Central to the Neo-Confederate/Originalist political myth is Brown I and II, as an attack on American Feudalism: white male power as above any kind of challenge. See The Rehnquist Choice by John Dean for confirmation of that political connection. The rest of Mr. Troy’s polemic is, in a way relevant to an argument against the Supreme Court as an unelected body, but the Court has long since abandoned the interpretive primacy of ‘legislative intent’ as part of the due diligence of the Court, that it’s justices once exercised to determine the why and the how that defined that ‘intent’.
Mr. Troy fails to mention other inconvenient but relevant cases like Buck v Bell, Hirabayashi v. US, Korematsu v. US or the cases I mentioned in my reply, Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder, that clearly demonstrate that race, gender and ethnicity, not to speak of economic power, have played a large part in the history of Law in the US. And Mr. Troy’s ideological propinquity for that Neo-Confederate/Originalist ideology.
I sign my tweets StephenKMackSD! Here is my self-description in full:
‘Rootless Cosmopolitan( безродный космополит), Down at heels intellectual and would be writer. Avatar in honor of Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi.”
Rootless cosmopolitan (Russian language: безродный космополит, “bezrodnyi kosmopolit”) was a term used during the anti-cosmopolitan campaign in the Soviet Union after WWII. Cosmopolitans were intellectuals who were accused of expressing pro-Western feelings and lack of patriotism. The term “rootless cosmopolitan” is considered to specifically refer to Jewish intellectuals. It first appeared during the campaign in a Pravda article condemning a group of theatrical critics, but was originally coined by the Russian nineteenth-century literary critic Vissarion Belinsky to describe writers who lacked national character.
My reference is to Belinsky, although shaded in irony, rather than to Stalin’s antisemitic attack on intellectuals, to be plain!