"Justice Thomas, concurring, named Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell as the next candidates for reconsideration."
Interesting how Oreo Clarence (Black outside, white inside), didn't mention Loving vs Virginia. I certainly don't remember the Constitution addressing interracial marriage. And if it had I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been in favor of it. It would be karma if one of the other republicans on the court came out in favor of overturning it.
As I read your post it became more clear what needs to be done. What is your hypothesis for why no one on the center, center left, liberal, progressive end has organized to make the legislative initiatives happen? Why is there no equal but opposite left leaning “Liberal Heritage Foundation”? Is there a lack of leadership? Money? Organization of the deep thinkers? Disinterest? Inability to coalesce around a set of mutual agreed to ideas? And Bryan, have you ever participated in such a think group? Why or why not?
First, yes I have. Your idea of a "liberal Heritage Foundation" exists. It's called "The Center for American Progress," and it's utterly ineffective and terrible.
Second, yes, I have participated in such institutions... the Heritage Foundation.
I keep saying to many of you that you see these people as cartoon villains. To me, they're former colleagues.
That said, Fuelner, Weyrich, and Coors, were narrowly focused on what they wanted to build with the Heritage Foundation. Leonard Leo was narrowly focused on what he wanted to accomplish with the Federalist Society.
As I've said prior... Republicans make a plan. Democrats make a wish.
Is there a lack of leadership? Yes.
Is there a lack of "money" - possibly, there's plenty of money out there. There are liberals who are as wealthy as Coors was back in the day. There are liberals who were (are) as disciplined as Weyrich and Fuelner.
That said, the conservative project was, for most of its existence, way more consolidated than the rabble of ideologs that make up the "liberals" of the Democratic party.
I participated and worked with Heritage back in the day. I have no doubt you can still find some of the talks I gave, and some of the events I attended. They videotaped everything.
That said, today, I cannot talk with any of them. After the 2016 election, that was the end. When a guy like James Carafano came out in favor of Trump? I realized I was in the wrong room.
But yes, at the time, I knew them all. In thinking about my own experience, what I realized is, I was in one room (ideologically) they were in another. I thought we were on the same path, and perhaps we were. But the ideology taken to its logical conclusion without empathy clearly leads to tyranny. That was not something I ever ascribed to.
I always thought Leonard Leo was a sketchy character. I never bought into the "it's activism when they do it, the rule of law when we do," line of argumentation that the Federalist Society did. Say what you want about Scalia, but the guy's argumentation was cognitively closed and airtight when he ruled, and many times he ruled against his own preferences. That is not the case today. So while the Federalist Society and the right like to point to Scalia... he would be repulsed, I believe, by what's come out of the Court today.
Especially Dobbs. I really think he'd have a conniption about Dobbs. As do many of us. John pointed out Loving.
Yeah, many of us immediately wondered, when Dobbs came out, "so what about Griswold? What about Loving?" Because the logic used in Roe came from those cases... so if that decision was "wrongly decided" - ok, what about the others?
The bottom line is, at the moment, the conservative project isn't about ideology, or the proper role of government, or anything else.
Bryan, thank you for the reply. If I may, I’d ask you go a bit more in depth.
Why do you think “The Center for American Progress” is ineffective and terrible? In addition to your answer I will read more about it. In your opinion, though, what is it about that entity that has made it ineffective? Is it an inability to define the purpose and goals? A lack of leadership? Refusal of individuals to participate because of others who do participate? I am truly trying to understand how the left has dropped the ball. And I ask you these questions because you have an intimate awareness of it all that I think the average person does not.
In addition who on the left do you feel is somewhat moving in the correct direction? And who are the liberals you mention who are as disciplined as the conservative have been? The Dems seem rudderless still. We know leadership of the Democratic Party is not going anywhere. Who is writing on SubStack (aside from you) that you would say has promise from a more liberal approach?
Stunning article. Thank you for putting in legal terms and specifics what I’ve read via informed opinion over the last few years. And thank you for confirming that if we choose to live in a place that has human rights ensuring individual and group dignity, it will not be here.
My question is, will living in a blue state matter, given the crumbling rights infrastructure? And given the worldwide rise in far-right voices, is any nation-state safe from this dismantling?
Great explanation of how we got "here" today. Very sad, however, that there are few efforts/abilities to change existing circumstances. But I do understand much more than I did how it happened. What can we do?
The simply question is when the institution (Legislature, Executive and Judiciary) turn its head on everything it was supposed to stand for, there is little or no written contract, or agreement that could have held the institution responsible for the change. Saw that in African and a few cases in the South Pacific*. The people would need to decide what they need to do in face of such a sea of change…….. but as one American put it: "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America." -John Lewis
As always, mahalo.
To paraphrase what Hemingway wrote, it's happened gradually, then all at once.
"Justice Thomas, concurring, named Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell as the next candidates for reconsideration."
Interesting how Oreo Clarence (Black outside, white inside), didn't mention Loving vs Virginia. I certainly don't remember the Constitution addressing interracial marriage. And if it had I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been in favor of it. It would be karma if one of the other republicans on the court came out in favor of overturning it.
As I read your post it became more clear what needs to be done. What is your hypothesis for why no one on the center, center left, liberal, progressive end has organized to make the legislative initiatives happen? Why is there no equal but opposite left leaning “Liberal Heritage Foundation”? Is there a lack of leadership? Money? Organization of the deep thinkers? Disinterest? Inability to coalesce around a set of mutual agreed to ideas? And Bryan, have you ever participated in such a think group? Why or why not?
First, yes I have. Your idea of a "liberal Heritage Foundation" exists. It's called "The Center for American Progress," and it's utterly ineffective and terrible.
Second, yes, I have participated in such institutions... the Heritage Foundation.
I keep saying to many of you that you see these people as cartoon villains. To me, they're former colleagues.
That said, Fuelner, Weyrich, and Coors, were narrowly focused on what they wanted to build with the Heritage Foundation. Leonard Leo was narrowly focused on what he wanted to accomplish with the Federalist Society.
As I've said prior... Republicans make a plan. Democrats make a wish.
Is there a lack of leadership? Yes.
Is there a lack of "money" - possibly, there's plenty of money out there. There are liberals who are as wealthy as Coors was back in the day. There are liberals who were (are) as disciplined as Weyrich and Fuelner.
That said, the conservative project was, for most of its existence, way more consolidated than the rabble of ideologs that make up the "liberals" of the Democratic party.
I participated and worked with Heritage back in the day. I have no doubt you can still find some of the talks I gave, and some of the events I attended. They videotaped everything.
That said, today, I cannot talk with any of them. After the 2016 election, that was the end. When a guy like James Carafano came out in favor of Trump? I realized I was in the wrong room.
But yes, at the time, I knew them all. In thinking about my own experience, what I realized is, I was in one room (ideologically) they were in another. I thought we were on the same path, and perhaps we were. But the ideology taken to its logical conclusion without empathy clearly leads to tyranny. That was not something I ever ascribed to.
I always thought Leonard Leo was a sketchy character. I never bought into the "it's activism when they do it, the rule of law when we do," line of argumentation that the Federalist Society did. Say what you want about Scalia, but the guy's argumentation was cognitively closed and airtight when he ruled, and many times he ruled against his own preferences. That is not the case today. So while the Federalist Society and the right like to point to Scalia... he would be repulsed, I believe, by what's come out of the Court today.
Especially Dobbs. I really think he'd have a conniption about Dobbs. As do many of us. John pointed out Loving.
Yeah, many of us immediately wondered, when Dobbs came out, "so what about Griswold? What about Loving?" Because the logic used in Roe came from those cases... so if that decision was "wrongly decided" - ok, what about the others?
The bottom line is, at the moment, the conservative project isn't about ideology, or the proper role of government, or anything else.
It's about power.
Republicans have a plan.
Democrats have a wish.
Bryan, thank you for the reply. If I may, I’d ask you go a bit more in depth.
Why do you think “The Center for American Progress” is ineffective and terrible? In addition to your answer I will read more about it. In your opinion, though, what is it about that entity that has made it ineffective? Is it an inability to define the purpose and goals? A lack of leadership? Refusal of individuals to participate because of others who do participate? I am truly trying to understand how the left has dropped the ball. And I ask you these questions because you have an intimate awareness of it all that I think the average person does not.
In addition who on the left do you feel is somewhat moving in the correct direction? And who are the liberals you mention who are as disciplined as the conservative have been? The Dems seem rudderless still. We know leadership of the Democratic Party is not going anywhere. Who is writing on SubStack (aside from you) that you would say has promise from a more liberal approach?
Stunning article. Thank you for putting in legal terms and specifics what I’ve read via informed opinion over the last few years. And thank you for confirming that if we choose to live in a place that has human rights ensuring individual and group dignity, it will not be here.
My question is, will living in a blue state matter, given the crumbling rights infrastructure? And given the worldwide rise in far-right voices, is any nation-state safe from this dismantling?
Great explanation of how we got "here" today. Very sad, however, that there are few efforts/abilities to change existing circumstances. But I do understand much more than I did how it happened. What can we do?
The simply question is when the institution (Legislature, Executive and Judiciary) turn its head on everything it was supposed to stand for, there is little or no written contract, or agreement that could have held the institution responsible for the change. Saw that in African and a few cases in the South Pacific*. The people would need to decide what they need to do in face of such a sea of change…….. but as one American put it: "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America." -John Lewis
When answers not inside, what recourse but to think OUTSIDE THE BOX?
Excellent. Authoritative. Essential. Thank you.
Fantastic article, Bryan. Thank you for educating us about the law and the Constitution.
This is so helpful, sharp, well researched and timely. Thank you.