Odds & Ends:
–Here’s David Carr on the “British invasion” of the high end of American media. (Why don’t they ever try to take our unpaid internships and crummy starting jobs?)
–Here’s the Times’ attempt to keep with Edward Snowden. What I found remarkable about this story — which was, after all, quite inconclusive — was the combined throw-weight of the team of reporters. In addition to the triple byline, I count seven more bylines in the credit line at the bottom. That’s 10 reporters on three continents, not to mention interns, news aides, editors, photographers, and photo editors. Take that, HuffPo!
–Here’s a Times feature on the antiquated ways of SCOTUS. These are not merely quaint. I believe they are snubbing their noses at all the rest of us, because they can. They are among the most unaccountable holders of power in the country. Perhaps an occasional impeachment (yes, it can be done and has been) would get their attention.
Prof Chris Daly's Blog 
“They are among the most unaccountable holders of power in the country.”–Two of the others are the media and tenured professors (others might add union leaders and jurors), neither of whom, unlike justices, are subject to rigorous pre-appointment investigation and confirmation–do you hold the same views regarding them?
“Perhaps an occasional impeachment (yes, it can be done and has been) would get their attention.”–As the 2 Supreme Court justices who faced impeachment drives in the past century were Earl Warren, for ending segregation (and, to a lesser extent, granting accused criminals the right to counsel and warnings about self-incrimination” and Bill Douglas (first, because of his effort to spare the Rosenbergs from execution and later in large part because of his First Amendment absolutism which you so admire), why are these precedents you urge we emulate?
The Supreme Court is unaccountable because it serves a a check and balance of the worst excesses by the President (e.g., ordering a President who had overwhelmingly won reelection to release the Watergate Tapes); Congress (e.g., the Defense of Marriage act (I hope); and the states (e.g., segregation). If these decisions had been up to the public, it is uncertain they would have passed.
If the price of these decisions–and such then unpopular decisions as the release of the Pentagon Papers, allowing law suits based on sexual discrimination and harassment, restricting libel suits, allowing abortion and limiting the role of religion in public schools–are such decisions as allowing too much money to flow into elections, why are you not willing to pay it?
Finally, if a major portion of your anger was caused the Citizens United decision because of its opening the floodgates to the corrupting power of unlimited spending on the election process, why is your remedy one which would allow the same thing to happen to the judicial process?
LikeLike
David:
You write terrific comments. You should use your full name.
–Chris Daly
LikeLike