thenation--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Displays Her Twisted Views on Voting Rights

It ’ s clear Senate Democrats have decided that hammering Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on her stated disdain for the Affordable Care Act is a winning message .
They did it all day Monday , mostly to success , and a lot of Tuesday .
But Senator Dick Durbin was one of the first to introduce another equally important line of questioning Tuesday : why she thinks felons are entitled to own guns , despite state and federal law to the contrary , but not to vote .
Barrett wrote a stunning 38-page dissent to the 27-page majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which a Wisconsin felon who ’ d served his time challenged laws prohibiting him from purchasing a gun .
I ’ m not a lawyer , so I can ’ t vouch for the quality of her legal reasoning .
Also , since I ’ m not a lawyer , I was slightly befuddled by her claim that the distinction was a matter of “ individual rights , ” which applied to gun ownership , versus “ civic rights , ” which include voting .
It was clear to me her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental than voting rights , but I didn ’ t know how she got there .
Luckily , smarter folks than I have teased it out .
My colleague Elie Mystal went appropriately ballistic on Twitter , so I learned from him .
Also helpful was this New Republic piece by Matt Ford .
True to her self-identification as an “ originalist , ” hewing closely to what is essentially a subjective view of what the “ founders ” intended as they wrote the Constitution , Barrett saw a basis for distinguishing between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those , like Rickey Kanter , whose crime , multimillion-dollar mail fraud , was nonviolent .
Barrett found “ [ no ] evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right [ to own a gun ] , ” she wrote .
“ Such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service , not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun.
” She went on : “ History does show that felons could be disqualified from exercising certain rights—like the rights to vote and serve on juries—because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” You have to be a “ virtuous citizen ” to vote , but not to own a gun ?
The Democrats Might Actually Have a Strategy to Block Amy Coney Barrett Thankfully , two Reagan-appointed judges disagreed , though they didn ’ t delve into colonial history .
( You can read both the ruling and dissent here . )
Barrett didn ’ t cop to that in her reply to Durbin .
“ Did you not distinguish the Second Amendment right from the right to vote , calling one an individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a civic right ?
” he asked , and she replied , “ That ’ s consistent with the language in the historical context .
Everyone was treating voting as one of the civic rights.
” She did not share her peculiar moralistic take on the latter .
Then Senator Amy Klobuchar followed up .
Barrett obfuscated and a frustrated Klobuchar asked , “ But how would you define ‘ virtuous ’ ?
” The nominee answered : “ The virtuous citizenry idea is a historical and jurisprudential one .
It certainly doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone gets a measure of virtue , or whether they ’ re good or not and whether they ’ re allowed to vote.
” She still refused to define “ virtue.
” I ’ ve never formally seen the concept of “ virtuous citizenry ” used as a reason to restrict voting rights—of course , most of the founders thought only white men of property should be able to vote , so maybe that ’ s what she means .
I hope others keep pushing this issue .
Meanwhile , Barrett refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal ( it is ) .
Barrett ’ s answers Tuesday offer us a window onto how she would approach the issue of voting rights , when it ( inevitably ) comes before her if she gets confirmed .
Obviously , that ’ s one of the many things Republicans like about her , since restricting voting rights is one of their core projects ( as I write , we ’ ve learned about mysterious voter-registration system outages in Virginia , Louisiana , and Florida ) .
But it might matter to voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are paying to the ACA , but Durbin and Klobuchar ’ s questioning laid bare another set of reasons for Democrats to grill Barrett vigorously—and not treat her confirmation as a done deal .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
It’s clear Senate Democrats have decided that hammering Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on her stated disdain for the Affordable Care Act is a winning message. They did it all day Monday, mostly to success, and a lot of Tuesday. But Senator Dick Durbin was one of the first to introduce another equally important line of questioning Tuesday: why she thinks felons are entitled to own guns, despite state and federal law to the contrary, but not to vote.
Barrett wrote a stunning 38-page dissent to the 27-page majority opinion in the 2019 Kanter vs. Barr, in which a Wisconsin felon who’d served his time challenged laws prohibiting him from purchasing a gun. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t vouch for the quality of her legal reasoning. Also, since I’m not a lawyer, I was slightly befuddled by her claim that the distinction was a matter of “individual rights,” which applied to gun ownership, versus “civic rights,” which include voting. It was clear to me her point was that gun rights are more fundamental than voting rights, but I didn’t know how she got there. Want more from Joan? Check out the first-ever Nation Festival featuring Joan Walsh alongside an extraordinary group of speakers. Nov. 18-21.
Luckily, smarter folks than I have teased it out. My colleague Elie Mystal went appropriately ballistic on Twitter, so I learned from him. Also helpful was this New Republic piece by Matt Ford. True to her self-identification as an “originalist,” hewing closely to what is essentially a subjective view of what the “founders” intended as they wrote the Constitution, Barrett saw a basis for distinguishing between felons who committed violent crimes, and those, like Rickey Kanter, whose crime, multimillion-dollar mail fraud, was nonviolent.
Barrett found “[no] evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right [to own a gun],” she wrote. “Such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun.” She went on: “History does show that felons could be disqualified from exercising certain rights—like the rights to vote and serve on juries—because these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens.”
You have to be a “virtuous citizen” to vote, but not to own a gun? The Confirmation Hearings The Democrats Might Actually Have a Strategy to Block Amy Coney Barrett Elie Mystal Term Limit the Supreme Court John Nichols
Thankfully, two Reagan-appointed judges disagreed, though they didn’t delve into colonial history. (You can read both the ruling and dissent here.)
Barrett didn’t cop to that in her reply to Durbin. “Did you not distinguish the Second Amendment right from the right to vote, calling one an individual right under the Constitution and the other a civic right?” he asked, and she replied, “That’s consistent with the language in the historical context. Everyone was treating voting as one of the civic rights.” She did not share her peculiar moralistic take on the latter.
Then Senator Amy Klobuchar followed up. Barrett obfuscated and a frustrated Klobuchar asked, “But how would you define ‘virtuous’?” The nominee answered: “The virtuous citizenry idea is a historical and jurisprudential one. It certainly doesn’t mean that I think that anyone gets a measure of virtue, or whether they’re good or not and whether they’re allowed to vote.” She still refused to define “virtue.” I’ve never formally seen the concept of “virtuous citizenry” used as a reason to restrict voting rights—of course, most of the founders thought only white men of property should be able to vote, so maybe that’s what she means. I hope others keep pushing this issue. Meanwhile, Barrett refused to say whether she thought voter intimidation is illegal (it is).
Barrett’s answers Tuesday offer us a window onto how she would approach the issue of voting rights, when it (inevitably) comes before her if she gets confirmed. Obviously, that’s one of the many things Republicans like about her, since restricting voting rights is one of their core projects (as I write, we’ve learned about mysterious voter-registration system outages in Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida). But it might matter to voters. I applaud the attention the Democrats are paying to the ACA, but Durbin and Klobuchar’s questioning laid bare another set of reasons for Democrats to grill Barrett vigorously—and not treat her confirmation as a done deal.


thenation--2020-10-13--Term Limit the Supreme Court

Term Limit the Supreme Court

Supreme Court justices are not answerable to the people of the United States .
Nominated by partisan executives and confirmed by partisan legislators , justices join a largely unaccountable third branch of the federal government that has in the past seized opportunities to overturn popular legislation enacted to protect voting rights and women ’ s rights , LGBTQ+ rights , and labor rights , and that could in short order undermine the protections outlined in the Affordable Care Act .
For decades after the presidents and senators who empower them have left the political stage , justices determine the direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antidemocratic reality of the United States Supreme Court .
Members of the Judiciary Branch exercise outsize authority not because of their wisdom or decency but because of the ostentation of life tenure .
Based on the pretense that a justice who can serve for so long as he or she chooses will somehow be free of partisan and ideological pressures , this false construct has saddled the United States with rogue jurists who advance ancient agendas decades after their presidential benefactors have left the White House .
This reality makes the Senate Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the high court particularly unsettling .
While much of the committee ’ s discussion this week has focused on immediate concerns—such as the signals Barrett has sent about overturning the Affordable Care Act—the equally concerning issue is that Barrett , at age 48 and by all accounts in fine health , could easily be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench in 2060 .
Indeed , if she serves to the age ( 90 ) at which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. retired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could still be determining the direction of this nation after the next 10 presidential elections .
It ’ s Time to Put Some Muscle Behind the 25th Amendment Decades ago , when he served as an assistant to White House Counsel Fred Fielding during President Ronald Reagan ’ s first term , Chief Justice John Roberts reflected on the challenge of having jurists defining the national experience a half-century after their appointments .
“ Setting a term of , say , 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existence , ” wrote Roberts .
“ It would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges.
” Concerns about life tenure are nothing new .
A century ago , the platform of the Progressive Party that nominated Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette for the presidency proposed amending the Constitution so that federal judges would serve fixed 10-year terms , as part of a broad agenda for judicial reform .
La Follette objected that “ a judicial oligarchy ” — “ placed in positions for life not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by presidential appointment ” —was overturning child labor laws and other progressive reforms .
He warned in 1922 : Today , the actual ruler of the American people is the Supreme Court of the United States .
The law is what they say it is , and not what the people , through Congress , enacts .
Aye , even the Constitution of the United States is not what its plain terms declare but what these nine men construe it to be .
In fact , five of these nine men are actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bare majority the court has repeatedly overridden the will of the people as declared by their representatives in Congress and has construed the Constitution to mean whatever suited their peculiar economic and political views .
The court reforms proposed by La Follette , President Theodore Roosevelt , President Franklin Roosevelt , and others in the last century were thwarted .
Now , however , Representative Ro Khanna believes the time is right to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices .
The California Democrat has proposed the Supreme Court Term Limits Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term limit on any Supreme Court justices approved after the measure ’ s passage .
( Current justices would be exempt from the term limits . )
• Create a regular appointment process to allow every president to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court during each odd year , guaranteeing each president the opportunity to nominate two justices per four-year term .
• Permit justices who have served their 18-year terms to continue their service on lower courts .
“ We can ’ t face a national crisis every time a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Khanna .
“ No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders .
No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance .
Most importantly , our country ’ s top constitutional questions shouldn ’ t be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected .
It ’ s time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court.
” What Khanna suggests is permissible under the Constitution .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes that “ the Constitution does not expressly grant ‘ life tenure ’ to Supreme Court justices .
Rather , this idea has been derived from the language that judges and justices ‘ shall hold their offices during good behaviour.
’ ” Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman shares this view , arguing that the establishment of term limits is “ within Congress ’ s power to implement.
” In other words , this is a reform that Congress can and should make at a point when the confirmation process has been turned into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperation .
Khanna ’ s office explains that his legislation “ will eliminate the arbitrary nature of Supreme Court vacancies by creating a regular , fair process that doesn ’ t reshape the Court for decades at a time.
” Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth agrees .
“ For the first time in U.S. history , statutory language has been introduced to accomplish what court-watchers have been saying for ages : on Supreme Court appointments , we must do better , ” Roth says of Khanna ’ s proposal .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices serve for a reasonable amount of time , is that better way—and one that liberals and conservatives already agree on .
Congress has through the years used its constitutional authority to reform the roles and responsibilities of our courts , so lawmakers are well within their rights to reconsider the role of our nation ’ s top jurists as a means to restore confidence in the high court and in the rule of law .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Supreme Court justices are not answerable to the people of the United States. Nominated by partisan executives and confirmed by partisan legislators, justices join a largely unaccountable third branch of the federal government that has in the past seized opportunities to overturn popular legislation enacted to protect voting rights and women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and labor rights, and that could in short order undermine the protections outlined in the Affordable Care Act. For decades after the presidents and senators who empower them have left the political stage, justices determine the direction of the country.
That is the antidemocratic reality of the United States Supreme Court.
Members of the Judiciary Branch exercise outsize authority not because of their wisdom or decency but because of the ostentation of life tenure. Based on the pretense that a justice who can serve for so long as he or she chooses will somehow be free of partisan and ideological pressures, this false construct has saddled the United States with rogue jurists who advance ancient agendas decades after their presidential benefactors have left the White House.
This reality makes the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the high court particularly unsettling. While much of the committee’s discussion this week has focused on immediate concerns—such as the signals Barrett has sent about overturning the Affordable Care Act—the equally concerning issue is that Barrett, at age 48 and by all accounts in fine health, could easily be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench in 2060. Indeed, if she serves to the age (90) at which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. retired from the court in 1932, Barrett could still be determining the direction of this nation after the next 10 presidential elections. More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
Decades ago, when he served as an assistant to White House Counsel Fred Fielding during President Ronald Reagan’s first term, Chief Justice John Roberts reflected on the challenge of having jurists defining the national experience a half-century after their appointments. “Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence,” wrote Roberts. “It would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges.”
Concerns about life tenure are nothing new. A century ago, the platform of the Progressive Party that nominated Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette for the presidency proposed amending the Constitution so that federal judges would serve fixed 10-year terms, as part of a broad agenda for judicial reform. La Follette objected that “a judicial oligarchy”—“placed in positions for life not by the votes of the people but by presidential appointment”—was overturning child labor laws and other progressive reforms. He warned in 1922: Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Today, the actual ruler of the American people is the Supreme Court of the United States. The law is what they say it is, and not what the people, through Congress, enacts. Aye, even the Constitution of the United States is not what its plain terms declare but what these nine men construe it to be. In fact, five of these nine men are actually the supreme rulers, for by a bare majority the court has repeatedly overridden the will of the people as declared by their representatives in Congress and has construed the Constitution to mean whatever suited their peculiar economic and political views. Current Issue View our current issue
The court reforms proposed by La Follette, President Theodore Roosevelt, President Franklin Roosevelt, and others in the last century were thwarted.
Now, however, Representative Ro Khanna believes the time is right to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices. The California Democrat has proposed the Supreme Court Term Limits Act, which would:
Establish an 18-year term limit on any Supreme Court justices approved after the measure’s passage. (Current justices would be exempt from the term limits.)
Create a regular appointment process to allow every president to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court during each odd year, guaranteeing each president the opportunity to nominate two justices per four-year term.
Permit justices who have served their 18-year terms to continue their service on lower courts.
“We can’t face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court,” says Khanna. “No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders. No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance. Most importantly, our country’s top constitutional questions shouldn’t be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It’s time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court.”
What Khanna suggests is permissible under the Constitution. The national nonpartisan reform group Fix the Court notes that “the Constitution does not expressly grant ‘life tenure’ to Supreme Court justices. Rather, this idea has been derived from the language that judges and justices ‘shall hold their offices during good behaviour.’” Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman shares this view, arguing that the establishment of term limits is “within Congress’s power to implement.”
In other words, this is a reform that Congress can and should make at a point when the confirmation process has been turned into a circus warped by politics and ideological desperation.
Khanna’s office explains that his legislation “will eliminate the arbitrary nature of Supreme Court vacancies by creating a regular, fair process that doesn’t reshape the Court for decades at a time.”
Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth agrees. “For the first time in U.S. history, statutory language has been introduced to accomplish what court-watchers have been saying for ages: on Supreme Court appointments, we must do better,” Roth says of Khanna’s proposal. “A standard appointment process, where future justices serve for a reasonable amount of time, is that better way—and one that liberals and conservatives already agree on. Congress has through the years used its constitutional authority to reform the roles and responsibilities of our courts, so lawmakers are well within their rights to reconsider the role of our nation’s top jurists as a means to restore confidence in the high court and in the rule of law.”


thenation--2020-10-13--The Democrats Might Actually Have a Strategy to Block Amy Coney Barrett

The first day of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings featured opening statements from all the senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee and from Judge Barrett .
It was , as Gandalf the Grey might say , the “ deep breath before the plunge ” —a day of posturing before question-and-answer battles on Tuesday and Wednesday .
The Republicans , however , seemed to have lined up their forces in anticipation of the wrong battle .
Of the 12 Republican members on the Senate Judiciary Committee , I counted nine who excoriated the Democrats for their attacks on Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those attacks never came .
None of the 10 Democrats on the committee even mentioned Barrett ’ s religion in their opening statements .
Instead , the Democrats used their time to focus on health care .
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case on November 10 that could strike down the Affordable Care Act .
Barrett has written that she believes the Supreme Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of the ACA in the past .
Democrats , to a senator , brought pictures of people who will likely lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and told stories about their lives .
It was a day of message discipline from the Democrats that we don ’ t usually see .
Caught off-guard , Republicans did the only thing they do when presented with facts they don ’ t like : They lied .
Senator Ted Cruz told the biggest whopper when he said that Republicans were “ unified ” in their support for protecting coverage for those with preexisting conditions .
Not only is this lie provably false—thanks to Republicans who are actively trying to overturn the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection of those with preexisting conditions ( including everybody who has gotten Covid-19 ) —but you can also tell they ’ re lying because Republicans haven ’ t brought a bill or amendment to protect preexisting conditions .
By the middle of the day , even Donald Trump was tweeting about health care , lying , as he often does , about having a “ better ” health care plan that will be cheaper than the ACA and protect preexisting conditions .
Again , the man has been president for almost four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care plan has even been authored .
By the end of the day , even the Republican legal establishment was roped into defending the ACA .
Their go-to hack , Jonathan Turley , was on Twitter arguing that the ACA is not in danger because Chief Justice John Roberts and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh are likely to rule that the law is severable from the individual mandate , and thus would survive Republicans ’ declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional .
Left unsaid was Turley ’ s acknowledgment that three conservatives—Justices Clarence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch—are likely to rule against the ACA regardless ; that Barrett is likely to rule much more like Thomas and Alito than Roberts ; and , in any case , that no woman should have to rely on Kavanaugh ’ s interpretation of the law to see if they are going to have access to health care .
Elevating Barrett to the Supreme Court puts the ACA in even greater jeopardy than it already is , and only the most intellectually dishonest or ignorant among us are trying to tell people otherwise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulled into a conversation about health care represents a huge win for the Democrats .
Republicans want to talk about Amy Coney Barrett , the person .
They want to talk about her qualifications and her character and how she ’ s given birth to children , adopted other children , and babysat still other children , as if she ’ s some kind of judicial Mary Poppins .
For Democrats , all the personal stuff is irrelevant .
What she ’ s being sent to do is all that matters .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she might rule against the ACA .
She ’ s being rushed through to help hand the election to Trump .
She ’ s being rushed through to be a “ torpedo , ” according to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse , that will destroy a woman ’ s right to choose .
This approach is the opposite of the tack taken with Kavanaugh .
In that instance , the would-be justice was of such dubious character even before the attempted rape allegations came out—remember , Kavanaugh showed up at the hearings with unexplained debts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation hearings—that Democrats had to question his moral fitness for the Supreme Court .
Republicans didn ’ t care then , and they still don ’ t .
But it ’ s worth noting that Kavanaugh has the highest unfavorable ratings of anybody on the court .
In this case , there ’ s no point in making anyone dislike Barrett .
She ’ s probably likable , if you like people who think that only cis-hetero white men deserve rights .
At the very least , she probably won ’ t scream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I doubt that she has sexually harassed or assaulted anybody , which is something you can ’ t say about 40 percent of the Republican-appointed justices currently serving on the Supreme Court .
Still , a majority of Americans want the winner of this presidential election to pick the next Supreme Court justice .
The Democrats ’ decision to focus on the corrupt things Republicans want Barrett to do on the court , ruling on cases between the election and the inauguration , is therefore probably the right strategy .
Unfortunately , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fact that we ’ re having a hearing at all normalizes the illegitimate and blatantly corrupt process the Republicans have engineered by putting forward a nominee in the first place .
The Democrats , while staying on message , fundamentally sounded normal during what was a completely abnormal event .
Senator Mike Lee was present at the hearing and spoke without a mask , despite having tested positive for Covid-19 less than two weeks ago .
He ’ s a disease vector , but , with a few exceptions , Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a functional bioterrorist was just a normal thing to do in 2020 .
Remember , this whole hearing is happening while the Senate is in recess to protect people from the fallout from the super-spreader event the Republicans organized to celebrate Barrett last month .
The Republicans are refusing to work on a relief bill , but some are remoting into a hearing to confirm a woman who will take health care away from people who can ’ t afford the life-saving rage cocktail Trump received when he got sick .
Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but to stop the Barrett confirmation , they ’ re going to need something more than being right .
Senator Amy Klobuchar spoke to what was needed near the end of her statement .
She said , “ To all Americans , we don ’ t have some clever procedural way to stop this sham , to stop them from rushing through a nominee .
But we have a secret weapon that they don ’ t have.… I doubt that it will be a brilliant cross-examination that is going to change this judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is you.
” The Democrats Need to Prepare for the Supreme Court to Overturn ‘ Roe v. Wade ’ Today Marks the Start of a Truly Terrifying Supreme Court Term Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Klobuchar is right .
At some point , the people themselves have to rise up and try to put a stop to this thing .
Lindsey Graham , John Cornyn , Thom Tillis , and Joni Ernst are all on the Senate Judiciary Committee , and all are up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in South Carolina , Texas , North Carolina , or Iowa respectively , you must call these people .
All you have to do is call the Capitol switchboard , 202-224-3121 , to be redirected to their offices .
Then call up your “ I don ’ t like to talk about politics ” friends and make them call .
You must make them know that there will be a political price to pay for rushing through this nominee .
( And if you don ’ t live in one of those states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your senators .
I ’ ve called mine , both of whom are Democrats , just to remind them that I expect them to hold the line . )
That ’ s really the only way to stop this thing .
The Democrats are not having a confirmation hearing to try to change the mind of Republicans .
That ship has long since sailed .
They ’ re participating in the hearings to try to inspire actual citizens to fight for their own democracy .
I don ’ t know if that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know if I ’ m in Hamilton , and these colonies actually will rise up , or if I ’ m in Les Misérables , and I ’ ll be left to die on the barricades as people cower in their homes .
I guess we ’ ll all find out together this week .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The first day of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings featured opening statements from all the senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee and from Judge Barrett. It was, as Gandalf the Grey might say, the “deep breath before the plunge”—a day of posturing before question-and-answer battles on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The Republicans, however, seemed to have lined up their forces in anticipation of the wrong battle. Of the 12 Republican members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I counted nine who excoriated the Democrats for their attacks on Barrett’s faith and religious affiliation. Except those attacks never came. None of the 10 Democrats on the committee even mentioned Barrett’s religion in their opening statements. Instead, the Democrats used their time to focus on health care. The Supreme Court is set to hear a case on November 10 that could strike down the Affordable Care Act. Barrett has written that she believes the Supreme Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of the ACA in the past. Democrats, to a senator, brought pictures of people who will likely lose their health care should Barrett be confirmed, and told stories about their lives. It was a day of message discipline from the Democrats that we don’t usually see. See Elie Mystal live at the first-ever Nation Festival, Nov. 18-21.
Caught off-guard, Republicans did the only thing they do when presented with facts they don’t like: They lied. Senator Ted Cruz told the biggest whopper when he said that Republicans were “unified” in their support for protecting coverage for those with preexisting conditions. Not only is this lie provably false—thanks to Republicans who are actively trying to overturn the ACA in court, along with its protection of those with preexisting conditions (including everybody who has gotten Covid-19)—but you can also tell they’re lying because Republicans haven’t brought a bill or amendment to protect preexisting conditions.
By the middle of the day, even Donald Trump was tweeting about health care, lying, as he often does, about having a “better” health care plan that will be cheaper than the ACA and protect preexisting conditions. Again, the man has been president for almost four years, yet no legislation regarding his alleged health care plan has even been authored.
By the end of the day, even the Republican legal establishment was roped into defending the ACA. Their go-to hack, Jonathan Turley, was on Twitter arguing that the ACA is not in danger because Chief Justice John Roberts and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh are likely to rule that the law is severable from the individual mandate, and thus would survive Republicans’ declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional. Left unsaid was Turley’s acknowledgment that three conservatives—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—are likely to rule against the ACA regardless; that Barrett is likely to rule much more like Thomas and Alito than Roberts; and, in any case, that no woman should have to rely on Kavanaugh’s interpretation of the law to see if they are going to have access to health care. Elevating Barrett to the Supreme Court puts the ACA in even greater jeopardy than it already is, and only the most intellectually dishonest or ignorant among us are trying to tell people otherwise. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
That the Republicans and Trump were even pulled into a conversation about health care represents a huge win for the Democrats. Republicans want to talk about Amy Coney Barrett, the person. They want to talk about her qualifications and her character and how she’s given birth to children, adopted other children, and babysat still other children, as if she’s some kind of judicial Mary Poppins.
For Democrats, all the personal stuff is irrelevant. What she’s being sent to do is all that matters. She’s being rushed through so that she might rule against the ACA. She’s being rushed through to help hand the election to Trump. She’s being rushed through to be a “torpedo,” according to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, that will destroy a woman’s right to choose. Current Issue View our current issue
This approach is the opposite of the tack taken with Kavanaugh. In that instance, the would-be justice was of such dubious character even before the attempted rape allegations came out—remember, Kavanaugh showed up at the hearings with unexplained debts and unexplained lies he told in previous confirmation hearings—that Democrats had to question his moral fitness for the Supreme Court. Republicans didn’t care then, and they still don’t. But it’s worth noting that Kavanaugh has the highest unfavorable ratings of anybody on the court.
In this case, there’s no point in making anyone dislike Barrett. She’s probably likable, if you like people who think that only cis-hetero white men deserve rights. At the very least, she probably won’t scream at senators and threaten political retribution. I doubt that she has sexually harassed or assaulted anybody, which is something you can’t say about 40 percent of the Republican-appointed justices currently serving on the Supreme Court.
Still, a majority of Americans want the winner of this presidential election to pick the next Supreme Court justice. The Democrats’ decision to focus on the corrupt things Republicans want Barrett to do on the court, ruling on cases between the election and the inauguration, is therefore probably the right strategy.
Unfortunately, I do not think it’s enough. The fact that we’re having a hearing at all normalizes the illegitimate and blatantly corrupt process the Republicans have engineered by putting forward a nominee in the first place. The Democrats, while staying on message, fundamentally sounded normal during what was a completely abnormal event. Senator Mike Lee was present at the hearing and spoke without a mask, despite having tested positive for Covid-19 less than two weeks ago. He’s a disease vector, but, with a few exceptions, Democrats pretended that sharing an enclosed space with a functional bioterrorist was just a normal thing to do in 2020.
Remember, this whole hearing is happening while the Senate is in recess to protect people from the fallout from the super-spreader event the Republicans organized to celebrate Barrett last month. The Republicans are refusing to work on a relief bill, but some are remoting into a hearing to confirm a woman who will take health care away from people who can’t afford the life-saving rage cocktail Trump received when he got sick.
Democrats have the moral and scientific high ground, but to stop the Barrett confirmation, they’re going to need something more than being right. Senator Amy Klobuchar spoke to what was needed near the end of her statement. She said, “To all Americans, we don’t have some clever procedural way to stop this sham, to stop them from rushing through a nominee. But we have a secret weapon that they don’t have.… I doubt that it will be a brilliant cross-examination that is going to change this judge’s trajectory this week. No. It is you.” More from Mystal The Democrats Need to Prepare for the Supreme Court to Overturn ‘Roe v. Wade’ Elie Mystal Today Marks the Start of a Truly Terrifying Supreme Court Term Elie Mystal Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist—Just Not the Kind You Think Elie Mystal
Klobuchar is right. At some point, the people themselves have to rise up and try to put a stop to this thing. Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, and Joni Ernst are all on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and all are up for reelection right now. If you live in South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina, or Iowa respectively, you must call these people. All you have to do is call the Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121, to be redirected to their offices. Then call up your “I don’t like to talk about politics” friends and make them call. You must make them know that there will be a political price to pay for rushing through this nominee. (And if you don’t live in one of those states, it’s still worth calling your senators. I’ve called mine, both of whom are Democrats, just to remind them that I expect them to hold the line.) That’s really the only way to stop this thing.
The Democrats are not having a confirmation hearing to try to change the mind of Republicans. That ship has long since sailed. They’re participating in the hearings to try to inspire actual citizens to fight for their own democracy.
I don’t know if that will work. I don’t yet know if I’m in Hamilton, and these colonies actually will rise up, or if I’m in Les Misérables, and I’ll be left to die on the barricades as people cower in their homes. I guess we’ll all find out together this week.


thenation--2020-10-13--A Strong Step Toward an Antitrust Revival

Largely lost last week amid the spectacle of President Trump turning the White House into a Covid-19 hot spot was @ @ @ @ @ polarized times : Congress doing its job .
The House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust issued @ @ @ @ @ 16-month investigation into the monopoly power wielded by four of America ’ s Big Tech @ @ @ @ @ , Facebook , and Google .
The 449-page document details the costs and abuses of @ @ @ @ @ strengthening antitrust laws and enforcement , including cracking down on mergers and requiring the four @ @ @ @ @ of their businesses .
The subcommittee revived a key function of Congress : the power @ @ @ @ @ and set the stage for legislation .
The report itself may become a keystone in @ @ @ @ @ tech reforms .
Read the full text of Katrina ’ s column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Largely lost last week amid the spectacle of President Trump turning the White House into a Covid-19 hot spot was a Washington rarity in these polarized times: Congress doing its job.
The House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust issued a remarkable report of its 16-month investigation into the monopoly power wielded by four of America’s Big Tech companies: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. The 449-page document details the costs and abuses of those monopolies and calls for strengthening antitrust laws and enforcement, including cracking down on mergers and requiring the four behemoths to spin off parts of their businesses.
The subcommittee revived a key function of Congress: the power to investigate, report, and set the stage for legislation. The report itself may become a keystone in a long-overdue dawning of progressive tech reforms.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


thenation--2020-10-14--The Myths of Martin Scorsese’s Mob Magnum Opus

Glenn Kenny begins Made Men , his engrossing critical study of Martin Scorsese ’ s Goodfellas ( 1990 ) , with a quote from the French novelist Jean Genet : “ Treachery is beautiful if it makes us sing.
” The citation of Genet , a juvenile delinquent and petty criminal whose 1949 novel The Thief ’ s Journal dramatized the writer ’ s picaresque pickpocket adolescence in pre–World War II Europe , is apt in the context of the gangster-movie masterpiece .
It works both in the embedded allusion to musicality—Goodfellas being one of the most influential jukebox movies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morality , the latter a staple of Genet ’ s fiction .
Both novel and film are coming-of-age fables mapped with a demagnetized moral compass , although where Genet advocated passionately for betrayal as the ultimate form of devotion , the made men of Scorsese ’ s film—adapted from Nicolas Pileggi ’ s Wiseguys , an American cousin to The Thief ’ s Journal—prize loyalty above all else .
Until , tragically , hilariously , and inevitably , one among them turns stoolie : our narrator , Henry Hill , no less , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reward equals exile to witness protection in a suburban purgatory without decent takeout pasta .
It ’ s a great ending to a great movie , but Goodfellas ’ greatness is no longer really a matter of debate .
Thirty years on from its modest box office success and admiringly mixed reviews—including a half laudatory , half underwhelmed notice by Pauline Kael—it is not a film that lacks for admirers , exegesis , or exposure .
If one salable tactic in contemporary film criticism is the attempted redemption of “ misunderstood ” masterpieces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly requires an assertive performance on its behalf .
What keeps Made Men ’ s inventory of interviews , production arcana , and interpretive analysis from feeling superfluous is Kenny ’ s commitment to examining the myths around a movie preoccupied with mythmaking and examining the terms of its acclaim .
Interviews with figures either stationed outside or retrospectively excluded from the winners ’ circle cloud the celebratory atmosphere .
“ When you called , in a way you just kicked the hornets ’ nest for me , ” says Barbara de Fina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as Scorsese ’ s ex-wife , whom Kenny sympathetically implies has been to some extent written out of her own film ’ s history De Fina , by poking holes in the official production narratives offered by Scorsese and producer Irwin Winkler—and emphasizing her choice to cut professional ties with Scorsese the moment that he began collaborating with Harvey Weinstein for Gangs of New York ( 2002 ) —implicitly challenges Goodfellas ’ boys ’ club pedigree , a status that Kenny elsewhere seeks to unpack rather than blankly vindicate .
Sifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into ( sometimes valuable ) arguments about who ought to tell which stories , and who certain movies are and are not “ for , ” the critic aptly notes that his subject ’ s popularity has yielded multifaceted consequences : Goodfellas is a classic , but it ’ s also a lightning rod for ideological opportunists on all sides .
Kenny correctly excoriates right-wing pundit Kyle Smith for deeming Goodfellas a “ boy movie ” —which is to say , not for “ girls , ” an exclusionary ethos that rhymes with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marginalized within the film ’ s legend .
He also bemusedly paraphrases a rascally Ringer podcast that reduces Goodfellas to “ cool or shocking moments ” and whose host refuses to recognize its connection to the gangster movies of the 1930s because ( in the host ’ s words ) “ most of those movies aren ’ t that much fun to watch.
” Of course , the gangster movies of the 1930s were fun to watch—a lot of fun , which is why they emerged in the midst of vertiginous social , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hottest ticket around .
In his seminal essay “ The Gangster as Tragic Hero , ” critic Robert Warshow theorized that Depression-era mob movies offered contradictorily cautionary illustrations of their cash-strapped constituents ’ most decadently aspirational fantasies .
Ripped from the headlines and illuminated by incandescent stars like James Cagney , these thrillers offered up seductive , bigger-than-life rebels who enacted vicarious revenge on failed or exclusionary institutions , only to be cut down to size in the final reel in accordance with the moralism of the Production Code .
Of all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is the way in which he updated that sense of intoxicating complicity for a modern audience of sensation junkies that guaranteed its appeal .
The film is a master class in narrative momentum and camera movement , channeling its rush through the first-person perspective of Hill , played with a combination of heavy-lidded charisma and helpless passivity by Ray Liotta in what may be the most underappreciated great performance of the 1990s .
In terms of official acting garlands , Goodfellas earned Joe Pesci an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temper Kenny reveals as partially derived from the actor ’ s own underworld experiences ( “ ‘ Stories , ’ as Pesci put it to Scorsese , that could make the movie ‘ special.
’ ” ) .
But as great as Pesci is—and ditto for Robert De Niro as the “ Fast ” Jimmy Conway , a character memorably described by Roger Ebert as having the “ metabolism of a lizard ” —it ’ s Liotta ’ s ingeniously conceived and directed turn as a man happy to act as a spectator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his life that gives the film its voyeuristic pull .
From the first shot of the young Henry ’ s dilating eye as he stares out his bedroom window at the old timers holding court at an East New York pizzeria circa the mid-1950s , we understand that this is a kid who likes to watch .
And there are other moments that make a fetish of spectatorship : when Lorraine Bracco , playing Karen Hill , observes her lover and future husband crossing the street to assault a tennis pro who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s as if she ’ s hypnotized by the perverse chivalry of his rage .
This attentiveness to perception makes Goodfellas an ideal text for an attentive film critic , and there are two sections in Made Men where Kenny essentially replays Scorsese ’ s movie through his own keen , detail-oriented perspective .
The first is an elongated ( but not overextended ) summary of the film ’ s action punctuated and supplemented by extra-textual information , including the crucial tidbit that the meal served by Tommy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director ’ s own mom , in an all-time-great cameo ) to Tommy , Henry , and Jimmy while they ’ re transporting the soon-to-be-dead Billy Batts ( Frank Vincent ) to his final resting place is composed of pasta and beans .
The second is a fully annotated survey of Goodfellas ’ soundtrack , which was assembled , according to Scorsese , under the sign of Kenneth Anger ’ s 1964 experimental landmark film Scorpio Rising , whose proto music video deployed snippets of rock ’ n ’ roll to syncopate its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagery .
( The film is often screened on double bills with Jean Genet ’ s lone film , 1950 ’ s Un chant d ’ amour ) .
Kenny is right on the money when he connects Scorpio Rising ’ s three-chord Greek chorus to the ecstatic soundtrack cues of Scorsese ’ s 1973 breakthrough film , Mean Streets , differentiating the director ’ s use of pop to convey psychic states from the fond nostalgia of fellow movie brat George Lucas ’ s make-top-40-great-again manifesto of the same year , American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure in the yoking of cinema to rock ’ n ’ roll—a missing link , perhaps , between Anger and Quentin Tarantino—then Goodfellas ’ astonishing auditory collage , which begins with Tony Bennett and ends with Sid Vicious while interpolating pretty much everything in between , stands at the apex of his innovations .
Saturating the action in melodies and rhythm that alternately heighten and undermine its apparent meanings , the film ’ s musical selections manifest a terrible , irresistible beauty—it ’ s the sound of treachery singing .
As long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and within the world of the film , with its vivid re-creations of real-world underworld mythology and icons , Made Men makes for fleet , entertaining reading .
Overall , though , the book feels a bit atomized , interestingly if inadvertently mirroring Goodfellas ’ own loose , episodic structure : Whereas The Godfather films had the long , clean narrative lines of Greek tragedy , Goodfellas is as brisk and illicit as a picaresque novella .
The book ’ s organization of material has a certain logic , using a pair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the film ’ s release , the other earlier this year—as bookends and including exchanges with a few other big names , including Robert De Niro , whose relative openness ( by his own famously tight-lipped standards ) testifies to Kenny ’ s wary but persistent line of questioning .
There ’ s more merit , though , in a chapter foregrounding Scorsese ’ s longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker , who was essentially the film ’ s co-author , an artist who works on the same wavelength as her director .
An evident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s style as privileging “ dynamic discrete moments… [ over ] issues of continuity ; ” that same dynamism is at the heart of Scorsese ’ s art .
The passage describing their editing-room collaboration is as lovely a tribute as any fan might desire , peaking with a bit of honor-among-thieves rhetoric from Scorsese that could have been snipped out of the Goodfellas script : “ Thelma is the woman I trust.
” As for Scorsese , Made Men is filled with enough encomiums to his excellence that it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of frenetic self-deprecation .
The concluding chapter reprints his stream-of-consciousness recollections basically word for word , venturing into some of the same observations about the shifting values of Hollywood filmmaking that swirled around last year ’ s Netflix release of The Irishman ( and the Twitter wars about superhero movies that saw a great artist foolishly reduced in the eyes of many to an embittered , elitist hater ) .
It ’ s fair enough that we exit a book attuned to Scorsese ’ s go-for-broke sensibility with him moving a mile a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Goodfellas ’ serene velocity—its stunning admixture of operatic stylization and brand-name reality , rendered on the fly with a speed-as-clarity aesthetic—that makes it so rewatchable and , by extension , assures its endurance .
It ’ s the swiftness of Scorsese ’ s construction that puts across a Swiftian social satire positing treachery not simply as the American way but as part of the human condition .
It suggests that immorality is as catchy as a pop song—one to which we all know the words .

Glenn Kenny begins Made Men, his engrossing critical study of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas (1990), with a quote from the French novelist Jean Genet: “Treachery is beautiful if it makes us sing.” The citation of Genet, a juvenile delinquent and petty criminal whose 1949 novel The Thief’s Journal dramatized the writer’s picaresque pickpocket adolescence in pre–World War II Europe, is apt in the context of the gangster-movie masterpiece. It works both in the embedded allusion to musicality—Goodfellas being one of the most influential jukebox movies ever made—and in its inversion of traditional morality, the latter a staple of Genet’s fiction. Both novel and film are coming-of-age fables mapped with a demagnetized moral compass, although where Genet advocated passionately for betrayal as the ultimate form of devotion, the made men of Scorsese’s film—adapted from Nicolas Pileggi’s Wiseguys, an American cousin to The Thief’s Journal—prize loyalty above all else. Until, tragically, hilariously, and inevitably, one among them turns stoolie: our narrator, Henry Hill, no less, who testifies against his brothers and whose reward equals exile to witness protection in a suburban purgatory without decent takeout pasta. Books in Review Made Men: The Story of Goodfellas By Glenn Kenny Buy this book
It’s a great ending to a great movie, but Goodfellas’ greatness is no longer really a matter of debate. Thirty years on from its modest box office success and admiringly mixed reviews—including a half laudatory, half underwhelmed notice by Pauline Kael—it is not a film that lacks for admirers, exegesis, or exposure. If one salable tactic in contemporary film criticism is the attempted redemption of “misunderstood” masterpieces, a duly canonized, Oscar-winning hit hardly requires an assertive performance on its behalf.
What keeps Made Men’s inventory of interviews, production arcana, and interpretive analysis from feeling superfluous is Kenny’s commitment to examining the myths around a movie preoccupied with mythmaking and examining the terms of its acclaim. Interviews with figures either stationed outside or retrospectively excluded from the winners’ circle cloud the celebratory atmosphere. “When you called, in a way you just kicked the hornets’ nest for me,” says Barbara de Fina, the film’s executive producer as well as Scorsese’s ex-wife, whom Kenny sympathetically implies has been to some extent written out of her own film’s history
De Fina, by poking holes in the official production narratives offered by Scorsese and producer Irwin Winkler—and emphasizing her choice to cut professional ties with Scorsese the moment that he began collaborating with Harvey Weinstein for Gangs of New York (2002)—implicitly challenges Goodfellas’ boys’ club pedigree, a status that Kenny elsewhere seeks to unpack rather than blankly vindicate. Sifting assiduously through a cultural discourse that splinters into (sometimes valuable) arguments about who ought to tell which stories, and who certain movies are and are not “for,” the critic aptly notes that his subject’s popularity has yielded multifaceted consequences: Goodfellas is a classic, but it’s also a lightning rod for ideological opportunists on all sides. Kenny correctly excoriates right-wing pundit Kyle Smith for deeming Goodfellas a “boy movie”—which is to say, not for “girls,” an exclusionary ethos that rhymes with De Fina’s account of being marginalized within the film’s legend. He also bemusedly paraphrases a rascally Ringer podcast that reduces Goodfellas to “cool or shocking moments” and whose host refuses to recognize its connection to the gangster movies of the 1930s because (in the host’s words) “most of those movies aren’t that much fun to watch.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Of course, the gangster movies of the 1930s were fun to watch—a lot of fun, which is why they emerged in the midst of vertiginous social, economic, and spiritual plunge as the hottest ticket around. In his seminal essay “The Gangster as Tragic Hero,” critic Robert Warshow theorized that Depression-era mob movies offered contradictorily cautionary illustrations of their cash-strapped constituents’ most decadently aspirational fantasies. Ripped from the headlines and illuminated by incandescent stars like James Cagney, these thrillers offered up seductive, bigger-than-life rebels who enacted vicarious revenge on failed or exclusionary institutions, only to be cut down to size in the final reel in accordance with the moralism of the Production Code. Of all of Scorsese’s accomplishments in Goodfellas, it is the way in which he updated that sense of intoxicating complicity for a modern audience of sensation junkies that guaranteed its appeal. The film is a master class in narrative momentum and camera movement, channeling its rush through the first-person perspective of Hill, played with a combination of heavy-lidded charisma and helpless passivity by Ray Liotta in what may be the most underappreciated great performance of the 1990s.
In terms of official acting garlands, Goodfellas earned Joe Pesci an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor as the gregariously psychopathic Tommy DeVito, whose hair-trigger temper Kenny reveals as partially derived from the actor’s own underworld experiences (“‘Stories,’ as Pesci put it to Scorsese, that could make the movie ‘special.’”). But as great as Pesci is—and ditto for Robert De Niro as the “Fast” Jimmy Conway, a character memorably described by Roger Ebert as having the “metabolism of a lizard”—it’s Liotta’s ingeniously conceived and directed turn as a man happy to act as a spectator to the ongoing, brutal story of his life that gives the film its voyeuristic pull. From the first shot of the young Henry’s dilating eye as he stares out his bedroom window at the old timers holding court at an East New York pizzeria circa the mid-1950s, we understand that this is a kid who likes to watch. And there are other moments that make a fetish of spectatorship: when Lorraine Bracco, playing Karen Hill, observes her lover and future husband crossing the street to assault a tennis pro who’d hit on her at the club, it’s as if she’s hypnotized by the perverse chivalry of his rage.
This attentiveness to perception makes Goodfellas an ideal text for an attentive film critic, and there are two sections in Made Men where Kenny essentially replays Scorsese’s movie through his own keen, detail-oriented perspective. The first is an elongated (but not overextended) summary of the film’s action punctuated and supplemented by extra-textual information, including the crucial tidbit that the meal served by Tommy’s sainted mother (Catherine Scorsese, the director’s own mom, in an all-time-great cameo) to Tommy, Henry, and Jimmy while they’re transporting the soon-to-be-dead Billy Batts (Frank Vincent) to his final resting place is composed of pasta and beans. The second is a fully annotated survey of Goodfellas’ soundtrack, which was assembled, according to Scorsese, under the sign of Kenneth Anger’s 1964 experimental landmark film Scorpio Rising, whose proto music video deployed snippets of rock ’n’ roll to syncopate its strategically fascist, stridently homoerotic motorcycle gang imagery. (The film is often screened on double bills with Jean Genet’s lone film, 1950’s Un chant d’amour).
Kenny is right on the money when he connects Scorpio Rising’s three-chord Greek chorus to the ecstatic soundtrack cues of Scorsese’s 1973 breakthrough film, Mean Streets, differentiating the director’s use of pop to convey psychic states from the fond nostalgia of fellow movie brat George Lucas’s make-top-40-great-again manifesto of the same year, American Graffiti. If Scorsese is a paradigmatic figure in the yoking of cinema to rock ’n’ roll—a missing link, perhaps, between Anger and Quentin Tarantino—then Goodfellas’ astonishing auditory collage, which begins with Tony Bennett and ends with Sid Vicious while interpolating pretty much everything in between, stands at the apex of his innovations. Saturating the action in melodies and rhythm that alternately heighten and undermine its apparent meanings, the film’s musical selections manifest a terrible, irresistible beauty—it’s the sound of treachery singing.
As long as Kenny is staying close to the ground and within the world of the film, with its vivid re-creations of real-world underworld mythology and icons, Made Men makes for fleet, entertaining reading. Overall, though, the book feels a bit atomized, interestingly if inadvertently mirroring Goodfellas’ own loose, episodic structure: Whereas The Godfather films had the long, clean narrative lines of Greek tragedy, Goodfellas is as brisk and illicit as a picaresque novella. The book’s organization of material has a certain logic, using a pair of interviews with Scorsese—one conducted in 1990 before the film’s release, the other earlier this year—as bookends and including exchanges with a few other big names, including Robert De Niro, whose relative openness (by his own famously tight-lipped standards) testifies to Kenny’s wary but persistent line of questioning. There’s more merit, though, in a chapter foregrounding Scorsese’s longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who was essentially the film’s co-author, an artist who works on the same wavelength as her director. An evident fan, Kenny correctly surmises Schoonmaker’s style as privileging “dynamic discrete moments…[over] issues of continuity;” that same dynamism is at the heart of Scorsese’s art. The passage describing their editing-room collaboration is as lovely a tribute as any fan might desire, peaking with a bit of honor-among-thieves rhetoric from Scorsese that could have been snipped out of the Goodfellas script: “Thelma is the woman I trust.”
As for Scorsese, Made Men is filled with enough encomiums to his excellence that it’s a relief when he appears in a whirl of frenetic self-deprecation. The concluding chapter reprints his stream-of-consciousness recollections basically word for word, venturing into some of the same observations about the shifting values of Hollywood filmmaking that swirled around last year’s Netflix release of The Irishman (and the Twitter wars about superhero movies that saw a great artist foolishly reduced in the eyes of many to an embittered, elitist hater). It’s fair enough that we exit a book attuned to Scorsese’s go-for-broke sensibility with him moving a mile a minute. It is, after all, Goodfellas’ serene velocity—its stunning admixture of operatic stylization and brand-name reality, rendered on the fly with a speed-as-clarity aesthetic—that makes it so rewatchable and, by extension, assures its endurance. It’s the swiftness of Scorsese’s construction that puts across a Swiftian social satire positing treachery not simply as the American way but as part of the human condition. It suggests that immorality is as catchy as a pop song—one to which we all know the words.