A world of information in one sentence…
Every now and then there is a news report that conveys a world of rich detail in one simple sentence. This may have been missed by some, but on Monday morning Nina Totenberg spoke one of those sentences in an NPR report on the way that members of the Supreme Court approach the task of writing. I’ve highlighted that sentence in the excerpt below:
“The only good way to learn about writing is to read good writing,” says Chief Justice John Roberts.That sentiment is echoed by Breyer, who points to Proust, Stendhal and Montesquieu as his inspirations. Justice Anthony Kennedy loves Hemingway, Shakespeare, Solzhenitsyn, Dickens and Trollope.
Justice Thomas says a good legal brief reminds him of the TV show 24. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says one of the great influences on her writing was her European literature professor at Cornell, Vladimir Nabokov — yes, the same Nabokov who later rocked the literary world with his widely acclaimed novel Lolita.
Somehow it is not a surprise to see that a man who thinks in talking points finds comfort in the predictable, repetitive and formulaic prose of bad TV. Perhaps this helps to explain how he became the most corrupt and actively partisan Supreme Court Justice in generations. And that leads to an interesting question: does rigidity of thought lead to corruption or does corruption lead to rigidity of thought?
And with that, how about a fresh open thread.
We’re ruled and led by clowns, but you should’ve already known this, Dennis.
We’re lurching toward Idiocracy, and it’s only a matter of time before someone slams on the gas and sends us hurtling toward it full speed, because That’s AMURRCAN!
June 14th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Hemingway AND Dickens? That’s like liking the Beatles AND the Stones. Only a lawyer.
Yeah, Thomas, not so smart. What else is new?
June 14th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
does rigidity of thought lead to corruption or does corruption lead to rigidity of thought?
Second one. Getting a man to believe something when his job depends on not believing it and all that.
And seriously, what the fuck is it with 24? Does it have coded wingnut messages undetectable by the sane ear? It seems like a lot of wingers swear by it.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Clarence is a military historian as well. He reads Beetle Bailey every day.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Of the two, I’d say rigidity—> corruption. Or at least his kind of corruption, which is the kind where people don’t think the rules apply to them or others like them.
Also, too, something completely different: a twirling squirrel.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
@Spaghetti Lee:
Coded nothin’. It’s torture porn for broadcast TV. No wonder wingers love it, because it shows that police work and following basic human rights under Geneva is for fucking sissies. Real men torture and win.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
@Spaghetti Lee: It’s the structural paranoia. That’s what drives the wingnut machines.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
@The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik: Except for that whole ‘nuke still went off before you even had a chance to pull anyone’s fingernails’ type stuff…
June 14th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
I want to be fair and just plain old disagree with the criminal mind that is Thomas. But dammit, “24”? We all just three steps back on the there scale.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
@NobodySpecial:
No one remembers that though, all they remember is Jack Bauer is our idol and who we should emulate our interrogation methods after.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
The first season of 24 was good. When it morphed into wingnuters wet dreams, it failed. Especially when the daughter went from nanny to computer expert.
But Thomas is yet another problem. Imagine what it must be like to be hated and scorned by your own people. To have done it deliberately in the cause of being a token . . . the rot that man has in his soul must tell him that that white wife ain’t going to save him from anything.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
I heard that report on the radio, and had much the same reaction. There are many paths to corruption, but surely one of those stems from the mind that thinks it is right and good. If a person assumes he/she is right and good, then it is a short step to think that any action one takes is right and good. But it’s amazing how quickly one can find oneself deep in the weeds, when one is unreflective about one’s actions. John Barth wrote of the tragedy of willful naivety; this is just another manifestation of the same sort of thing.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
omg, Nabokov?
I loved Justice Ginsburg before—now I totally want to marry her and bear her children.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Can you be any more blatantly racist?? And don’t try to rationalize your thinly veiled racism by copping out with a “It’s not racist because he’s a GOP’er” BS argument. I guess it’s just coincidence that the one justice you think is too stupid to understand Shakespeare or Montesquieu so he has to rely on predictable, formulaic TV shows for inspiration is the African-American justice. Why don’t you round out your post with a picture of a tree with a noose while you’re at it.
It’s not all that surprising though, as this blog site is generally a venue for good ol’ down home hate speech. As long as your target is a republican, you can pretty much get away with whatever racism, hate speech, calls for violence, and personal attacks you want, huh?
In the span of a few days, I’ve seen multiple racist posts about Thomas and one calling for the death of Rick Perry.
Your mother must be so proud of what you’ve become. I cringe to think of the youth that may be making the horrible decision to get an idea of how to act and react to the issues and people of our day from this website.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
@Caz: Obvious troll is obvious.
Quoting Clarence Thomas is racist?
June 14th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
@Spaghetti Lee:
As was pointed out in a previous thread, Republicans are cowards, so a torture pr0n show, where an Individual Saves The Country is about as good as it gets for them. They get to believe they’re Jack Bauer and don’t have to leave their barcaloungers.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
@Caz: trying too hard!
We all know from the justice himself that he doesn’t think he deserved what he got.
If only Condi would come clean about her lack of Russian skills. That would be something.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Isn’t rigidity antithema to corruption ? One has to be flexible enough to take all kindsa corrupt stands, no ?
June 14th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
@Caz: Thomas is lazy. How more stereotypical can that be? That he references a now very old teevee series is proof he is lazy.
Lazy Lazy Lazy
Those slaves won’t work! Cuz they lazy.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
@Caz: Third rate troll is third rate.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
“a good legal brief reminds him of the TV show 24” is the new “a raven is like a writing desk”.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
@Caz: Black skin or not, clarence is a fucking moron. Get over it.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Formulaic prose isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Repeated use of simple, declarative statements can be powerful, and this is especially true within the context of legal opinions. Earl Warren had very little use for dramatic flair, and wrote some of the best opinions in the history of the Court. His opinion in Brown, I think, is one of the most ruthlessly clarifying pieces of legal writing ever produced by a Justice.
Thomas only writes this way because he thinks everyone who isn’t a lawyer is a moron. His purpose isn’t to clarify but to condescend.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
@erlking:
Seriously? Who doesn’t like the Beatles AND the Stones? What kind of demented musical snob would like one and not the other?
June 14th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
@Caz:
Clarence Thomas was a stupid jerk who thought that the rules didn’t apply to him 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with the amount of melanin in his skin. It has to do with the content of his character, to use a quote.
Character? He didn’t have it then and I haven’t seen any evidence that he has developed one since then.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
@Caz: Is it coz I is black?
—Ali G
June 14th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I sense a meme.
Justice Thomas says marking the box labeled “no spousal income” reminds him of the TV show 24.
Justice Thomas says not speaking on the bench reminds him of the TV show 24.
And knowing wingnut fascination with 24, it doesn’t have to be confined to Thomas.
John Boehner says not creating jobs reminds him of the TV show 24.
Newt Gingrich says running a tab at Tiffanys reminds him of the TV show 24.
Anyone can play!
June 14th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
@Stefan: One can, and probably should, have a preference, but that is a different thing.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
@amk: Not Thomas’s fault that the only black guy on the court is a moron, it’s Bush Sr.s fault. There’s no shortage of brilliant black lawyers out there, but Bush wasn’t about to risk nominating one of them.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
I love the internets: Nabokov and Lionel Trilling discussing Lolita on the CBC in terribly highbrow fashion some time in the 1950s. I don’t think I’d ever heard Nabokov’s voice before: it’s Russian, with a long stopover in a senior common room or an English gentleman’s club.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Did he mean a good legal brief was like the whole series 24? Or one season? Or just one episode? Or the info summary which pops up on the cable or satellite box guide?
No wonder Andrew Breitbart dedicated himself to pursuing racist fraud videos against African Americans doing good due to Breitbart’s pure, burning racist misogynist hatred against Anita Hill.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Thomas should be honest and acknowledge he favorite author is Long Dong Silver.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
@El Cid:
It doesn’t matter what he meant. He’s a wingnut and he said “the TV show 24.” That’s all wingnuts will hear, anyway. Doesn’t matter if it makes any sense. “I ordered a pizza today and it reminded me of the TV show 24.” “I drove my car to work today and it reminded me of the TV show 24.” Wingnut code.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Some choices are, watchamacallit … unimpeachable, that’s the word. And then there choices that are more umm, well, impeachable. Yeah, impeachable.
Like: When can we impeach this crazy motherfucker?
.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
@Martin: yeah, he’s a frigging post turtle, just like dubya.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
@Violet:
“I ordered a pizza today and it reminded me of the TV show 24.”
The pizza guy got his balls torn off?
June 14th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
@Caz:
We, here on this blog, are egalitarian assholes. We piss everybody off.
Have you seen the way this group has howled and bayed about Anthony Weiner? Or about John Edwards?
June 14th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
@Violet: I would have replied earlier but the kettle going off for the tea reminded me of 24, so I went and tortured the cat for information on how I could find the stove.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
@Spaghetti Lee:
Meatball pizza!
June 14th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
24 is true Merkan! And there’s consternation in other quarters about a justice who admires Frenchmen.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
@Sly:
He, like Scalia, thinks most lawyers are morons. They think most of the previous justices of the Supreme Court were morons. When you’re a conservative jurist, you believe deep down that you are the first person who has ever read the Constitution and that no one before you has ever applied originalism to the text. Everyone else is an idiot except you.
There’s a reason Ayn Rand’s
masturbatory aidsnovels appeal so much to many on the right.June 14th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
At least he didn’t cite some truly reprehensible garbage, like “God and Man at Yale”.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
@Mark S.:
Then again, they might have a point on that one.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Nada, nada , y pues nada. Words of poetry by hemmingway from his short story “A clean well lighted place. I first read the story in my sophomore high school English class, and have read it at least once per year ever since. Four pages of the most crisp writing ever. If Kennedy likes Hemmingway, that, perhaps, makes him more human, and hopefully humane.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:04 am
@erlking: I don’t understand. Are you really saying that it’s abnormal somehow to like both the Stones and the Beatles?
June 15th, 2011 at 12:06 am
@Joel:
Given his previously expressed tastes, I’m a bit surprised that he didn’t praise the crisp writing and clever prose of Debbie Does Dallas and Deep Throat.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:12 am
@pseudonymous in nc:
that’s what is so breathtakingly awesome about Nabokov: his brilliance in a language of which he was not a native speaker.
Whatever one’s opinion of the subject matter of Lolita—and it is NO way an apology or a romantification of that subject—it is an absolute masterpiece of the written word.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:13 am
Thomas isn’t “stupid” in the sense of just not being able to comprehend stuff, or the court proceedings going on around him. His written opinions aren’t agrammatical, they don’t fail to refer to lots of facts and testimony and case law.
It’s just hack repetition of right wing asshole jurisprudence. Like, fuck your innocence, fuck your bogus conviction, just shut the fuck up already ‘cause too fucking bad, and don’t waste my precious time bugging me with all these damn ‘facks’ of the case we’re deciding, ‘cause, fuck you:
Let’s hear more of this bullshit about how Thomas, and especially Scalia, are keen legal minds, mainly because the latter’s a loudmouth asshole and somehow this means he’s sharp.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:13 am
@Wag:
Back in the day I got sent one of those lists of made up answers from various authors and philosophers to “Why did the chicken cross the road?” My very favorite was Hemingway: “To die. In the rain.”
June 15th, 2011 at 12:14 am
it is so much more pleasant to discuss Nabokov than Clarence Thomas.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:15 am
So we have two “originalist” justices who reference 24 when speaking of their work.
We are so fucked. America was a really awesome thing for a while…
June 15th, 2011 at 12:16 am
@Mark S.: Masturbation offers the likelihood of a payoff. Good luck finding any payoff from an Ayn Rand novel.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:17 am
@Stefan:
Oh, they are out there (here). The one I know lives for the ‘Stones and thinks the Beatles on a par w/ the Goo Goo Dolls.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:21 am
@El Cid:
Someone is very bad at masturbation.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:23 am
@Violet:
Profound. And the mojito is good.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:24 am
@Violet:
I have a dream that one day, chickens will be free to cross the road without having their motives called into question.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:27 am
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff):
actually, i would say he patterned his career on the scrotus along the lines of ron jeremy’s porn career.
like the hedgehog, his only move was to play the fool.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:31 am
@Roger Moore:
To cross or not to cross. That is the question.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:32 am
@Mark S. There have been dumb Supreme Court justices. Whittaker, for example, was pretty thick. But not these guys. They were able to do as much damage as they did precisely because they weren’t morons. In particular, McReynolds was the most miserable excuse for a human being ever to don robes. A despicable creep and an open anti-Semite who refused to shake the hands of his Jewish colleagues. But not, alas, a moron.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:35 am
Ha! Some idiot libertarian think tank put out a state “freedom index” that concluded that red states are freer than blue states. One of Yglesias’ readers looked a little closer at the numbers:
June 15th, 2011 at 12:36 am
@Wag:
Lime. And dark crushed mint.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Shit. I am coming down on the side of Thomas here. The NPR piece is about legal writing for appeals, not quality literature in general. Considering the formal structure of such appeals a comparison to a formulaic TV show is pretty apt. ‘24’ may be especially apt – you always know where you are in the course of the story, and always know who is telling the story and roughly where they are going with it.
Ginsberg may enjoy name-dropping Nabakov, but you don’t want to write a brief in his style… although that might be a fun exercise.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:38 am
@Mark S.:
Yeah, but you get to be dumber, poorer and die sooner without the government meddling. Freedom!
June 15th, 2011 at 12:39 am
Sucky day. I hate looking up old friends and acquaintances, asking them for job leads. I understand that this is how the world works. In this case, I don’t even have a theoretical problem with it. I just hate doing it.
Fortunately, Harry remains the cutest thing in the world. He talks incessantly, and I’ve never known a cat as determined to be with you at all times. If I get up and leave the computer, he comes right after me, and sometimes underfoot, going to whatever room I go to. And, from most angles, he really does look like a small Eddie with two ears and four legs.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:40 am
@Mark S.: Well, well. So I guess “freedom” really is just another word for nothing left to lose.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:40 am
@Martin: I make no judgments about anyone else’s skills.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Did anyone read further in the NPR article? This is priceless:
Buses?
June 15th, 2011 at 12:42 am
@ppcli:
June 15th, 2011 at 12:43 am
@Raenelle:
I think you’ve got to be old enough- or have read enough about the era- to remember a time when it was a choice between the cute and witty or the ugly and sneering. Good boys versus bad boys. The line seemed to vanish around the time of the White Album.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Xenos:
As someone who make a living writing legal opinions (administrative rather than judicial), I don’t agree at all.
Yes, there is a structure in place for almost all legal writing, but what one puts within the structure is what counts. It is the difference between a well deocrated home and a bachelor pad. Thomas is the king of the bachelor pads.
Really, his inspriation for writing is 24? And let’s not forget, this asshat has also published an autobiography, which has to go down as one of the worst pieces of writing in recent history.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:54 am
@Violet:
Remember the episode where George HW Bush moves in across the street from The Simpsons, and Bart and Homer drive him out, and then Gerald Ford moves in instead? Ford says something extremely similar. I think it’s “Do you like football? And nachos?”
June 15th, 2011 at 12:54 am
So Clarence Thomas’ reference for good writing is one that is presented in non-written form?
Golly Clarence, in that case I’ve got a literary masterpiece right here with my extended middle-finger.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:06 am
@feebog: Thomas did not say his ‘inspiration for writing’ is ‘24’. He said that a well written brief reminded him of ‘24’. Perhaps too charitably, I take that to mean the brief moves quickly and methodically along, employs crisp editing, uses an economy of language, demonstrates a clear sense of structure as you move along through it, and so on.
Maybe that means he wants the briefs to use cardboard characters, authoritarian themes and to rely on stupid, unrealistic scenarios to allow for torture porn and fascistic moral preening. Your call.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:07 am
I really liked that “24” episode when Ginny drunk-dialed the terrorists while the puma stalked the daughter. Drama gold.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:11 am
@Spaghetti Lee:
Umm wasn’t it more like his child having his balls crushed with pliers?
June 15th, 2011 at 1:14 am
Justice Thomas is not a moron. He knows he is a fraud and a tool of the right wing. He knows that he is on the court only because he is an African-American right-wing zealot, as opposed to a right-wing zealot of any other ethnicity. He has devoted his entire career on the court to exacting revenge from the people who disdain him because they, too, know he is a fraud and a tool of the right wing.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:19 am
Maybe Mr. Thomas will find a new inspiration since ‘24’ is finished. I’m thinking ‘Game of Thrones’ might be more to the liking of his honor and his wife. He’s already played his role in 2000 and may stay on the bench for decades longer and wreak even more unforetold damage. Too bad the media ran with the shiny Weiner object,it missed a good summer story that stretches back years on the Thomases.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:21 am
Later in that same NPR article they compared how the Justice’s opinions were written, some writing the first draft, others revising the clerk’s first draft, etc. Thomas wouldn’t even look at his till his clerks had written up and polished three revisions.
Efficient man.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:23 am
@Cliff in NH:
Audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz01hN9l-BM
June 15th, 2011 at 1:26 am
@Violet:
Isn’t his thing that he and his wife tool around in an RV on their vacations? That’s sort of bus-y.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:27 am
Can’t like both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones at the same time?
That’s like being a fan of Star Trek and Babylon Five at the same time!
It’s unpossible!
I think everyone has given the sniveling little poltroon of a troll a thorough beating, and someone also made the obvious point that Thomas is being judged by the content of this character, or the gaping abyss where one would normally find character, not by the color of his skin.
As for John Yoo, don’t get me started on what I’d have done to him if anyone was ever foolish enough to give me the power.
June 15th, 2011 at 1:29 am
Sorry, but Nina Totenberg is just about as Village as they come. Don’t you think there’s even a remote possibility she’s using this as an opportunity to tell delightful tales about a disfavored target?
June 15th, 2011 at 1:46 am
Yeah, just what I thought. Totenberg is playing us:
Turn the tables—a conservative commentator and a black, liberal justice—and how would this sound? Sure, the white guys like great literature; the black guy thinks “24” is great writing! Haw! Haw!
June 15th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Thomas also says he likes buses and football and cars.
June 15th, 2011 at 2:20 am
Who’s your favorite author? Uh, television.
June 15th, 2011 at 2:23 am
@Villago Delenda Est:
if you are a boomer the stones and the beatles are part of your canon.
i never liked the beatles mostly because they were everywhere from music classes to commercials, there was never any reason to seek them out, or pay them any attention, they were just some one else’s religion, or a religion you were given.
to a large degree i feel the same way about led zepplin, the doobie brothers, steve miller, and a bunch of others, their music was familiar before i really ever thought about liking it, which to me at least, is different than liking something. so i really don’t care if i ever hear another one of their records again, though i am sure i will.
at least some of the rolling stones songs managed to not get overplayed to death.
June 15th, 2011 at 2:26 am
Ummm. WTF is this all about? Supreme Court, Right!?
June 15th, 2011 at 2:31 am
@quaker in a basement: Thanks, that actually does put a different slant on the whole thing.
June 15th, 2011 at 2:45 am
[...] find of the day at Balloon Juice (as of 3:15 a.m.) over an article on Supreme Court justices on good [...]
June 15th, 2011 at 4:25 am
@Caz:
Dearest Caz, the problem with Judge Thomas is not the excess of melanin in his skin, it’s the lack of gray in his brain.
June 15th, 2011 at 4:45 am
He likes to write split-screen legal briefs exactly 60 pages long, interspersed with commercial advertising. It’s the new thing.
June 15th, 2011 at 7:07 am
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): Job hunting sucks. Kittens, gladly, do not!
And I don’t see anything wrong with citing actual, you know, writers when asked “Where do you see your writing style being influenced?” WHich makes Thomas seem like not a reader. And he is an awful judge; what cobbled twisted stuff he comes up with.
June 15th, 2011 at 7:16 am
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): I listened to the Beatles and the Stones songs hundreds of times, in order, as they came out. I’m old enough to remember, and I don’t think you are. Because the Beatles—I guess that’s your meaning—were never, never!!, considered cute and harmless. They and the Stones were rebels. They and the Stones were counter-culture. You’ve completely missed the point. Really.
June 15th, 2011 at 9:34 am
@El Cid:
Oh, AYUH.
June 15th, 2011 at 9:37 am
@Sloegin:
I noticed that, too. Maybe that’s why he likened a ‘good brief’ to ‘24’—he has only to sit on his duff while other writers present a version of ‘reality’ for him to OK.
And the troll’s point about it being racist to criticize Thomas could be because the Republicans who chose Thomas were as racist as we are accused of being, and got the laziest, dumbest black guy because they expect laziness and stupidity from blacks. So he was chosen because the ‘picture’ of blacks in the Republican heads led them to such a creature. That and they couldn’t find a black Republican who wasn’t lazy and dumb (it goes with the territory).
Ed
June 15th, 2011 at 11:08 am
@Raenelle:
not even when they paid all the little girls to scream on queue when they first landed on ed sullivan? i mean you were there, how much access did the teeny boppers have to british pop bands that were just trying to cross into the american market?
June 15th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Even though I guess you posed the question facetiously, I’ll answer anyway.
Corruption comes first. Lies follow corruption, to hide one’s tracks. By and by one has so many lies to maintain that the free flow of honest talk is so risky it causes near panic. Rigid, inflexible thinking is the gradual result.
June 15th, 2011 at 12:45 pm