Boys v. Girls / Reds v. Blues / Republicans v. Democrats / Catholics v. Jews / Institutionalists v. Individualists / Don’t Let Others Immanentize The Eschatoners v. Let Others Immanentize The Eschatoners: The Great Divide At The Supreme Court Today (October 5, 2015)

. . .

L1          “Breyer is an all-pro guy, but, admit it, he is too smart to be male.  And Sotomayor was born with a plastic spoon in her mouth and is not a sustaining member of the Don’t-Let-Others-Immanentize-The-Eschaton wing of the Catholic church who dominate the Court today.”

L2          “So on one side of the great chasm are the Red Republican Catholic Institutionalist boys (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy) and on the other side are the Blue Democratic Jewish Individualist girls (Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor).  The divide could not be more clean and elegant.”

L1          “Or more stark and cavernous.  The Justices are seated by seniority but now should be seated with an aisle to divide them into two camps.  The sports announcer could chortle:  ‘In this corner, we have the Reds; in this corner, we have the Blues.’”

L2          “That would be way too honest and candid.  The big problem remains the lack of lawyers, leaders and intellectuals on the Court.  The biggest problem is that they are drawn from the worst pool of candidates – judges from the federal appellate courts who are probably the most intellectually dishonest group of lawyers.”

. . .

L1          “They are not listening to the Pope on topics ranging from global climate change to the death penalty, from the death of the planet to the death of the person.”

L2          “Or the Pope’s comments on income inequality.  Roberts and Alito are trying to outdo each other promoting business over the individual and protecting the government from the individual.”

. . .

L1          “Those in the majority claim to be Roman Catholic but do not vote or behave like the majority of Roman Catholics.  They are roman Catholics.”

L2          “Sans serifs.  Depends on the day of the week.  A Catholic on Sunday and a quasi-Catholic on the first Monday in October and thereafter.”

L2          “The opinions of the Pope are what lawyers describe as purely advisory.”

L1          “That independence of thought is not entirely undesirable.”

L2          “Accord.”

. . .

L1          “No more than three Justices from one law school.  No more than three Justices from one religion.  No more than three Justices from the WaNeBos region.”

L2          “If no more than three Justices can be confirmed who believe that we should let others immanentize the Eschaton and no more than three Justices can be confirmed who believe that we should not let others immanentize the Eschaton, how do we fill the other three slots?”

. . .

[See the e-commentary include in the “First Monday In October Series” and see The Paradox Of The Republican Federal Judge: Republican Federal Judge Syndrome (September 23, 2013) and SCOTUS on TV: “They Might Not Be Such Bastards” (March 26, 2012).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

It all comes down to one Red Republican Catholic Institutionalist guy – The Fulcrum

Pray

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: