Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Finally, A Ruth Bader Ginsburg Decision I Can Support
The Supreme Court's last Golden Girl standing falls asleep during oral arguments about Texas redistricting. It's unclear whether she was really sawing the log—an artist's sketch doesn't show a curved trail of ZZZZs over her head—but one witness said she was down for about ten or fifteen minutes.
Based on their questioning, Ginsburg and other justices appear willing to let the new Texas districts stand.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Supreme Court allows Sikhs to bring daggers into school. (Things really are getting better up there.)
Last year, Jesse Walker revealed how long the SCOTUS has been sleepwalking through history.
|3.3.06 @ 10:41AM|#
You know, there's a meme that's been circulating for the last
couple of years that goes along the lines of "The Supreme Court
will reinstate and protect our civil rights."
To anyone who adhered to that idea, I'd like to just say the
following:
You got served.
|3.3.06 @ 10:49AM|#
"The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that orthodox Sikh students
could carry traditional daggers to school."
I can live with that. I draw the line, though, with the ripping out
of peoples' hearts, holding them aloft, and yelling "Kali-Ma!
Kali-MAAAAAAA!"
They should probably consider banning that at school. Or at least
hold a discussion where folks can share their concerns.
|3.3.06 @ 10:50AM|#
Imagine if Justice Scalia or Thomas had fallen asleep during oral arguments? That would've made the headlines; Jon Stewart would be all over that and other late night shows; and there'd be talk about replacing those Justices.
Stormy Dragon|3.3.06 @ 11:00AM|#
One would think she should at least recuse herself from the case, rather than rule on a matter which she's not given a proper hearing.
|3.3.06 @ 11:07AM|#
Supreme Court justices may be removed by articles of impeachment
voted by a majority of the House and conviction by a two-thirds
vote of the Senate.
The only Supreme Court justice ever to have been impeached by the
House was Samuel P. Chase in 1804. The Senate vote failed, and he
remained on the Court until his death in 1811.
|3.3.06 @ 11:07AM|#
I am pretty certain this is not the first time a SC justice has nodded off during oral arguments. And as for the "what would happen if Scalia/Thomas did this" concern, I think what would happen is that we would all hear about it and some people would make fun of it, just like happened with Ginsburg. And all things being equal, if someone is not denied a fair trial by their own lawyer falling asleep during a murder trial, I don't think one of 9 judges falling asleep raises any due process concerns either. If you allow judges to serve for life, it's bound to get ugly toward the end.
|3.3.06 @ 11:10AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy, how about a compromise - they can rip out people's hearts, and hold them aloft, but they must do so quietly. It is school, after all.
|3.3.06 @ 11:13AM|#
I love that drawing of Ginsburg with her little head down. So
cute!
What I wonder is how the rest of them stayed awake through all that
redistricting malarkey. Perhaps they've all perfected the art of
sleeping with their eyes open?
|3.3.06 @ 11:13AM|#
I love that drawing of Ginsburg with her little head down. So
cute!
What I wonder is how the rest of them stayed awake through all that
redistricting malarkey. Perhaps they've all perfected the art of
sleeping with their eyes open?
|3.3.06 @ 11:14AM|#
The Daily Show is on reruns this week. That's probably why Jon Stewart hasn't commented on it.
|3.3.06 @ 11:16AM|#
Q:
Does Canada have a mandatory "moment of silence" in their schools?
If so, perhaps the human sacrifices could be performed during that
time. Quietly, of course.
|3.3.06 @ 11:16AM|#
Perhaps they've all perfected the art of sleeping with their
eyes open?
That would explain a LOT.
|3.3.06 @ 11:16AM|#
It's kind of funny that our partisan barometer is now set by whether or not Jon Stewart weighs in on something.
|3.3.06 @ 11:22AM|#
"Perhaps they've all perfected the art of sleeping with their
eyes open?"
Per the "Simpsons", all they need to do is get glasses with "open
eyes" painted on the lenses. Don't most of those geeks wear
glasses?
|3.3.06 @ 11:24AM|#
Are we certain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still alive, and that this all isn't some "Weekend at Bernies" plot to keep Bush from nominating another one?
|3.3.06 @ 11:27AM|#
"I can live with that. I draw the line, though, with the ripping
out of peoples' hearts, holding them aloft, and yelling 'Kali-Ma!
Kali-MAAAAAAA!'"
Uh, those were Hindus rather than Sikhs.
|3.3.06 @ 11:30AM|#
"The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that orthodox Sikh students
could carry traditional daggers to school."
Lot's of things are traditional.
So do the Indian kids get to bring Tomahawks to schools and take
scalps?
Do the Druid kids get to burn people alive in wicker baskets?
Do the Aztec kids get to cut out people's hearts?
Do Italian kids get to stage Gladiator fights?
Do the Jewish kids get to stone witches?
Just asking.
|3.3.06 @ 11:45AM|#
What's funny is the other two pretending not to notice.
Justice #1 thought bubble: Is she dead?
Justice #2 thought bubble: Maybe I can sneak a feel...
KipEsquire|3.3.06 @ 11:54AM|#
"One would think she should at least recuse herself from the
case, rather than rule on a matter which she's not given a proper
hearing."
Justices aren't even required to attend oral arguments to
participate in case -- they are allowed to review the
transcripts.
Brain first, then mouth.
|3.3.06 @ 12:13PM|#
As someone who's sawed more than a few ZZZs at work, I must say I can sympathize with her. I don't know what kind of lighting they've got there in the uber-chamber, but I've found it's hard to get decent REM sleep under fluorescent lights.
|3.3.06 @ 12:15PM|#
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court or any appellate court are
just a dog and pony show. The cases are settled in writing through
the briefs. The oral arguments rarely if ever make any real
difference in the outcome of the cases. In addition, most oral
arguments are boring as hell, especially if you have read the
briefs and are already familiar with the case. While I think
Justice Ginsburg is a moonbat, I really sympathize with her on this
one. Everyone has at some point fallen asleep during some
interminable meeting.
As far as the redistricting case goes, the hypocrisy on the
Democrat's part is a new low even by their already low standards.
In 1994 when Democrats controlled the state legislature and had
their own gerrymandering scheme, Republicans received 63% of the
overall Congressional vote, yet were still a minority in the
state's congressional delegation. Rather than sure, the Republicans
actually won elections and took over the legislature and in 2003
redrew the lines to their favor. Amazingly the Democrats are now
concerned about gerrymandering. Go figure. They don't seem too
concerned about redistricting in states like Massachusetts where
Democratic legislatures have drawn districts to ensure that
Democratic representation in the Congressional delegation is much
higher than actual Democratic votes in the election. (Yes there are
a few Republicans in Massachusetts) If the Democrats prevail in
this case, let us see what they have to say when Republicans sue in
Massachusetts. I am sure it will be a political question then. Keep
the courts out of the whole thing. If you don't like the districts,
convert someone to your side and win a few elections and then you
can draw your own districts.
b-psycho|3.3.06 @ 12:36PM|#
I'm just shocked that the sketch artist was allowed to draw her asleep. Considering the current environment I half-expected there to be some obscure rule against depicting them like that.
Timothy|3.3.06 @ 12:42PM|#
Or house districts could be randomly drawn by algorithm. That might be preferable, and would solve the gerrymandering issue.
|3.3.06 @ 12:51PM|#
Meanwhile, the Canadian Supreme Court allows Sikhs to bring
daggers into school.
Good. I think it was wrong tur ban them in the first place.
|3.3.06 @ 12:59PM|#
John,
The Texas redistricting was the first one in the history of our
country when districts were redrawn without a new census being
taken. Amazing how quickly, and ignorantly, the "poor oppressed
Republicans" card comes out whenever they caught in some dirty
business.
Also, Massachusetts districts were not drawn to keep Democrats in
office. They were drawn to keep incumbants in office. The obvious
gerrymander shapes are reaching towards the Congressman's house,
not to any particular voting group.
Not sure if that's better or worse.
|3.3.06 @ 1:20PM|#
From the article:
It is one of the biggest redistricting cases the high court has
heard in years, but the special two hour argument proved less then
compelling to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who at times appeared to
be, well, asleep.
Catty, isn't that? It's not as if the justices flanking her look
look especially engrossed.
|3.3.06 @ 1:20PM|#
Stevo, glad to see you're getting back your old form. And, joe, you're not funny at all today.
|3.3.06 @ 1:22PM|#
thoreau, the "joke" that people get their news from Jon Stewart
has evolved into, "I really do get my news and opinions from Jon
Stewart". If anyone here is really doing that, I'd think long and
hard about resetting my Irony Meter to zero and starting
over.
Of course, I get my news from re-runs of The Bob
Newhart Show, but that's just me.
Speaking of Sikhs, I had two friends my senior year at UF who were
Indian. One was a Sikh, the other Parsi (Zoroastrian). The latter
couldn't believe I knew what a Zoroastrian was. Only reason I did
at the time was that I had read Gore Vidal's Creation.
Anyway, I thought the dagger thing was pretty cool. That and not
cutting your hair.
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 1:36PM|#
The Texas redistricting was the first one in the history of
our country when districts were redrawn without a new census being
taken.
Well, no.
Mid-term redistricting was frequent until the early 1960s. In
Washington, for example, Democrats trying to oust Republican
incumbents and grab more House seats redistricted in 1951, 1957,
and 1959. Even more extreme, Ohio redistricted in 1878, 1880, 1882,
1884, 1888, and 1890.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0529/p02s02-uspo.html
|3.3.06 @ 1:42PM|#
PL-
People actually rely on Jon Stewart for news?
I get all of my truthiness from the Colbert Report. And
the Onion.
|3.3.06 @ 1:49PM|#
The Onion isn't a news source, thoreau, it's an accurate predictor of future events. Like Nostradamus but in English. Of course, it's not really that funny anymore; I guess the writers are focusing all their energies on prognostication.
Tim Cavanaugh|3.3.06 @ 1:57PM|#
It's probably true that there would be more jokes from the liberal media if the sleeper had been Scalia or Thomas (unlikely, btw, since Thomas is supposed to be pretty fit), but as it happens I heard this anecdote on NPR. John's right, no-one dast blame Ginsburg for snoozing during this ridiculousness.
|3.3.06 @ 2:04PM|#
A grad student in my office proudly proclaimed that she got all
her news from "The Daily Show." She said it in that ironic way that
meant either she was kidding, or was telling the truth, but kidding
that she was proud about it.
I think alot of people look to Jon Stewart as a sort of
representative of who they are, that many people, I guess urban
leftist hipsters, and those who wish they were urban leftist
hipsters, see him as being like them, and look to him for cues on
what to believe (maybe that part is unconscious.)
In my teens I felt that way about David Letterman; I was sort of a
lonely nervous smart ass, and sort of identified with
Letterman.
|3.3.06 @ 2:07PM|#
"I love that drawing of Ginsburg with her little head down.
So cute!"
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.
|3.3.06 @ 2:07PM|#
the Canadian Supreme Court allows Sikhs to bring daggers
into school.
That's just f'in nuts. We're not talking about responsible adults
here, but 12-year-old kids. I don't think anyone here would have a
problem with a school banning weapons in general. Is there *any*
point in "religious freedom" where we can draw the line?
|3.3.06 @ 2:07PM|#
"I love that drawing of Ginsburg with her little head down.
So cute!"
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.
|3.3.06 @ 2:17PM|#
RC,
Don't confuse Joe with facts, it makes him uncomfortable. What
kills me about Joe is his complete inability to see any evil by any
Democrat under any condition. I am a Republican but I will freely
admit the Republicans redrew the lines to screw the Democrats. I
also think the Democrats do the same thing, but ultimately, if you
don't like it, do what the Republicans did and win an election and
take over the State House. Not a great system but I would rather
have that than the Supreme Court drawing the lines. Joe in contrast
honestly believes that it just happened to work out that the
Republicans were a minority in the Congressional delegation in 1994
despite getting 64% of the vote and the whole thing had nothing to
do with Democrats drawing the lines to screw the Republicans. It
was all just an incumbant thing. The depths of Joe's denial and
narrowmindedness never fails to amaze me.
|3.3.06 @ 2:19PM|#
Isaac, the way I see it, why should I wait for someone else to
make a joke about Ginsburg's nap when I can make my own.
:-D
|3.3.06 @ 2:45PM|#
Thanks for the heads up, RC. I had thought that mid-census
redistricting was unprecedented, but I guess it's just
archaic.
mediageek, that's hilarious.
John, ha ha. I know, handling a correction with class is a foreign
concept to you.
|3.3.06 @ 2:53PM|#
Just asking: I know you're just trolling, but the serious point
is that none of those other things is actually something that
religion demands you do all the time as a tenet of the faith. For
Sikhs, carrying a kirpan is one of the five commandments. A more
accurate analogy would be forbidding Jews to leave the corners of
their beards uncut, or forbidding Catholics to take
Communion.
I have a degree in Anthropology, and as part of my senior work, I
actually spent some time studying Sikhism, talking with Sikhs, and
visiting a gurdwara. I'm an agnostic myself, but if I had to choose
a religion, it would probably be Sikhism - it's relatively
egalitarian and non-hierarchical, discourages asceticism, and
emphasizes personal responsibility in standing up for yourself and
your community.
|3.3.06 @ 2:53PM|#
I am sorry to be so nasty to you Joe, but jeez everyone knows that the two parties gerrymander to screw each other. For you to claim that the Democrats don't do it as well or better than the Republicans, kind of drove me over the edge.
|3.3.06 @ 2:57PM|#
John,
I never claimed "that the Democrats don't do it as well or better
than the Republicans."
I stated that they play by the rules when gerrymandering - limiting
their greed to the scheduled redistricting - and that the
boundaries in Massachusetts are not an example of partisan
gerrymandering, but of incumbancy-protecting gerrymandering.
The leap from that to "Democrats don't gerrymander," you made by
yourself.
|3.3.06 @ 2:58PM|#
Rhywun - What the news stories don't usually tell you is that the "daggers" carried by Sikhs are usually all of about two inches long and not very sharp. They are, after all, purely ceremonial items. But that makes the story less exciting, and the reporter probably doesn't know jack about the topic he's writing about anyway.
|3.3.06 @ 3:09PM|#
the Canadian Supreme Court allows Sikhs to bring
daggers into school.
That's just f'in nuts. We're not talking about responsible adults
here, but 12-year-old kids. I don't think anyone here would have a
problem with a school banning weapons in general. Is there *any*
point in "religious freedom" where we can draw the line?
The decision hinged on two things:
1) The knife in question is about as sharp as a butter knife - i.e.
not at all. You'd have more luck hurting someone by picking up a
chunk of rock and belting them with it than with the knife in
question. The decision cited the easy availability of scissors,
sharp pencils, and similar such items on school grounds that are
not banned.
2) There has never been an incident in Canada where a Sikh student
used his kirpan to injure or threaten anyone.
Personally, though, I'm in the "f'ing nuts" camp on this one. The
knife in question may not be sharp, but AFAIK that's not a
religious requirement and the decision as written doesn't seem to
allow for the obvious "but not if it's sharp" exception. While I
think the odds of a Sikh sufficiently observant as to carry the
knife ever using it are nonexistent, it sets a stupidly dangerous
precedent.
Other things you may not be aware of: Canadian Sikhs have
successfully sued to wear turbans instead of RCMP hats in official
RCMP dress uniform, and unsuccessfully to wear turbans instead of
hardhats on construction sites.
As a Canadian who thinks that all the laws and rights
against "discrimination" in the Charter and Code are abominations
and intolerable in a free society, I'd rather see the whole issue
solved privately. Go to a private Sikh school that will let you
carry a knife. If the RCMP says "this is the dress
uniform", then suck it up. Start your own all-Sikh construction
company and wear turbans (hell, practice firewalking on the high
steel if it amuses you. Maybe if a few Sikhs get themselves killed
by falling debris they'll rethink this, or design a hardhat that
can be worn over a turban).
|3.3.06 @ 3:32PM|#
I have no problem with religious frippery in public places--in school, on the job, etc.--except when it contradicts common sense or sensible law. If the "knife" is merely decorative as you say, then fine. The sikhs recently won a case here in NYC allowing them to wear turbans while driving subway trains. I'm fine with that. But if, say, one of the more hallucinogen-friendly religions starts agitating for the right to practice one of their heightened awareness rituals while driving my train, I'd have to put my foot down.
|3.3.06 @ 3:34PM|#
Quite frankly, the fact that you flip out over kids carrying
knives is stupid.
It wasn't that long ago that I was a kid, and I carried a pocket
knife to no ill effect.
|3.3.06 @ 3:54PM|#
Strange anecdote:
A few years ago, the provincial government made it mandatory for
motorcyclists to wear helmets. This, despite the fact that most
legitimate riders already do wear them, and if someone is dumb
enough not to wear a helmet, he probably has more serious issues.
But when Sikh riders complained that they would be discriminated
against, the government actually wrote in an exemption to the law.
Course, we all know it's just a cynical attempt at raising ticket
revenue, but still, I found the message being sent amusing: we care
about your health enough to fine you, but we care more about saving
face and not offending anyone.
|3.3.06 @ 4:20PM|#
Seriously, if the Sikh daggers are dull and merely symbolic,
really, than I don't see the harm.
Just as long as they don't bring, say, brightly colored plastic toy
guns to school ... that would never be allowed.
|3.3.06 @ 4:35PM|#
Mediageek,
That's just wrong.
And I've heard of a hung jury but that justice must be filing some
huge briefs.
|3.3.06 @ 4:39PM|#
I have to concur with Mediageek. I have carried a (sharp)pocket knife since I was given one on my 10th birthday and taught how to use it.
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 4:50PM|#
Seriously, if the Sikh daggers are dull and merely symbolic,
really, than I don't see the harm.
Hell, I don't see the harm if they are razor sharp and carried with
a purpose.
There is no harm in carrying a knife. I would say the majority of
the boys carried knives to school when I was a kid. Hell, we would
hunker down in the shade at recess and touch up the edges on them,
amidst much debate about proper sharpening technique. No harm
done.
|3.3.06 @ 4:53PM|#
"Just as long as they don't bring, say, brightly colored plastic
toy guns to school ... that would never be allowed."
I wonder, did Canadians embrace the zero tolerance overkill that
Stevo is alluding to?
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Seriously, if the Sikh daggers are dull and merely symbolic,
really, than I don't see the harm.
Hell, I don't see the harm if they are razor sharp and carried with
a purpose.
There is no harm in carrying a knife. I would say the majority of
the boys carried knives to school when I was a kid. Hell, we would
hunker down in the shade at recess and touch up the edges on them,
amidst much debate about proper sharpening technique. No harm
done.
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 5:00PM|#
Seriously, if the Sikh daggers are dull and merely symbolic,
really, than I don't see the harm.
Hell, I don't see the harm if they are razor sharp and carried with
a purpose.
There is no harm in carrying a knife. I would say the majority of
the boys carried knives to school when I was a kid. Hell, we would
hunker down in the shade at recess and touch up the edges on them,
amidst much debate about proper sharpening technique. No harm
done.
|3.3.06 @ 5:20PM|#
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.
Evil!
Unrelated: I will note that Sikhs seem to have gotten a lot of
undeserved crap the last few years.
|3.3.06 @ 5:43PM|#
Oh, and incidentally, feel free to copy and distribute my little
gif as far and wide as you like.
:)
|3.3.06 @ 5:47PM|#
"What .5b doesn't know is that Deuce X is actually his long-lost older brother, Rex..."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245