn't like, it's almost always fixable by Congress passing a statute providing a right, amending a statute, etc.
Of course, it's better politics to yell about the meanies on the Supreme Court than to actually DO anything about decisions you disagree with.
religiousfreedom.blogspot.com
" the messy realities of life", something we can't do ourselves, a sort of nine person welfare board.
Thanks to wethal for the tip on the Duke professor, a man eminently qualified to comment on and sort out some of those "messy realities", the sort of person Greenhouse admires, the sort of person who would help make impartial justice disappear before our eyes.
Thanks for reminding us of the kind of person you Linda.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Linda, CJ Roberts lost his privacy the day your colleagues tried to get into his children's sealed adoption records.
The Duke professor you cite? One of the "Gang of 88" that ran an ad soon after the alleged "rape," in which they basically convicted the three Duke lacrosse players, without evidence or a trial.
And that professor compared the Duke lax players to the racists who killed young Emmett Till.
Chafe