More on Grassley & his Abject Ilk

 

This is the statement by Senator Chuck Grassley about going forward with filling the seat on SCOTUS before the next inauguration. Please do read it. It raises these points:

1. Do you remember the "King's X" on the playground from when you were a kid? You know, when someone offered you a deal and you took it, only to get shortchanged because the kid pulls his hand from behind his back & says "I don't have to, I had a King's X"? Why did this come to mind? Keep reading.

2. In his statement, Grassley grows about the voters electing more Republicans to the Senate in 2018 after Trump appointed Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. Consider this from THE ATLANTIC:

"Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the United States Supreme Court by a vote of 50–48, with one senator absent and one abstaining. Only one Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted with the solidly Republican majority, which represented just 44 percent of the country’s population. Indeed, when Americans last voted for their senators (over a period of six years), Democrats won the popular vote by more than 8 percent. It’s that disproportionality—and the reality that a majority of the country’s population is represented by just 18 senators—that is driving concerns about the Senate’s ability to function as a representative body in a changing America." [Full link to the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/.../senators.../572623/ ]

3. Grassley now says that it's okay to approve a nominee after presidential voting has begun because the Senate & the President are of the same party, there's no "divided government" (although he neglects to mention that this president lost the popular vote and that the Republican Senate majority represents as a distinct minority of the U.S. population and of the votes cast for Senate seats.) But I digress. Here is a portion of Senator Grassley's letter to me in March 2016 that lays out his argument for the "Biden rule," as he labels it.

Grassley wrote:

"As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I take very seriously the advice of my predecessors, on the appropriateness for the Senate to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court, should the President not follow the example of his predecessors, such as President Lincoln, who abstained from making a nomination during a presidential election year until after the people voted. In 1992, while serving as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, then-Senator Joe Biden spoke on the Senate floor about the proper actions of the Senate in this very circumstance. My friend and colleague stated "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself...Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."

I share the concerns of my friend Vice President Biden. We know that a nominee will not ultimately get confirmed, and because election season is well underway, no matter the qualifications of any potential nominee, the hyper-political environment would cause harm to the court, to the nominee, and to the nation.

It is important to remember that Congress is a coequal branch of government, and our founders sought to protect each branch of government from undue influence from either of the other two."

[The entire letter is here: https://sngthoughts.blogspot.com/.../senator-grassley... ]

Perhaps, when reading Grassley's letter to me and then his most recent statement, you know why I was reminded of the "King's X" and, I must add, playground arguments. Of course, I learned not to trust those who used the "King's X." And I learned from my parents that "everyone else does it" isn't a valid excuse for my choices, not in an adult world. And I don't know that I ever floated the "they WOULD do it" argument that Senator Grassley usus in his attempt to justify the actions of himself and most of his Republican colleagues. I knew my (Republican) parents well enough to know that the "they would do it" excuse wouldn't fly (and would only elicit greater sanctions for me). My, how times change.

Well, here you have it: Grassley in 2016 and Grassley in 2020. Do you see the "King's X?"

SNGTHOUGHTS.BLOGSPOT.COM

Senator Grassley Replies re Supreme Court Nomination & My Open Response

My Letter to Colorado Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) About Filling the Ginsberg Seat Before the Next Presidential Term

 21 September 2020

Dear Senator Gardner: 

I’m writing to you about whether it would be appropriate to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ginsberg before the beginning of the next presidential term. I read in the Washington Post that “The Colorado GOP senator said in 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia died, that “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/gop-senators-who-will-decide-ginsburgs-vacancy/ & the link to the original quote in the Denver Post https://www.denverpost.com/2016/02/18/cory-gardner-hardens-stance-on-supreme-court-obama-should-not-pick/ ). I trust that the Denver Post quoted you accurately. But much more importantly, I hope that you made that statement in good faith and with a sincere belief that this was in the best interest of our republic. I know that for me and for millions of other Americans, if the Senate approves a nominee before the inauguration of a new term for President Trump or the beginning of a term for President Biden, it would be a slap in the face to we voters. Further, it would provide additional grounds for Americans to disbelieve whatever any politician says, all to the degradation of our democratic system. Also, as a lawyer, I’m deeply concerned about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  This type of midnight appointment would further cripple the esteem upon which the legitimacy and efficacy of the Court depends. 

American voters were told four years ago by Republicans that even early in an election year, they--the voters--should have a say in the selection by waiting to fill a vacancy until after the beginning of a new presidential term. Now some of your colleagues want to rob the voters of this prerogative because they fear losing power as a result of the upcoming election and hope to maintain control by ramming through a judicial nomination that will be opposed by so many. 

While many of your Republican colleagues are doing an about-face,  thereby making themselves out to be the more than just typically hypocritical, but downright craven and abject. But not all of them are supporting this rather desperate and shocking grasp at raw power (in the face of what they fear is a sinking ship). I want to point out that your colleague (and my former senator), Charles Grassley, seems to be sticking to his principles. If he continues to do so, along with Senators Collins and Murkowski, you would be in good company. Perhaps others would stand for principle. 

In the end, if you and enough of your colleagues choose the high road, it will benefit the Court, the Senate (as an institution), and yourself.  

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I will eagerly watch for your decision. 

/s/ 

Stephen N. Greenleaf

Thoughts of the Day: Monday 21 September 2020

 

Beyond the Robot

Gary Lachman

“The job of the adult is protection and care,” he felt, and “the job of all responsible human beings is the same protection and care towards the universe.”

Mastermind

Maria Konnikova

Attention is a limited resource. Paying attention to one thing necessarily comes at the expense of another.

The Fifth Discipline

Peter M. Senge

Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. As such, it is an essential cornerstone of the learning organization—the learning organization’s spiritual foundation.

Speculum Mentis

R. G. Collingwood

...an observer studying a certain form of experience often finds it impossible to give an account of it without stating certain principles and distinctions which are not actually recognized by the persons whose experience he is studying. Thus an artist constructs his work on principles which are really operative in the construction, but are not explicitly recognized by himself, in art they are implicit, to become explicit only in the criticism of art.

The Shape of Ancient Thought

Thomas McEvilley

Everything that is perceived by the senses or apprehended by the mind is relative, since sense objects “exist” in relation to the perceiving sense, and mind-objects in relation to the mind.

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

If, on the other hand, the scholar wants to transcend his own knowledge—and there is no other way to make knowledge meaningful except by transcending it—he must become very humble again and listen closely to the popular language, in which words like “totalitarianism” are daily used as political clichés and misused as catchwords, in order to re-establish contact between knowledge and understanding.

Iowa Senators Charles Grassley & Joni Ernst on Filling the Vacant Supreme Court Seat Before the Next Inauguration

 Iowans & All:

We have at issue the idea of FAIR PLAY with the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. I hope to address the issues of politics, fair play, hypocrisy, virtue, & legitimacy in a separate post. But first I want to share what I know of the positions of Iowa's two senators about attempting to fill the vacancy before the next administration, whether it be Biden or Trump 2. I'm linking to a letter that I received from Senator Grassley dated 7 March 2016 about his refusal to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the seat of Justice Scalia. As you will see from reading the Senator's letter, he provides a response based on precedent and other not-outrageous contentions. As you can see if you read my response, I didn't find those arguments persuasive, but he did attempt to provide a principled argument for his position.

Does he still adhere to his principles? It appears that he may. The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gop-senators-who-will.../) states the following about Grassley in its article regarding the position of some Republican senators about filling the seat until after the next presidential inauguration:

"Charles E. Grassley

[Senator Lindsey] Graham’s predecessor as Judiciary Committee chairman has also staked out a principled stand that would seem to preclude supporting a nominee in an election year.

Grassley, in defending the Garland gambit in 2018, cited precedent, saying that “it was very legitimate that you can’t have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents.”

Grassley also told NBC News last month that he “couldn’t move forward with it” if he were in charge of the Judiciary Committee like he was for Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees."

(Links embedded in the quote above: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/.../u-s-sen.../604730002/ & https://www.nbcnews.com/.../democrats-warn-gop-don-t-fill....)

Thus, it appears that Grassley is sticking by his principles and holds a position consistent with his actions in the Garland nomination, unlike, for instance, the blatant hypocrisy of Senator Lyndsey Graham, who offers only the tiniest figleaf of principle to in an attempt to cover his lack of manhood.

But here's the real issue: will @Grassley act on his principles? Principles look great framed on a wall or stated in a speech, but when push comes to shove, principles are worthless as tits on boar (I had to use a real Iowa farm simile) if they aren't ENACTED. One (me) always hope that Grassley, who's been in Congress since 1975 (and the Senate since 1980) and who's been held in some esteem by his colleagues, observers, and voters, would stand-up to the ire of Trump and McConnell that he will no doubt incur if acts upon his stated principles. This is my hope, my wish. I've been let down by Grassley many times, but at this stage of his career, maybe he'll start to consider his legacy, whether he acts to reduce the fever now raging in American politics or instead stand-by and watch the continued decline of American democracy.

As to

Senator Joni Ernst

the same Washington Post article I cited above about Grassley also makes note of Ernst. The article reports:

"Joni Ernst

The Iowa senator also faces a tough reelection battle this year, and despite in 2016 promoting the idea that the new president would make that pick, she said in July that she’d support voting on a nominee — even in a lame duck.

“[If] it is a lame-duck session, I would support going ahead with any hearings that we might have,” Ernst said. “And if it comes to an appointment prior to the end of the year, I would be supportive of that.”

SNG: This is not surprising. While hope springs eternal with me about Grassley, with Ernst it's perpetual winter. She speaks out both sides of her mouth on this, and she'd do cartwheels on the Senate floor if Trump and McConnell so much as gave her a stern look. She's locked in a death-match over her Senate seat currently and must do her master's bidding.

SNGTHOUGHTS.BLOGSPOT.COM

Senator Grassley Replies re Supreme Court Nomination & My Open Response

Thoughts for the Day: Sunday 20 September 2020

 

The Master and His Emissary

Iain McGilchrist

[W]e need metaphor or mythos in order to understand the world. Such myths or metaphors are not dispensable luxuries, or ‘optional extras’, still less the means of obfuscation: they are fundamental and essential to the process. We are not given the option not to choose one, and the myth we choose is important: in the absence of anything better, we revert to the metaphor or myth of the machine.

Political Order and Political Decay

Francis Fukuyama

China, as noted many times in these volumes, builds on a two-millennia-long tradition of strong centralized government and is one of the few state-level societies never to have developed an indigenous tradition of rule of law. China’s rich and complex tradition has substituted Confucian morality for formal procedural rules as a constraint on rulers.

The Culture Code

Clotaire Rapaille

Ask most people why they work and they’re likely to answer “To make money.” The Culture Code shows us that this isn’t actually true, but there is a very strong connection between work and money in this culture.

An Autobiography

R. G. Collingwood

When I speak of action, I shall be referring to that kind of action in which the agent does what he does not because he is in a certain situation, but because he knows or believes himself to be in a certain situation.

"If you are not willing to risk the usual, you will have to settle for the ordinary." – Jim Rohn

And for the deeper dive from Hannah Arendt:

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

Knowledge and understanding are not the same, but they are interrelated. Understanding is based on knowledge and knowledge cannot proceed without a preliminary, inarticulate understanding. Preliminary understanding denounces totalitarianism as tyranny and has decided that our fight against it is a fight for freedom.

. . . .

Understanding precedes and succeeds knowledge. Preliminary understanding, which is at the basis of all knowledge, and true understanding, which transcends it, have this in common: They make knowledge meaningful. Historical description and political analysis6 can never prove that there is such a thing as the nature or the essence of totalitarian government, simply because there is a nature to monarchical, republican, tyrannical, or despotic government.

Thoughts for the Day: Saturday 19 September 2020--In Memorium Justice Ginsberg

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Justice Louis Brandeis

“The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people,” and she [Ginsberg] advised people “to fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”  

--Justice Louis Brandeis & Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

A Thousand Small Sanities

Adam Gopnik

These more extreme authoritarian attacks on liberalism come in three basic kinds. Let’s call their believers for simplicity’s sake—and with the obvious understanding that they cross over and hybridize in many intricate ways—triumphalist authoritarians, theological authoritarians, and tragic authoritarians. The first attack liberal weakness; the second, liberal materialism; the last, liberal hubris.

"Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality..." ― Hannah Arendt

The Caretakers of the Cosmos

Gary Lachman

Consciousness is the bottom line reality. It is, I accept, a mystery, but it is one I have an immediate, direct awareness of – I am, in fact, immersed in it – and it is one that is inseparable from my having any experience at all.

Animal Farm & 1984

George Orwell

Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.

And for the deeper dive, from "Understanding & Politics:"

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

The originality of totalitarianism is horrible, not because some new “idea” came into the world, but because its very actions constitute a break with all our traditions; they have clearly exploded our categories of political thought and our standards for moral judgment.

Thoughts of the Day: Friday 18 September 2020

 

Man's Search for Himself

Rollo May

But another important reason for the feeling of loneliness arises from the fact that our society lays such a great emphasis on being socially accepted. It is our chief way of allaying anxiety, and our chief mark of prestige. Thus we always have to prove we are a “social success” by being forever sought after and by never being alone.

Why Liberalism Failed

Patrick J. Deneen

A succession of thinkers in subsequent decades and centuries were to build upon these three basic revolutions of thought, redefining liberty as the liberation of humans from established authority, emancipation from arbitrary culture and tradition, and the expansion of human power and dominion over nature through advancing scientific discovery and economic prosperity.

Principles

Ray Dalio

“Knowing that I could be painfully wrong and curiosity about why other smart people saw things differently prompted me to look at things through the eyes of others as well as my own. This allowed me to see many more dimensions than if I saw things just through my own eyes.”

And from the deeper look from "Understanding & Politics" from Hannah Arendt:

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

The understanding of political and historical matters, since they are so profoundly and fundamentally human, has something in common with the understanding of people: who somebody essentially is, we know only after he is dead. This is the truth of the ancient nemo ante mortem beatus esse dici potest. For mortals, the final and eternal begins only after death.

(Location 6192)

Thoughts for the Day: Thursday 16 September 2020

 

The Post-American World

Fareed Zakaria

“This isolation has left Americans quite unaware of the world beyong their borders. Americans speak few languages, know little about foreign cultures, and remain unconvinced that they need to rectify this. Americans rarely benchmark to global standards because they are sure that their way must be the best and most advanced. There is a growing gap between America's worldly business elite and cosmopolitan class, on the one hand and the majority of the American people on the other. Without real efforts to bridge it, this divide could destroy America's competitive edge and its political future.”

"The deceivers started with self-deception. Probably because of their high station and their astounding self-assurance, they were so convinced of overwhelming success..." — Hannah Arendt

Hope is stubborn. It exists in us at the cellular level and works up from there, as part of the urge to live. So hope will persist. The question is, can we put it to use? \\

--KIM STANLEY ROBINSON (cited in Homer-Dixon, Thomas. Commanding Hope (p. v). Knopf Canada. Kindle Edition.

Standing by Words

Wendell Berry

A certain awesome futurity, then, is the inescapable condition of word-giving—as it is, in fact, of all speech—for we speak into no future that we know, much less into one that we desire, but into one that is unknown. But that it is unknown requires us to be generous toward it, and requires our generosity to be full and unconditional. The unknown is the mercy and it may be the redemption of the known. The given word may come to appear to be wrong, or wrongly given. But the unknown still lies ahead of it, and so who is finally to say? If time has apparently proved it wrong, more time may prove it right. As growth has called it into question, further growth may reaffirm it.

Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic

B. Alan Wallace

Attentional balance, including the development of sustained, voluntary attention, is a crucial feature of mental health and optimal performance in any kind of meaningful activity.

And the deeper-dive quote for today, short but pungent, from Hannah Arendt:

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

Indoctrination is dangerous because it springs primarily from a perversion, not of knowledge, but of understanding. The result of understanding is meaning, which we originate in the very process of living insofar as we try to reconcile ourselves to what we do and what we suffer.