Sorry you weren’t willing to put your name behind your comment, especially given the personal attack, but thanks for it anyway.
As for your understanding of the law and the facts, let’s just say that a number of United States Senators who were in the room felt misled by assurances you say were clearly meaningless. Perhaps you are just smarter than they are; perhaps the intent was, indeed, to mislead.
On the Kavanaugh photo, I personally thought that moment was an all-time low in the modern history of the Court (until the Dobbs opinion), and revealed a lack of judicial temperament that was, alone and by itself, disqualifying. (I also thought, and continue to think, that he was perjuring himself.) But I do know others saw the moment differently.
Further, they address the charge that the justices "lied" in their confirmation hearings or in private meetings with senators.
Mr. Tofel, I fear, wants to lead a media war on the Court. But he should be careful, because once the dogs of war have been unleashed, there may be no stopping the destruction. The hyperventilating about Jan. 6 as a serious threat to democracy would look like child's play if this kind of rhetoric actually results in the assassination of a justice or member of their family. Mr. Tofel, you are playing with fire here. Do you seek to destroy an institution fundamental to ordered liberty simply because the politics of the nominating president and his majority party won the day? The pendulum swings both ways. Be careful what you wish for, sir.
As I do every day, I read the WSJ editorial. As I find almost every day, it has devolved into one partisan perspective.
I certainly don't advocate violence-- I can't imagine how you think otherwise-- just searching press coverage.
And of course that should apply to all members of the Court, in all seasons.
Finally, my premise, unfortunately, is that it is the Court itself that surrendered any claim to being above or beyond politics. I, for one, deeply regret that, but we are where we are.
This is a bit off-point from what you've written here, but I am curious what you think of the notion of court expansion (aka court packing), which is getting some traction, though not much news coverage. I have a visceral objection to it because it is deliberately designed to politicize the courts, but now that SCOTUS (and other courts) have so nakedly self-politicized, I'm wondering whether I need to rethink this.
I personally would favor a transition to a Court of 14 year terms, with one appointed every two years, but would have no problem getting there by adding a justice every two years and then not replacing members who die or retire until the Court returns to nine.
I can reasonably support an expansion of the Supremes to 13.
We have 11 numbered appellate courts plus DC Circuit. The Chief is head of the whole judiciary, so needs to be "free." Yes, associates don't literally "ride circuit," but one associate being responsible for just one appeals court makes sense.
This sounds like overt political tinkering which will result in nothing more than a super legislature, producing more angst, more heated threats like Senate Leader Schumer's irresponsible "reap the whirlwind....you won't know what hit you" speech in a media scrum outside the Court.
actually, it's an attempt to minimize the politics by establishing a norm that every presidential term gets two nominees, and not generally more, while also limiting the dead hand effect of 30 or 40 year terms
With respect, it would produce just the opposite. Tying Court nominees to a drastically shortened/accelerated political process--every 4 yrs, with election season commencing year 1--would obliterate any concept of stability or sense of "precedent." It would devolve into a super legislature, just the opposite of what the Framers intended it to be.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to understand the deleterious effect of politics surrounding the Court, but are calling for the press to treat the justices, their clerks "and their families" as fair game for political-style investigative reporting. This will result in reporters seeking out more leakers, whistleblowers, private information that has nothing to do with the business of the Court but aimed, like any embarrassing story or scandal, at getting a scalp. Whether you intend this or not that is what will happen and social media will monetize this beyond repair. How does the Court, whose job is to analyze the law and make rulings on "cases and controversies" function in an environment like this?
And now, an added feature of the the Alito-draft leak, are the dangerous people who have threatened members of the Court (with apparent impunity). How does your plan to sic the press on every participant of this institution--from the justices to the janitor--put that gene back in the bottle?
Your plan doesn't allow for genuine, good-faith debate. One criticism Justice Ginsburg had of Roe is that it wasn't ripe for review. The country hadn't contemplated, considered, debated the issue. That natural process was pre-empted by the Roe decision. So, "viability" was inevitably rendered an ever-changing standard which has resulted in some states allowing healthy pregnancies to be terminated right up to the 40th week. The term, "post-birth abortion" has entered the vernacular. All this, amid the shouting, has created enormous social strife which citing actual statistics doesn't cure.
I don't have answers, Mr. Tofel, but I think you are respected in the media. Pro Publica has done some incredible reporting, of the kind I haven't seen in a long, long time. I urge you to reconsider your suggestion that the press should run headlong into a kind of reporting that will make things worse. Some are calling for the end of the Supreme Court. I think that would be the beginning of the end of America as we have known it, the America we aspire to and want to preserve.
We are just going to have to disagree. I think the current Court has appointed itself a political overseer, as the Senate that installed most of its members intended. All I am seeking is accountability.
Aren’t you at all concerned by:
— the blatantly hypocritical treatment of the Garland and Barrett nominations?
— the possible Thomas conflict of interest?
— Kavanaugh’s misleading statement to Sen. Collins?
— the unprincipled nature of Alito’s Dobbs opinion, saying that abortion is “different” ostensibly because it involves the taking of a human life, but then making up a rule that Congress or states can permit this without limit?
Also, again, I am not advocating or condoning violence, and I don’t understand why you keep raising this red herring.
We ARE going to disagree. I will only say that the
"made up" analysis was Blackmun's. Embarrassingly so. He conjured a Constitutional right out of thin air. Alito's analysis stated it well. As for the limits on states, that was not before the Court. Seriously, Mr. Tofel, surely you would agree that the stakes involving "personal autonomy" or "one's concept of existence" are lower than snuffing out the life of a living, unborn human being.
The other issues you mention are too heavily fact-based (and totally peripheral re the main issue) to deal with here.
I am simply relieved that citizens--voters--will now have a greater say in the laws under which they are required to live. And I trust my fellow Americans on this. I've looked at the Pew polls. Only 19% of Americans think that abortion should be legal in all cases. And only 8% say abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. That suggests a thoughtful, tuned-in public.
Finally, I don't for a minute think you are advocating or condoning violence. But I believe that you and respected journalists like you situated to be heard by a large group of people--in your case, especially, other journalists--can influence people who embrace or justify violence. Abortion is deeply personal for those facing unplanned pregnancy. I am urging you to consider this as you write about this.
Instead of "has appointed itself a political overseer", might have been more to the point to say they've anointed themselves High Priests of the theocratic end times fundamentalist Christian-libertarian Republican Party.
Seriously, the biggest failure in media coverage of the courts is to ignore the Republican Party has transformed into a religion on a religious war - not culture - to impose its Gimme That Old Time Religion interpretation of Old Testament law on us all.
Sorry you weren’t willing to put your name behind your comment, especially given the personal attack, but thanks for it anyway.
As for your understanding of the law and the facts, let’s just say that a number of United States Senators who were in the room felt misled by assurances you say were clearly meaningless. Perhaps you are just smarter than they are; perhaps the intent was, indeed, to mislead.
On the Kavanaugh photo, I personally thought that moment was an all-time low in the modern history of the Court (until the Dobbs opinion), and revealed a lack of judicial temperament that was, alone and by itself, disqualifying. (I also thought, and continue to think, that he was perjuring himself.) But I do know others saw the moment differently.
Thank you ! Sanity is a rare commodity in MAGA aftermath America.
Mr. Tofel needs to read today's house editorial by his esteemed former colleagues at the Wall Street Journal.
FTA: The reaction to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been predictably vitriolic and often full of distortions. The Justices didn’t ban abortion; they said there is no constitutional right to abortion and left it to the states to decide. The majority also did not set up other rights to disappear; they explicitly said abortion is unique. ([https://www.wsj.com/articles/lie-senate-justice-gorsuch-kavanaugh-collins-manchin-aoc-meet-the-press-abortion-dobbs-roe-casey-ginsburg-11656277455]
Further, they address the charge that the justices "lied" in their confirmation hearings or in private meetings with senators.
Mr. Tofel, I fear, wants to lead a media war on the Court. But he should be careful, because once the dogs of war have been unleashed, there may be no stopping the destruction. The hyperventilating about Jan. 6 as a serious threat to democracy would look like child's play if this kind of rhetoric actually results in the assassination of a justice or member of their family. Mr. Tofel, you are playing with fire here. Do you seek to destroy an institution fundamental to ordered liberty simply because the politics of the nominating president and his majority party won the day? The pendulum swings both ways. Be careful what you wish for, sir.
As I do every day, I read the WSJ editorial. As I find almost every day, it has devolved into one partisan perspective.
I certainly don't advocate violence-- I can't imagine how you think otherwise-- just searching press coverage.
And of course that should apply to all members of the Court, in all seasons.
Finally, my premise, unfortunately, is that it is the Court itself that surrendered any claim to being above or beyond politics. I, for one, deeply regret that, but we are where we are.
BULL !
This is a bit off-point from what you've written here, but I am curious what you think of the notion of court expansion (aka court packing), which is getting some traction, though not much news coverage. I have a visceral objection to it because it is deliberately designed to politicize the courts, but now that SCOTUS (and other courts) have so nakedly self-politicized, I'm wondering whether I need to rethink this.
I personally would favor a transition to a Court of 14 year terms, with one appointed every two years, but would have no problem getting there by adding a justice every two years and then not replacing members who die or retire until the Court returns to nine.
I can reasonably support an expansion of the Supremes to 13.
We have 11 numbered appellate courts plus DC Circuit. The Chief is head of the whole judiciary, so needs to be "free." Yes, associates don't literally "ride circuit," but one associate being responsible for just one appeals court makes sense.
So, that's 12 associates plus the chief.
This sounds like overt political tinkering which will result in nothing more than a super legislature, producing more angst, more heated threats like Senate Leader Schumer's irresponsible "reap the whirlwind....you won't know what hit you" speech in a media scrum outside the Court.
actually, it's an attempt to minimize the politics by establishing a norm that every presidential term gets two nominees, and not generally more, while also limiting the dead hand effect of 30 or 40 year terms
With respect, it would produce just the opposite. Tying Court nominees to a drastically shortened/accelerated political process--every 4 yrs, with election season commencing year 1--would obliterate any concept of stability or sense of "precedent." It would devolve into a super legislature, just the opposite of what the Framers intended it to be.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to understand the deleterious effect of politics surrounding the Court, but are calling for the press to treat the justices, their clerks "and their families" as fair game for political-style investigative reporting. This will result in reporters seeking out more leakers, whistleblowers, private information that has nothing to do with the business of the Court but aimed, like any embarrassing story or scandal, at getting a scalp. Whether you intend this or not that is what will happen and social media will monetize this beyond repair. How does the Court, whose job is to analyze the law and make rulings on "cases and controversies" function in an environment like this?
And now, an added feature of the the Alito-draft leak, are the dangerous people who have threatened members of the Court (with apparent impunity). How does your plan to sic the press on every participant of this institution--from the justices to the janitor--put that gene back in the bottle?
Your plan doesn't allow for genuine, good-faith debate. One criticism Justice Ginsburg had of Roe is that it wasn't ripe for review. The country hadn't contemplated, considered, debated the issue. That natural process was pre-empted by the Roe decision. So, "viability" was inevitably rendered an ever-changing standard which has resulted in some states allowing healthy pregnancies to be terminated right up to the 40th week. The term, "post-birth abortion" has entered the vernacular. All this, amid the shouting, has created enormous social strife which citing actual statistics doesn't cure.
I don't have answers, Mr. Tofel, but I think you are respected in the media. Pro Publica has done some incredible reporting, of the kind I haven't seen in a long, long time. I urge you to reconsider your suggestion that the press should run headlong into a kind of reporting that will make things worse. Some are calling for the end of the Supreme Court. I think that would be the beginning of the end of America as we have known it, the America we aspire to and want to preserve.
Thanks for responding.
We are just going to have to disagree. I think the current Court has appointed itself a political overseer, as the Senate that installed most of its members intended. All I am seeking is accountability.
Aren’t you at all concerned by:
— the blatantly hypocritical treatment of the Garland and Barrett nominations?
— the possible Thomas conflict of interest?
— Kavanaugh’s misleading statement to Sen. Collins?
— the unprincipled nature of Alito’s Dobbs opinion, saying that abortion is “different” ostensibly because it involves the taking of a human life, but then making up a rule that Congress or states can permit this without limit?
Also, again, I am not advocating or condoning violence, and I don’t understand why you keep raising this red herring.
We ARE going to disagree. I will only say that the
"made up" analysis was Blackmun's. Embarrassingly so. He conjured a Constitutional right out of thin air. Alito's analysis stated it well. As for the limits on states, that was not before the Court. Seriously, Mr. Tofel, surely you would agree that the stakes involving "personal autonomy" or "one's concept of existence" are lower than snuffing out the life of a living, unborn human being.
The other issues you mention are too heavily fact-based (and totally peripheral re the main issue) to deal with here.
I am simply relieved that citizens--voters--will now have a greater say in the laws under which they are required to live. And I trust my fellow Americans on this. I've looked at the Pew polls. Only 19% of Americans think that abortion should be legal in all cases. And only 8% say abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. That suggests a thoughtful, tuned-in public.
Finally, I don't for a minute think you are advocating or condoning violence. But I believe that you and respected journalists like you situated to be heard by a large group of people--in your case, especially, other journalists--can influence people who embrace or justify violence. Abortion is deeply personal for those facing unplanned pregnancy. I am urging you to consider this as you write about this.
Again, thank you for indulging me. All best. DGMB
Instead of "has appointed itself a political overseer", might have been more to the point to say they've anointed themselves High Priests of the theocratic end times fundamentalist Christian-libertarian Republican Party.
Seriously, the biggest failure in media coverage of the courts is to ignore the Republican Party has transformed into a religion on a religious war - not culture - to impose its Gimme That Old Time Religion interpretation of Old Testament law on us all.