TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful. Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions. Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind o...
Before we get too enthusiastic about this, imagine an alternate universe where Scalia were still alive and making public and disparaging statements about Clinton and her e-mail activities.
ReplyDeleteI know. I agree about the justices not making public comments about this. It's not so much that she specifically said something about Trump. It's that she apparently is generally blunt and direct and not stereotypically cowed into being a quiet, polite female.
ReplyDeleteI'd also bet that there are other people who've made comments privately or semi-privately who aren't being given headline time. She's an uppity female and known for it, so.
I mean... Scalia absolutely said harsh things about non-conservative ideas and people all the time? Was there some line he didn't cross?
ReplyDeleteBets he'd have said something about Clinton are probably sucker bets.
ReplyDeleteHave any sitting justices actually made statements like that about major candidates running for office? Most of the articles I've read have a statement to the effect of, "It's highly unusual for a justice...." which I interpret as, "We burned a couple of hours of intern-time and didn't turn up anything since FDR." (It actually wouldn't surprise me if someone could turn up examples from the 18th or 19th century, though-- politics was similar personal and nasty back then.)
ReplyDeleteI am conflicted about this to the extent that, while I believe it is her absolute political first amendment right to say that, and while I agree with the sentiment 100%, I would rather prefer a decorous court where the justices don't do things like that. The Court is the most trusted branch of government, and I think their historical aloofness is a part of the reason why.
(Also, for the record, no I don't think she needs to resign, that is insane.)
I'm a huge RBG fan...and I wish she hadn't done this. I think this article gets it about right (considering and then shooting down the arguments in favor of her speaking out):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/13/the-ginsburg-counterarguments/?postshare=1468423819987&tid=ss_tw
Yeah, you beat me to it. The extended version of his last argument (extended by me, if no one else) runs about like this:
ReplyDelete1) The number of people persuaded to vote for Clinton because Ginsburg doesn't like Trump approaches zero. Likewise the number of people who might have been persuaded to vote for Trump because Scalia didn't like Clinton. Those people are already convinced.
2) The number of people who like Trump that can get themselves (or can be gotten, with media attention) in an uproar over Ginsberg's comments is probably very large. Likewise the opposite Scalia case.
3) The practical affect of 1) is basically zero. The practical effect of 2) while possibly transient, is definitely larger but yields little practical effect other than to convince people that the court is more politicized and less trustworthy than it is. And frankly, I don't think the effect is all that transient-- it'll just sit there in the collective subconscious as one more piece of crud gumming up the works.
It just does not seem helpful, on either side, in any way.
Yeah, argument #3 (the last one in the Drezner article) is the most interesting (i.e. the ethical solecism can be justified if it means saving the Republic), and also the most purely utilitarian. And in purely utilitarian terms, it fails; it's not even close.
ReplyDelete