{"id":2299,"date":"2010-06-29T07:43:07","date_gmt":"2010-06-29T11:43:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/?p=2299"},"modified":"2010-06-29T08:05:53","modified_gmt":"2010-06-29T12:05:53","slug":"remembering-and-redefining-thurgood-marshall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/2010\/06\/29\/remembering-and-redefining-thurgood-marshall\/","title":{"rendered":"Remembering and redefining Thurgood Marshall"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the chief preoccupations of the modern Conservative movement is fighting to redefine what Americans view as “normal.”<\/p>\n

They have had remarkable success in this pursuit.<\/p>\n

Terms that were once entirely mainstream — “liberal,” for example, was so common an adjective that Dwight Eisenhower described himself as one — have become epithets.<\/p>\n

Another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, described himself enthusiastically as a “progressive,” but conservatives have worked doggedly to make that label into a negative.<\/p>\n

This disciplined interest in history and language were on display yesterday. Republicans were supposedly quizzing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan about her views of the law and the Constitution.<\/p>\n

But they focused much of their time on the legacy of one of Kagan’s inspirations, legendary Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall.<\/p>\n

Kagan clerked for Marshall before his retirement in 1991.<\/p>\n

Sen. John Kyll (R-Arizona) argued that Marshall’s career and judicial philosophy were “not what I would consider to be mainstream.”<\/p>\n

Dana Milbank, columnist for the Washington Post<\/a>, collected these additional observations about Marshall’s term on the bench:<\/p>\n

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the panel, branded Marshall a “well-known activist.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Marshall’s legal view “does not comport with the proper role of a judge or judicial method.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) pronounced Marshall “a judicial activist” with a “judicial philosophy that concerns me.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These are, put bluntly, remarkable assertions.<\/p>\n

Justice Marshall was responsible for some of the most compelling and moral legal decisions of the modern era, fighting (to cite one example) for the desegregation of American schools.<\/p>\n

As the first African American on the Supreme Court, he grappled for a quarter-century with some of the most profound changes our society has ever navigated — from the expansion of minority and women’s rights to the ending of Jim Crow.<\/p>\n

It’s telling that of the 11 US Senators who voted against confirming Marshall, 10 were southern Democrats.\u00a0 The 11th dissenting vote — the only Republican to vote No — was Strom Thurmond, then a strident segregationist.<\/p>\n

Race isn’t the main reason that modern conservatives dislike Marshall.<\/p>\n

Their primary concern is that his judicial views stood in direct opposition to their essentially hagiographic view of the Founding Fathers.<\/p>\n

Much of the Right’s legal philosophy is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is a sacred document, literally received wisdom that warrants little tampering or interpretation.<\/p>\n

Here’s what Marshall had to say about that approach:<\/p>\n

“[T]he government [the Founding Fathers] devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which of these views is outside the mainstream?\u00a0 Neither.<\/p>\n

They both reflect the continuing (and healthy) tension between traditionalists and reformers.<\/p>\n

The Right is correct that we should continue to harken back to the genius and inspiration of the thinkers who mapped our basic system of government, with its respect for freedom and individuality.<\/p>\n

But thinkers like Marshall have wrestled courageously with the shortcomings of those original ideas, their implementation, and their adaptation to modern conditions.<\/p>\n

I don’t find it at all problematic that Republicans disagree with Marshall — that’s perfectly fair and reasonable.<\/p>\n

But their attempt to banish him to the fringe of American thought and experience?\u00a0 That’s wrong in principle and wrong on the facts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One of the chief preoccupations of the modern Conservative movement is fighting to redefine what […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2299"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2299"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2299\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2300,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2299\/revisions\/2300"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org\/inbox\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}