In the years while he and his sweet family still lived in our beloved city, I competed with Jack in time trials and triathlons. Smith went 30 seconds before Tate at any of the Bells Bend TTs we both did between 2015-2018. I learned early on that he is strong and does not waver. This is a man equipped with an aptitude for metronomic intensity and a capacity to suffer for the goal. His adherence to the rules even when no one was looking I'd say is a metric of his integrity. I would often catch him and pass within the first half of the 12 mile course and there were times he could've gotten away with drafting me, but he never did it. Not one time. What he would do is turn up the intensity and pass me back, testing my mettle and my integrity. It still stands out to me as a life lesson.
The memory of him explaining to me that he'd probably be moving his family to the Netherlands and for what reason is indelible in the Hippocampus. It never occurred to me in that stage of my development that a person who races endurance races could also be such a serious person - a real one. I took it to heart.
I pray Jack makes it to the finish line in good form. It'd be a win in more ways than one.
My goodness. I had no idea Jack once resided in the beautiful state of Tennessee. I also pray he makes it to the finish line in good form. Weird thing: John actually showed up at my place of employment to have a public convo with Al not far from my office. I didn't know it was happening. Otherwise, I might've dropped by. What you're telling me though...It gets me thinking of people as people and I'll say this: Marcy's helping me see that Jack has done John (and the rest of us) a real solid by narrating our situationship the way he has. I think Liz did John a real solid as well when she gave him a question to read out loud on camera. That's the moment captured in the photo above. It's as if Liz and Jack, each in their own way, are helping John be true to his best self. We live in hope!
What shocks me today is that 30-40% of the public still believe in this court's legitimacy. Maybe that shouldn't be so shocking, as it coincides roughly with the percent that have a favorable view of Trump.
If you polled the Framers, rather than the public, I am certain the favorability rating would hover somewhere between zero and two percent.
This is a court that says bribery is legal as long as you don't use the word bribery.
It says legislators can pick and choose their own voters through gerrymandering, as long as it is done for purely partisan reasons and not (wink-wink) about race.
It asserts the authority to usurp Congress' judgment on whether pre-clearance rules are still appropriate under the Voting Rights Act ("The South has CHANGED," proclaimed John Roberts, who has never spent any time in the South, and who then had to shut his pie hole the very next week when unchanged Southern states began restricting voting rights).
And now, this Court says that presidents are above the law as long as they can claim that, say, having your political opponents killed or jailed was done as part of your presidential duties and for the good of the country.
Roger Taney is remembered as perhaps the worst Chief Justice in history on the basis of one decision, Dred Scott. John Roberts has so far presided over four Dred Scotts, and that doesn't even count the overturn of Roe v. Wade or the Chevron decision.
The Framers would have impeached and removed Roberts for betraying the principles they enshrined, and he'd have been lucky if they didn't do more than that.
The Framers, lest we forget, were revolutionists. They did not enter into a violent revolution lightly, but neither did they hesitate when they believed it was the only realistic option available to them. For all their devotion to "originalism," the Supreme Court should bear that original truth about our nation in mind. They could stand to be reminded of Thomas Jefferson's chilling (to modern ears) statement that "the tree of Liberty should be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants."
Anyone who calls for revolution today, of course, would be cancelled or jailed. I'm not calling for that. Rather, as someone who was trained as a historian, I merely observe that the Framers whose writings I have read would not simply tut-tut about a Supreme Court that opined that presidents were largely above the law. They would have acted decisively to "stop the steal" of the Constitution they labored so diligently to construct.
Just a deductive guess on the context. The drapes in the Supreme Court's chambers are red, not blue. But there are blue drapes in the House chamber at the Capitol (maybe for the Senate chamber, too). It looks from the photo like there is a seating chart for Congress in front of him. So my guess is that this is from one of the two times Roberts presided over the trial in the Senate following an impeachment of Trump by the House.
Exactly. He's been handed a card with a question on it penned by Senator Elizabeth Warren. He was made to read it out loud (in accordance with his duties).
In the years while he and his sweet family still lived in our beloved city, I competed with Jack in time trials and triathlons. Smith went 30 seconds before Tate at any of the Bells Bend TTs we both did between 2015-2018. I learned early on that he is strong and does not waver. This is a man equipped with an aptitude for metronomic intensity and a capacity to suffer for the goal. His adherence to the rules even when no one was looking I'd say is a metric of his integrity. I would often catch him and pass within the first half of the 12 mile course and there were times he could've gotten away with drafting me, but he never did it. Not one time. What he would do is turn up the intensity and pass me back, testing my mettle and my integrity. It still stands out to me as a life lesson.
The memory of him explaining to me that he'd probably be moving his family to the Netherlands and for what reason is indelible in the Hippocampus. It never occurred to me in that stage of my development that a person who races endurance races could also be such a serious person - a real one. I took it to heart.
I pray Jack makes it to the finish line in good form. It'd be a win in more ways than one.
My goodness. I had no idea Jack once resided in the beautiful state of Tennessee. I also pray he makes it to the finish line in good form. Weird thing: John actually showed up at my place of employment to have a public convo with Al not far from my office. I didn't know it was happening. Otherwise, I might've dropped by. What you're telling me though...It gets me thinking of people as people and I'll say this: Marcy's helping me see that Jack has done John (and the rest of us) a real solid by narrating our situationship the way he has. I think Liz did John a real solid as well when she gave him a question to read out loud on camera. That's the moment captured in the photo above. It's as if Liz and Jack, each in their own way, are helping John be true to his best self. We live in hope!
To Elizabeth Warren's query (see posts below):
What shocks me today is that 30-40% of the public still believe in this court's legitimacy. Maybe that shouldn't be so shocking, as it coincides roughly with the percent that have a favorable view of Trump.
If you polled the Framers, rather than the public, I am certain the favorability rating would hover somewhere between zero and two percent.
This is a court that says bribery is legal as long as you don't use the word bribery.
It says legislators can pick and choose their own voters through gerrymandering, as long as it is done for purely partisan reasons and not (wink-wink) about race.
It asserts the authority to usurp Congress' judgment on whether pre-clearance rules are still appropriate under the Voting Rights Act ("The South has CHANGED," proclaimed John Roberts, who has never spent any time in the South, and who then had to shut his pie hole the very next week when unchanged Southern states began restricting voting rights).
And now, this Court says that presidents are above the law as long as they can claim that, say, having your political opponents killed or jailed was done as part of your presidential duties and for the good of the country.
Roger Taney is remembered as perhaps the worst Chief Justice in history on the basis of one decision, Dred Scott. John Roberts has so far presided over four Dred Scotts, and that doesn't even count the overturn of Roe v. Wade or the Chevron decision.
The Framers would have impeached and removed Roberts for betraying the principles they enshrined, and he'd have been lucky if they didn't do more than that.
The Framers, lest we forget, were revolutionists. They did not enter into a violent revolution lightly, but neither did they hesitate when they believed it was the only realistic option available to them. For all their devotion to "originalism," the Supreme Court should bear that original truth about our nation in mind. They could stand to be reminded of Thomas Jefferson's chilling (to modern ears) statement that "the tree of Liberty should be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants."
Anyone who calls for revolution today, of course, would be cancelled or jailed. I'm not calling for that. Rather, as someone who was trained as a historian, I merely observe that the Framers whose writings I have read would not simply tut-tut about a Supreme Court that opined that presidents were largely above the law. They would have acted decisively to "stop the steal" of the Constitution they labored so diligently to construct.
Thank you, Randy. Might you know the context of the image I share with the passage and the link?
Hi David:
Just a deductive guess on the context. The drapes in the Supreme Court's chambers are red, not blue. But there are blue drapes in the House chamber at the Capitol (maybe for the Senate chamber, too). It looks from the photo like there is a seating chart for Congress in front of him. So my guess is that this is from one of the two times Roberts presided over the trial in the Senate following an impeachment of Trump by the House.
Exactly. He's been handed a card with a question on it penned by Senator Elizabeth Warren. He was made to read it out loud (in accordance with his duties).
I found a link to a story about Warren's question, which raised concerns about the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/elizabeth-warren-john-roberts-impeachment-trial
Situationship is a great word. May we all become more aware of our situationship and have the courage to act accordingly…especially Aileen Cannon