Today in Supreme Court History: September 26, 1986

9/26/1986: Chief Justice Warren Burger resigns.

Chief Justice Warren Burger

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

1986 -- and it took 34 years to get a semi-sane court....

[Frank Drackman]

Can’t blame the DemoKKKrats for that, Tricky Dick appointed Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Ronaldus Maximus appointed Sandra Dee Oconnor, that’s 3 of the 7 that got us Roe v Wade, and Eisenhower appointed 2 of the others, Potter Steward and Brennan.

[Brett Bellmore]

And then Bush gave us Souter.

I really liked Reagan, (The Bushes not so much.) but I don't believe O'Connor was an accident. It took this long to get rid of Roe because the Republican establishment didn't WANT to get rid of Roe. They just didn't dare say to.

[Bob from Ohio]

There was a reckless promise to appoint a woman and O’Connor was probably best of a very small pool.

But yes, the GOP was not a pro-life party until later.

[David Nieporent]

It took this long to get rid of Roe because the Republican establishment didn’t WANT to get rid of Roe. They just didn’t dare say to.

There is, of course, zero evidence for such a conspiracy theory — but to Brett, the lack of evidence is proof of the theory!

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there's evidence for it. They were consistently picking Justices who didn't lift a finger to do that, but instead kept Roe around when it was challenged.

It's generally considered that doing something is evidence you intended to do it.

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone thought Souter would be a vote to overturn Roe. You're rewriting history.

[Life of Brian]

"Everyone" apparently excluding his primary backer NH Senator Warren Rudman, the person who, according to the alt-right WaPo, went so far as to physically restrain Souter from reaching the telephone when he wanted to withdraw his nomination after the typical shit-slinging cycle started. The article describes it thusly:

Rudman, who was pro-choice, felt strongly that abortion was in part a matter of compassion, and he believed that Souter was compassionate and would see the brutality in taking away a women’s right to choose abortion. Rudman also knew that Souter believed in the principle of not overturning Supreme Court precedents unless there was an overwhelming argument. For practical purposes, Rudman was planting a pro-choice mole on the high court.

[Sarcastr0]

That's from his memoir, it looks like. Which might be shading the truth a bit. He also kept this secret from the GOP generally.

Your pedantic quibbling does not change the underlying facts - that the GOP did not choose Souter because they secretly love abortion, and that Brett is out to lunch.

Here's a dive into the actual broad politics of Souter's nom:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/no-more-souters

[Life of Brian]

I’ll try to listen to that sometime — I typically have more eye than ear time.

But the “pedantic quibbling” thing is a bit much, I think. Believing that one particular moderate R senator who served as his handler to get him over the finish line knew that about him and absolutely nobody else in the milquetoast-tier party did beggars belief.

[Sarcastr0]

There's a transcript.

Believing that one particular moderate R senator who served as his handler to get him over the finish line knew that about him and absolutely nobody else in the milquetoast-tier party did beggars belief.

I don't see why that's so hard to believe.
OTOH we have the idea that the GOP at large was lying and secretly loved the Roe decision and chose Justices accordingly. If you ignore all the Justices they didn't choose accordingly.

You somehow find yourself defending a Brett Bellmore conspiracy theory. Pull up.

[David Nieporent]

It’s generally considered that doing something is evidence you intended to do it.

Except Trump, of course, when he called for people to fight like hell to prevent the election from being stolen. He didn't intend that people would do that, right?

They were consistently picking Justices who didn’t lift a finger to do that,

The problem is that, as usual, you substitute conspiracy theories for facts. Your claim about what they were "consistently" doing is utterly false. It actually describes just three nominees over a 9-year period O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter. Your claim ignores that in between those, Scalia and Bork were nominated, and that after those, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were nominated. (And of course, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett after them.)

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

They also declined to overturn Roe via jurisdiction stripping when they finally had a trifecta in the early 2000s.

[Magister]

They had marginal control of Congress (with not enough to defeat a filibuster in the Senate) and the presidency, so it's unlikely they could have done that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Counting down to the start of a new term. What looks interesting on the docket?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Alien v. Predator.

Or perhaps that's the elections.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is the Alien and who is the Predator?

[defaultdotxbe]

Does it matter? The tagline from the movie was "Whoever wins, we lose"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Surveys reportedly show that 5% of the population considers "violence" an acceptable means of supporting Trump. In a country of 330M, that's 16.5M so if these surveys are accurate (and I fear they are), we need to be really worried about the next 16 months...

The Dems and Never Trump RINOs have spent the past few years tossing lit matches into the tinder-dry underbrush and I think we saw in Hawaii what can happen next....

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm surprised its that low. I wonder what percentage considers violence an acceptable means of opposing Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually kind of a glaring omission when somebody does a poll asking how many people think violence is justified to put Trump into office, and avoids asking how many people think it's justified to keep him OUT of office.

This Ipsos poll from last year shows that Democrats are actually significantly more inclined than Republicans to think political violence against their foes justified. Strongly agree, 8% vs 7%, but Somewhat agree 14% vs 7%.

[Brett Bellmore]

12m Americans believe violence is justified to restore Trump to power

Unmentioned? 22M would resort to it 'to restore abortion rights', and they don't even want to talk about the number of people who think violence is justified to KEEP Trump out of power even if he did win.

[Jerry B.]

“In a country of 330M, that’s 16.5M”

Assuming that children and octogenarians will sign up to overthrow the government.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, the initial survey data didn't break down that data -- although you do point out legitimte variance.

[David Nieporent]

So, Dr. Ed notes that (unspecified) surveys supposedly reveal that 16.5 million Republicans are potential terrorists, and rather than concluding that there's something wrong with Trump and the GOP, he decides that the problem is "the Dems and Never Trump RINOs."

[Brett Bellmore]

How can it be a problem that 16.5 million Republicans are potential terrorists, and not a problem that 22 million Democrats are potential terrorists?

You can't just look at the Republican numbers in isolation, though I'll gladly say they're bad, and say, "Those awful Republicans!". And gloss over the numbers for the Democrats being worse.

JULY 2023 SURVEY REPORT:
DANGERS TO DEMOCRACY:
TRACKING DEEP DISTRUST OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS,
CONSPIRACY BELIEFS, AND SUPPORT FOR POLITICAL
VIOLENCE AMONG AMERICANS

"[The use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.] To what extent do you agree or
disagree with the following statements?"

Republicans:
3.9% strongly agree
5.6% Agree
16.7% neither agree nor disagree
33.3% Disagree
39.4% Strongly disagree.

"[The use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.] To what extent do you
agree or disagree with the following statements?"

Democrats:
9% Strongly agree
7.1% Agree
21.2% Neither agree nor disagree
27.3% Disagree
34.3% Strongly disagree.

Democratic support for violently deciding the next President is running about twice as high as Republican support, so why are we talking about Republicans being the problem?

[Voize]

You're looking at the wrong numbers.

Actual attempts this century to install a President by violence:
Republicans: 1
Democrats: 0

[Brett Bellmore]

Democrats are a doing pretty good on actual attempts to change control of government by violence, though they were no more successful; Remember the guy who tried to hand them control of Congress by killing a bunch of Republicans members?

Or does that not count, because it was the wrong branch of government?

[Sarcastr0]

You are jumping up opportunistic violence conflated with protest and not pushed by Democrats at all.

Even in this little neighborhood the folks on here talking about killings and civil war and lynchings are not the liberals. And the GOP is on board with RHouse and the insurrection and mowing down protesters if they are blocking a road.

You are rationalizing by demonizing the Democrats.

[Voize]

Democrats aren't any more responsible for the Steve Scalise shooting than Republicans are for Gabby Giffords. No political leader or party egged on those shooters, it was their own disturbed mental state combined with the superabundance of guns that led them to act.

And yes, you brought up "support for violently deciding the next President" and I responded, but since that didn't work out so well I can understand you wanting to change the topic.

[Nige]

'Or does that not count, because it was the wrong branch of government?'

Do outliers count?

[bernard11]

Ah. Steve Scalise. Brett’s go-to example of Democratic violence.

Yeah. It was bad. Did Democrats defend or encourage the shooter?

Let’s go to Wikipedia

The attack drew a bipartisan response as many politicians immediately sent out notes expressing their anger over the shooting, recovery wishes for the injured and gratitude for the police. News of the shooting and injuries quickly reached the Democratic Congressional Baseball players, who were at their own practice at another location when the shooting occurred. They gathered together in the dugout to pray for the injured. …..

Hours after the shooting, Senator Bernie Sanders responded on the U.S. Senate floor to news that Hodgkinson was a campaign volunteer for his 2016 U.S. presidential election run:

“I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign. I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be, violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American values.”

Yeah, Brett, a Democratic attempt to take control of the House through violence. Fuck you.

[Sarcastr0]

He also made up the motive. As he does.

[Magister]

Whew! I was momentarily worried that Sanders might have said "fine people on both sides" or "we love you, you're very special" which would obviously disqualify him from consideration for any elected position ever again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did they encourage the shooter? Depends on what you mean by "encourage";

Did they run full page ads asking for somebody to gun down as many members of the Republican caucus as possible, so that the Democratic party would regain the majority? No, they didn't.

Did they portray the GOP members as murderous monsters by implication worthy of being killed? Yeah, that they did. Routinely.

[Magister]

They didn't publish maps with crosshairs over Congressional districts, one of whom was later shot. They didn't extol "second amendment remedies" if their opponents win. The election denial Big Lie has ramped up threats against election officials and workers. Trump's response to his indictments has ramped up threats against judges, jurors, witnesses.

It may be that Republicans are murderous monsters, but Democrats seem more likely to call their politics "semi-fascism" rather than attack their opponents as Republicans do.

There are extremists among the followers of both parties, but only one party denounces them.
https://newrepublic.com/article/168391/political-violence-is-republicans-problem

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that it is generally expected (and accepted) that the left will resort to violence -- it is NOT expected that the right will do so as well. It's been this way for 50 years if not longer, and everything including policing is based on this misconception.

But if the right becomes violent as well, all hell will break loose because society simply isn't prepared to deal with the right adopting the tactics of the left.

I don't approve of the perverted prosecutors persecuting Trump, I think that they should be disbarred, preferably publicly, but I wish them no physical harm. But what shocked me is what they *already* are spending on security.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure why you'd be shocked by that.

While it's objectively true that the left is much more violent in the US than the right, a great deal of effort is put into obscuring that. (Fiery but mostly peaceful!) And that effort is mostly effective on the left, so, yeah, those prosecutors probably did go into this thinking that the American right were the violent side of the political spectrum.

And, really, the difference between a couple percent being willing to resort to violence, and several times that? Not really important, you're not less dead if the guy who offs you is an outlier.

[Sarcastr0]

it’s objectively true that the left is much more violent in the US than the right

Objectively!

[Brett Bellmore]

Like my channeling Somin? I'm fond of writing pastiches.

Yeah, you're the guy who denies that riots that killed dozens, caused over $2B in property damage, and involved repeated nightly attempts to burn down occupied buildings, not always unsuccessfully, represent a major amount of violence.

Just excessive exuberance, I suppose.

Nice deal that arsonist got, don't you think? Burned somebody alive, and the prosecutors managed to get him a reduced sentence on just the arson. Must be nice having both your defense AND the prosecution in your corner.

Still, at least perpetrators of left-wing violence are shunned outliers, not like they've got a massive support network within the Democratic party.

[Magister]

Nice cherry picking. Now, where are the Democratic leaders who said of these people "We love you, you're very special"?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

we need to be really worried about the next 16 months…

Fortunately for America, violence-prone culture war victims tend to be poorly educated, marginalized losers who have never accomplished much of anything in life and are neither positioned to change nor capable of altering that trajectory now.

If a few of them want to go "the full LaVoy," that would be unfortunate, but they wouldn't be missed.

[SRG2]

Is Ted Cruz suing Matt Gaetz?

[o estrangeiro]

Isso é bom.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Looks like a second "high tech lynching of an uppity Black man."

Thomas hasn't done anything Ginsberg didn't do, and Washington is awash in donor cash right now, but they are going to go after him because there are two sets of rules today.

This bifurcated justice is not going to end well and I can see SCOTUS having to rule on bifurcated justice sooner than later, and that will be interesting...

[Frank Drackman]

Burger always reminded me of Judge Smails

[SMP0328]

Chief Justice Warren Burger: created the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), then regretted having done so (Marsh v. Chambers, 1983), and would be glad it's finally been repudiated by SCOTUS (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 2022).

[SRG2]

Replacing the Lemon test with the Kennedy test is not an improvement.

The Kennedy test: does the case hinge on the asserted Christian religious conscience or exercise of one of the parties to a case? If the answer is, yes, that party wins the case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What if Coach Kennedy instead knelt in the direction of Mecca and prayed to Allah?

[Bob from Ohio]

He'd never have been disciplined.

[SRG2]

No - he'd have been run out of town.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which town? Was this a can't-keep-up backwater inhabited by obsolete clingers?

[Frank Drackman]

Since the Earth is round, can't you face in any direction and be "Facing" Mecca??

[defaultdotxbe]

There is actually some disagreement as to whether you should face the direction of Mecca as a straight line on a flat map, or use the "great circle" route like a plane would travel (which is a shorter distance on a sphere, but often results in you facing an odd direction, for example in most places in the US you would be facing Northeast)

[Brett Bellmore]

The great circle direction is always going to be the right direction, aside from having to tilt a bit as you get further. Flat maps are distorted, remember.

[Dan Schiavetta]

default:
Thanks, I didn't know that.

Another issue, I understand, concerns Ramadan, not eating during the day. How does this apply within the Arctic or Antarctic circles? One can't expect to fast for six months.

[SRG2]

Probably akin to the solution for observant Jewish astronauts who in orbit experience sunrise and sunset with alarming rapidity - one responsa said that they should abide by the timings in Jerusalem. Hence perhaps Muslim astronauts abide by the timings in Mecca.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mark 2:27!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Memory is that there are exceptions to the fast mandate — for example a pregnant woman is exempt, particularly if there is a concern she might miscarry. Likewise the sick are exempt. Memory is that there was an exemption for traveling so that might apply.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ramadan fasting in extreme latitudes

"There is no consensus on this issue of fasting in these
latitudes among the Muslim scholars, but most of the
Muslim residents of these areas practice following options
to observe fasting in the month of Ramadan based on
various Fatwa’s-clerical decree.
The first option is to follow the calendar of the nearest
country where a clear distinction can be made between
day and night. For example, many Muslim communities
settled in northern Europe follow the Ramadan timing of
Turkey, as it is the closet Islamic country to them.
The second option is to follow the timing of Mecca
or Medina with respect to timing of fast. In Alaska,
the Islamic Community Center of Anchorage, “after
consultation with scholars,” advises Muslims to follow the
fasting hours of Mecca, Islam’s holiest city.
The Dublin-based European Council for Fatwa and
Research, however, said Muslims need to follow the local
sunrise and sunset, even up north. The author strongly
disagree with this approach as God Himself says clearly
in The Holy Koran,[1] “Allah intends for you ease and
does not want to make things difficult for you” [2:185];
and “Allah does not want to place you in difficulty” [5:6]."

[SRG2]

"Why then, the case is altered"

[SMP0328]

Kennedy seems to me to be focused on whether the challenged act is perceived by the reviewing court to be coercive based on a review of American history and tradition. This test, IMO, is a mirror image of Lemon. Lemon was hostile to religion; the challenger almost always won. Kennedy seems to be very friendly to religion (not just Christianity) and so it is unlikely an Establishment Clause challenge would be successful for the foreseeable future absent a significant change in the Supreme Court’s membership.

[bernard11]

The first problem with Kennedy is that the whole case is built on lies.

[SRG2]

As was Gorsuch's decision.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Relax. That decision may have a shelf life even shorter than Dobbs'.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Matter of Disbarment of Mosely, 512 U.S. 1284 (decided September 26, 1994): Municipal judge convicted of extorting kickbacks from contractors, 810 F.2d 93 (though unlike the one time a judge shook me down, none of those victims was a broken, disabled man threatened with prison). He became a minister, and his web page mentions his criminal history. https://lawsoflifecourttv.com/fred-m-mosely-testimony/ Though he seems to stress being rejected by his peers (awww . . . ) and mentions the convictions as if it was something bad that just seemed to happen to him.

Matter of Disbarment of Cole, 512 U.S. 1285 (decided September 26, 1994): Convicted of large-scale bank fraud and money laundering, “issuance of over 82 fraudulent loans and 49 fraudulent cashier’s checks”! 989 F.2d 495.

Matter of Disbarment of Corces, 512 U.S. 1284 (decided September 26, 1994): Attorney with bright future lived the high life and borrowed client funds to pay personal bills. (As one of my law professors said, “That’s always how it starts.”) At first he paid it back. And then . . . https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1992/05/17/the-long-slide-of-charles-corces/

Matter of Disbarment of Karsch, 512 U.S. 1284 (decided September 26, 1994) and Matter of Disbarment of Meyer, 512 U.S. 1284 (decided September 26, 1994): These attorneys were disbarred for their non-attorney acts, in this case as CEO and Treasurer of a supermarket chain which defrauded manufactures via fraudulent coupons (give them credit for creativity), 197 A.D.2d 262, 200 A.D.2d 17

[SRG2]

He became a minister

One wonders how sincere his, er, conviction is.

[Dan Schiavetta]

today’s movie review: Volunteers, 1985

“In the spring of 1851, as the Ojibway near Lac Malheur were preparing to cede vast tracts to the government, several chiefs who smelled the deal coming had decided to sell out early to Bayfield’s group of Yankee investors who they met two years before on a buffalo deal. The chiefs didn’t like the looks of the federal agents who came to parley. They were big hearty men who clapped the Ojibway on the shoulders and told them how they, the agents, considered themselves deep down to be really Indians at heart and, when questioned about the value of the paper they offered in exchange for land, were hurt. ‘We are your friends,’ they told the Ojibway, tears welling up in their eyes. ‘We go back to Washington and defend you to the Great Father and make the very best treaty that we possibly can for you–and now you question our honesty! We are deeply offended. Very deeply offended.’ Most of the chiefs much preferred Bayfield who never claimed to be interested in anything but making a pile and who came to meet them in an immense canoe paddled by fourteen French-Canadians, and offered three times the agents’ best price plus a large gift for signing, a walnut dresser with three drawers and an oval mirror, brand new. In the fall, three Ojibway chiefs signed with his New Albion Land Company, for the sale of almost five hundred square miles, including the present site of Lake Wobegon. The sale was opposed by the agents, who felt it could lead to a bidding war, with wealthy Eastern oligarchs tempting the Ojibway with large sums and purchasing vast lands for the pleasure and profit of the few. Minnesota should be opened up to the common man, they said, and should be settled on the basis of equal opportunity, not on the ability to pay. So the deal with Bayfield was cancelled by a squad of soldiers from Fort Snelling, the Ojibway received the standard 3 cents per acre from the government for the Albion tract, which the government gave in 1852 to the Albion Land Company. The Indians didn’t hold a grudge against the Yankees for making the best deal they could, though, and during the ‘Sioux Uprising’ of 1862, when Little Crow’s band was eliminating white settlers wherever they could be found, in New Albion the Indians only took thirty-four hostages and redeemed them later for cash. Bayfield’s son James bargained hard for the hostages, which included his two young daughters and several elderly aunts, finally talking the Indians down to $35 per head, $20 for children under sixteen.”

This bit of (barely fictional) Minnesota history is from Garrison Keillor’s masterpiece “Lake Wobegon Days”. People sent to “help” other cultures are often phony, or in fact serving greedy interests back home, or at best close-minded. It’s a pleasure to see such people come to their senses and adapt. One example is Pastor Cobbett (Barry Jones) in the Gary Cooper movie Return to Paradise, 1953, who enforces Puritan uptightness (and clothing) on South Sea natives and thinks poorly of Cooper as a shipwrecked sailor. Late in the movie, Cooper returns and to his surprise Cobbett shakes his hand warmly. He’s loosened up and the natives have come to like him, though by then he’s an old man and they’re actually protective of him. Also in Hawaii, 1960, the Max von Sydow character, similarly oppressive, realizes (though it’s far too late) that his evangelization was just a cover for corporate sugar interests who impose economic slavery.

These things must have been on the minds of the people like Walter Reuther and JFK in the creation of the Peace Corps, and the thousands of volunteers who went out into the Third World, friendly countries and unstable ones. Their objectives were education, health, infrastructure. It was important that they not foment revolution or spy — or be seen as such. There was, of course, some culture shock on the part of the volunteers and on the part of the natives. But it was important that we adapt, and not alienate people. Naturally there were people on the Communist left who said these young folks were really spies (laughable — how good a spy can a 21-year-old Biology major be?). And people on the right spread stories about volunteers barging into tribal societies uninformed, building inappropriate projects and mangling the local language. These folks were uninformed themselves and their own solutions to Third World problems (when they cared to propose any) inevitably were “free market” ideas which on examination only served to line the pockets of corporate interests.

I say “we” because I was part of VISTA, the domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps. This was in 1980 – 1981 and we were inspired by Jimmy Carter, whose mother had been a PC volunteer in Guatamala (I think). I knew some people who had been in the PC and they all had positive things to say, though adding “nice people there, but they’re stuck in horrible circumstances”. I didn’t have the nerve to go in for the three year PC commitment, and my own travels had been only within the New York area, so I signed up for the one-year VISTA tour. Both the PC and VISTA were careful not to put their volunteers in situations of physical danger, and my initial assignment (to a crisis center in the Midwest) was canceled when someone brought a gun into the place and started shooting people (one died). Instead I was assigned as the first male staff member of a women’s crisis center in a poor part of the South.

If anyone plunged into a situation uninformed, it was me, racing around when a crisis call came in, writing notes to the person on the phone, like we did at the college hotline. I pissed people off with my “superior” attitude. Most of the other staff were uneducated, poor, Southern black women. There was no point of contact. But I thought of the Gary Cooper movie and gradually loosened up and got close to people. I still visit that area, and a few years ago I “gave away” the daughter of my former co-worker at her wedding.

Like the Legal Services Corporation, and any other agency which tried to give poor people a fair fight in an world controlled by rich people, the PC and VISTA were eviscerated under Reagan. Stupidly and recklessly, he nominated a former CIA agent to run the parent agency. (Fortunately, when it was pointed out that this would put every PC volunteer around the globe in physical danger, he withdrew the nomination.)

Which brings me to this sour, cynical movie. In 1962 a rich kid running away from a gambling debt (Tom Hanks) gets onto a plane of PC volunteers and finds himself in Indochina with a sincere PC volunteer (Rita Wilson) whose big project is building a bridge. She mangles the language (explaining to one local family that she wants to “kill” them) and there is no point to the bridge. Meanwhile the Hanks character improbably walks around in a white tuxedo, gets along great with the natives (a la Keillor’s Bayfield, I suppose) and at no point is taken for a spy or a shill for American corporate interests. In the end the Wilson character repents of her “idealism” and there is a fixed-up conclusion where Hanks makes some kind of minimal concession and they end up together.

In an early scene on the plane, the PC volunteers group-sing “Michael Row the Boat Ashore”. The movie treats this as a joke. But this kind of thing really did happen. That song was a motivator of the Civil Rights era. I still get choked up thinking of that era of idealism, an idealism which brought real results, when religion was a good influence instead of a bad. This movie can be seen as a counterpart to the good-natured idealism of yesterday’s movie, Lilies of the Field. It’s probably no coincidence that that movie came out in the Kennedy years, while Volunteers came out in the Reagan years. I can add that in the movie the local PC director is a CIA agent. This movie was about as uninformed as Reagan was himself.

There is one good thing about Volunteers — John Candy, who was usually the best thing in any movie he was in. He’s totally committed to the PC project (he moves in on everyone, shaking hands and saying “I’m Tom Tuttle from Tacoma, Washington”) but when he’s captured by the Communists he gets just as indoctrinated. The only funny scene is him marching in place in fatigues (twice as big as the small-statured Asians around him) and spouting Communist dogma to such an extent that even his commandant rolls his eyes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sour, cynical movie"

Your worst take.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Speaking of "sour" and "cynical". . . you contribute nothing. Muted.

[Mr. Bumble]

New screen name: captmuted.

[Bob from Ohio]

"white tuxedo"

Its a dinner jacket, Lawrence Bourne III would not wear a white tuxedo.

[Frank Drackman]

Dewey Oxburger: My name's Dewey Oxburger. My friends call me Ox. You might have noticed that, uh, I've got a slight weight problem.
Soldiers: Nooo! Noooo!
Dewey Oxburger: Yeah, yeah I do. Yeah, I do. I went to this doctor. Well, he told me I swallow a lot of aggression... along with a lot of pizzas! Ha Ha Ha! Pizzas! I'm basically a shy person, I'm a shy guy. Uh, he suggested taking one these uh, aggression training courses. You know these aggression training courses like EST, those type of things. Anyway, it cost 400 bucks! 400 bucks to join this thing? Well I didn't have the money and I thought to myself, "Join the army"! It's free. So I figured while I'm here I'll lose a few pounds. And you got what, a 6 to 8 week training program here? A real tough one. Which is perfect for me.
[Looks around at all the soldiers and gestures emphatically]
Dewey Oxburger: I'm going to walk out of here a Lean, Mean, Fightin' Machine! Ha ha ha ha!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Much better is our introduction to the Cruiser and Francis:

Cruiser: My name's Howard J. Turkstra. I'm from Kansas City.

My hobbies are fast cars and fast women.

Because . . . That's why guys in my car club call me "The Cruiser."

Dewey Oxburger: Shoulda called him "The Dork."

Sgt. Hulka: Knock it off! . . . . . Go ahead . . .

Cruiser: I joined the Army because my father and my brother were in the Army. I thought I'd better join before I got drafted.

Sgt. Hulka [after a period of reflection]: Son, there ain't no draft no more.

Cruiser: There . . . was one?

Francis: What a jerk!

Sgt. Hulka (pointing at Psycho): Next!

Francis: The name's Francis Soyer. But everybody calls me Psycho.

Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.

And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you.

Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you . . . homos . . . touch me, and I'll kill you.

Sgt. Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

You're all in this together! [moving toward Francis, getting in Francis' face] One of these men may save your life one of these days, understand?

John Winger: Then again, maybe one of us won't.

Cruiser and Francis, obviously, are now huge Volokh Conspiracy fans.

[Ridgeway]

Lighten up, Arthur

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can't get much better than a Bill Murray-Harold Ramis-John Candy-Warren Oates movie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"there were people on the Communist left who said these young folks were really spies (laughable — how good a spy can a 21-year-old Biology major be?)."

You'd be surprised....

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

mmmm... Burger

[SRG2]

Shortest internet-winning post for a very long time. 🙂

[Magister]

Burger, Frankfurter (with or without mustard), Lemon test - Supreme Court history sounds tasty. Maybe a Pot[ter] of Stew[art], or some Campbell's soup, and Breyer's ice cream. Alas, no Justice Pilsner, but there are several Beer v. United States cases.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, a billionaire just "awarded" her a $1 million "prize".

[Dr. Ed 2]

While it's history is tragically different, rich folk bought the Lorraine Motel and funded its conversion into a museum honoring the late Dr MLK2. Likewise, rich folk in the mid 20th Century bought Paul Revere's house and preserved it. A whole bunch of rich folk funded a foundation that bought up all the land around Walden Pond to prevent it from being developed in the 1980s. And Arcadia National Park was built by rich folks a century ago and donated to the government.

We wouldn't have historic preservation if it weren't for rich people spending lots of money on it. And lots of childhood homes have been preserved, at least in part, with donor money. Natick, MA has the preserved home of Henry Wilson, who was US Grant's VP.

A billionaire thought Thomas a historic enough figure to preserve the house -- it's his money...

[Dr. Ed 2]

You honestly believe that SCOTUS won't rule on any aspect of the Trump indictments this term?

Really???

[Frank Drackman]

Read the whole sentence Bee-Otch

[Brett Bellmore]

Frank, I read the whole sentence, and while Burger, Blackmun, and Powell were part of the Roe Court, you could have phrased that a bit clearer, so I can understand Queenie's confusion.

[not guilty]

How, do you surmise, would any aspect of the Trump indictments reach SCOTUS during the upcoming term? As to what issue(s) would post-verdict review be inadequate?

[o estrangeiro]

Just? She's been dead for a while, you know.

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg donated $1 million winnings to more than 60 charities with the winnings of the 2019 Berggruen."

Of course, Thomas's prize winnings have been donated to the Clarence Thomas Foundation For the Enhancement of Supreme Court Justices' Lifestyles.

"The Berggruen Prize Jury today announced its selection of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States as the winner of the 2019 Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture."

It's not clear to me that the prize was awarded by a billionaire responsible for the foundation. Perhaps you are more familiar with the foundation's workings than am I. é certo?