Fresh Air on NPR. Yeah, seriously. I know, it's hard to believe.

[kizmet-42.livejournal.com]

Coming home from a funeral visit to the Hoosier State today, I spent most of the time in the car (ok, transporting food and beverages from rest stop to rest stop along I-80) listening to NPR. Talk of the Nation, I love you but you were mostly boring today... except for a few commercial breaks about today's edition of Fresh Air.

Yeah, that one, with Terry Gross.

There are not words for how much I dislike that journalist [wordless]. She will literally believe anything anyone tells her as long as it fits her view of reality, ie - hating on the right. Fortunately, she was off and her sub interviewed Laurence Goldstone, a Constitutional scholar and author of the book Inherently Inequal, a study of 19th century Supreme Court decisions that undermined the 14th and 15th Amendments. Goldstone is not in any way a conservative, based on this interview. But the concluding quotation was amazing:

Fresh Air: Are there not times when there is a value to going back to the original words because, after all, laws are words, words have meaning, and are there cases where there’s a value in saying have we not created some kind of legal superstructure that really takes us far beyond the intent of the original laws?

Laurence Goldstone, author: I agree completely. This is a continuum, this isn’t a question of two absolutes. This isn’t a question of you either follow the Constitution absolutely positively, immutably, or you throw the Constitution away and just decide what you think. There are cases, most cases of course, where the justice will to go to the Constitution or a statute and say “this is what the statute means.” My problem is this - people anointing themselves, saying “I am the only authority.” When, in fact, every judge is an activist; they are doing their best (we hope they are doing their best) to interpret the law in the way they think is the most objective. Now in practice, of course, it tends to be more subjective.

But the idea that nine justices of varying political persuasions are getting together in a room and one of them is saying I think the Constitution means this and the other one says I think it means that, and coming to a majority vote. I think that’s just fine. The issue is not whether or not we throw the Constitution out, of course, we shouldn’t. And the issue is not whether or not we simply make laws out of the air because we like the social import of them. No, we shouldn’t do that either. But we should also recognize that people who read the Constitution differently than we do are not necessarily subverting the law, but are simply seeing the law in a different way than do we. And I believe that if we could start doing at that, and start looking at views counter to our own, in some reasonable way and not just assume some nefarious motives by people who disagree with us, we might be farther along in the country right now.

This is the civility we need to be reaching for, not some "you're saying bad words" tattling.

If you're interested in the link, however it pains me to link to Fresh Air, here you go.

Comments

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Thank Goodness she was out, and we had some truth, today.

Yeah, I've seen Gross in action, call me "Grossed Out." Hey, I made a pun. Heh.

I don't disagree with the author, either, but, unfortunately, we're dealing with people who think, "it's an old piece of paper, so what do we need it for?" It's a weird present tense issue with them, to say the least.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

The civility of wearing blinders? No thanks.

[kizmet-42.livejournal.com]

How is it wearing blinders to not assume that someone who disagrees with you is an evil idiot?

[izuko.livejournal.com]

The blinders are in assuming that no one who disagrees with you is an evil idiot.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more about Terry Gross. I used to love her when I first started listening to NPR in about the 90s. Little by little I started hearing the condescension and sometimes outright hostility toward people who didn't share her liberal views. For a long time I thought I was just imagining it. I wish I could recall the exact point where I realized she was doing this on purpose. Now I cannot even hear her voice without changing the station!

***

I'm a bit lost on what this guy is saying, though. First he says, My problem is this - people anointing themselves, saying “I am the only authority.”

I agree there. But he seems to be contradicting his prior statement here:

But the idea that nine justices of varying political persuasions are getting together in a room and one of them is saying I think the Constitution means this and the other one says I think it means that, and coming to a majority vote. I think that’s just fine.

The Constitution is very clear in its wording. You don't get a bunch of people and just vote on what they think it says. Words mean something!

And here, he contradicts himself in the same paragraph:

The issue is not whether or not we throw the Constitution out, of course, we shouldn’t. And the issue is not whether or not we simply make laws out of the air because we like the social import of them. No, we shouldn’t do that either.

He says "either", as though these are two separate things. If you set the Constitution aside, then you will be making laws out of the air. I don't understand his point in this particular bit.

And then here, he does exactly what he just said he does not want to do:

But we should also recognize that people who read the Constitution differently than we do are not necessarily subverting the law, but are simply seeing the law in a different way than do we.

We have this idea that words can mean whatever we think they mean. As I said above, the writers of the Constitution were extremely particular about the way they worded things, so that it would be very clear and understandable. This modern idea of "words can mean whatever you want" would have been foreign to them.

And I believe that if we could start doing at that, and start looking at views counter to our own, in some reasonable way and not just assume some nefarious motives by people who disagree with us, we might be farther along in the country right now.

This is a very naive view. Sometimes people do have nefarious motives in wanting to change the Constitution or other laws.

I'm guessing he wouldn't be so "reasonable" with me, a person who holds the view that the Constitution means exactly what it says, because words are very important and they mean certain things, and not others.

Silly Rabbit, Civility is for Other People

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

"But we should also recognize that people who read the Constitution differently than we do are not necessarily subverting the law, but are simply seeing the law in a different way than do we. And I believe that if we could start doing at that, and start looking at views counter to our own, in some reasonable way and not just assume some nefarious motives by people who disagree with us, we might be farther along in the country right now."

I would not take heart too quickly. Remember when organizing to protest the Federal Gummint was patriotic? This is not advice for his own. Most likely that the regular listners are nodding and saying, if only those benighted rethuglicans would realize this when they scream bloody murder about a DC court deciding that the Commerce Clause applies to both what people purchase across state lines, and what they chose NOT to purchase. (I am, sadly, not making this up) they should instead just be reasonable.

(edited because I hit "post" too quickly. Sorry!

[scarletwool.livejournal.com]

Terry Gross makes me snooze. ZZZZZ...