"Regardless of how one feels about Sotomayor, Thomas, or their respective views and decisions on the Supreme Court, I thought this testimonial spoke very highly of both of them.
"For one, it illustrated the power and character of lifting up others. Thomas does it by taking a genuine interest in his co-workers’ lives. Sotomayor did it, in this case, by sharing with others a side of Thomas...."
That any of this would be a subject of such a commentary shows that we're defining malignant ignorance downward - to paraphrase the late Sen. Pat Moynihan - and strength of character upward . The response to all that verbiage should be, wait for it, "SO?" - to paraphrase that ever voluble former VP Dick Cheney.
That the decency of a SCOTUS justice (or other public figure) is a decent human being is of course laudable - and I've repeatedly made this point about Justice Thomas to liberal ideologues - but it should not be so remarkable as fodder for an article. There's scads of decent human beings all throughout the ideological and jurisprudential spectrums all throughout this country.
That another SCOTUS justice (or other public figure) whose jurisprudence (or politics) opposes the former justice (or public figure) appreciates him and publicly lauds him, while also laudable, also should not be so remarkable as to provide fodder for such an article. There are scads of people throughout this country who are so magnanimous - if you want to call it that - although they'd probably consider it simply part of common integrity.
Yes, given that the mud fighting consumes so much of the media oxygen, both of the above are so remarkable as to provide fodder for such an article. And this just shows how we as a society consider so remarkable by what should be considered good but common. It's a commentary on our times.
Comprendes? I'll try not to be so jumbled. lol
As an aside, I was VERY disappointed by Fareed Zakaria's CNN special on the SCOTUS. With a steady drumbeat of dire music blasting in the background, he tried to impute a political agenda to the SCOTUS - or at least the conservative justices. He even had a sound bite of a SCOTUS reporter saying "They [the SCOTUS justices] don't even like each other." I don't know if he took her comment out of context., but my information is that they are very collegial with each other. Typically, Fareed is fair, focusing on facts and reason.
>>but it should not be so remarkable as fodder for an article. There's scads of decent human beings all throughout the ideological and jurisprudential spectrums all throughout this country.
Ah, got it. To me it was only worth a mention (the shortest topic in this piece), because of how high-profile and respectively polarizing these two public figures are. At a time when our national politics are extremely combative, I liked hearing such complimentary talk between ideological opponents.
I hope you got it that I was not disparaging you for making the "mention," but was disparaging our nation and our times for the pertinence of your "mention." It was well worth space you devoted to it, unfortunately.
"Regardless of how one feels about Sotomayor, Thomas, or their respective views and decisions on the Supreme Court, I thought this testimonial spoke very highly of both of them.
"For one, it illustrated the power and character of lifting up others. Thomas does it by taking a genuine interest in his co-workers’ lives. Sotomayor did it, in this case, by sharing with others a side of Thomas...."
That any of this would be a subject of such a commentary shows that we're defining malignant ignorance downward - to paraphrase the late Sen. Pat Moynihan - and strength of character upward . The response to all that verbiage should be, wait for it, "SO?" - to paraphrase that ever voluble former VP Dick Cheney.
What on earth Bob are you talking about? Maybe it's over my head, which wouldn't be out of the ordinary, but help us uneducated ignorant souls out.
I had to read it a couple of times myself. lol. I think his point is that those quotes shouldn't even need to be said.
But I could be wrong.
I'll try to decode this. lol.
That the decency of a SCOTUS justice (or other public figure) is a decent human being is of course laudable - and I've repeatedly made this point about Justice Thomas to liberal ideologues - but it should not be so remarkable as fodder for an article. There's scads of decent human beings all throughout the ideological and jurisprudential spectrums all throughout this country.
That another SCOTUS justice (or other public figure) whose jurisprudence (or politics) opposes the former justice (or public figure) appreciates him and publicly lauds him, while also laudable, also should not be so remarkable as to provide fodder for such an article. There are scads of people throughout this country who are so magnanimous - if you want to call it that - although they'd probably consider it simply part of common integrity.
Yes, given that the mud fighting consumes so much of the media oxygen, both of the above are so remarkable as to provide fodder for such an article. And this just shows how we as a society consider so remarkable by what should be considered good but common. It's a commentary on our times.
Comprendes? I'll try not to be so jumbled. lol
As an aside, I was VERY disappointed by Fareed Zakaria's CNN special on the SCOTUS. With a steady drumbeat of dire music blasting in the background, he tried to impute a political agenda to the SCOTUS - or at least the conservative justices. He even had a sound bite of a SCOTUS reporter saying "They [the SCOTUS justices] don't even like each other." I don't know if he took her comment out of context., but my information is that they are very collegial with each other. Typically, Fareed is fair, focusing on facts and reason.
>>but it should not be so remarkable as fodder for an article. There's scads of decent human beings all throughout the ideological and jurisprudential spectrums all throughout this country.
Ah, got it. To me it was only worth a mention (the shortest topic in this piece), because of how high-profile and respectively polarizing these two public figures are. At a time when our national politics are extremely combative, I liked hearing such complimentary talk between ideological opponents.
I hope you got it that I was not disparaging you for making the "mention," but was disparaging our nation and our times for the pertinence of your "mention." It was well worth space you devoted to it, unfortunately.
Got it. Thanks.