"I don’t think I have ever been so behind in everything I am obligated to do"
Oh, god, tell me about it. My old friend 'nagging physical injury' is slowing me down.
"how the friend who’s helping us transform it from a haven for thistles and knapweed into a place where food grows said that everyone around here has clay soil (true) but you could actually throw pots with ours."
Mine is red clay and practically mortar when it dries. The only way to dig it is to go after it with a pick axe and then shovel. Unless there's a heavy rain, and then maybe you could throw a kind of crumbly pot with it. (Also the source of my 'nagging physical injury'.)
"I have no idea whether substantive protection for liberty has long been controversial in legal circles or not, but the focus on it seems understated in conversations about this decision"
It is when you are talking about that and Jim Crow and the Federalist Society. The entire argument that segregation was constitutionally legit was based on the argument that state governments in the South need only meet formal procedural requirements, and then they could racially segregate away. That understanding went way out of fashion in the 50's and 60's and racial conservatives hated that. So they created the Federalist Society to plant lots of judges who would work to reverse that and here we are. The fighting (and the lying about it) has been constant and intense my entire life (and was obviously the same during Jim Crow). Normal Americans think that means, coarsely, that the government cannot go after you on the basis of race, as the obvious reading of what a Lincoln Republican Congress was intending to do, and Neo-Confederate Americans think that they just need to come up with a way to manage a de facto nullification the amendment because racism is awesome. 'Equal treatment' arguments are the underlying basis for pretty much all the opinions that came out of the 'rights revolution', so nuking the basis for those decisions would allow all those state governments to go back to their previous shitty laws and the shitty and oppressive behaviour they used to engage in.
This was explaining not mansplaining :) This isn't something I have deep knowledge of, certainly not the legal arguments and underpinnings, so I appreciate the explanations. Like, I know about the Federalist Society's role in all of this but don't know *much* about it.
I'm a dork - every time I've googled the 14th Amendment on Wikipedia, I was thinking of the text itself, and just didn't realize there's a perfectly good article on the 14th right here:
As for the the Federalist Society itself, it was created to groom conservative judges and keep them to the straight and narrow, lest they be seduced by evil liberalism in the lefto-commie Ivy law schools poor naive baby conservatives might be attending. Officially they take no position on actual legal matters, saying that their members all allowed their own stances, which all merely seem nearly identical. So there's no official paper you can point at, but Federalist Society members write a lot of public opinions, so it is a 'ye shall know them by their works' situation: the membership is hard right, and wants to return to the Lochner period of jurisprudence. Which also! has a wikipedia article:
I've read so many Federalist Society opeds, enough to wallpaper an entire neighborhood, since the 80's that I just know what they want, regardless of ongoing attempts by the Supreme Court to disguise.
As for the explaining, near as I can tell the definition has expanded to the point that explaining anything is mansplaining. Makes it a complete pain since I try to help people out online, a habit that extends way back into the last century. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I can't remember when I first learned about the Federalist Society, maybe early in the 2000s. They've certainly been successful. And all the Kochs' and others' investments in building think tanks and university departments to build political capital and gravitas is certainly paying off. It's an exhausting thing to fight but we don't really have a choice.
As someone said when Alito's draft opinion came out, or maybe it was even when they accepted the Texas case, too many people don't realize that it doesn't matter what the law or precedent or the actual Constitution says. The law is whatever those few justices on the Supreme Court feel it should be.
Thanks for this post. It has revived my spirits. When face with Ukraine, Uvalde, and the ongoing ills of a planet that we are relentlessly pushing toward its pull date, it's difficult to know where to aim my anxiety and anger. Or where to temporarily store it so I can think about the mundane tasks that keep chaos at bay.
Right now, I'm reading The Nutmeg's Curse, by Amitav Ghosh. It's a moving and brilliant analysis of how we got to where we are now, and it brings to mind many of your posts about ownership, the commons, and personal liberty. So, please keep up the good writing. In the meantime, searching for something that might bring me a small measure of peace of mind, I'm going to try making a version of your friends' cross-stitch art that's addressed to SCOTUS.
It *is* hard to know where to aim. I think that's part of my I'm so interested in the root causes, which are all intertwined. Tired of playing whack-a-mole with forces that ruin life for everyone and everything that really matter.
I keep thinking I should read that book! I finally read The Great Derangement recently and he brings up a lot of these themes in there, too.
Happy stitching! I definitely have been inserting various people's names and institutions into the phrase when I look at those :) It seems like a small thing but the cross-stitches these friends do really bolster me.
I'm so behind too. Ugh.
At least it’s not lonely back here :)
"I don’t think I have ever been so behind in everything I am obligated to do"
Oh, god, tell me about it. My old friend 'nagging physical injury' is slowing me down.
"how the friend who’s helping us transform it from a haven for thistles and knapweed into a place where food grows said that everyone around here has clay soil (true) but you could actually throw pots with ours."
Mine is red clay and practically mortar when it dries. The only way to dig it is to go after it with a pick axe and then shovel. Unless there's a heavy rain, and then maybe you could throw a kind of crumbly pot with it. (Also the source of my 'nagging physical injury'.)
"I have no idea whether substantive protection for liberty has long been controversial in legal circles or not, but the focus on it seems understated in conversations about this decision"
It is when you are talking about that and Jim Crow and the Federalist Society. The entire argument that segregation was constitutionally legit was based on the argument that state governments in the South need only meet formal procedural requirements, and then they could racially segregate away. That understanding went way out of fashion in the 50's and 60's and racial conservatives hated that. So they created the Federalist Society to plant lots of judges who would work to reverse that and here we are. The fighting (and the lying about it) has been constant and intense my entire life (and was obviously the same during Jim Crow). Normal Americans think that means, coarsely, that the government cannot go after you on the basis of race, as the obvious reading of what a Lincoln Republican Congress was intending to do, and Neo-Confederate Americans think that they just need to come up with a way to manage a de facto nullification the amendment because racism is awesome. 'Equal treatment' arguments are the underlying basis for pretty much all the opinions that came out of the 'rights revolution', so nuking the basis for those decisions would allow all those state governments to go back to their previous shitty laws and the shitty and oppressive behaviour they used to engage in.
elm
sorry for mansplaining
This was explaining not mansplaining :) This isn't something I have deep knowledge of, certainly not the legal arguments and underpinnings, so I appreciate the explanations. Like, I know about the Federalist Society's role in all of this but don't know *much* about it.
I'm a dork - every time I've googled the 14th Amendment on Wikipedia, I was thinking of the text itself, and just didn't realize there's a perfectly good article on the 14th right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
which includes a discussion of substantial due process, and there's also a separate article on substantive due process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process
As for the the Federalist Society itself, it was created to groom conservative judges and keep them to the straight and narrow, lest they be seduced by evil liberalism in the lefto-commie Ivy law schools poor naive baby conservatives might be attending. Officially they take no position on actual legal matters, saying that their members all allowed their own stances, which all merely seem nearly identical. So there's no official paper you can point at, but Federalist Society members write a lot of public opinions, so it is a 'ye shall know them by their works' situation: the membership is hard right, and wants to return to the Lochner period of jurisprudence. Which also! has a wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
I've read so many Federalist Society opeds, enough to wallpaper an entire neighborhood, since the 80's that I just know what they want, regardless of ongoing attempts by the Supreme Court to disguise.
As for the explaining, near as I can tell the definition has expanded to the point that explaining anything is mansplaining. Makes it a complete pain since I try to help people out online, a habit that extends way back into the last century. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Part of the Era of Poisonous feelings: https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1541978499287752705
elm
ugly month
The last century feels like a century ago!
I can't remember when I first learned about the Federalist Society, maybe early in the 2000s. They've certainly been successful. And all the Kochs' and others' investments in building think tanks and university departments to build political capital and gravitas is certainly paying off. It's an exhausting thing to fight but we don't really have a choice.
As someone said when Alito's draft opinion came out, or maybe it was even when they accepted the Texas case, too many people don't realize that it doesn't matter what the law or precedent or the actual Constitution says. The law is whatever those few justices on the Supreme Court feel it should be.
Thanks for this post. It has revived my spirits. When face with Ukraine, Uvalde, and the ongoing ills of a planet that we are relentlessly pushing toward its pull date, it's difficult to know where to aim my anxiety and anger. Or where to temporarily store it so I can think about the mundane tasks that keep chaos at bay.
Right now, I'm reading The Nutmeg's Curse, by Amitav Ghosh. It's a moving and brilliant analysis of how we got to where we are now, and it brings to mind many of your posts about ownership, the commons, and personal liberty. So, please keep up the good writing. In the meantime, searching for something that might bring me a small measure of peace of mind, I'm going to try making a version of your friends' cross-stitch art that's addressed to SCOTUS.
It *is* hard to know where to aim. I think that's part of my I'm so interested in the root causes, which are all intertwined. Tired of playing whack-a-mole with forces that ruin life for everyone and everything that really matter.
I keep thinking I should read that book! I finally read The Great Derangement recently and he brings up a lot of these themes in there, too.
Happy stitching! I definitely have been inserting various people's names and institutions into the phrase when I look at those :) It seems like a small thing but the cross-stitches these friends do really bolster me.