The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
SLOTUS, Juicing Up the BAIZUO Vote, and Common Sense from the ECONOMIST Magazine (!)
🔊 Listen
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
theecon

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The fuss over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh having allegedly copped a feel from a high-school girl 35 or 36 years ago blew up just after last week’s Radio Derb went to tape. My own first reaction, when I first heard the accuser’s account of what happened, was: “They’re making a fuss about that?” But over and above the particular issue of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, there is a meta-issue. Why are Supreme Court nominations now such central events in our country’s political life?

About my first reaction: We really have bred up a generation of snowflakes; and snowflakery is such an appealing approach to life for some elements of previous generations—in this case, the generation of Kavanaugh and his accuser, which I think classifies as late-Boomer or early-Gen-X—trembling, fearful snowflakery is so appealing to some of these folk, they’ve retconned their own lives to incorporate it.

I can certainly testify that for my generation, the earliest Boomers, the encounter as alleged would not have moved the needle on anybody’s outrage dial. For one thing, a 15-year-old girl attending a house party with no adults present and booze flowing, would have been assumed to be a bit sluttish, so that the normal reserve and respect we accorded to all females would have been diminished somewhat. No, not abandoned, but diminished.

For another thing, I definitely—actually, quite vividly—recall that in my own teen years, my female coevals had sharp little fists that could give you a nasty black eye if you got out of line. Presumably teenage girls suffered some collective atrophy of the muscles in the twenty years between my house-partying and Brett Kavanaugh’s, leaving them defenseless against giggling drunk 17-year-old males trying to grope them.

That was my first reaction. My second reaction: Democrats really know how to play politics, while Republicans really don’t.

The Democrats’ political aim here is to juice up the baizuo vote. Baizuo is a loan-word from Chinese, literally “white left.” It’s used by Chinese bloggers to make fun of our Social Justice Warriors, whom they regard with somewhat baffled amusement. Baizuo has two less syllables than “SJW,” so I use it in a spirit of syllabic conservation.

Mid-term elections are coming up November 6th, six weeks next Tuesday, and Democrats want to energize their base, the baizuo. The most numerous cohort in the baizuo is women; so what better way to energize them than with a sexual-assault scandal, however minute and implausible? That’s really the beginning and end of it; that’s what this business is all about.

As I said, though, I’m impressed with the skill of the Democrats here, especially the timing. It’s really been pretty darn clever.

The Republicans, contrariwise, reveal themselves once again to be the Hopeless Party. Far from being any good at the political game, they’re hardly even bothering to play it. “Well, of course, in all fairness, we have to listen to what she has to say,” they are murmuring.

No, actually you don’t. An out-of-the-blue accusation with no supporting evidence, timed for maximum disruption, against a man who has already been background-checked up the wazoo? The correct response by the Judiciary Committee would have been: “With all proper respect, Ma’am, if you believe you have been wronged, the law has remedies. By all means go ahead and seek those remedies. Meanwhile, we shall proceed with our hearings, as prescribed by the Constitution.”

There is no escaping politics, of course. Still, formal constitutional proceedings should be conducted with a firm dignity and dispatch. They should not allow themselves to be derailed by such transparently political stunts as this one. Does no-one in the Republican Party understand this?

So, the meta-issue: Why are Supreme Court nominations now so important?

We all know the answer to that. SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States, has become SLOTUS, the Supreme Legislature of the United States. We look to the Supremes to make our laws. The great transformations in our national life these past few decades—the national legalizing of abortionand buggery, racial preferences, public services for illegal aliens, the radical re-definition of marriage—were effected by the Court, not by Congress.

The foremost characteristic of American government in our age is in fact the utter uselessness of Congress. If the U.S. Capitol fell into a vast sinkhole while Congress was in session, would the national life be changed in any way? For the worse, I mean—hey, come on.

The latest estimate I have seen for the money cost of the wars fought by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama is 5.6 trillion dollars. That’s a mighty lot of dollars. Yet Congress never declared war on anyone, as the Constitution says it should.

Nearly two years ago we elected a president whose signature campaign promise, enjoying very wide public support, was to build a wall along our southern border. Has Congress approved federal funds for that, as the Constitution says they should? Nah. The Senate Majority Leader, stifling a yawn, has said they might do some talking about it after the coming mid-term elections…maybe…possibly…you know, if there’s room in the schedule.

I’m reminded of the late Irish comedian Dermot Kelly, when an interviewer asked him whether the Irish language had any expression equivalent to the Mexican Eh, mañana. “Why, to be sure,” replied Kelly, “we do have such a term; but it doesn’t carry quite the same sense of desperate urgency.”

Congress is a waste of space. Serious legislating is done by the Supreme Court, by SLOTUS. That’s why it’s so all-fired important.

Yet this is not what the Founders intended. The September 15th issue of The Economist laid this out in a brilliant and forceful leader.

ORDER IT NOW

Yes, yes, I know: The Economist, cucky globalist Trump-hating open-borders flapdoodle…I have made regular contributions to our feature called “Economist Watch” here at VDARE.com, jeering at The Economist. Yes, yes; but stopped clocks and so on—sometimes they get things right, and they got this right:

The judiciary, wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 78, “may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment … [It] is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” For much of American history, politicians saw the Supreme Court as a backwater. John Rutledge, one of the first justices appointed by George Washington, resigned to become chief justice of South Carolina. Not until 1935 did the court have a building of its own. Today it occupies a central and increasingly untenable position in American life …

The centrality stems largely from gridlock. As Congress has grown incapable of passing laws involving even straightforward political trade-offs, power has flowed to the executive and judicial branches. Political questions best settled by the ballot box—about abortion, for instance, or gay marriage—have become legal ones settled by nine unelected judges.

America’s highest court needs term limits | Deepening partisanship is bad for the court and bad for America,September 15, 2018

The Economist suggests some sensible reforms, term limits and the like, then concludes with this, quote:

What better way for Americans to start finding a path back towards civil politics than reminding themselves that bipartisan institutional reform remains possible?

That’s very nice and upbeat—very Economist, in fact—but isbipartisan institutional reform possible?

I have this mental image of an automobile that drastically overheated, the pistons welded into the cylinders; and the guy from The Economist pulls over to help, and says: “First thing you need to do is drive it off the road …”

Institutional reform requires Congress to do something. There’s your problem right there.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Republican Party, Supreme Court 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, but it’s not “so all-fired important,” at least in the sense intended by Mr. Derbyshire. Like the “federal” elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court, aren’t these nailbiting confirmation hearings part of the show that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in Washington?

    I’m still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other “foreign policy” waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment’s shepherding and fleecing of the people.

    Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to time in a dissenting Justice’s opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y.

    So before investing much in the critical importance of a Justice Kavanaugh, think back on Justice Roberts and his vote to sustain the Affordable Care Act. Or reflect on how the Court has declined to vindicate free speech when presented with challenges to the Patriot Act, etc.

    Puppet show.

  2. Us chinese hate you british people so stop buttering us you moron ,we dont want anything to do with inferiors, go get close to the koreans mongols japas

    • Replies: @joe webb
    , @Wizard of Oz
  3. I understand that James Wilson, who got the Supreme Court through the Convention, envisioned a quite powerful court, with him as chief (he was ultimately just an associate justice).

    It is a mistake to take Hamilton and the other Federaiist propagandists at face value, and it has been somewhat a tragedy that their pronouncements have been treated as definitive on the intent of the Constitution, since they were the proponents of a big government being sold to a people who generally did. it want it.

  4. J says: • Website

    This affair is a fantastically well played political maneuver that may disrupt the functioning of US government. So good that Putin may have organized it. Do what they may do, there is no way to escape blameless. One hour after the thing was made public, the police should have made a lighting investigation to clear up Kavanaugh’s name. The woman should be in jail for slandering a judge.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  5. buckwheat says:

    In todays climate the Supreme Court is the most equal of the supposedly equal branches. But don’t worry the democrats will find more willing women to add their claims of being violated by Mr. Kavanaugh. They will not tolerate having another conservative on the court. Whoever Trump nominates somewhere somehow he will have to face the same foolishness and with a GOP that lacks the balls to fight back he is doomed.

  6. llloyd says: • Website

    No one seems to have noticed that these alleged sexual attacks happened in the last years 1981-2 pre AIDs era. If you look at the high school year book of the first accuser, that year was full of debauchery and drunkeness. It was a select school where all outside school authority appeared to have been lost. That was a lead in to same scene in Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman year.These were adolescent sexual initiations, now achronistically part of Me Too era.

  7. joe webb says:

    The Kavanaugh Hearings will become the recognized Commencement of the Second American Civil War. This does not mean shooting right away, but it is coming.

    —-In an earlier post I described the Third World Armies of the Night, and …

    I neglected to mention the other prominent Jew…Senator Feinstein, and the Asian Tiger Lady from Hawaii, Hirono, who has told men to get lost., especially white men. These ethnic racist minorities are the Enemies of Whites. They have taken over the Dem Party.

    If they come to power, like winning the mid-terms, the fat is into the fire. They will outlaw hate speech, like Europe has done. They will outlaw guns. If they come for your guns, prepare to die for your freedoms, especially if you are old. Spare your children from this responsibility.

    Nobody knows what civil war will look like in a modern centralized state. A guess as to what starts it would be an attack by antifas and blacks on a Trump rally. Another possibility would be the same antifas and Blacks attacking college conservative students.

    Or, recognized leaders of the racial right could come under physical attack since many have been doxed, their addresses published, etc.

    The Democrat Party is basically a terrorist organization. Accept this, think about it. The Dem monsters that call themselves Senators….amazing. They are terrorists, murderers, plotters to destroy Trump, etc. They are the most dangerous thing that I have ever seen In my half-century of awareness as an adult, both as a leftish type, and now as a raciialist.

    The Black Revolution of the 1960s never took on the character of today…not even close. Of course, those old revolutionaries are now staffing the offices of the Dems. Whites are only about 60% of the US population, and our birthrate does not keep up with the Blacks ands Browns and other Third World coloreds who hate us. The reason they hate us is that we are the Best race and they have no chance of besting us. Except the Chinese, of course…not in civility and “humanity’, but in technical skills. They are the largest long term peril…yes yellow.

    The Liberal holdouts like Tucker Carlson and Fox News…yes liberal, in the sense of classical liberalism and anti-racism. The minority racists are laughing at Tucker Carlson. They are totally racist, and grin at Tucker, like Kamila Harris , the Black Senator from California.

    He does not know the score. The Score is Race, race, race. As I listen now to Hannity, he talks about the Democratic Playbook…that we just saw today in the Kavanaugh Affair…..Hannity is a kind of Libertarian…totally out to lunch, munching on the Free Speech, etc. rules. The Revolution does not believe in Free Speech. The cry today is No Free Speech for Racists. Nazi, nazi, even Tucker said something a few weeks ago about wanting to punch a nazi.

    Hannity still plays fair, Tucker, et al, all play fair. The Revolution does not play fair … by classical liberal rules. The Carlson/Hannity folks must know about the Jew Saul Alinsky. They don’t bring up his name…all these mob actions of terrorizing conservatives at cafes, and so on, were promoted by Alinsky. By Any Means Necessary. Alinsky was a 60s red Jew radical who inspired the most extreme of the 60s crazies, mostly jews, like the Weather Underground.

    I add here … …take a look at this Senator from New Jersey, Booker, the Black guy. Amazing mau-mauer.

    Today is the Day that the Line was trampled by the Left. That line is Fairness/Rationality/Free Speech. Transgression is the Name of the Left. Political violence is coming.
    As I said initially, whether Kavanaugh is voted up to the Supreme Court, or not. It is all over for the Liberal Order. Tucker does not get it.

    Joe Webb

  8. joe webb says:
    @britishbrainsize1325cclol

    “We” Chinese…grammar… for your edification, Perilous Boy.

  9. @britishbrainsize1325cclol

    Having a multiracial extended family I notice the kind of trolling silliness you repeatedly engage in and wish you would stop trying to make the estimable Chinese people look stupid and ill mannered. I like to think they are going to help Australia avoid the degeneration (relative to the possible) that I see Europe and the US heading for.

  10. @J

    “should have been in jail for slandering a judge”. Under what legislation or court made rule could that happen? Apart from the question of speed to judgment, is not US law substantially lacking in the rest of the Common Law world’s contempt of court rules?

  11. The most numerous cohort in the baizuo is women; so what better way to energize them than with a sexual-assault scandal, however minute and implausible? That’s really the beginning and end of it; that’s what this business is all about.

    Substitute “Wikileaks supporter base” for “baizuo“, and you have my explanation for why a false accusation of sexual assault was used to attempt to ruin Julian Assange (and by extension, Wikileaks: the halfwits that man the US security-theatre grift think the real world is a 1950s Western, and that entire organisations fall over if you get rid of the guy with the biggest head-dress).

    There is a case for making the set theory argument a bit more robust, though.

    It doesn’t matter that women are more numerous among the baizuo: it matters that they are more easily manipulated by allegations of sexual impropriety (including things like kiddie porn). Because nurturing maybe, or just how chicks are wired.

    They are also over-represented in the subset of ‘follower’ types who latch onto a cause to virtue-signal, and whose support is the least reliable.

    Largest emotionally-manipulable cohort is unwieldy (and sexist – I’m Hitler for saying it)… but it’s far more accurate.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  12. @Kratoklastes

    Oh, and P.S. Derb’s analysis of “Married With Children” (in the slutty link) is spot-on: MWC was a paean to the now-abandoned practice of the lower classes to get on with life, even after the bloom is off the rose, the scales have fallen from their eyes, and they have put away chidish things.

    Having been disabused of any rosy notions like the “American Dream”, Al and Peg do not abandon their marriage – and there’s no pretence that it’s done for pseudo-noble motives (e.g., staying together for the children).

    My favourite thing about the Bundy family is that there is no virtue signalling of any sort (except ironically – e.g., Steve and Marcie Rhoades). No gravitas: in fact the opposite.

    If I was conspiracy-minded I could be convinced that “They” promulgated MWC in order to show the bottom 50% of white folks how to conduct themselves: be miserable, but be mostly-honest, and no menace whatsoever to power structures.

    Compared to MWC, The Simpsons is syrupy, saccharine, sentimental drivel in which the only family members who get to have japes are the males, and the females are cerebral, nurturing, and risk-averse. (Contrast The Simpsons with more-recently-developed derivatives, like “Family Guy” and especially “American Dad” – both still somewhat mawkish, but a vast improvement nonetheless).

    MWC even improved on The Honeymooners, by having female characters who were not just props for the men on the show.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS