....and, i'm back
I actually have a whole super ton of work to do, but...a few different reasons to post this:
1. not having the first line of my blog say "fuck me" (now it's the second or third line, probably)
2. i haven't died, i swear, i've just been in a non-talkative mood for a month and a half
3. i have something to say now
so...i was listening to a snippet of the current supreme court nominee confirmation hearing, 'cause they are broadcasting it on NPR.
(disclaimer: i just heard this snippet in between hyper station flipping, so if i heard it wrong, don't comment and accuse me of trying to take down the government or being a commie or something. puh-lease.)
I'm reasonably sure that I heard someone ask the nominee whether or not he agreed with the decision that came out of Brown v. Board of Education, did he in fact believe that children have the right to an education in a non-segregated school.
...
...
WHAT??
This hurt my brain for two reasons...one being that I can't believe it's necessary to ask that, since I can't believe anyone in their right mind would still believe that was the wrong decision, never mind actually try to overturn it, never mind be a judge that would rule in favor of it's being overturned. It should be a decision, supported by a law, supported by a decision that you can't get rid of that law, supported by a law that says the government can send you to the outskirts of Alaska if you try to have it changed. You can think whatever you want about it, you can tell anybody you want, loud and clear, that you want to change it, but you can't actually attempt it, lest you actually succeed, having started some kind of witch-hunt style panic amongst the masses, because masses of people can be very stupid.
The second reason it hurt my brain has a little more to do with my own ignorance. The idea that the court, at some point, could decide to overturn Roe v. Wade had occurred to me. I guess this occurred to me because I hear people talking about the possibility that that decision could possibly be overturned, the fact that clearly a whole bunch of people would want it to be overturned, and that it's a somewhat more recent decision and i guess that makes it seem less cut in stone.
However, it had not occurred to me that ALL decisions, in theory, could just be overturned. This is actually a little outside my comprehension (as in I know it's technically true, but I just can't UNDERSTAND it. my brain is cranking away in an attempt to resolve this issue, and is failing.). Some stuff just IS how it IS. Your uppity self-righteous butt is not supposed to be able to change stuff that's just RIGHT. With abortion, there's room for debate about whether or not that's right, but Brown v. BoE? Great Heavenly Days, what on earth are we thinking about having congress decide things like who gets to sit on the court? Would not some sub-set of congress, split evenly on political lines, be a little more appropriate? Has anybody read that bit of Freakonomics about what happened in that foreign country when abortion was made illegal? I'm not particularly freaked out about abortion being made illegal as it relates to my own person (unless they make it so that it's not even an option when it relates to health reasons, then I'm freaked out), but I happen to think that I don't have the right to limit your decisions. Your decision, your consequences, your deal.
Jeez. Flames. Flames on the sides of my face.
1. not having the first line of my blog say "fuck me" (now it's the second or third line, probably)
2. i haven't died, i swear, i've just been in a non-talkative mood for a month and a half
3. i have something to say now
so...i was listening to a snippet of the current supreme court nominee confirmation hearing, 'cause they are broadcasting it on NPR.
(disclaimer: i just heard this snippet in between hyper station flipping, so if i heard it wrong, don't comment and accuse me of trying to take down the government or being a commie or something. puh-lease.)
I'm reasonably sure that I heard someone ask the nominee whether or not he agreed with the decision that came out of Brown v. Board of Education, did he in fact believe that children have the right to an education in a non-segregated school.
...
...
WHAT??
This hurt my brain for two reasons...one being that I can't believe it's necessary to ask that, since I can't believe anyone in their right mind would still believe that was the wrong decision, never mind actually try to overturn it, never mind be a judge that would rule in favor of it's being overturned. It should be a decision, supported by a law, supported by a decision that you can't get rid of that law, supported by a law that says the government can send you to the outskirts of Alaska if you try to have it changed. You can think whatever you want about it, you can tell anybody you want, loud and clear, that you want to change it, but you can't actually attempt it, lest you actually succeed, having started some kind of witch-hunt style panic amongst the masses, because masses of people can be very stupid.
The second reason it hurt my brain has a little more to do with my own ignorance. The idea that the court, at some point, could decide to overturn Roe v. Wade had occurred to me. I guess this occurred to me because I hear people talking about the possibility that that decision could possibly be overturned, the fact that clearly a whole bunch of people would want it to be overturned, and that it's a somewhat more recent decision and i guess that makes it seem less cut in stone.
However, it had not occurred to me that ALL decisions, in theory, could just be overturned. This is actually a little outside my comprehension (as in I know it's technically true, but I just can't UNDERSTAND it. my brain is cranking away in an attempt to resolve this issue, and is failing.). Some stuff just IS how it IS. Your uppity self-righteous butt is not supposed to be able to change stuff that's just RIGHT. With abortion, there's room for debate about whether or not that's right, but Brown v. BoE? Great Heavenly Days, what on earth are we thinking about having congress decide things like who gets to sit on the court? Would not some sub-set of congress, split evenly on political lines, be a little more appropriate? Has anybody read that bit of Freakonomics about what happened in that foreign country when abortion was made illegal? I'm not particularly freaked out about abortion being made illegal as it relates to my own person (unless they make it so that it's not even an option when it relates to health reasons, then I'm freaked out), but I happen to think that I don't have the right to limit your decisions. Your decision, your consequences, your deal.
Jeez. Flames. Flames on the sides of my face.
posted by ~e at 10:23 AM
0 comments
