'Progressive' minds? What a waste
CNN legal analyst and New Yorker contributor Jeffrey Toobin recently put up his latest ignorant smear of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Noting that eight years have passed since Mr. Justice Thomas last asked a question during oral arguments, Mr. Toobin says his “behavior on the bench has gone from curious to bizarre to downright embarrassing, for himself and the institution he represents.”
Injecting the totally irrelevant dig that Thomas is “a great deal ... heavier today” than during his confirmation hearings 23 years ago, Toobin observes that “These days, Thomas only reclines; his leather chair pitched so that he can stare at the ceiling, which he does at length. He strokes his chin. His eyelids look heavy. Every school teacher knows this look. It's called ‘not paying attention.'”
No longer content to merely call conservatives “extremists” — Toobin makes sure he refers to Thomas as “the most extreme originalist on the court” — “progressives” of Jeffrey Toobin's persuasion now have taken to criticizing how conservatives position their bodies as they listen.
“Progressives” could do themselves a major favor by listening from time to time instead of bloviating. Then again, listening is an art and “progressives” never have been known for their intellectual artistry.
The only redeeming quality in Toobin's anti-Thomas diatribe is the photo of the associate justice that accompanies the piece. It was taken by the Trib's own Sydney Davis.
Listening doesn't appear to be a problem for retired “progressive” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. But reading comprehension obviously is.
In a Washington Post commentary Sunday last Mr. Justice Stevens argues that modern court rulings have perverted the original meaning of the Second Amendment to bestow an individual right to keep and bear arms (versus keeping and bearing arms only for military purposes). Thus, he proposes the following amended amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.
Never mind that when the Framers wrote the Second Amendment, the term “militia” informally meant those who arm themselves for their own defense.
Additionally, Stevens says the Second Amendment “did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states and local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.”
Using that illogic, state and local governments are free to ignore the Bill of Rights in toto. And Stevens totally ignores the majority of state constitutions that do indeed proscribe infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.
“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned,” states Article I, Section 21, of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Declaration of Rights. Alaska extends the prohibition to any “political subdivision of the State.” And on and on.
Reminded Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his famous 1840 treatise on the Constitution: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers.”
Continued Mr. Justice Story, “The friends of free government cannot be too watchful to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.”
The “progressive” mind and John Paul Stevens are no friends of free government.
Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or email@example.com)
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Distracted Steelers show nothing in loss to Eagles
- Rossi: Time with Penguins taught Bylsma importance of stability
- NFL could delay punishment
- Steelers notebook: Keisel dresses, but doesn’t play
- New Kensington slaying victims identified
- Google Maps opens business doors to online views for shoppers
- Will soft foes mean fast start to the season for Pitt football team?
- Western Pa. competitors find success at national triathlon event in Milwaukee
- LaBar: Hulk Hogan wants to fight Brock Lesnar?
- Pirates’ Axford overcame long odds to reach majors
- Youngwood shelter removes 44 dogs, 9 cats from shuttered Fayette SPCA