Monday, February 26, 2007

Thurgood Marshall: White Supremacist?

Supreme Court cases get me thinking. Mostly old cases, of course, and by that, I mean cases from the Warren and Burger courts. You get a lot of dissents written by Thurgood Marshall, or by Brennan joined by Marshall, and those dissents tend to make work harder for police officers. Those dissents tend to make it very hard to search a person or his property without jumping through a lot of hoops. Frankly, if those dissents had carried the day, we'd probably have a lot more police officers shot by suspects who grabbed weapons in areas the officers weren't constitutionally allowed to search.

What result, then? I wonder. The persecution of minorities weighed heavily on Justice Marshall's mind. But then, what is the composition of law enforcement today? If you make a rule that will get more police officers shot, then who's getting shot? I bet a large percentage of the people who would be murdered if Marshall and Brennan had their way would be blacks and other minorities whose best hope for advancement was entering the police academy.

So, what is it? What is the effect? Who is hurt by making the world more dangerous for police officers? As Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent to the Kelo decision, eminent domain abuse historically had the effect of evicting black residents in poor neighborhoods for the benefit of the white community.

It just makes you wonder what motivates the liberal mind. Making the world safe for criminals, and unsafe for the police? Taking property from poor blacks and giving it to rich white business owners? Apparently, that's the liberal agenda. Case after case confirms it.

Remember what party abolished slavery? Sure you do. Has anything changed over the centuries? Nah. Same stuff, different day.

Thursday, February 22, 2007


Are we back? Don't go crazy. With two midterms on back-to-back days next week, and a brief that will constitute 80% of my grade in one class due in two weeks, I don't think updates will be frequent or forthcoming for a while.

I just had to mention this, though. As a philosophy major and continuing, incurable "philosophy guy," I've read a lot of Plato. I've just completed two plays of Aristophanes now - The Clouds and The Acharnians. My impression of Greek democracy from Misters Plato and Aristophanes is that it was an utter farce, a means for demagogues and charlatans to manipulate masses of people to enforce what were essential private goals. The reason that Athenian democracy holds such a high place in our cultural memory escapes me utterly. Democracy in Athens was a joke. Quite literally, too - Aristophanes skewers it really viciously.

When I learn that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay did not think much of Athens either, I am substantially supported in my view that the Greek city-states were populated by a few brilliant men and a mass of conniving power-grabbers. In fact, the brilliant men mainly came from Greek colonies, especially in Asia Minor - Thales and a few other (very) early philosophers came from Miletus. For great government, you have to wait until Rome.

So, screw Greece.