Glenna's Blog

There is a new book out that blames World War I on the idiocy and cloisteredness of Europe’s monarchs. When I saw that the WSJ had reviewed it, I thought, “har har, I bet the reviewer was offended by its criticism of conservative authority figures.” I was correct.

The reviewer scorns the “popular mythology” that an arms race made war in Europe inevitable “unless power could be wrested in time from the crowned heads who so ill-deserved it.” His alternative arguments are not compelling. For example, he believes that “it was not the fact of an arms race that produced World War I but rather Germany’s unwillingness to rest until it had won that race.” Don’t all races involve contestants who are unwilling to rest?

Anyway, I can’t complain about newspapers having political biases. That’s normal. But do they have to be so formulaic about it? I can’t predict Gossip Girl plot twists; I should not be able to guess how random reviewers will feel about history books I haven’t read.

1970s to early ’80s: The Ellis Island Exception. Sitcom writers may depict butch women pining for their femme roommates as long as they attribute all breaches of femininity to kooky ethnic backgrounds.

Mid ’80s to late ’90s: Zero tolerance. Lesbianism is not allowed. Network heads understand it enough to veto subtext but they do not yet realize straight men like watching women kiss.

Early ’00s: Hipster Victory Lap. Once a series has become its network’s most popular among wealthy young viewers, it may exhibit a lesbian kiss during November, February, or May. At least one of the kissers must be blonde, and the visual must evoke tired ponies.

Late ’00s-present: Plot Twist of Last Resort. After a drama has exhausted all possible story lines for a grating secondary character, she may embark on a relationship with a cheerful blonde lesbian. (NBC allowed ER the Plot Twist of Last Resort in 2001, which is a wistful reminder of how edgy they used to be.)

Savor this moment. Think about where you are so that you can tell your children one day. Because legal history is being made. Just like judicial activism defined the baby boomers’ constitutional vision, judicial transparency will define ours. And it’s all thanks to huffy op-eds that were published this weekend.

The anti-gay side in Perry v. Schwarzenegger didn’t want the trial webcast and the gay side did. The Supreme Court sided with the anti-gays, so now liberal journalists are refuting its argument. And instead of dissecting the logic of the ruling, they’re lashing out against the entire concept of shrouded judging.

The Atlantic: “why can’t the American people watch what our biggest and most important judges do at work?” Slate: “the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the broadcast […] betrays a deep ambivalence about the same humble American voter whose very rights the court purports to be defending.” LA Times: “If matters of social change are going to be debated in the courts, we all should get to view the process — and, through our reactions, to participate in it.”

Just last week the “cameras in the courts” movement was a populist idea that the populace didn’t care about. Stuck. But because the Supreme Court’s recent anti-camera ruling just happened to hurt Team Liberal, now the Liberals are pro-camera. Judicial transparency has found a constituency which blogs.

Brown v. Board was about racial equality but sparked a war over “judicial activism.” The gay marriage case looks similar: a cultural issue inspiring pundits to pay attention to a totally different legal theory issue. I’m psyched. The conservative justices probably ruled against the cameras because they are grossed out by gays. Now they’ll have to defend judicial elitism—their lifestyle, the cornerstone of their identity!—nonstop for the rest of their lives.

Slate just published a gob of rhetoric that smears the federal courts for trying to treat detainees fairly. It’s filled with cheesy little one liners which are easily defeated by cheesy little one liners.

Slate: “judges are ill-suited to develop and assess the information relevant to formulating foreign and national-security policy”

Glenna: They’re not deciding national security policy; they’re deciding when our ideals outweigh national security policy.

Slate: “the Constitution established a genuine separation of powers among the three branches of government.”

Glenna: The Constitution established genuine checks and balances.

Slate: “The first such judicial expansion culminated with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ill-judged effort to end the nation’s argument over slavery in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford. The result, of course, was not acceptance of the court’s resolution of the slavery question, as Taney expected, but a four-year civil war.”

Glenna: The first such judicial expansion culminated in lower courts standing up against slavery by nullifying the Fugitive Slave Law. Taney killed this trend by upholding pro-slavery legislation.

Et cetera. The overarching argument actually defeats itself—the authors try to show that the judiciary is dangerous, but they describe it as “a branch that lacks the legitimate power of the purse or sword.” So what do they have going for them that’s so scary, voodoo dolls?

*Using the phrase “venerable political question doctrine” is kind of like saying “the distinguished state of Rhode Island.”