Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

"Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving soul. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

"It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."

-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

---

[My suggested bumper-sticker-sized soundbite for folks averse to chewing long paragraphs first thing in the morning: "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."]

I've been catching the Alito hearings in snippets, usually while cooking or washing dishes. On the one hand I feel as though I ought to have been listening attentively to the entire thing and the rebroadcast as well, taking careful notes, so I could write detailed and well-reasoned ... stuff ... here. On the other hand, if I'd been feeling well enough to do that, there are a bunch of other things I would have done with that energy that have instead gotten put off. So my observations are scattered and not well documented, and possibly ill-remembered to boot.

Before this week, I knew that people whose political opinions I trust were opposed to Alito, and had read some of the reasons but had not delved as far into the documentation and analysis of his record as I should have ... hmm ... as deeply as I would feel neccesary if I were a senator on the confirmation panel or if he were up for a popular election some November. (After all, at this point my own opinion matters very little; only as much as the weight one random phone call or post card carries with a senator. As long as I'm willing to mail a post card, it matters some; it doesn't matter very much on its own, on my own, only in concert with others.)

Earlier this week I blogged a "makes me wonder what's up" moment. Yesterday I heard things I disagreed with, but also several things that made me think maybe he'd be a fair justice despite the points at which his opinions diverge from my own, as well as a few more "gee that question is still hanging out there for everyone to wonder about" evasions. (I do still need to read more about his record, of course. These impressions are all from ten to fifteen minute snippets of the hearings on the radio. But the point of this entry really isn't whether I think Alito belongs on the bench, as you'll see in a moment.)

Last night during the CSPAN radio rebroadcast of a different part of yesterday's hearings that I'd missed yesterday afternoon, I heard statements from Alito that I outright agreed with. Alas, I also heard "wow, that's scary" bits.

And some of the scariest bits weren't from Alito. Listening to him trying to finesse a position past a questioner he disagreed with, what a couple of people seemed to be trying to lead him to was frightening. (The one freshest in my mind was along the lines of, "Gee, let's make sure those meddlesome black-robed vultures are either forced to stay out of the way of Congress or are tied to popular opinion while we control the media, so we can get our agenda passed and nudge that pesky Constitution out of the way of a president-king." But I recall being bothered by something before that as well.) Alito's nomination matters because it's a lifetime appointment, but I don't think he was the scariest person in that room.

I really ought to pay more attention to politics than I do.

(By the way, am I the only one who, as a child, thought that "lifetime appointment" meant that justices weren't ever alllowed to retire, and had to keep hearing cases until they died?)

( Various quizmemes: 'religion founder' (OKCupid), 'Serenity character', 'funky inner hair color' (Blogthings), 'what song you should strip to' (Blogthings), 'what age you act' (Blogthings), 'are you a heretic' (QuizFarm) )

There, those piled up over the past week or so. Now I've got that out of my system for a while.