An Eighth-Grader Reviews Ben Sasse’s “Eighth Grade Civics” Presentation
In his opening remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, author of The Vanishing American Adult, invoked the image of eighth-graders around the nation witnessing the event and trying to understand it. Sasse sought to clarify things for these imaginary pre-teens, suggesting they would be confused by the Democrats raising political objections to the purely straightforward process of a president appointing a new justice. “If we can back up and do a little bit of eighth-grade civics,” Sasse said, “I think it would benefit us and benefit the watching country and especially watching eighth-grade civics classes.”
Slate asked Mack, an eighth-grader in the New York City public schools, to give his thoughts about Sasse’s presentation.
Ben Sasse sounds less insane than I thought he would, but of course there will be a but in that sentence. He wants to know what an eighth-grader would think of this.
Ben Sasse is talking about “Civics 101.” I don’t have a civics class in eighth grade. I learned the basics in history/social studies. Also, the “101” class format is not used in eighth grade in New York, where I live, or in Nebraska. He is now talking about something about eighth graders and the Senate Finance Committee, and something about 2009. This year’s eighth graders were two years old in 2009, and as such would not understand anything going on at the time. I don’t want to understand anything happening related to the Finance Committee or the Senate in general, in 2009 or 2020.
Politics vs. civics: Yes, okay, I get this, they are different and the Supreme Court is independent but you really don’t think Amy Coney Barrett would have bipartisan support, right?
Religious beliefs: Okay now Ben Sasse sounds uncannily like someone who is a Civics 101 teacher. He is now talking about religious liberty and “wacky” religious beliefs being respected.
Judicial activism: Huh??? We are now out of eighth-grade territory.
If we don’t like what the Senate does, Sasse says we should “elect different people.” According to Wikipedia, the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Nebraska is hugely racist and in a sex scandal and now the Democratic Party of Nebraska endorsed someone running a write-in campaign. With the votes hopelessly splintered, and his official opposition a WRITE-IN candidate, how is there any way he loses if people don’t like him?
“The enemy of judicial activism is originalism.” Doesn’t originalism mean that the wording is all that matters, and the intent of the words can be ignored even when it is obvious? But language is ambiguous. Can’t you make lots of loopholes that way?
Ben Sasse should teach Civics 101. I think he would be a somewhat OK Civics 101 teacher. He is not a very good senator.
Filibuster—Supreme Court? How are these two related? The filibuster is in the Senate. The Supreme Court is not the Senate, as Ben Sasse would like to remind everybody.
Ben Sasse talks too fast for me to write anything down.
Comments
Post a Comment