e-commentary

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who or some organization that really knows something about jurisprudence and the impact of courts, judges, lawyers and police on the lives and livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Someone who lives the conviction that men and women should establish and respect some norms and standards that are promulgated clearly to all and enforced equally in favor of and against all.”

J          “Someone who advances the Rule of Law and stuff like that.  I like it.  The law schools are vacant deserts of inbreeding and infighting that gestate little legal gamesters.  But they do surprise and do apparently house two dozen hundred (2400) courageous professors willing to take a public stand against an unqualified individual nominated for the Supreme Court.  And yet the bench remains a magnet for wankers who played the legal game profitably and perpetuate the game for the benefit of the judges and a few lawyers.  Is anyone qualified in America?  Is someone outside American eligible?  Give the nod again to another underappreciated and overworked public defender who somehow managed to make a difference and call it good.”

K          “We should.  Remember that they were included in the group of individuals who received the award two years ago.  The recipient of the third annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence . . . is another group . . . you got it . . . the cohort of courageous law professors willing to take a public stand against an unqualified individual nominated for the Supreme Court.  Many of them hail from the corporatist law factories such as Yale, Harvard, Chicago and Virginia and may have jeopardized their careers by taking a stand.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017)”, “First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)” and “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

e-mail to a group who shared their concerns with Senator Murky about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh written after she failed to vote “no” despite expressing some reservations:

Were we played?  Were we conned?  Were we duped?  Were we punked?  Were we chumped?

Someone said weeks ago that the only certainty in the confirmation process is that BK will be confirmed at the end of the process.  Everything else is just staged theater.  One thing and only one thing mattered to me – did Murkowtowski vote “no” on the nomination? 

Someone asked yesterday and someone else contended today that everything was just a staged show.  A comment from someone still haunts me:

          I don’t give Murkowski any credit either – she got the greenlight from her leadership to vote “no” only after it became clear that Manchin would nullify her vote.

          Collins and Flake played their usual coy act then voted straight party line as always.  Collins undoubtedly received sufficient promise of support in her next election or some other incentive, and Flake was voting for his post-office employment in the right-wing lobbying/consulting/think tank world.

In one of my seven substantive letters to her (often copied to Collins and Sullivan), the letter on August 18 concluded with a challenge:

          A few years ago, the original vote card tallying the Senate vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that passed in 1964 was displayed at a National Archives exhibit down the street from your shop.  For all time, there are check marks under “No” next to Ernest Gruening’s name and next to Wayne Morse’s name. 

Flake is as advertised.  Murkowski and Collins elected to fail.  So much for electing more women in politics and expecting a positive difference.  Same new same new.  We cannot fail not to elect them in the next go round.

This entry was posted on October 15, 2018 at 7:27 am and is filed under Noble Prize in Jurisprudence, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.