A party-neutral exploration.
Under the ‘live and learn’ category, I had a recent eye-opening discovery myself. While it was something I had HEARD before, I never quite put the historical 2 + 2 together. Humorous too that it was in the political realm, to which I pay quite a bit of attention.
A couple weeks ago I attended a convention in Eugene Oregon, a place I have always heard about but never had the opportunity to visit. By luck, I got to stay in a lovely hotel with a river-front room overlooking a rather rapid-flowing Willamette River. [This was not quite the ‘desert’ rivers or Arizona I had come to know where you could often transverse the riverbed without getting your socks wet.] It was a lovely view. And there I had the honor to hear Garrett Epps, Constitutional Law professor, Supreme Court correspondent for The Atlantic, contributing editor to the American Prospect and author of the award-winning books American Epic and Democracy Reborn. He was speaking about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and partisanship – but don’t worry this isn’t to promote a political point of view.
Looking around us, the whole partisanship attitude (meaning how divided people can be) is disheartening. It is not something I have to prove here because you all see it on the news you watch, hear it from the radio you listen to, experience it in your local communities or even at your own Thanksgiving and holiday tables. Ds and Rs can barely speak to one another; 3rd parties and independents feel ignored. It is often hard to believe that the chasm between the sides can still be bridged.
What I found interesting about Mr. Epps’ speech was a better clarification of the point of view from which progressives and conservatives view the CONCEPT of ‘minority.’ When SCOTUS hears and decides a case, this definition can sometimes be an important distinction, especially considering the contentious and ever-growing political divide of the justices. They are all brilliant people of course and they can adapt their thinking for the nuances of any incident. So Epps is not suggesting that they don’t know the definition in reference to any particular docket case being heard. It is more a matter of the “lens” through which they look when interpretations of minority are at play.
[Before I continue, let me drop in this note. Did you know that Justice Kagen has gone shooting with Justice Scalia? Mr. Epps, a regular observer of SCOTUS, assures us that while the court does seem firmly politically split (typically), he perceives that they all truly respect AND like each other personally.
Kind of an ‘agree to disagree’ venue at the highest level.]
Back to the definition.
When progressives traditionally used the term ‘minority’, they meant folks who are not white, Anglo-Saxon males. Some would abbreviate the term, removing the Anglo-Saxon part (especially since the court is currently made up of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews). Yet religious affiliation (other than Anglo-Saxon) is still considered part of the minority make-up in some court cases. Along with the abbreviated change there would have to be another modification. The majority portion would not include ALL males as it would exclude homosexual males, who are clearly part of the minority in the liberal-sided view. Progressives believe these minority groups (comprising people who are non-white, LGBT or women) need protection – protection from the powerful and wealthy, who are seen as creating an ever-widening gap of opportunity. [Fortification from the overt and covert power of the 1% if you will.] Progressives envision the 99% when they think of a government “of, by and for the people.’
Both of these numbers are http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/bear-knocking-over-ice-sculpture/ free viagra no prescription important. One of saddest things about people in abusive relationships You, too, might ask why? Look closely and consider, what do all of these people have in common? Each and every one of them is dealing with a phase of the life cycle of cute-n-tiny.com sildenafil online uk an abusive relationship. Let’s take an in-depth look at how heat therapy can help in delaying orgasm viagra pfizer 25mg for long-lasting sexual sessions. Gout occupies greater http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/om-nom-puppies/ viagra doctor stature in the list of Lifestyle Related Diseases.
When conservatives (not moderates who tend to share the definition above) use the term minority they often refer to the views of the founding fathers. They view the minority as the engines of opportunity, comprising a limited number of land holders, wealthy economic investors or the job-creators. Think of it as everyone else being the “mob” (the 99%) from which the minority needs some safe-guards and protections. The term 1% may even verify their status as minority. Conservatives may see the goal of their work to include protecting, stabilizing or accommodating the growth of the economy that affects everyone. This particular lens may also vary from countries comparable to ours simply because the US is founded (to a greater degree than others) on capitalism. The protection of this financial structure, believed compatible with the constitution and the founding philosophies, may be the reasoning for a definition that seems so at odds with the other side.
Certainly each reader thinks one definition is correct and the other is dead wrong! Period. I am not attempting a debate here or suggesting this terminology alone explains our political divide. What I am saying is that decisions that appear reprehensible or totally confusing from one side or the other often stem from this dissimilarity of the characterization of a minority when the issue is in play. The lens through which we interpret can change our vision totally or blind us to the other side.
Something to think about – or to discuss with someone you know won’t agree with YOUR take on it.
—
P.S. Did you know that May 15th is National Chocolate Chip Day? Guess you could start the conversation above by offering a cookie.…… 
Picture credit: Accessed at TheWowStyle.com Beautiful Nature Images Free To Download (thewowstyle.com)
Ah, yes, the minority of the rich needs to be protected from the democracy of the many, The Judicial philosophy would protect the minority or the wealthy from the creation of laws that would limit the free exercise of the benefits of the property and wealth. Wonder if the would reverse the definition of property to include women and slaves?
And the next administration will most likely get a chance to name a supreme court justice. The winner of that election will change the course of democracy for generations to come.
OregonBell, No matter what side of the definition you come down on, you last statement cannot be denied. The next administration will change the course of the country by the nomination of justice(s), although we probably cannot even imagine in how many ways. Thanks for reading.