[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".

[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.

[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")

[ishmac]

...Anti-Hero...

World-historical Mountebank and Cad would be more like it