Greenwald: Georgetown Law Professors Say Students Are “Traumatized” by Criticisms of Scalia ...

[bemildred]

On the day the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was announced, Georgetown Law School issued an official statement and press release headlined “Georgetown Law Mourns the Loss of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” It quoted the school’s dean, William M. Treanor, heaping unqualified praise on the highly controversial justice.

“Scalia was a giant in the history of the law, a brilliant jurist whose opinions and scholarship profoundly transformed the law,” Dean Treanor pronounced. “Like countless academics, I learned a great deal from his opinions and his scholarship. In the history of the Court, few justices have had such influence on the way in which the law is understood.” Moreover, “he cared passionately about the profession, about the law and about the future. … We will all miss him.” It went on and on in that vein.

That’s all well and good: If Dean Treanor revered Justice Scalia and his jurisprudence, there is no reason why he should refrain from expressing those sentiments. It’s a bit odd for the official statement of a major law school to depict Scalia as though he were some sort of universally beloved figure, but there’s nothing wrong with Dean Treanor personally advocating his viewpoint. That, after all, is one of the primary purposes of academic institutions: airing differing views and perspectives and vigorously debating them.

Two Georgetown law professors, Mike Seidman and Gary Peller, disagreed with Dean Treanor’s glowing assessment of Scalia and said so. That night, Seidman posted a brief email to the dean and faculty noting: “Our norms of civility preclude criticizing public figures immediately after their death.” As a result, said Seidman, “all I’ll say is that I disagree with these sentiments and that expressions attributed to the ‘Georgetown Community’ in the press release issued this evening do not reflect the views of the entire community.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/georgetown-law-professors-complain-conservative-students-are-traumatized-by-criticisms-of-scalia-demand-remedies/

[erpowers]

1. Republican/Conservatives are the Real PC Police

This article is more proof that the real political correctness police come from the right. They are constantly complaining when someone disagrees with what they say. They want a country and a world where when they say something everyone applauds. How many Republican/Conservatives have we seen criticizing the left for being to politically correct while at the same time saying schools should have people to monitor left leaning speech on college campuses.

I do not support the removal of Woodrow Wilson's name or picture from Princeton University, but according to Republicans, if you want Woodrow Wilson's name and picture removed from Princeton University you are a whiny little baby. However, if you throw a temper tantrum because someone says something negative about Antonin Scalia you are a perfectly normal strong conservative fighting for your right to be heard.

The left needs to start calling the right out on its political correctness and hyprocrisy. One should not be allowed to complain about political correctness when one does not want others to disagree with one's opinion.

[bemildred]

2. They are the people trying to shut other people up, yes.

Conservatives like to hurl insults and threats, but are wimps when on the receiving end.

[malthaussen]

3. Wimps, possibly.

But what Mr Greenwald is suggesting here goes beyond mere wimpery (wimpistry?) He's maintaining that this is a prima facie attempt to shape the discourse in such a way as to perpetuate propaganda. Much more than hurt feelings or too-tender sensibilities, it is an exercise in censoring debate in order to promote a single viewpoint.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

4. That is the problem with counter-factual political positions, you can't allow disussion.

Dogmas can't be questioned. Our political discourse here is littered with taboos and forbidden subjects. It is a great weakness. Trump is making great use of them.

In discussing Republicans you have to distinguish between the sock-puppets and the hands. The sock-puppets are whiney politicians who think they are important. The hands are the money boys, and they don't want attention.

As for the larger question, US politics has always been corrupt to the core, fixed, just like most countries, and lying has always been the way to win, with one or two arguable exceptions.

[malthaussen]

5. If they get away with it, it's no problem.

That's a good reason for those of the left to stop trying to monitor discourse, also, because it sets precedent. Now, the RW will do what it wants, precedent or no, but having a precedent does create confusion to their enemies.

As to the second point, that is what makes Mr Trump interesting, in a train-wreck sort of way. He is allegedly largely financing his own campaign. That gives him an independence that must cause real indigestion among the power brokers. They don't have any leverage, or if they do, it is not apparent. And although Mr Trump is self-confessedly greedy, he wants to feather his nest by his own efforts at conning, not by taking handouts from puppet-masters. (Or so the narrative goes) This freedom from leverage is a strong attraction this election in both parties, as Mr Sanders also brags on his independence from the puppet masters.

As to the third point, we agree fully. Elect the greatest rebel to the WH we have ever seen in our history, and he will still be stymied by the corruption in Congress and the USSC (which is marginally less now that Scalia is buried). We need a Hercules if we hope to clean up these Augean stables. (And do we, really? I wonder how many of us truly want humble public servants who don't get off on their perks and prestige?)

-- Mal

[bemildred]

6. Yes.

I think the distinction being made in PC arguments is wrong, you have to address intentions, what is done and encouraged, not reform the lexicon, although I do understand the attraction of not having to listen to that shit.

I saw a piece around here today that said Trump is more normal than he allows, but that fits right in here in discussing political dissembling, doesn't it?

And it is precisely the fact he is not a puppet that scares them. If they were as smart as they think they are they would have expected him once Citizen's United became law of the land. I did, I expected somebody. Cruz wants the position too, but Trump is from show business, he will eat any normal politicians lunch when politics is show business and the voters become the audience.

We outlawed being Hercules after FDR, the whole term limits idea is about preventing politicans from accruing too much political power of the old, voter not money based, type. The old political patronage machines were all destroyed too. It's all rich people and "bundlers", and the money flows to Washington, not from it.

[malthaussen]

7. The Hillaryites are salivating over a Clinton/Trump debate.

They really idolize her. But if politics is show business (with which I agree), then the experienced showman will eat the logical debater alive. Again, Cruz is acknowledged to be pretty smart and a "brilliant" debater, but Trump is grinding his mug with anyone not a religious kook. The results of a Hillary/Donald debate are as predictable as the weather (which is pretty predictable, nowadays): those who think Hillary can do no wrong will gloat about how she owned the Donald, and the partisans of Mr Trump will rave about how he showed her up... and the polls will probably tick up in Trump's favor. We already see that with Mr Sanders, and Mr Sanders is not quite the showman (no has near the ego) of Mr Trump. Way back in 1960, Richard Nixon beat JFK on points and "lost" the debates, and it has ever been thus and ever will. But the admirers of the Clintons are so wrapped up in personality politics that they are incapable of detached analysis.

Bernie vs Donald... now, that would be interesting. High entertainment value, anyway. Oddly enough, I think Mr Trump would be on sounder ground belittling and humiliating a woman than an affable old grandpa. Because everyone he has belittled and humiliated, be it woman, vet, or handicapped reporter, is of a class that some people really hate in their blackest souls, but who hates Grandpa? (And there is no way Mrs Clinton can credibly project a "Grandma" image, even though she really is one. The very thought is grotesque -- unless one is of the set who thinks she excretes ice cream)

Of course, Mr Sanders is also a Jew. I'm still waiting to see how much of a difference that makes. So far, not much, apparently.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

8. Bernie vs Donald interests me the most.

Just like you say. I'd like to see them debate. I don't really have a read on Sanders yet, other than that he is honest and that he is therefore consistent, which is a considerable distinction, but generally is not an advantage in elections. But I don't really know how he handles the monkey politics, the fear and anger reactions, which is crucial with a guy like Trump. What happens when Trump goes off on a rant? How do you get the camera back? That's the question Bernie needs an answer to. Of course Ms Clinton could think that way too, that could get very entertaining. Hmm ...

But no, bad Bemildred.

Yes, the Jewishness. I am very WASP and grew up in the 50s, and it is one of the few things about this country that I am proud of that his Jewishness counts pretty much for jack shit in this election. But after Barack I suppose it's small potatoes.