A brilliant piece in The New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, appointed by George H. Bush, is arguably the most conservative Justice on the Court since the 1930s. He adheres to a very strict originalist and textualist reading of the Constitution, meaning that he believes it should be applied to the twenty-first century the way the Founders intended it for society in the late eighteenth century (whoever came up with this comically absurd idea should receive a prize). In addition to that, unlike the other textualist Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, Thomas has no qualm about ignoring precendent in court rulings: when he thinks a previous decision is wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution, he will overturn it. In Thomas’ case, this also means historically exploring how the inhabitants of the thirteen American colonies two-and-a-half century ago meant this or that piece of law.
Adhering to a very strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution means that you believe that only a very small, limited government is constitutionally allowed (just like it was intended back then). If if were up to justices like Thomas, the US government would have no business regulating anything in the American economy or society (although they have, of course, no qualms about executive branch overreach when it comes to military affairs or torture). This leads to predictable conservative positions on such issues as gun rights and federalism, but also – and here it comes – on healthcare. The Obama administration has relied on a ‘broad’ interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which by New Deal-era judicial interpretation has allowed the federal government to intervene in the (trans-state) economy, to mandate individuals to buy health insurance. But it is very much the question whether the current conservative Court, including Justice Thomas, will uphold this interpretation of the Commerce Clause. It is very much possible that Obama’s healthcare reform law will sometime soon be judged unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Why is this piece on Clarence Thomas so relevant in this context? Well, because according to Toobin, Justice Thomas’ once extreme positions on various issues he has held since his 1991 confirmation have in the past twenty years become more mainstream. Take, for example, the gun rights issue. Among conservatives today, it is commonplace to argue that the lines in the Constitution about ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ apply to individuals, allowing personal gun rights. But just two decades ago (I didn’t know this), this was considered a radical position in a legal profession that held that the lines apply to state militias only, thus warranting more strict regulation on guns. It was Thomas who came up with the former interpretation, striking down Bill Clinton’s 1999 Brady Bill, and ever since, gun rights in the US have expanded. The same thing has happened on other issues: Thomas’ positions, at first considered radical, move the borders of the acceptable and allow judicial discourse to shift rightwards.
In the era that has seen the rise of the Tea Party out of protests against healthcare reform, the same thing could happen to Obama’s laws. Or, the piece warns, even more broadly to the entire 1930s New Deal-era constellation of laws and regulation that have awarded the federal government a role in protecting the people against the worst excesses of capitalism. Clarence Thomas and his wife are frequent speakers and ardent supporters of the Tea Party and other manifestations of extreme rightwing politics. These people want to take the economy back to the 1920s law of the jungle. In the words of Walter Russell Mead at the American Interest, their goal is to bring the Blue Empire down…
So read this must-read profile of Clarence Thomas to see why he has already been compared to Lord of the Rings’ Frodo – an overlooked actor slowly but steadily moving towards his goal, not taken seriously by his opponents until it is too late.
In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.
The conventional view of Thomas takes his lack of participation at oral argument as a kind of metaphor. The silent Justice is said to be an intellectual nonentity, a cipher for his similarly conservative colleague, Antonin Scalia. But those who follow the Court closely find this stereotype wrong in every particular. Thomas has long been a favorite of conservatives, but they admire the Justice for how he gives voice to their cause, not just because he votes their way. “Of the nine Justices presently on the Court, he is the one whose opinions I enjoy reading the most,” Steve Calabresi, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a co-founder of the Federalist Society, said. “They are very scholarly, with lots of historical sources, and his views are the most principled, even among the conservatives. He has staked out some bold positions, and then the Court has set out and moved in his direction.”
(…)
The implications of Thomas’s leadership for the Court, and for the country, are profound. Thomas is probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties. More than virtually any of his colleagues, he has a fully wrought judicial philosophy that, if realized, would transform much of American government and society. Thomas’s views both reflect and inspire the Tea Party movement, which his wife has helped lead almost since its inception. The Tea Party is a diffuse operation, and it can be difficult to pin down its stand on any given issue. Still, the Tea Party is unusual among American political movements in its commitment to a specific view of the Constitution—one that accords, with great precision, with Thomas’s own approach. For decades, various branches of the conservative movement have called for a reduction in the size of the federal government, but for the Tea Party, and for Thomas, small government is a constitutional command.
(…)
In recent weeks, two federal courts of appeals have reached opposing conclusions about the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care law; the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, upheld it, while the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, struck down its requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. This conflict means that the Supreme Court will almost certainly agree to review the case this fall, with a decision expected by June of next year. It is likely to be the most important case for the Justices since Bush v. Gore, and it will certainly be the clearest test yet of Thomas’s ascendancy at the Court. Thomas’s entire career as a judge has been building toward the moment when he would be able to declare that law unconstitutional. It would be not only a victory for his approach to the Constitution but also, it seems, a defeat for the enemies who have pursued him for so long: liberals, law professors, journalists—the group that Thomas refers to collectively as “the élites.” Thomas’s triumph over the health-care law and its supporters is by no means assured, but it is now tantalizingly within reach.
Ik ben niet de grootste fan van Thomas von der Dunk, maar dit is toch een aardig komkommertijd-columnpje. Vooral de opmerkingen over de galmende intellectuele leegte bij de VVD, Rutte en haar subsidieverslaafde achterban komen aan.
Een jaar geleden zaten we midden in de formatie, die een tijd lang op Paars-Plus leek af te koersen, tot de VVD terugschrok voor de protesten uit dat deel van haar subsidieverslaafde achterban dat bang was dat door zo’n coalitie de geluksmachine van de villa-afbetalingsbijstand stilgezet zou worden. Zodoende zitten wij en de rest van Europa nu met Rutte.
Vandaag daarom de vraag: wat ging er politiek mis bij rechts? De volgende keer: wat ging er politiek mis bij links?
Wat ging er politiek mis met rechts? Die vraag zal op het eerste gezicht misschien verbazen, omdat rechts immers zozeer zijn zin heeft gekregen, dat het rancuneuze deel ervan nu dagelijks zijn vingers bij het wegbezuinigen van de cultuur en het wegasfalteren van de natuur af kan likken.
(…)
Maar dat is dan ook meteen al een ding dat er mis ging bij rechts: dat de twee traditionele rechtse partijen, teneinde het platste deel van hun achterban of naar de PVV overgelopen voormalige achterban te kunnen plezieren, de beschaving in de uitverkoop hebben gedaan, en Winsemius en Wijffels als laatste criticasters op een mastodontenzijspoor hebben gerangeerd.
Om dan nog van de rechtsstaat te zwijgen: uit politiek opportunisme wordt nu al een jaar lang stelselmatig bij het fundamenteel problematische van de PVV weggekeken. Minister na minister verklaart dat er niets aan de hand is, en de premier zelfs dat we met een heel normale partij hebben te doen. Geen bewindsman die zo om zijn as moest draaien om recht te praten wat hij in een vorig leven nog zelf voor krom had verklaard als Gerd Leers.
Het is dat opportunisme van een deel van de elite dat sterk aan de jaren dertig herinnert, toen ook allerlei opvattingen die men even eerder nog als volstrekt onfatsoenlijk beschouwd zou hebben, plots voor hele serieuze ideeën werden versleten. Ook al lag het KNMI tóen nog niet onder vuur. En daarbij blijken er altijd weer lui op te duiken die jarenlang heel hoog vanaf de ene toren blazen om dat nu niet minder hoog vanaf de tegenoverliggende toren te doen.
(…)
Misschien is die enorme bereidheid tot aanpassing aan de toevallige tijdgeest nog wel het meest verontrustende: een gebrek aan moreel kompas. Ruttes belofte indertijd aan de schaarse critici in zijn partij dat hij waakzaam zou blijven, is grotendeels gebakken lucht gebleken. Dat de Wilderscoalitie daardoor mentaal zover zou ontsporen konden we bij haar aantreden nog niet zeker weten, al liet zich dat op grond van enige kennis van het Nederlandse volkarakter natuurlijk wel reeds vermoeden.
Overigens springt daarbij wel een groot verschil in het oog tussen CDA en VVD. Bij het CDA wordt er tot op vandaag zichtbaar mee geworsteld - niet alleen de verkiezing van Ruth Peetoom tot partijvoorzitter getuigt daarvan, maar ook al het massale verzet op het partijcongres afgelopen herfst, toen nog een derde van de voor voldongen feiten en daarmee tussen de keuze uit snelle of langzame zelfmoord gestelde afgevaardigden toch voor het eerste durfde te kiezen. De meerderheid niet – en daarom zet zich, met een foute partijleider aan het hoofd die geen partijleider mag heten, de electorale aftakeling in de peilingen dus nog even voort.
Maar wordt er in de CDA in elk geval mee geworsteld, bij de VVD heerst de intellectuele en morele stilte van het graf. Dat is niets nieuws – die heeft daar, van de korte periode van tussenpaus Frits Bolkestein afgezien, eigenlijk altijd geheerst – maar vergt wel een historische verklaring. Het heeft niet alleen met de intellectuele lichtgewichtigheid van Rutte zelf te maken, die daarmee ook als persoon als een bleke schaduw afsteekt bij de laatste liberale premier, Cort van der Linden.
Talking Nazi dogs? Seems like something from a very campy movie (like IronSky, about Nazis from outer space). Yet, if we are to believe TIME Magazine, the Third Reich actually had dog training facilities meant to teach mankind’s oldest friend the skill of language.
It seems like all the weird facts about Nazi Germany are depleted, and therefore stuff like this comes up. But apparently, in the 1920s you had ‘new animal psychologists’ who believed animals were as smart as humans, who were co-opted by the Nazis. In a Tier-Sprechschule, dogs were trained to talk. Trainers claimed that one dog could spell his name on a board, and another could bark ‘Mein Führer’ when Hitler’s name was uttered.
In his new book Amazing Dogs: A Cabinet of Canine Curiosities, Cardiff University historian Jan Bondeson mines obscure German periodicals to reveal the Nazis’ failed attempt to breed an army of educated dogs that could read, write and talk. “In the 1920s, Germany had numerous ‘new animal psychologists’ who believed dogs were nearly as intelligent as humans, and capable of abstract thinking and communication,” he writes. “When the Nazi party took over, one might have thought they would be building concentration camps to lock these fanatics up, but instead they were actually very interested in their ideas.”
According to the book, scientists envisioned a day when dogs would serve alongside German troops, and perhaps free up SS officers by guarding concentration camps. So to unlock all that canine potential, Hitler set up a Tier-Sprechschule (Animal Talking School) near Hanover and recruited “educated dogs” from throughout the country. Teachers claimed a number of incredible findings. An Airedale terrier named Rolf became a mythic figure of the project after teachers said he could spell by tapping his paw on a board (the number of taps represented the various letters of the alphabet). With that skill in hand, he mused on religion, learned foreign languages and even asked a noblewoman, “Can you wag your tail?” Perhaps most outlandish is the claim by his German masters that he asked to serve in the German army because he disliked the French. Another mutt barked “Mein Fuhrer” when asked to describe Hitler. And Don, a German pointer, is said to have imitated a human voice to bark, “Hungry! Give me cakes!” in German.
Pretty cool, considering the events of the past week and all: a 1938 short movie about a visit to Cairo, in full Technicolor, by director James A. Fitzpatrick. Produced as part of his Traveltalk series for MGM.
Ah, good old colonial times… No I’m just kidding. Here it is:
On December 13, 1931, there was a traffic accident in New York City. A man exited a cab on the Upper East Side and was crossing Fifth Avenue when he was hit by a car traveling around 35 miles an hour. The force of the impact threw the man to the pavement. He struck his head. Two of his ribs were cracked. A crowd formed around him; one of the witnesses hailed a taxi to take the man to the hospital. When he was admitted to Lenox Hill the doctors noted that he was bruised and battered but would make a full recovery. He had cheated death.
The patient remained in the doctors’ care for eight days. While he was there the driver who had struck him visited. The patient made it clear that the accident had been his own fault; the driver, an unemployed mechanic, had nothing to fear. The incident had occurred because the patient, an Englishman, had looked left as he crossed the street when he should have looked right. The grateful driver left the hospital carrying an autographed copy of the patient’s latest book. The New York Times wrote about the meeting the next day. The headline read, “Churchill Greets Driver Who Hit Him.”
Twee fraaie columns over wat wel dé canard van de afgelopen paar weken is: de rechtse morele verontwaardiging over Job Cohens vergelijking tussen joden en moslims. De PvdA-leider roept iets onwelgevalligs, en meteen valt heel conservatief Nederland briesend en buitelend over elkaar heen. Als er maar niet aan ons recht om moslims te stigmatiseren getornd wordt!
De joden, vooral jongeren, waren voor de oorlog verantwoordelijk voor het stelselmatig verjagen van homo’s en lesbo’s uit hun wijken. Ze terroriseerden hele buurten en vielen niet-joodse vrouwen lastig. Op hun steppen, de voorlopers van scooters, maakten ze Mokum onveilig en vielen winkels aan. Sommigen van hen werden af en toe gearresteerd omdat ze terroristische aanslagen beraamden of een dramaturg de keel hadden doorgesneden. Joden vormden toen ook de grootse criminele groep die in gevangenissen oververtegenwoordigd was. Ik wil natuurlijk best naar de schoolbankjes terug om bijlessen geschiedenis te krijgen. Maar dan wel samen met Job Cohen.
Dit bewijst zo goed als het gelijk van Cohen. Alle moslims worden op een hoop gegooid, en gezien als één entiteit waar al het kwaad vanaf komt. Maar wat hebben straatterreur en criminaliteit met de islam te maken? Niets natuurlijk, de gastjes die zich hieraan te buiten gaan komen nooit in de moskee. Zijn “moslims” de grootste criminele groep? Nee, dat zijn niet-westerse allochtonen. Maar voor Ephimenco zijn het “moslims”. Net als dat het “moslims”, en niet geradicaliseerde, fundamentalistische moslims zijn, die aanslagen beramen.
Het verjagen van homo’s en lesbo’s, overigens, en de bedreigingen van joden in Amsterdam zouden inderdaad topprioriteit van de overheid moeten zijn, en komen ten dele zeker voort uit een islamitische overtuiging.
Maar dan nog los je dat probleem niet door op een hele geloofsgemeenschap een stigmatiserend, generaliserend discours los te laten, zoals tegenwoordig bon ton is van CDA tot PVV – zie Ephimenco. Dát is namelijk waar de vergelijking van Cohen vandaan komt. Evenals met joden voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog – dus in de jaren dertig – worden moslims door een luidruchtig en invloedrijk deel van Nederlandse politici en opiniemakers als een kwaadwillende, monolithische entiteit neergezet. Wilders – met z’n Koranverscheuring, moskeeënstop, en voornemen tientallen miljoenen moslims uit Europa te deporteren – is alleen maar de meest extreme. Het is een prima vergelijking om over te hebben, net als die tussen de PVV en het fascisme in de jaren dertig een prima vergelijking om over te discussiëren is. Waarom niet?
These images, by photographers of the Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information, are some of the only color photographs taken of the effects of the Depression on America’s rural and small town populations. The photographs are the property of the Library of Congress and were included in a 2006 exhibit Bound for Glory: America in Color.
Free Pussy Riot
Peaches, the twenty-first century torchbearer of feminist punk, just released a video and track in support of Pussy Riot, the Russian female anarc...
EHRM handhaaft SGP-uitspraak Hoge Raad
Dat ging nog best snel: het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM) heeft zich uitgesproken over de vrouwen uitsluitende praktijk van de S...
er interpretation, striking down Bill Clinton’s 1999 Brady Bill, and ever since, gun rights in the US have expanded. The same thing has happened on other issues: Thomas’ positions, at first considered radical, move the borders of the acceptable and allow judicial discourse to shift rightwards.
Twee fraaie columns over wat wel dé canard van de afgelopen paar weken is: de rechtse morele verontwaardiging over Job Cohens vergelijking tussen joden en moslims. De PvdA-leider 
