The Anti-Hero; The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas

New Republic ^ | Feb 24,2003 | Richard A. Posner

[Maximilian]

This article is a little different from my usual posts, but it's very enlightening. It does a good job explaining some of the politics of the Supreme Court and the Democratic Party, while documenting the psychopathic nature of one its most famous, and most liberal, justices. William O. Douglas was a:

1. Pathological liar.
2. Placed ambition above all else.
3. Continuous womanizer.
4. Abusive employer.
5. Totally uninterested in the law.
6. Wrote decisions without any reference to precedent, law, arguments, ANYTHING except his own opinion.

This is the man who wrote the Griswold vs Connecticut decision which laid the groundwork for Roe vs Wade (in which he concurred but did not write the decision). It was Douglas' creation out of thin air of a "right to privacy" which provided a legal precedent for Roe.

BTW, it's useful to know that Posner is now the leading proponent of the "realist" school of constitutional interpretation in order to understand why he focuses so much on that issue in the article, and why Posner seems to maintain a sneaking respect for Douglas despite his willingness to admit the truth of everything said against him.

[jjm2111]

Good article. "Bump" to the "top".

[oyez]

"right to privacy" is a legal fiction and has nothing to do with the Constitution. In no way should a series of laws be created from the bench backed by a fictional right. It is a very idealistic vision that American are intitled a certain freedom that shields them for murderious and teasonous acts.

People like Douglas are responsible for the no standards lifestyle that is so prevalent in this country. Its no wonder out prisons are full. (Rant-rant)

[Tom D.]

I knew that there were a bunch of reasons I didn't like Douglas; I just didn't realize how many reasons there were.

[Cicero]

It's one more indication that one of the reasons for the decay of our society and the destruction of our constitutional system of law was the unbridled desire of a few men in positions of power to enjoy enbridled sexual indulgence.

Ironically it was the breakdown in morality of these pillars of the WASP establishment that brought about many or most of the problems we see today. Ironic, because what could be more politically incorrect than a privileged WASP like Douglas? But these were the people who brought on the cultural revolution. Griswold v. Connecticut was indeed a key turning point.

[Slyfox]

I like his first wife and her divorce lawyer.

[HighRoadToChina]

BUMP!

[pilgrim]

 

  Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

 

THOMAS L. BOWERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARGUERITE ANNE BOWERS,

DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. ROBERT A. DeVITO, M.D., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Nos. 80-1865, 80-2078.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 1982.

Decided August 20, 1982.

As Amended September 2, 1982.

Lester E. Munson, Smith & Munson, James G. Meyer, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Christine A. Bremer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Illinois Dept. of Mental Health, D. Kendall Griffith, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Before PELL, WOOD and POSNER, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

(snip)  "[6] We need not decide whether this distinction is valid, for there is an alternative ground on which the dismissal of the complaint against these defendants must be upheld. Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who under color of state law "subjects . . . any citizen . . . or other person . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . .," and thus applies only if there is a deprivation of a constitutional right. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 699-701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1159-1160, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146-47, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2695-96, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Bonner v. Coughlin, 545 F.2d 565, 567, 569 (7th Cir. 1976). There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. Discrimination in providing protection against private violence could of course violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..........."

Judge Posner seems to tell it like it is?

[nightdriver]

Douglas was the old reprobate who invented the terms "penumbras and emanations" as principles in the Constitution that the rest of us peons just can't see. I say good riddance to him.

My old grade school teacher thought Douglas was just the cat's whiskers and made us read a lot of his jibberish. 'Course, she was a rabid, fangy-toothed democRAT.

[Gerish]

Interesting read and just goes to show what a person with a sick and twisted soul can do with "power." Look at the destruction that has been left behind by this man!

[polemikos]

1. Pathological liar.
2. Placed ambition above all else.
3. Continuous womanizer.
4. Abusive employer.
5. Totally uninterested in the law.

Now that reminds me of another disfunctional person...
what was his name? ... what was his name?

[afraidfortherepublic]

...we now know that a high percentage of successful and creative people are psychologically warped and morally challenged;

I wish someone would write a comprehensive study on this point. How did someone like Douglas (as well as Bill and Hillary) get away with spreading such blatent lies about themselves their entire lives? And still have worshipers?

Why didn't (doesn't) someone step forward and expose these rats for what they are?

Why is it that the people who try to expose these frauds are viewed with contempt, while the greater public would rather believe the lie than accept the truth about the liers?

... and anyway, as Machiavelli recognized long ago, personal morality and political morality are not the same thing.

I completely disagree with this point. Personal morality and political morality go hand in hand. If you lie and cheat on your wife, partner, friend, mother, father, child, you will lie and cheat on your constituent. If I had the time I could prove this with many examples.

Did Clinton's philandering in the WH prevent him from stealing goods from the WH (taxpayer)? No, we were just one more grubby little conquest.

[Askel5]

Douglas became a hero not only to radicals and civil libertarians but also to environmentalists.

Pet Rocks & Potential Personhood ... Justice Douglas's Sanctity of Environmental Life Ethic. (From William Brenna's "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable")

[Askel5]

I'll be interested (but none too surprised, I suspect) to see what Posner has to say about "Pragamatism and Democracy".

Interesting quandary, that ... "pragmatists" voting on Virtue.

[Askel5]

But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen

But the State is correct to stop you and search you in case you're not wearing your seatbelt?

[Bedford Forrest]

I think that the opposite is more likely, and that the tragedy of Douglas was not that he was a warped human being, or that Roosevelt passed him over for the vice presidential nomination, but that for reasons of temperament--and because the great prize of the presidency seemed for a while within reach--he could not buckle down and commit himself wholeheartedly to the Court and become the greatest of the legal realists.

Thank God for large favors. Sounds like Posner actually admires the evil creature. Amazing. And why, exactly, do so many of these lefty scribblers consider the presidency a "great prize"? My wife - yes. The presidency - you've got to be kidding.

[ishmac]

Douglas was not a good judge (I will come back to this point), but this was not because he was a woman-chaser, a heavy drinker, a liar, and so on. It was because he did not like the job. In part he did not like it because he wanted another job badly, a job for which he was indeed better suited.

Right--we'd have been spared his destructive influence if only we'd made him president!! Let him have the nuclear football! Let Douglas be in charge during the Berlin blockade in '48! Let him be the leader of the free world at the outset of the cold war!

Saints preserve us from the intellectuals

[ishmac]

I wish someone would write a comprehensive study on this point.

Do you know of the author E. Michael Jones? You might be interested in his books Degenerate Moderns and Dionysius Rising. Jones details the unsavory personal histories of several pillars of modern thought (Freud, Mead, Kinsey, Wagner et al.) and shows how their private lives influenced their thinking and art.

You could probably write an endless series of such books. Douglas would rate an especially fat chapter in one.