Review: “A Republic, If You Can Keep It” A debut that veers into the irreverent whilst refraining from the ad hominem. Brilliant!

“A Republic, If You Can Keep It” was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and published in 2019. This book is a collection of speeches and essays with additional commentary, each with some connection to a lesson on the United States Constitution and how the branches of the government work together to create that republic of which he speaks.

It is important to note that there is no linear narrative to this book because of the nature of its configuration. It begins with his own thoughts about his appointment to the Supreme Court and the memories he has of his prior experience of being a law clerk; a sort of then and now situation. However, the book will often go from discussing present day politics, to jumping to the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, discussing cases brought before the Supreme Court during those centuries. A large section of the book is reminiscent of a textbook on the United States Constitution, discussing cases and why the given outcome was decided. The book is broken up into sections that each have a purpose: “A Republic, If You Can Keep It” is an introduction for the people who always skip the actual introduction (don’t feel too called out, the phrase “preaching to the choir” is definitely applicable here ), giving the reader a sense of Justice Gorsuch and why his expertise matters; “Our Constitution And It’s Separated Powers” is that government lesson no one remembers learning, but everyone remembers missing the questions on the test; “The Judges Tools” which explores the concepts of Originalism and Textualism in context with various cases and why the concepts matter in deciding an outcome for a given issue; “The Art of Judging” explains what it means to be a judge and how judges make their decisions; “Toward Justice For All” which sounds much less amusing than it actually is, but can largely be boiled down to a conversation on the concept of “justice” and what that means for the American people; “On Ethics and The Good LIfe” which one would expect to be a much more in-depth topic given how it fits with so many of the other sections; and finally, “From Judge to Justice” which brings the reader out of the nebulous concepts and back into the real world.

Justice Gorsuch is very well-educated in his field, the very model of a wonk, and it is very obvious that if given any leeway at all, he could spend hours talking or writing about law. A great amount of effort was obviously put into making him appear to be the Everyman; he is the average working American Man one would expect to be living the American Dream. He not only tries to present this image of himself, but also of the other Justices. He comments on Justice Thomas’ “booming laugh” (18), Justice Breyer’s seemingly “endless reservoir of knock-knock jokes” (19), and what can only be described as the nerdiest form of hazing one can imagine— grilling the law clerks on trivia about the Court (19).  He mentions Justice Scalia often enough and with enough reverence that there is no doubt that Gorsuch has attained his dream job and is working with whatever the wonk version of a celebrity is (fanboy much, Justice Gorsuch?). This Everyman image is further cultivated by haranguing what is essentially the newest generation about their attitudes towards civility (20- 21); endearing himself to anyone with a “get those darn kids off my lawn” vibe about the next generation. All of this is cleverly done so as to make the reader see him as just as much like every other average American and give himself an extra layer of credibility. In the field of rhetoric, this is called establishing ethos— providing enough context and trust that one is more likely to be open to what that speaker or writer is saying. Essentially, he is priming his audience to be more receptive to his instruction.

However, it appears that Justice Gorsuch cannot really decide who his audience is, which is essential for any type of persuasive discourse. (And yes, teaching, instructing, and imparting information fall into the category of persuasive discourse, given that the instructor or speaker has the make their audience care enough to retain any of the information.) The structure of the book explains some of this confusion since it is a collection of speeches and essays, but it is so disjointed in its arrangement that a reader will feel at times mocked for the simplicity of the langue, and other times, completely out of their depth without a more thorough understanding of the way the government works. At times, all the effort that has gone into making Justice Gorsuch appear like the Everyman is rendered nugatory when, through his own tales of his days as a law clerk and reminiscing over the same, the reader is very obviously made aware that those who study the law and pursue a career in the field are part of a society of people who have their own inside jokes, language, communication style, and understanding of the very laws that govern the nation. It is unintentionally othering the reader and pointing out that those outside of the know just wouldn’t get it. Furthermore, the method Justice Gorsuch uses to endear him to some (I.e. traditionalists who believe the world has an incivility problem (19- 21)) alienates many others and gives off those “get those darn kids off my lawn” vibes mentioned previously, making him sound like every middle-aged dad in the south who has exactly four stories to tell and never remembers quite how they go or who has already heard the stories before, resulting in everyone hearing various versions of the stories more than once.

If you have any interest in reading what is indubitably one of the wonkiest books ever written, this is the book for you. It would make for great reading for a better understanding of the way the constitution is set up. It isn’t a book for the beginner, as it requires the reader to do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of understanding the concepts mentioned (e.x., Aristotelian ideas, Originalism, Textualism, the structure of the Judicial Branch, etc.), providing a deeper understanding rather than a beginners. Personally, I found reading this book to be reminiscent of the constitution classes I participated in as a child; while learning something new is always nice, it isn’t always fun. Especially when the person instructing you gives off vibes of “socially awkward master of a single trade.” In short, A Republic, If You Can Keep It (or as I’ve been calling it in my head: A Point, If We Ever Get To It) is an educational read with plenty of real world examples and a few jokes thrown in. If you want a no nonsense book with enough interruptions of legal-ese and law analysis to keep you from falling asleep, this is the book for you, provided you can stay with it enough to fully understand the meaning of the book’s title.

Skidmore, Gennifer

Snapshot: If You Want a Green POTUS, Nixon’s The One

Image Source: The History Channel

One can argue that Richard Nixon’s environmental legacy stands out as his most notable achievement, particularly when compared to the more scandalous aspects of his presidency. Established in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became a cornerstone of Nixon’s environmental policy. By consolidating multiple federal programs under one roof, it ensured a more coordinated and effective approach to environmental protection. This was akin to Roosevelt’s establishment of national parks, aimed at safeguarding the country’s natural beauty.

The Clean Air Act of 1970, another hallmark of Nixon’s tenure, set out to curb air pollution through stricter regulations. It required the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards, drastically improving air quality across the nation. This Act was essential in addressing the adverse health impacts of air pollution and has been hailed as a model for subsequent environmental legislation globally.

Nixon didn’t stop at air; his administration also targeted water pollution. The Clean Water Act of 1972 empowered the EPA to regulate the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters, aiming to achieve “fishable and swimmable” waters. Prior to this, many rivers and lakes were heavily polluted, but this Act laid the groundwork for substantial improvements in water quality.

His administration also initiated the Endangered Species Act of 1973, providing critical protection for species at risk of extinction. This Act was a significant step forward in conservation, building upon the foundations laid by Roosevelt’s work in establishing national parks and protecting wildlife.

Nixon’s tenure also saw the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, which mandated that all federal agencies consider the environmental impact of their actions and projects. This law introduced the requirement for Environmental Impact Statements, ensuring that environmental considerations became a central part of government decision-making.

Compared to Roosevelt, Nixon’s efforts were more focused on regulatory measures to address the industrial pollution and environmental degradation that had become prevalent by the late 20th century. Roosevelt’s contributions were groundbreaking for their time, focusing on conservation and the establishment of protected areas. However, Nixon’s approach tackled the complex environmental challenges of his era, laying the groundwork for the modern environmental movement.

Nixon’s environmental policies were driven by a growing public awareness of environmental issues, spurred by events like the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962 and the first Earth Day in 1970. These events highlighted the need for comprehensive federal action, and Nixon’s administration responded by enacting a series of landmark environmental laws.

While Nixon’s presidency is often remembered for its controversies, his environmental achievements have had a lasting impact, shaping the framework of modern environmental policy. His administration’s actions underscored the importance of federal leadership in addressing environmental challenges and demonstrated that significant progress could be made through bipartisan cooperation and public support.

Read More

Review: “Death At Midnight (The Confession of an Executioner)”

Death at Midnight: The Confession of an Executioner written by Donald A. Cabana with its bright green title and the front-and-center image of a gas chamber is not a book that can be easily misjudged by the cover; it is unflinching, somber, and agonizingly, brutally, honest and thought-provoking.

Dr. Cabana’s use of descriptive language would (and did) make creative writers weep in envy of his visceral images crafted through deceptively complex sentences. With just a few words and little effort on the part of the imagination of the reader, Dr. Cabana paints pictures of the reality of execution that most people would prefer to forget; the people being executed are still human beings with thoughts, hopes, fears, and desires.

Trying to summarize this book does it no justice. The book begins at the end for an inmate by the name of Connie Ray Evans, a death row inmate who was sentenced to execution for the murder of a gas station clerk during a robbery. It’s a rather fitting beginning since there’s no way to ease into a topic like this, it’s an all-in, all-at-once, in-your-face issue. No amount of preparation or philosophical discussion can prepare you for the reality of the death penalty, just as no amount of testing can prepare one for the reality of the execution via gas chamber. Dr. Cabana’s horror over the reality of execution, made worse by the fact that he himself liked Connie Ray Evans as a person, is easily felt in the first chapter. It only gets heavier from there as more context is provided in the following chapters.

While the book brings in information about the legality of the death penalty, never once does it feel like the clinical, somewhat distanced philosophical approach one would expect of a lecture or lesson from a Criminal Justice teacher. Given that Dr. Cabana is more invested in the human aspect of the situation, this comes as no surprise, but is, instead, refreshingly raw. Nothing about this book is clinical or distanced. Dr. Cabana was faced with the reality of the death penalty and the personhood of those caught under the weight of such a practice and makes sure everyone who reads his book is faced with it as well. Death at Midnight makes the reader confront the reality that when discussing the death penalty, people like to forget that the people being put to death are, like all humans, complex and nuanced beings; they are infinitely more than the crimes they have committed, whether society wants to acknowledge that or not. As Dr. Cabana puts it:

Executions strip away the veneer of life for both warden and prisoner. Connie Ray Evans and I transcended our environment, and the roles in which they had been cast. The two of us had somehow managed to become real people to each other. There were no more titles or social barriers behind which either of us could hide—I was no longer a prison warden and he had become someone other than a condemned prisoner. We were just two ordinary human beings caught up in a vortex of events that neither of us could control. (16)

Never once does Dr. Cabana let us forget that these are people, regardless of their circumstances. Even when faced with the death of a staff member of the prison by an inmate, Dr. Cabana still treats the man with compassion despite his own anger.

When I first started this book, I was not prepared for it. I could tell from the cover this was going to be a book that would emotionally impact me, but I still wasn’t prepared for how much. There were several times I had to put the book down and walk away from it because I was so overwhelmed by the raw brutality of the words. I knew I was getting into something heavy, but I still wasn’t prepared. There is no way to read this book and maintain emotional distance because this isn’t fiction. This isn’t The Green Mile where you can remind yourself that it’s just a story; this is a confession, plain and simple. Dr. Cabana declaring “you are my friend, Connie . . . I won’t forget you” (187) moments before being the one to order the lever drop on the gas chamber is heartbreaking and without doubt one of the most emotionally devastating things I have ever read.

Everyone should read this book, even if for no other reason than to remember that we are all flawed but nuanced creatures with infinitely more to each of us than a single moment of our legacies, and these nuances deserve to be explored.

Read More

Contrast: Palestine v. Israel

And way down we go…

To this editor, ModState serves an important function. Much more than a centrist platform that approaches discussion beyond hardline left and right perspectives, our goal here is to get at the root of the issues we address. What good are our beliefs if they are not founded on facts and tempered by empathy? In anticipation of continuing this discussion, this editor submits the following musings.

We have waited over a week before discussing the events of October 7th, 2023 in anticipation of sifting through reports for consistent data and misinformation. On October 7th at 6:30 am, according to a timeline by ABC News, air-raid sirens alerted Israelis of the imminent attack. Hamas had launched an attack directed at Southern and Central Israel. Israel was hit by Hamas’ (Qassem) rockets. Israel claims 2,200 missiles hit their targets. Hamas claims that they fired 5,000. As of Friday, Oct 13th, 1,799 people have been killed and 7,388 have been injured in Gaza while 1,300 people have been killed and 3,227 have been injured in Israel. By the time you are reading this, it is likely that Israel is about to or has begun its siege of North Gaza after issuing a warning to the UN on Friday for 1.1 million people to evacuate south of Wadi Gaza.

News and social media sources have been rife with misinformation. One video showed phosphorous bombs dropped on Gaza by Israel—except the footage is from the war in Ukraine earlier this year. Some early news sources insinuated that Iran’s $6 billion in unfrozen funds went to fund Hamas, making the attack possible—yet the funds remain in a Qatari bank account subject to third-party oversight. Most famously, Israel claims Hamas beheaded 40 babies, but no substantial proof of these claims has been brought forward. The statement seems to have originated with an Israeli journalist who admitted it was hearsay.

Yet behind these stories is a general desperation for the conflict to be over—for some solution to be found. In anticipation of this editorial, this editor has noticed four general camps of thought: Pro-Palestine, Pro-Israel, Calls-for-Peace, and (Two-State) Solutions. The pro-Palestinian/pro-Israeli divide has never been a constructive place from which to launch a discussion on this topic. Likewise, those who call for general peace tend to avoid both learning and integrating centuries of history into their call. We will not entertain, here, the groups who call for the destruction of their perceived opponents. And, so, this editor comments on this week’s events through the platform of solutions—whether one is possible and what it might look like.

Every time the Palestinian-Israeli conflict re-escalates, people are asked to pick a side and are shamed if they do not. “If you are not with us, you are against us.” While there is merit to the idea that silence is complacency, it is also fair to say that demanding someone to make an uninformed decision is equally complicit. Each side becomes more polarized and more entrenched in their beliefs with each act of violence.

A few basic truths must be acknowledged. Counter to what some would have us believe, the attack by Hamas was not unprovoked. An unprovoked attack would require a reality where Israel had, at minimum, not bombed Gaza 16 years into a blockade. It would be more accurate to say this is an escalation of violence in a conflict that began over a century ago. It is also fair to note that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Gaza does not have its own governing body, and Hamas does not represent the civilians confined to live in Gaza—many of whom are refugees from other areas in Israel and Occupied Palestine.

In response to those who call for a solution, this editor asserts that a solution will not be reached if the governments and powers involved prevent accurate retelling of history and censor critique. If we refuse to see the truth of the situation or hold all parties accountable for their roles in this conflict, there is no action or treaty known to man that could effectively end this conflict without major bloodshed. Those who call for a two-state solution want to, yet again, force arbitrary borders onto land to which multiple groups believe they have a right. It is precisely this activity that led to much of the region’s current conflict—the implementation of arbitrary Mandate borders onto land acquired from the Ottoman Empire.

The best this editor can do is return to a sentiment echoed in Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaadt, that the creation of a Jewish state would include those who already live there. While this is not true justice for Palestinians, it is reiterated by Khader Abu-Seif, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, in the documentary Oriented. When confronted by an angry Israeli man on the issue of Palestinian rights and Israel, he responds that [they] are all here and [they] must learn to live together.

— Smith, Candace

 

 

 

Under normal circumstances, whoever is involved in an upcoming feature (like, say, a podcast) tends to reconvene with their assigned counterparts prior to conduct what we label in-house as a “pre-cast”, which tends to be exactly what it sounds like. You get with your assigned counterpart(s) and conduct a brief rundown of your notes and go over the macro items, basically conducting what amounts to a live outline of what’s coming up.

These, however, are not normal circumstances. This sudden and brazen series of rocket attacks occurred on the cusp of a major holiday, which for all intents and purposes has become something of a historical habit for the State of Israel. This remark is by no means my being flippant over this sudden and senseless loss of life for one of America’s most important alliances the world over. But as I advised my nephew (when he asked), there’s something rotten in Denmark here. I’ve no intention of absconding with the topic here, and Candace and I agreed from the outset that we’ll review potential conspiracy theories “live” when we record the podcast episode(s) following this article. With that, I’ll return to the road and hit the obvious marks between the lines.

I can hear the howling now. Part of the gig whenever you take a stand (or dozens of them, as has been the case with ModState over the better part of the last decade), is that you’re due for some heavy criticism. As I told Candace and Nate earlier this week, though, I consider “Israel/Palestine” to be the “Roe v. Wade” of geopolitics in that, for all intents and purposes, the public allows no middle ground, will brook no attempts at compromise from the outset.

Enters the stage: from seemingly disparate places on the so-called political spectrum, Candace Smith and yours truly. The SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) since 2017 has been a pragmatic answer to the nature of having the shares of our enterprise divided into an exactly even split: Nate and myself naturally reviewed all major decisions together, but I had veto authority within the editorial side of the house whilst Nate carried that same power on the multimedia side. In technical terms, this power-sharing structure continues to this day. However, as we slowly grew to include more voices, and as discussions regarding external investment take shape and we’re taking several “next steps” (albeit gingerly) that may appear radical for those familiar with our modus operandi of the past 6-plus years. “Deputy” added to the title of the managing editor, Nate not hosting every episode the podcast, and now, we’re finally teed up with the opportunity to put the opposition on blast courtesy of an eruption in the long simmering “Israel v. Palestine” affair and we deliver…this?

Yes, this is the first step forward in our multi-faceted (editorial and multimedia) coverage of this round of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We are well aware that, as a body politic, the vibe is akin to the scene in Gladiator where, Maximus having subdued the venerable Salt-dog Tigris of Gaul meant to be his own undoing, the entire crowd roars with approval at the Emperor’s sign to kill his opponent. Check. Got it. Memorandum received.

Let not your collective hearts be troubled. Whether you’re one of the majority of our audience who hail from the United States of ‘Merika or the European Union, or if you’re one of the blockade runners who check in from Pyongyang or Turpan, we are indeed gearing up for a fight. It’s just not the one everyone anticipated, where Nate “the Great” Wellein hosts and plays parent whilst keeping Candace “Free Palestine” Smith and Jack “’Munich’ Was Mild” DeViney from putting one another to the sword.

Which brings me back full-circle to the point from a few paragraphs ago about our Standard Operating Procedure or MO (Modus Operandi). Candace intends to elaborate further on the sentiment that Hamas is an organization largely comprised of bad actors but whom the Palestinians feel little option but to turn to (not dissimilar from the original reason for the existence of the Black Panthers). Similarly, I intend to state strongly that while the civilian Palestinian is caught between a rock and a hard place, they’ve not helped their cause by allowing Mahmoud Abbas to indefinitely delay free elections which, fair or not, has given Israel and its Western Allies an easy out from talks by virtue of there being no clear negotiating partner with whom to talk. Nevertheless, Candace felt certain it was as important to identify our role (and responsibility) amidst these crises as it is for her to tell me what’s what. She’ll get that chance, as it’s written in the stars several times over that Megiddo is a battlefield not far, far away at all and the dogs of war know the way.

For my part, I feel equally compelled to say I’m glad we didn’t get too crazy with the Cheez Whiz right out of the gate and issue a bunch of gut reactions like, say, the President of the United States did.

Afterall, the whole point of being able to watch all of your favorite shows on any and all of your devices is that it’s not your little darlings being faced with the reality of “kill or be killed”, it’s somebody else’s. Similarly, this precisely where we again draw the distinction in our being a current events publication, as opposed to being a news organization. The volume needs to come down, as the pan-partisan tinnitus isn’t helping advance anyone’s cause. A little subtlety, a little grace, and maybe taking a breath and letting the other person finish more than one sentence while we listen to what one another actually have to say. Because, let’s be real, here. If you want more of the ad hominem, talking over one another, insult messaging with virtually no regard to what happens to our country as a result of this, if that’s the dialogue you want, as in, you miss it already? Well then you know where to go: literally anywhere else.

— DeViney, J.

 

Read More