Morning Ethics Warm-Up: 7/11/17…”Alan Brady” Shows His Ignorance, And The New York Times Shows Its Bias.

Good Morning!

[By the time I finished #1 on today’s list, there was no room for the rest, except for the shortest item. Oops. But it’s Carl Reiner’s fault: he ticked me off.]

1. Carl Reiner, comedy legend and still kicking in his 90s, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times urging Supreme Court Justice Kennedy not to retire, as some believe he is preparing to do. Kennedy is a relative  whippersnapper at 8o. That Reiner’s argument is unethical in multiple ways should be obvious, but then expecting the editors of the New York Times to spot an ethics problem is naive.

Reiner tells Kennedy that he shouldn’t retire because ” the best part of your career has just begun. As a nonagenarian who has just completed the most prolific, productive five years of my life, I feel it incumbent upon me to urge a hearty octogenarian such as yourself not to put your feet up on the ottoman just yet. You have important and fulfilling work ahead of you.” The problem is that the decision shouldn’t be based on what Kennedy wants or will enjoy. He’s supposed to act in the best interests of the nation, not to maximize the rewards of his golden years. Reiner uses a comparison to his own career—he still acts periodically, but even Reiner can’t possible think that his last five years were objectively more productive than when he was writing and performing in “Your Show of Shows,” or playing Rob Petrie’s hilariously nasty boss on “The Dick Van Dyke Show”—which shows a narrow perspective. If Carl can’t perform the way he used to but movie-goers still like watching him, there’s no harm done. A SCOTUS justice who no longer is in top mental fettle, however, can do substantial harm.

How many screenplays has Reiner had produced since he turned 80? How many studios have hired him to direct? The last movie he wrote was in 1989, when Carl was 67.  His last directing assignment was 20 years ago. So Carl has retired from those jobs that are too demanding for him, just not acting. His argument to Kennedy is disingenuous. Gee, maybe the Justice should try acting, like Carl.

Reiner’s entire piece is a sham: it isn’t about retirement, it’s about liberal politics. He writes,

“The country needs justices like you who decide each case with fairness and humanity, and whose allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to a party line. You have always voted your conscience, and defended the rights and liberties of all our citizens.”

Is  Reiner seriously arguing that there are no younger qualified judges “whose allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to a party line” ? That’s what all SCOTUS justices are pledged to do.  Does anyone think that Reiner would like Justice Ginsberg, also in her 80’s, to step down because she reliably hews to Democratic Party positions in virtual lockstep? No, of course not. What he is really saying is that when Republican-appointed justices consider cases, they violate their duty to be objective, but when Democrat-appointed justices decide in favor of progressive positions, they are just being wise and fair. This also the position of the New York Times, which is using an old man as its mouthpiece. Nice.

His op-ed is also so legally ignorant that it gives me a migraine, not that there’s any reason that a lifetime performer who dropped out of high school should be expected to understand legal reasoning and the Supreme Court. If he doesn’t understand, however, and he obviously doesn’t, why is the New York Times publishing his uninformed blather as noteworthy advice? (See above.)

“Humanity” has nothing to do with a justice’s job. He or she is there to decide what the law says and apply it. Nor is any judge’s “conscience” relevant to the Constitution. An ethical judge should be capable of rendering a decision that he personally does not like and fervently wishes could be otherwise. The place for conscience is in the legislature and with the executive who signs or vetoes a bill. A judge’s personal sentiments are often sources of  bias, and can work against allegiance  to the Constitution of the United States of America. Reiner proves with this ignorant passage that he literally doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and has no foundation of knowledge from which to advise Justice Kennedy.

He also directly quotes a rationalization: #28, The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.” This is signature significance, the argument of someone whose ethical standards shift according to what he wants to happen, and who has insufficient integrity—ironically someone exactly unlike the kind of  Supreme Court justice Reiner says the Court needs. One can argue that any period is special, as indeed they all are. The Supreme Court exists to provide consistency and reliability in the law.

I know this is outside your area of expertise. So shut up, Carl. Heard any good jokes lately?

Then we finally learn the real motive behind the op-ed:

“How would you feel, while reading your newspaper, seeing a headline that read “Roe v. Wade Overturned”? Do you see how this could ruin a good meal? A good life? A great country?”

Well, being a judge and a former SCOTUS justice, Carl, Kennedy would probably read the opinion and decide whether it was soundly decided based on law and precedent, at least if he is as fair and objective as you think he is. How does Carl Reiner know how Anthony Kennedy feels about Roe v. Wade anyway? It was decided before Kennedy joined the Court. Of course, most fair and objective legal experts believe the decision was badly reasoned and wrongly decided on the existing law, but Carl wouldn’t know any of that; he’s just a knee-jerk Hollywood liberal adopting knee-jerk positions. Do you think Reiner has read Roe v. Wade? Doubtful.How many Kennedy opinions has Reiner read all teh way through? My guess: about as many as 90% of the population. None.

It must also be pointed out that Roe v. Wade has ruined, as in ended, millions of lives since it was decided.  (I think it’s fair to refer to killing human beings as ruining their lives, no? Is that unfair?) That Reiner would be so tone-deaf as to include that line suggests how much his faculties have declined, though his Times editors have no such excuse. Does Carl understand that over-turning Roe wouldn’t change anything, except give individual states the option of deciding that unborn life should have some rights of their own? Does he realize that it would not, in fact, prevent abortions? Nah.

Carl also doesn’t comprehend that scaremongering aside, the chances of Roe v.Wade being overturned after four decades is virtually nil. Ever heard of stare decisus, Carl? Did you and the 10,000 Year-Old Man ever talk about that?  I didn’t think so.

To be fair, however, Carl Reiner is 95 now, and can’t be expected to think quite as clearly as he did in his prime. His pathetic op-ed is actually a good argument for why it may be time for Justice Kennedy to hang up his robe.

2. From the “The Little Ways The Media Tries to Influence Public Opinion”  files: I have a Direct TV package that includes all of the premium movie channels Since January, “All the President’s Men” has been featured on one of them or another for multiple days and multiple showings every month. TCM has also played the film. Has any other 41-tear-old movie been dredged up with similar regularity? No. Not even close. The Watergate film has been featured as if it was a contemporary release. Is it the best film made in the Seventies? No; in fact it seems kind of boring now, though the acting is uniformly excellent. Several Seventies films are standards on TV, though seldom on the premium channels, notably the first two Godfather movies and “Jaws.” “Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid” and the John Wayne “True Grit” turns up on the Starz Westerns channel now and then.

But it is noticeable how often the Robert Redford/Dustin Hoffman paene to a courageous press taking down a corrupt President is suddenly regular fare in 2017, when it was all but invisible in 2016. It’s partisan propaganda. The various channels have a valid defense: it’s propaganda that a lot of Trump-hating subscribers want to see now, so they can get all giddy with the fantasy that the Trump-Russia fantasy is another Watergate just awaiting its Deep Throat. They are just “giving people what they want.”

It’s still propaganda.

___________________________

Pointer: Other Bill

 

38 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Arts & Entertainment, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Popular Culture

38 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up: 7/11/17…”Alan Brady” Shows His Ignorance, And The New York Times Shows Its Bias.

  1. charlesgreen

    I love Carl Reiner, but sadly I had some of the same thoughts you more articulately laid out. I think you’re right.

  2. valkygrrl

    Several Seventies films are standards on TV, though seldom on the premium channels, notably the first two Godfather movies and “Jaws.” “Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid” and the John Wayne “True Grit” turns up on the Starz Westerns channel now and then.

    Rocky, Star Wars, Taxi Driver, Animal House, Patton, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Caberet (a personal favorite,) and like two months ago, Dog Day Afternoon seemed to be on near non-stop.

  3. Mandatory retirement for SCOTUS (and Congress, and Executive branch) seem the only same option… other than term limits, which we will never get as Congress won’t cut it’s own throat.

    • wyogranny

      Mandatory retirement age is one of those ideas that sounds great until you reach that age. But, I agree that justices in their 80’s and 90’s might be a little too old. Considering the ages of the 3 presidential candidates who had a shot at winning age isn’t a disqualifier in politics.

      • Jeff

        Considering the quality of the 3 presidential candidates who had a shot at winning, perhaps age should be a disqualifier in politics…

    • Other Bill

      Maybe mandatory retirement for NYT opinionators as well, sw?

      • The Times is a private company. Our government is not. That makes a difference.

        Why is it okay for a president to be limited to two terms, but not a Congressman?

        Hint: the answer is politics and who has to approve the new rule.

        • dragin_dragon

          The answer, slick, is that the GOP wanted FDR outta there, and couldn’t field a candidate that could beat him, so the Constitution now has term limits for the POTUS but not for Congress. Nor is it ever likely to, since they’d have to cut their own throats to get it done properly.

          • I think that’s unfair. FDR died before the amendment was passed, and one party can’t pass an amendment: With 47 Democrats supporting, on Feb. 7, 1947 the House of Representatives approved the 22nd Amendment 285-121. The Senate passed the amendment on March 21, 1947 59-23, with 16 Democrat votes in favor.

            It still had to be ratified by the states, and that took three years.

            Everyone but FDR had observed the two term limit, which, like most things conduct-related, was better as a tradition and an ethical principle than as a law, but FDR was a dictator at heart, and his determination to serve until he dropped showed that when sociopaths and narcissists are involved, mere tradition isn’t enough. It was generally known that FDR ran for his last tern knowing he was dying, which was unethical, and also that he verged on being a distator in the making: if FDR had been healthy, he might have stayed indefinitely.

            • John Billingsley

              Having had a recent president who was hailed as the second coming of FDR by Time, I am thankful for the Twenty-second amendment.

              • Or put another way, an arrogant, incompetent President who couldn’t hold FDR’s socks who would have had a 98% voting block no matter how awful be was and would have run for term after term, multiplying the carnage his “leadership” wreaked in two terms of fecklessness, negligence, laziness and incompetence.

                • “an arrogant, incompetent President who couldn’t hold FDR’s socks who would have had a 98% voting block”

                  “Arrogant” and ”incompetent” are triggering, dog-whistle, coded, racist, micro-aggressions, aren’t they?

                  They are depending on one aspect of a person’s skin; not the color but the thickness.

                  Or the lack thereof.

                  Anywho, SNL’s hilarious Kenan Thompson did some sort of Weekend Update skit a while back where he waxed concern about it having a been a bad week for Obama.

                  How bad? His support among African American’s had plummeted to an abysmal 94 %.

            • dragin_dragon

              Wait…are you saying that the amendment was NOT passed because of FDR?

              • How would you get that? I’m saying it was far from just the Republicans and without the Democrats in Congress and Democrats in the states, it would not have have been passed. 2/3 is hard.

            • dragin_dragon

              And, just to be fair, the amendment contains a clause that may have excluded FDR from it’s enforcement. So, I’ll say, rather, the GOP didn’t want ANOTHER FDR.

    • dragin_dragon

      Had ’em once, slick, but Rudy Giuliani decided they were unconstitutional and SCOTUS agreed. In truth, the way the law was written (by a GOP-controlled Congress), it looked like it was INTENTIONALLY written in such a way that SCOTUS would find against it.

    • Matthew B

      We’ll get term limits and/ or mandatory retirement age the same way we got direct election of senators, women’s vote and the 18 y/o voting age.

      Congress doesn’t want want a constitutional convention even more. Threaten one by passing a measure in 30+ states and congress will rapidly re-evaluate term limits.

  4. #2…
    wait what?

    Haven’t we been told this whole time that the big corporations are in bed with *Republican* candidates???

  5. “The Little Ways The Media Tries to Influence Public Opinion”

    Jack, if you can hold your cinephilia in check for 17 short days, Al Gore’s much anticipated “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” will hit the Big Screen.

    It is my ardent hope that it lives up to, nay exceeds, the…um…accolades its precursor so richly deserved: a junk-science larded, ascientific schlockumentary slideshow that can’t be shown in the U.K. without 9 disclaimers (“alarmism and exaggeration”) that scared a LOT of children.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

    My former Letter Carrier, an EVIL Science Denier, has a daughter to whom it was shown 3 separate times in her first four semesters at U.W. Madison.

    Powerful stuff!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s