text:
How Obama, Roberts Interpret Laws In 'The Oath'
Jeffrey Toobin's new book, The Oath, explores how President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts are at odds over constitutional law. Toobin tells Fresh Air that while Obama likes precedent when it comes to the Supreme Court, Roberts "wants to move the court in a dramatically new direction."
Related Topics
September 17, 2012
Guest: Jeffrey Toobin
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. My guest, Jeffrey Toobin, has written a new book about the Supreme Court's direction under Chief Justice John Roberts and how Roberts' understanding of the Constitution and the court contrasts with President Obama's. The book is called "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court."
Toobin writes that the court has been transformed by the same development that has reconfigured American politics - the evolution of the Republican Party. And this court's rulings, Toobin says, will have greater sway than either the executive or legislative branches over the future of politics, business, public safety, how our elections will be conducted, the place of race in American society and how much power the federal government can exercise.
Jeffrey Toobin is CNN's senior legal analyst and a staff writer for The New Yorker. Jeffrey Toobin, welcome back to FRESH AIR.
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Hi, Terry.
GROSS: So let's start with this. How would you compare President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts' judicial philosophies?
TOOBIN: Well, look, they are obviously very different people. Everybody knows Barack Obama has a very unusual background for a president; born in Hawaii and then led a very peripatetic life. John Roberts had a very stable background. He's from northern Indiana, sort of the outer gravitational pull of Chicago.
But once they entered the meritocracy, they both had similar backgrounds. Both went to Harvard Law School. Both worked on the Harvard Law Review. And both thought a lot about the Constitution. And they have come to dramatically different conclusions that are reflected in every aspect of how the government works today.
GROSS: What are those conclusions?
TOOBIN: Well, one of them believes in change. One of them believes that the Constitution has fundamentally been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court for the past 20 or 30 years, and the one who believes in change is John Roberts, not Barack Obama.
Barack Obama, oddly, and frankly somewhat surprisingly to me, Obama is a great believer in stability, in the absence of change when it comes to the work of the Supreme Court. He is the one trying to hold on to the old - the older decisions, and Roberts is the one who wants to move the court in a dramatically new direction.
GROSS: So I think what you're saying is that Obama is the conservative when it comes to the court, and Robert is the judicial activist?
TOOBIN: That is exactly right, and if you look on issue after issue, whether it's abortion, whether it's civil rights and affirmative action, campaign finance, death penalty, Roberts is pushing the law in a more conservative direction, usually, not always, successfully. And all of those areas, Barack Obama's philosophy is basically better leave it alone, leave it the way it is.
GROSS: Now, when Obama was a senator he voted against the confirmation of Roberts. Do you think that the chief justice holds that against the president now, even though, I mean, he did vote to uphold President Obama's health care reform?
TOOBIN: He did, and of course that's a saga in and of itself, but, you know, John Roberts is a big boy. And John Roberts understands Washington politics. And Roberts understood that Obama was getting ready to run for president when Roberts came up for nomination. The base of the Democratic Party cares about these issues, and he was never going to get Barack Obama - you know, George Bush's nominee for chief justice was never going to get the vote of someone who was considering running for president in the Democratic primaries.
What is surprising and interesting about Obama's reaction to Roberts' nomination was just how much he liked Roberts and how difficult a vote it was for him because Obama is much more conservative when it comes to legal matters than many liberals.
He is not someone who believes in using the courts for social change. He is someone who, as I said, believes in stability, and this was actually a very difficult vote for Obama. He did end up ultimately wind up voting against John Roberts, but it was a much tougher call than you might have thought.
GROSS: Yeah, and you write that some of the legal advisors closest to him said Roberts is the best you're going to get from President Bush as a judicial nominee. So, you know, you should vote for him.
TOOBIN: That's right, and all his - all of Obama's political advisors said: Who are you kidding? You want to run for president, you can't vote for George Bush's nominee for chief justice. So just get it over with and vote against him. But that tension was both real and revealing about Obama's approach to legal issues.
GROSS: Let's look at health care reform and how that was handled in the Supreme Court. Now this law, Obama's health care reform, would have been struck down in the court if Elena Kagan, who was President Obama's first solicitor general, had to recuse herself. Why did she nearly have to recuse herself, and why ultimately didn't she have to?
TOOBIN: Well, Terry, she almost had to recuse herself but for what I think is the most consequential email, perhaps, in American history. Just to refresh people's memory, when the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, was passed in the Congress, it was early 2010 and Elena Kagan was still the solicitor general. Right around that time, the Obama administration realized that there were going to be legal challenges.
And as, essentially, the chief legal officer in the Justice Department, Kagan was asked to weigh in on those issues, to participate in some meetings about how to defend the law. And her deputy, Neal Katyal, wrote some emails to her and said: Look, this is going to be a big deal. I think you should be involved.
And Kagan wrote back to him: I think you should do it. And that email established that she did not participate in defending the law. Had she participated in defending the law, she would have been recused as a Supreme Court justice, and the decision striking down Obamacare would have been upheld. It's a remarkable behind-the-scenes story of how Elena Kagan, who knew she might be nominated to the Supreme Court, really saved Obama's bacon by thinking ahead in a very savvy way.
GROSS: And speaking of saving, it sounds like she saved that email as evidence.
TOOBIN: Well, you know, all emails are saved, and actually a conservative group who wanted to see Kagan recused in the health care case filed a Freedom of Information Act request, and that's how those emails were produced. They were hoping to find the smoking gun of guilt. They wound up finding the smoking gun of innocence.
GROSS: Now, there were arguments made that Justice Thomas should have recused himself. Why?
TOOBIN: Well, that was a very different scenario, and it related to his wife. Ginni Thomas has been a conservative political activist for decades, since before she met Clarence Thomas. She's worked for the Chamber of Commerce. She worked for then-Congressman Dick Armey. She worked for the Heritage Foundation.
This is a woman who has been politically active for a long time. What was different about her role in the period leading up to the passage of Obamacare is that she started to be very public. She gave a series of speeches. She really crusaded around the country and really denounced Obamacare in a very partisan way.
That led to calls by many people, especially Democratic members of Congress, that her husband Clarence Thomas should be recused. And he, like Kagan, declined to be recused. And in my own opinion, Thomas was right not to recuse himself.
GROSS: Why?
TOOBIN: Because, you know, people's wives and people's husbands have different jobs. And we live in a world where there are lots of two-career families. And people have separate careers. And Ginni Thomas, whether you agree with her or not, this has been her career for a long time. She speaks out on many, many issues. That is not disqualifying in my opinion. Thomas had no financial stake in the Obamacare decision. Ginni Thomas was not going to get a promotion. Her job was not going to be affected by it. She just had political views. And I think the attempt to get him out of the case was really just a transparent attempt to get a likely vote to declare the law unconstitutional off the court. And I think Thomas right to stay in the case, even though I think he was wrong in how he voted.
GROSS: So it was the solicitor general, who - Donald Verrilli, who defended Obamacare in the Supreme Court. He was considered to have stumbled a lot. That led to the assumption that Obamacare was going to be overturned by the court. What were considered his greatest stumbles?
TOOBIN: Well, let me have a moment of candor here and confess that I, when I was working for CNN in sort of my instant analysis role was very critical of Don Verrilli's role. And, you know, my view of Supreme Court arguments is that what the justices say is a lot more important than answer.
Yes, Don Verrilli did not do a great job in answering the questions, but what was so striking about the answers - about the questions - was the degree of hostility he received from Kennedy, from Thomas - not from Thomas. Thomas, of course, didn't ask any questions - from Scalia, from Alito. The passion and the intensity of the hostility to the law was really what was so striking.
And it has been my experience in covering the Supreme Court for quite a while that the justices don't play devil's advocate. They use their questions to try to convince their colleagues of their positions. So it's not - so you can often tell how they're going to vote by how they ask questions.
In this case, let me just say I was completely and utterly wrong about how John Roberts was going to vote in this case.
GROSS: So the solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, seemed to go back and forth about whether the mandate represented a tax or a penalty. Why was so much hinging on which it was?
TOOBIN: Well, this gets into some of the peculiarities of this lawsuit. There is a strange law, which I freely confess I'd never heard of, called the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that taxes can't be litigated - you can't challenge a tax until the tax is actually assessed against you, which makes a certain amount of sense. You know, you can't challenge - you have to sort of be assessed the tax before.
And the Obama administration made the argument at first that, well, since this was a tax, this case was premature. By the time they got to the Supreme Court, they were arguing, well, it's not a tax, it's a penalty. So you can litigate it right away. That was the argument he made in that part of the case. It turned out somewhat to contradict a part of the argument he made in another part of the case.
GROSS: Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, used the tax premise as the reason why he upheld the law. So just explain that for us.
TOOBIN: Well, this was really the totally stunning denouement of the health care case because all the argument, including the argument in the Supreme Court, had been based on the Obama administration's contention - and this was true in the lower courts, as well - that the law was justified under Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the provision of Article 1 of the Constitution which says Congress has the right to regulate commerce among the separate states.
And that's really how all - almost all federal laws are justified, that they relate in some way to interstate commerce. That was the heart of the argument. As a subsidiary part of the argument, the Obama administration also claimed that the individual mandate, which is the provision of the law that says everyone has to buy health insurance, either on their own or with a government subsidy, that was also a tax, and Congress obviously has the power to lay taxes, as well.
But that almost never came up in the lower courts or in the Supreme Court, and when the court announced its decision on June 25th, Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion began by saying this law is not justified under the Commerce Clause. The challengers to the law won the main argument in the case.
But then in a really stunning development, and I will never forget sitting there in the Supreme Court hearing the chief justice announce his opinion, he said: But there is a separate justification offered by the administration. And it became clear that he was upholding the entire law, joining with the four liberals on the court in saying that the Affordable Care Act was a tax and thus a permissible use of Congress' power.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Jeffrey Toobin, and he is the senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer at The New Yorker. His new book is called "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court." Let's take a short break here, and then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Jeffrey Toobin. He is a staff writer for The New Yorker, senior legal analyst at CNN and author the new book "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court."
So even though he finally upheld the Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice Roberts didn't think that the Commerce Clause justified the act. And the Commerce Clause has become very important for legal interpretations on the right. I'd like you to explain what the Commerce Clause is and why it has become so central.
TOOBIN: Well, it really goes back to the New Deal. Before the New Deal, the federal government really didn't do that much as a national regulator of the economy. But FDR came in, and he passed all this new legislation, and the Supreme Court in the early 1930s struck down a lot of these laws. And the court said, in effect, that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, but that power is narrowly defined.
And these laws, like minimum wage laws, like giving people the right to organize unions, like having Social Security, they were outside Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
FDR wound up appointing eight justices to the court, and they brought a new understanding of the Commerce Clause, which basically said if Congress thinks any law affects interstate commerce, even at several removes, even if you have to sort of lump a lot of transactions together, we are going to defer to Congress.
And basically what that view of the Commerce Clause did was create the modern welfare state, which says look, we have a big modern country, we need a national regulator of the economy, we need minimum wage laws, we need worker safety laws, and all of that is permissible under the Commerce Clause.
What the conservative movement has done is say, look, that is a misreading of the Commerce Clause, that is an incorrect view, and there is a constitutional justification for cutting back on all sorts of federal regulations and activities, and the Commerce Clause is the way to do it.
GROSS: Since Chief Justice Roberts said he would have overturned Obamacare if he was just examining it through the lens of the Commerce Act, you think in the long run Roberts' interpretation of the Commerce Act is going to be very beneficial to justices on the right in the court.
TOOBIN: I think Chief Justice Roberts' decision will benefit the conservative movement in two different ways. One is the way you suggest, is that their decision on the Commerce Claus in this case is really a shot across the bow to Congress in saying: Look, don't think that the Commerce Clause is a blank check. Don't think you can simply do anything and tell companies and individuals to do anything, and it's justified under the Commerce Clause. That is an important potential marker to Congress to, you know, mind its limits.
But I think it's more beneficial to the conservative movement in a somewhat more indirect way. What John Roberts has done is by supporting Barack Obama on this critical piece of legislation and litigation, Roberts has insulated the court from political challenge for a long time. And Robert has a big conservative agenda still. And he is going to be able to push that agenda without risking criticism now for being a political activist because of this vote.
So look at the issues that are on the horizon for the Supreme Court: the future of affirmative action; the future of the Voting Rights Act; gay rights in many different forms. In all of those...
GROSS: Should we put abortion in there, too?
TOOBIN: Abortion, too. In all of those areas, you know, John Roberts has not suddenly discovered his inner moderate. He remains deeply conservative. He is going to be pushing his agenda, and he now is free from the risk of being accused of politicizing the court because of his vote in this case. And that's a great benefit to the conservative movement.
GROSS: Are you saying you think that's one of the reasons why he voted to uphold Obamacare?
TOOBIN: I do. Again, I'm a little - you know, I'm always a little wary about talking about people's motives, and I can't prove this, but given his conduct in this case, it is very clear to me that Roberts was worried about the institutional place of the Supreme Court in American political life.
He was worried about making this case part of a trilogy, with Bush v. Gore, Citizens United; two highly political cases where five Republican justices did what many people regard as deeply political acts. If he had made the Obamacare case the third in that trilogy, we would be talking about the Supreme Court a great deal more in this campaign. The justices would be political targets in a way that they're not now. And I think that was very much on Roberts' mind.
GROSS: Jeffrey Toobin will be back in the second half of the show. His new book is called "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court." He's CNN's senior legal analyst and a staff writer for The New Yorker. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross, back with Jeffrey Toobin. His new book, "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court," is about the direction the court is heading in under Chief Justice John Roberts. Toobin is CNN's senior legal analyst and a staff writer for The New Yorker.
Let's take a look back at the Citizens United decision, which is having such a huge effect on this current election and how money is being used. You write that this decision relates to the great themes of the court: corporate power, freedom of speech and the intersection of law and politics.
One of the things that this decision did was basically say that corporations have the right to free speech, like a person does. What precedent did the Supreme Court used in saying - in equating a corporation with an individual when it comes to free speech?
TOOBIN: Well, there is quite a bit of history at the court of viewing corporations with rights, like individuals. I mean, just for example, when The New York Times gets sued for libel, they wave the First Amendment. They say we, you know, we have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press. And that is The New York Times as a corporation, and they have that right.
However, the court has always - at least historically - taken a nuanced view of that, which said yes, that is true, but there also can be limits on corporate rights that there are different from human rights. Corporations are not always the same as human beings. Corporations cannot be subject to imprisonment or the death penalty. They do not have rights like equal protection of the laws.
So the court had said for a hundred years that regulating campaign contributions of corporations is one area where corporations are not like people, and that was one of the big changes of Citizens United.
GROSS: Citizens United initially was a very narrow case. And Ted Olson, who is arguing before the Supreme Court representing Citizens United, kept it very narrow. What was he keeping it to?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, Citizens United, what made it so much fun to write about it, is such a bizarre saga in and of itself because the case is this very peculiar set of facts where a conservative group called Citizens United made, frankly, this goofy documentary about Hillary Clinton that was very critical of her during - when she was running for president in 2008.
The FEC - in a frankly bizarre opinion, which I think was wrong - said well, this is just like a political commercial, and you can't run it under the McCain-Feingold law 30 to 60 days - 30 or 60 days before the election. And they - Citizens United challenged it.
Now, Citizens United was not a classic corporation. It was a non-profit. It was a charitable operation. It got most of its money from individuals, not from corporate donors. And Ted Olson, who is a very crafty, practical litigator, said, look. Under the facts of this case, there are lots of ways the Supreme Court could rule in our favor - Citizens United favor - without changing the law in dramatic ways by saying it doesn't apply to - that this law doesn't apply to non-profits, this wasn't really a commercial. And thus, Citizens United would have been forgotten because it was such a minor case if it had gone Olson's Way.
As it turned out, Olson was wrong about how much the court wanted to engage with the big issues, and he wound up winning a much, much bigger victory.
GROSS: Chief Justice Roberts sent Citizens United back to argue a broader case. And you kind of pegged that to the fact that Roberts didn't want Justice Souter to publish the dissenting opinion that he'd written. So I want you to talk about that a little bit. What was Souter's dissenting opinion, and why didn't Roberts want that published?
TOOBIN: Well, this was really an example of an extraordinary, behind-the-scenes struggle at the Supreme Court, because, you know, after the case was argued the first time in this very narrow way, the conservatives on the court really started to get there back up and say, look. We don't want to just declare that Citizens United has the right to run this goofy movie. We want to declare much of the McCain-Feingold law unconstitutional, and we want to establish big, new rules for free speech of corporations and establish more clearly than ever the idea that money is speech.
Souter and the other liberals on the court said, wait a second. This case is a very narrow one, and it was argued in a very narrow way. We think this is simply unfair practice at the Supreme Court to take this narrow case and use it to drive a truck through decades of precedent.
So Roberts came up with a very ingenious solution. Rather than let the Supreme Court have this very ugly public fight about what kind - about how this case was handled by the justices, he said fine. OK. We will reargue the case. We will hear the case argued again, and I will tell the lawyers precisely what's at stake here. I will do what's called the questions presented, which is sort of how the court frames the issues in any given case. They wrote questions presented that showed just how big a case this was. So the case was argued a second time with the higher stakes very clear to all.
So Roberts got to have the big case, but without the criticism from Souter that he had gamed the system.
GROSS: Did the other wing of the court - the liberals or moderates, whatever you care to call them - did the justices have to agree with Roberts' decision to send back the case and to have a broader argument made?
TOOBIN: They didn't. You only need four justices to grant cert in the Supreme Court. They had five who were willing to reargue the case. And, you know, the liberals felt: What the heck? We're losing, anyway. Might as well reargue it, so, you know, maybe lightning will strike. So they didn't exactly oppose the reargument, but they saw the writing on the wall, just like everyone else did.
GROSS: So here's the paradox: If Roberts had the case reargued more broadly because he wanted to prevent this, like, public dissent from Justice Souter, he got the opposite of what he wanted on that account because Justice John Paul Stevens wrote his final dissenting opinion for Citizens United, and it was a scathing opinion, I mean, maybe one of the most scathing dissents ever written.
TOOBIN: It was. It was - I mean, yes, in a way, Roberts didn't get what he wanted in the sense that he didn't get harmony at the court. But by having it argued a second time, he at least could not be accused of sneaking one past the liberals on the court.
By the time the case was argued for the second time, everybody knew the stakes. And Stevens wrote a scathing dissent, but he wrote a scathing dissent on the merits. He didn't say that the justices had played dirty pool. And, frankly, I think the justices are used to disagreeing with each other on the merits, sometimes in very heated waves. I think Roberts knew that was coming, given the stakes in this case, but at the end of the day, it's better to win than to lose.
And sure, Justice Stevens was very critical, but John Roberts and the conservative wing won Citizens United, our politics are transformed, and that's heck of a lot more important than, you know, the complaints of a dissenting and losing justice.
GROSS: I know you have a lot of connections to the court. I'm not sure if the justices spoke to you about this decision directly or not. But do you have any reason to believe that any of the justices who upheld Citizens United are dismayed by the results it's actually having in politics today?
TOOBIN: Quite the opposite. I think Citizens United is the beginning of a major change in American politics, not the end. What you see at the Supreme Court on this issue is a belief that money is speech. That's the core value. And the pioneer of this idea was really Clarence Thomas. Like so many areas of the law, Clarence Thomas has been sort of the leading edge of conservative thought. Whether it's on the Commerce Clause, whether it's on free speech, whether it's on affirmative action or gun control, Thomas has been - you know, began advocating, you know, positions that were out - you know, considered way out there, and they have become the conventional view at the Supreme Court.
Citizens United is only the beginning of the near-complete deregulation that the Supreme Court is going to order. Corporate contributions now can only go to the so-called superPACs. Soon they'll say, well, you corporations can give directly to campaigns. Limit - if you believe that...
GROSS: Why do you think that?
TOOBIN: Well, because the logic follows. I mean, these superPACs are essentially identical to campaign committees. I mean, they are essentially fraudulent contrivances to keep a phony distance between the actual campaign and the separate entities called superPACs. They are part of campaigns, but not legally part of campaigns.
I anticipate that the court, as it's - if it's currently configured - it continues, will say, well, corporations and individuals can give directly to campaigns. And if you believe - as this majority does - that money is speech, how can you have limits on how much you can give to campaigns? Those are, I think, very much endangered. So I think Citizens United is very much the beginning or the middle of deregulations of campaigns, not the end.
GROSS: If you're joining us, my guest is Jeffrey Toobin. He's the author of the new book "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court." He's also the senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer for The New Yorker.
Let's take a short break here, and then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're joining us, my guest is Jeffrey Toobin. We're talking about his new book "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court." He's a staff writer for The New Yorker and CNN's senior legal analyst.
You have a chapter in the book that's called "The War Against Precedent." What are the precedents that have been overturned recently by the Supreme Court?
TOOBIN: Well, Citizens United certainly overturned a couple right away: the issue of so-called partial-birth abortion. One of Stephen Breyer's most important opinions was a decision striking down a partial-birth abortion law in - that had been passed in Nebraska.
When President Bush became president, Congress passed essentially an identical law to the Nebraska law, and the Supreme Court upheld essentially an identical law that they had overturned earlier. You see it in the civil rights. We will see it shortly I think in civil rights.
Perhaps the most important opinion of Justice O'Connor's career, 2003, the Grutter opinion, where he - where she upheld the admissions practices at the University of Michigan, a law school, which said that race may be one factor that admissions committees can consider in deciding whether to allow kids to go to school. That is up in this coming term in a case out of Texas, and I have very little doubt that they are going to shrike that down.
You know, it used to be that what it meant to be a conservative on the Supreme Court was, you know, respect for precedent and slow moving change. What's so different about the Roberts court is the way they are burning through many of the precedents they don't like.
GROSS: And you write that the overturning of precedents is being made possible in part through new ways of interpreting the Constitution. So I want to ask you about textualism and originalism. I've heard the word originalism a lot, not so much textualism. What's the difference between the two?
TOOBIN: Well, they're very similar. Originalism is simply interpreting the Constitution as the framers understood it. If you believe that the framers did not establish a - or did not think they were establishing a right of a woman to choose abortion, then there is none in the Constitution. That's the originalist view.
Textualism says we are going to interpret the text of the Constitution narrowly. I mean, one of the great liberal innovations of the 1960s and '70s was the so-called right to privacy, which was established in a series of cases about birth control and abortion and gay rights. And the texturalists say the words right to privacy do not appear in the Constitution, thus we do not recognize one.
Again, it is an attempt to narrow the protections offered to individuals by the Constitution and it's very similar to originalism but it's not identical.
GROSS: OK. In terms of wording, one of the most argued-about parts of the Constitution is the Second Amendment which says: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So what's the texturalist argument about how to interpret that?
TOOBIN: Well, the texturalist argument is that the two clauses, the so-called militia clause and the right to bear arms clause, are essentially separate. The texturalist view, or certainly the originalist view as expressed by Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, is that the rights established in the Second Amendment do not belong exclusively to militias; they belong to individuals.
And, again, that is a dramatic change. And even someone like Warren Burger, the Chief Justice before William Rehnquist, thought it was absurd to suggest that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to keep and bear arms. But Justice Scalia, in the famous Heller Opinion earlier this decade, he established that, in fact, the Second Amendment does establish a individual right to bear arms and he struck down the gun control laws in the District of Columbia.
GROSS: Now, has a grammarian ever been called into the court to argue about the commas and how that affects the meaning of the Second Amendment?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, you laugh and of course we all laugh but, I mean, that's what texturalism devolves into and Justice Stevens wrote this enormous dissenting opinion in the Heller case where he said, well, I am taking you at your - I'm going to be a texturalist too and I'm going to be an originalist and I'm going to tell you, based on my reading of what was going on in the 1780s, you were wrong about what they thought about the Second Amendment.
So one of the problems with originalism is that it's not always clear what the framers thought about lots of issues. In part, it's not clear because they weren't discussing these issues, and in part because we're dealing with issues that they couldn't have conceived of. What did they think about the regulation of violent video games? You know, I don't think James Madison had a lot of thoughts about violent video games, but if you are an originalist you have to try to extrapolate his views of violent video games.
And that's, some people think, a fool's errand.
GROSS: Do you think that an editor should have sent back the Second Amendment for another revision?
TOOBIN: Definitely.
GROSS: For clarity?
TOOBIN: The Second Amendment is a mess. I mean, these two clauses, you know, you don't have to be a stodgy grammarian to recognize that the sentence simply does not make sense. That the militia clause is tethered to the bear arms clause by a comma but they are otherwise unrelated. And that makes the whole business of texturalism all the more difficult because you have to untangle what they meant, the framers meant, when they did not express themselves clearly at all.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Jeffrey Toobin. He's the author of the new book "The Oath, the Obama White House, and the Supreme Court." He's also the senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer for the New Yorker. Let's take a short break here and then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Jeffrey Toobin. We're talking about his new book "The Oath, the Obama White House, and the Supreme Court." President Obama has had to appoint two Supreme Court justices so far. You say he hasn't been doing a good job filling judicial appointments in the lower courts. A lot of those benches are vacant. Is that because he hasn't taken the initiative or because his nominations have been blocked?
TOOBIN: Well, this, Terry, is one of the areas that I found the most surprising and it really goes to the central conflict in the book between the conservative Roberts and the so-called liberal Obama. Obama, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Constitutional law teacher at the University of Chicago, one of the great law schools of the country, has shown very little interest in the courts.
It is also true that the Republicans, who are much more engaged on these legal issues, have engaged in a great deal of obstruction of his nominees. But Obama has never even submitted all or even close to all the nominees to fill the vacancies on the court and he has never challenged the Republicans about why they are not confirming his judges.
His absence of interest and engagement on the courts is one of the paradoxes of the Obama presidency, but I think can be explained by his interest in stability and lack of change and frankly not much going on in the courts, as opposed to the Republicans who believe that the courts are one of the great battlegrounds of American politics and government.
GROSS: The opening chapter of your book "The Oath" is about the administering of the oath of office to President Obama by Chief Justice Roberts. And Roberts got a couple words wrong on the oath, so the question was, well, the president didn't take the actual oath word by word as written, so is he still really president? Would anybody try to say that he wasn't?
So the oath was re-given by Chief Justice Roberts. But one of the controversies within that was whether Chief Justice Roberts should say, when he was reading the oath to Barack Obama, so help me God or so help you God. What was that about?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, this is one of the reasons I love being a journalist, Terry, is that, you know, these controversies, these issues, they come and go but, you know, the circus moves on and people move on to other issues. And sometimes you get to go back. And I remember watching the oath, the mal-administered oath on January 20th, 2009 thinking, god, how did they screw it up?
I mean, it's a pretty big deal. And there's a story there, it turns out. And it's the prologue of the oath and the long and short of it is, Roberts prepared meticulously. Some people accused him of, you know, sort of blowing it off. Quite the opposite, is the case. He and his chief assistant, you know, meticulously went over and prepared a card for how the oath would be administered.
Which was emailed to a member of the Congressional committee, a staffer on this committee, but the staffer on the committee never opened the attachment. So the oath card, which is reprinted in my book, never got to the White House. So Obama never saw it. So they were never on the same page about how the words were going to be divided up.
You know, Roberts rehearsed so often that his wife said to him, at this point the dog thinks it's the president.
TOOBIN: So it was not a lack of preparation, but when Obama sort of jumped in when Roberts didn't expect him, Roberts very uncharacteristically got flustered and the oath, the words got scrambled. And then the question became what legal significance does that have?
GROSS: So I'm going to end with a really silly question.
TOOBIN: Sure.
GROSS: An observation that actually comes from one of our producers. On the cover of your book, "The Oath, the Obama White House, and the Supreme Court," President Obama is in profile on the left side of the cover and Chief Justice Roberts is in profile on the right side of the cover. They're staring at each other the way these images are placed in juxtaposition, and they both have kind of dreamy looks on their face. And it does kind of look like they're about to come together in a kiss.
TOOBIN: That was the opposite of what I intended.
GROSS: I know.
GROSS: Has anybody else pointed that out?
TOOBIN: You know, not yet.
GROSS: What do you think?
TOOBIN: But the book's just out. No. The whole point was that they were scowling at each other and, like, in a face off. I think that's a beautiful...
GROSS: Do they look like scowls to you?
TOOBIN: Well, I mean, they look sort of serious. Gosh, I just - now that you mention it, I'm staring at it.
TOOBIN: You know, maybe this is a clue to how the whole same-sex marriage thing will turn out. That certainly had never occurred to me and the whole point of putting them on the cover was as a face off, but, you know, let love emerge. It would be beautiful.
GROSS: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much. It's always a pleasure to talk with you.
TOOBIN: Great, Terry. Thank you.
GROSS: Jeffrey Toobin is the author of the new book "The Oath, the Obama White House, and the Supreme Court." You can read an excerpt on our website freshair.npr.org where you can also download a Podcast of our show and you can follow us on Twitter @nprfreshair and on Tumblr at nprfreshair.tumblr.com.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.


text:
Mahindra car rental in Pune Airport [PNQ]
If you prefer Mahindra cars or know that the car with the characteristics you want is presented in the Mahindra range in PNQ Airport, India, start your search from this page. Enter the dates you need in the search form or click on the image of the car that suits you below.
Here you will find the Mahindra vehicles that you can rent in Pune . The rates of shown cars are based on previous searches. Mahindra rental cars are highlighted with an orange frame. You will find more up-to-date information by clicking on the car or by filling in the search form.
Mahindra rental cars in Pune Airport [PNQ] and other relevant cars
Mahindra rental cars in Pune Downtown and other relevant cars 10.01 km / 6.22 mi
Why use Rental24H for Mahindra car rental?
Car rental locations with Mahindra vehicles around Pune Airport
You can see a list of rental places where you can rent Mahindra near Pune PNQ Airport below.
Nearby downtown car rental locations
Pune Downtown
10.01 km / 6.22 mi
Note: The prices and the number of cars in the location may vary depending on the rental location. For example, renting Mahindra at the airport is often more expensive than downtown, but the car inventory there is the largest, so firstly, check all offers in PNQ Airport, India and compare prices before renting a car.
Map of locations near Pune PNQ Airport
If you haven't found the suitable model of Mahindra in your area, we can find you alternative offers - from mini and economy cars to full-size vehicles and SUVs, from luxury cars or convertibles to exotic car models. Fill in the search form and view all the possible cars in Pune .
FAQ - Mahindra car rental in Pune Airport
Which car rental companies rent Mahindra in Pune PNQ Airport?
When inspecting the list of Mahindra cars in PNQ Airport, India, the choice of agency to deal with plays one of the most significant roles. A good supplier is a key to a trouble-free road trip, while a company with a bad reputation can ruin your vacation at all. We gathered only reliable suppliers, which will do their best to make your trip pleasant and easy.
Among those vendors who offer Mahindra vehicles in Pune , you will find only well-known leading brands, including Avis and.
Want to see the full list of companies providing car rental service in Pune Airport? Find it here!
What is the best car rental company that provides Mahindra car rental in Pune PNQ Airport?
Your car rental experience in PNQ Airport, India is largely dependent on the particular provider. In accordance with thousands of positive customers' reviews, the following 3 companies are the finest to pick up any Mahindra model:
Which Mahindra cars I can rent in Pune ?
The list of Mahindra cars in this destination will satisfy the desires of any traveler. Vehicle of this brand are offered in almost every class of cars, which eliminates the need to abandon your preferences.
The most popular Mahindra models presented in Pune Airport are:
What is the cheapest Mahindra rental car in Pune PNQ Airport?
By using our website, you can compare many parameters of available deals, including the price of a rental car from different suppliers.
Therefore, the lowest price for Mahindra vehicles in PNQ Airport, India is not a dream - you have the opportunity to drive the Mahindra Scorpio at just $94.167 per day.
What car rental company has the lowest Mahindra rental car price in Pune ?
The cheapest Mahindra model presented in Pune Airport is the Mahindra Scorpio, which is available from avis for $94.167 per day. What's more, along with an attractive price, you get a trusted provider with an impeccable reputation.
What is the most popular Mahindra car rental model in Pune PNQ Airport?
Each Mahindra model is recognized as a reliable car, which is great for city trips, as well as for driving on highways. Comfort and ease of control are one of the main distinguishing features of this car.
More often than not, people rent a Mahindra Scorpio, which is a nice-looking and fairly roomy vehicle. It's accessible at a price of $94.167 per day in PNQ Airport, India.
What is the most popular supplier of Mahindra car rentals in Pune ?
The degree of trust and desire to cooperate with the car hire agency forms its popularity level. According to many reviews of happy travelers, Avis is a company you can deal with without any doubt.
Along with excellent service, the supplier offers the most advantageous deal - Mahindra Scorpio for $94.167 a day.
How can I get Mahindra rental car in Pune Airport?
Most car rental companies don't guarantee you a specific Mahindra car model. They can guarantee you only a car from certain car class. All cars from the group you've chosen have approximately the same size and are similar in their technical characteristics.
Choosing a car marked "or similar" will get you a selected or similar vehicle. Thus, if you select a 5-seater car with an automatic gearbox, you will get a car with an automatic transmission with a capacity of not less than 5 passengers.
In order to rent the exact car model you want, then look for offers with the "Guaranteed Car Model" inscription on the page with the results of your search in Pune PNQ Airport. This means, in the absence of such a sign, the company doesn't accept claims regarding the car that you get in the end.
How old do I have to be to rent Mahindra in PNQ Airport, India?
If you want to drive a Mahindra rental vehicle, you need to meet some minimum age requirements:
- 20 years old to rent in Pune ;
- 18 years old to rent in MI and NY states.
In all cases, when you are under 25, companies are authorized to charge you an underage fee of about $20-70 per day depending on your age and car rental location. The exception is military or government renters traveling on business - they can avoid age surcharges.
This additional under 25 fee must be paid during pick up at the counter in Pune Airport.
How to find a cheap Mahindra car rental in Pune PNQ Airport?
Travel should be exciting, but not too expensive. Those who are searching for a cheap rental car at PNQ Airport, India say so.
Indeed, car rental can sometimes make up a large part of your budget, which is bad news for money-saving travelers. Thus, it may seem that the only solution in this situation is to find a cheap local no-name provider with a poor reputation.
Fortunately, things are much better. There are still several ways to work with a leading brand and at the same time save your money on something more important to you:
- Reserve your Mahindra vehicle a minimum of 2-3 weeks prior to the definite date;
- Compare rates in Pune with the prices in the neighboring locations to find the best rate for a favorite Mahindra model;
- Rent a car for a minimum of 7 consecutive days to get each separate rental day much cheaper;
- Choose a car according to your needs and not according to appearance;
- Ask for full-to-full gas option;
- Use your individual domestic insurance or choose a reasonable package on our website;
- Avoid one-way and interstate rentals, as well as border crossing;
- Reject unnecessary optional extras and additional equipment;
- Benefit from promotions and additional discounts.
Can I pay for my Mahindra rental car reservation with a debit card in Pune Airport?
Almost every company requires a credit card deposit, which is needed to compensate for vehicle damage as a consequence of the driver's fault. Of course, it doesn't apply to items covered by insurance.
As for the debit card, with its help, you have the opportunity to pay the cost of your Mahindra rental only.
Can someone else drive my Mahindra rental car in Pune PNQ Airport?
Since a long trip by car is associated with increased fatigue, it makes sense to take the additional driver option in PNQ Airport, India.
Along with you, an extra driver has the right to drive a Mahindra car. But keep in mind that the main renter is liable for material damages anyway. An additional driver can be opted on the reservation page or exactly in the agency's kiosk.
Should I buy an additional insurance for my Mahindra car rental in Pune ?
Insurance is what all companies require when you want to pick up a car. It's a guarantee of coverage for all cases in which the vehicle, driver, passengers or third parties were damaged or injured.
When booking a rental car on our website, the price often includes a compulsory insurance package such as:
- CDW - collision damage waiver - this is the rental insurance, which is required in 90% of the cases of rental cars. Without this insurance, rental companies won't give you a car. Therefore, this insurance is usually included in the price of the car rental and you can't refuse it. This insurance protects you and the Mahindra rental car from most damage in case of an accident.
- TW - theft protection - theft insurance. Also, it is required in most cases and its cost is included in the rental.
- TP- third party- insurance of your liability to third parties.
To rent a car abroad, you may use your personal protection or insurance that comes with your bank card. Just don't forget to clarify the possibility of its application in terms of international car rental.
Excess Fee is the amount of the deposit that will be blocked on your credit card in case of damage or car theft. If at the end of the rental nothing bad happens with the car, then the entire amount of the deposit will be returned to you on your credit card. On the other hand, whatever happens to the car, the amount of the deposit is the maximum amount you risk. This is very convenient and allows you not to worry about renting a car in Pune Airport. Some rental companies allow you to reduce the amount of the deposit by paying some part of the cost of insurance (Complete cover package). In this case, the amount of excess fee can be reduced by 50%, and even 80% - for example, from 1000 euros to 500 or even to 200.
You always have an opportunity to purchase full insurance from your selected car rental provider. Or, you can buy Excess Insurance on our website at the reservation stage - this is a very convenient way to protect yourself from potential material losses. Choose coverage with zero excess to avoid liability. If you bought an excess insurance, then in case of any problems with the car - whether it's just a scratch or significant damage - our insurance company will refund the amount of the excess fee withheld with you by the rental company.
Please, examine the rental conditions of a particular Mahindra car model to get maximum detailed information on insurance provided for it.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Rocky start
Mileage: 31.5
April mileage: 717.9
Temperature: 45
The rain was coming in sideways when I felt my rear rim dragging on pavement. I pulled over to the side of the road to assess where I was; I had been squinting into the dim yellow circle cast by my headlight for so long that I wasn't even sure. I shifted my trunk bag to reach my repair gear when it dawned on me that the headlight was in fact my only source of light. There was no way to illuminate the wheel so I could change the flat. I clip clopped in my cleats down the road, grumbling about how I really should have switched out my pedals when I had the chance. I walked nearly a half mile before I reached the nearest street light. Slimy brake dust goo and grit dripped down my fingers as I removed the rim. The rest of the flat change went quickly, but as I stood up to leave, I realized that the jeans I was wearing, covered by my very best pair of rain pants, had already soaked through. The denim chafed and scraped my thighs as I started pedaling. Stupidly, I had left them on because I thought they would keep me warmer than my wet tights. I stopped to adjust my pants. It was 11:15 p.m. My socks were soaked. My gloves were soaked. The headwind was so strong I had barely cracked 10 mph since I left work. "Could this commute be going much worse?" I thought. That's when I noticed my red blinkie was missing from my trunk bag.
Today was day five of my summer as an everyday bicycle commuter. Today was also day five of my summer as a single person. I can't say either is going very well, but at least I can still attribute the glitches to growing pains. Packing for the commute has been an experiment in disarray. I've been using a rear pannier, a trunk bag and a Camelbak just to carry all the crap I have with me, and still every day I forget something crucial ... my bike lock, a salad I had planned to eat for dinner, dry socks, the key card I need to get into the building. When the weather is similar to what it has been these past two days - steady rain with sustained 20-25 mph winds - I've learned I need two pairs of gloves, two pairs of underwear, two pairs of socks, rain coat and pants, my regular bike clothes, and my work clothes. If I don't carry two pairs of regular bike clothes, I either have to put wet clothes on when I leave, or wear my work clothes home, as I did yesterday. My office is set up "newsroom" style (i.e. a cubicle without the cubicle) Company decorum dictates that I can't hang up wet clothes everywhere, so everything but my coat and pants gets stuffed in a drawer, where it stays wet.
As I suspected, the wetness has been tough. I still get out in the morning for workouts. Today I did a quick-but-strenuous block of intervals over 19 miles, came home soaked, took a shower, and then had to head back out in the weather to go to work.
And I have to admit that I leave work thinking, "Hmm. I could be in a warm car right now. I could be home in 10 minutes." I leave work at 11 and all I'm interested in is being at home. I do not want to be riding my bike in the rain.
I also miss my dinner breaks. I used to take an hour every day to go home and eat dinner with Geoff. Now that he's gone, there's no reason for me to go home for dinner. So instead I take about 20 minutes and eat a salad in the company break room. Spending my entire shift at the office sure makes the workday seem longer. But I'm not about to go back out in the weather.
That said, I'm going to stick with the bike commuting. I'm hoping routine kicks in to make it less stressful, and experience kicks in to make it more enjoyable. I figure bike commuting is like endurance racing ... suffering is what makes the experience worthwhile.
27 comments:
Go Xed! (Last comment Living Simply post). HAHA everybody has their individual massively bloated impression of how crappy the weather can be in their local area. Some have a broader/less narrow minded/less localised impression than others ;). The more wretched and shitty the weather gets; the more it seems intent on knocking you down or soaking you to the skin, the more grit and fun that goes with it (if you are still warm inside)..unless you're tired (11pm) and are at your wits end already - with a puncture (under these circumstances the weather could just be mildly crappy and you'd be considering it all just a big pain in the arse mission)...I hear ya Jill. You have to admit that you saw a little light in the tunnel knowing that you didn't have to walk home thanks to remembering to pack the essential repair kit this day! It can always be worse. Juneau is giving you a toughening up test. Will be easy as now...
ReplyDeleteKeep plugging away Jill, Routine will eventually kick in and it's just another commute. I find taking a weeks worth of clothes & food in on a Monday helps, as you have less or nothing to take in a morning and only a few bits to bring home each day. (less weight really makes a difference to my rides) Keep going. Springs here soon!
ReplyDelete- AnonymousApril 28, 2008 at 6:47 AM
I'm a year round commuter who's had to figure out how to deal with my biking clothes too.
At my work we have a cleaning supply room. I strung a couple strings across some shelving and hang my clothes in there to dry. If I happen to get caught in the rain on my way I will use a small (10"?) fan to blow air on them, that usually dries them out over an 8 hour work day.
Also I will sometimes dry out my gloves by propping them up or setting them near my computer fan exhaust.
I used to be able to dry things on my monitor but that was back in my cubicle days, now my monitor is a little to visible for that.
Hope that helps you find a decent solution to your problem. I know I wouldn't want to put cold damp clothes on for my commute home.
--Don I like the idea of bringing in a week's worth of clothes on Monday, as long as you have the storage space. You could make Monday your car day when you bring in the clothes, and ride the other days. Also, have you thought about a small trailer for the bike? That would allow clothes to be neatly folded for the trip.
ReplyDelete- AnonymousApril 28, 2008 at 7:43 AM
Having a locker at work is a luxury for bike commuting, but there is no other luxury greater than nice weather. I opted out of my monday commute today because of 50 degrees and rain. Nothing worse than having to dress back up in went clothes on a wet bike. Have a extra dry set of clothes at work.
ReplyDelete Seen today's Yehuda?
I keep a spare set of close or two at work--that helps.
The bike commute is great for books on ipod and news podcasts as well as feeling somehow slightly subversive..
Good luck getting the groove, and hopefully the "normal" weather of the past week or so will return, eh? :)- AnonymousApril 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM
this is in reply to an earlier post, but still somewhat related.
try using a spray for goretex that will make it bead again. also u might want to try sealskinz gloves and socks, though they're on the expensive side and don't seem to be so effective after many uses. - AnonymousApril 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM
In my comute datyas I woudl pick a 'car'day. onthat day I'd haul what I thought might be needed at work (cltihes chages cuppa soup lunch etc) and do town errends. I know that is not 'car free' but I figured it was an pimprovm,ent over 100% car dependent. "All things in moderation, incuding all excesses!"
I'm sure when you get home you don't feel like gettng ready for the next days commute, but I find that is the best time to make ready. the new batteries for the headlamp, the new tube in the repair kit, the squeaky pedal, all these things are pretty fresh in your mind. Tending to them immediatley means you can get dirty doing so before you take your post ride shower.
Yr Pal Dr Codfish Yeah, weather is weather. Of course it's not that bad, but it does up the grump factor at the end of the day, doesn't it?
I currently own three pairs of rain pants. Two were pretty expensive, and highly recommended. They started out providing a pretty good barrier, but now they seem to soak in a lot of water. The bead factor is gone. I've become convinced that the phrase "waterproof breathable" is an oxymoron, and I'm not really willing to drop any more money and such gear. I'll look into that spray stuff, though.
Over my short commute (20-30 minutes), I have a PVC jacket that does great. My whole torso area stays dry, enough so that I can wear cotton shirts (I have limited laundry opportunities, so I save my bike clothing for workouts and longer rides.) That jacket only lets water in over long hauls, when it begins to seep in through the neck/waist/arms. I'd like to find a PVC pair of pants ... like the poncho pants you can get at Wal-mart, but less flimsy and baggy.- AnonymousApril 28, 2008 at 2:43 PM
when you wash your goretex (or similar) make sure you dry it in the dryer, with heat. it won't make it brand new again, but it reenergizes the waterproof finish so it should bead again for a while. i've done it tons; but after a few years nothing will help....
ReplyDelete - AnonymousApril 28, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Have you tried looking at fishing clothing? The Grundens line has a lot of great stuff...not sure if it might kill you on a bike ride, though. Probably the most waterproof stuff we tried while living in Juneau. Take a look. Not sure how it allows you to respire.....
ReplyDelete Ironing the jacket is also a good way to apply heat after using an inwash wax. When the grump king springs forth think "happy" thoughts...La la la, happy happy, buttercup flowers in radiant sunlit meadows with fairys and Muddle pugsleys bouncing gleefully among the rays! :) imagination can lift the spirits
ReplyDeleteThe words of your recent posts resonate...
Your thoughts and words on Geoff and goals..... I feel lucky to have this kind of insight into another human that you so freely offer to your readers.
I am a long-time fan of bike commuting. But, I have had very easy and logistically feasible commuting routes and locker room facilities. As I learned when I'd try to convince friends to commute to their jobs, bike commuting doesn't work for every person. Sometimes, the distance can be too short and the hassle factor too high. Sometimes it can make a person feel negative toward the bike, and make them not want to go for a fun ride or a training ride.
I love your goal of living simply.
Will your commutes help you get beyond McGrath?- AnonymousApril 29, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I had a thought the other day after having read your blog for the past few months. You like to put yourself in situations that require you to deal with adversity, then you enjoy sharing with others how much trouble you had to go through, and how you "survived" your ordeals. Living in Alaska, riding your bike in horrendous conditions, Geoff moving out, etc.
Is this a form of an attention seeking personality, or a subconcious masochistic streak ?. All of your blog posts have a common thread of trying to survive against outward stresses and physical/mental difficulties. The situations that you put yourself into (and even post titles) conjure up outside negative forces you're trying to overcome.
Are you deliberately putting yourself in these tough situations in order to feel that you've "survived" something and for the attention it brings you to share these stories of your sufferings ?. Does being a "journalist" have an affect on seeking out situations in your life that may lead to high drama, and therefore give you writing material subjects ?. Or are you putting yourself in these situations to try to escape a boring, mundane, or monotonous life ?. Would "Jill" be "Jill" if she lived in one of the Lower 48 states where the weather was nice, the roads were good, there wasn't as much isolation around, and day-to-day life wasn't as much of a daily struggle ?.
Not trying to being a smartass or insulting or anything. I just want you to reflect on why you seem to seek out adversity, drama, or self-flaggelation in some fashion. Maybe you could think about it, and write a post on your blog about it. Jill we love your blog for what it is and just for who you are. I've read the WHOLE thing and I'm betting you are just simply who you are. Not trying to 'seek out' situations to have a struggle.
Alaska just gets in you and becomes part of you, just like the bike. You either get it or you don't.
Come to think of it, commuting is like that too! It's a simple choice, it becomes part of you, and most people won't "get it".
I've got a new job starting up, I'm excited because it's 6 miles each way, I'll be able to ride my bike the whole way. My friends think I'm crazy and told me I've lost my mind to think I can bike 12 miles EVERY day!! They have no idea.........I also love your blog Jill. You keep at it. I am struggling with commuting by bike to work here in California. Yes, the weather is great, and we have a shower at work. But, it is 20 miles each way, and I hate it when people yell and honk at me, as they do almost every time I ride through Redwood City on my way to work.
ReplyDeleteIf you have one of those 3-drawer vertical hanging folder pieces of furniture, you have what every commuter needs: concealed drying space.
Step 1: Remove all hanging files from the bottom drawer (you probably don't need most of them anyway)
Step 2: Use the support rods for the files to create "hangers" to drape wet clothes over.
Step 3: After hanging wet clothes in the drawer, close it up and no one will be the wiser.Great questions anonymous [directed at the long weird anonymous comment variety]...of similar quality to if a banana wasn't a banana, would it still be a banana? I think Jill falls into a quality of person that will actively seek an experience that challenges her and pushes her. If there is no challenge in achieving it, then it loses its appeal. I know I never feel more alive than after these type of experiences. Maybe you just don't get it anonymous because you don't have this quality in your own personality. And no one choses to have their best friend/boyfriend move away, it is just something that happens. Jill writes a personal blog about personal experiences which entitles her to write about anything that affects her life in any way, bad or good.
Keep rocking your blog Jill, as always.Jill,
I've been reading your blog for quite some time- and I think the way you've embraced Alaska is awesome cause it can be a crazy place. I spent last summer in the Alaska range on an extended wilderness expedition (no bicycles involved unfortunately). I bike commute, as well as take care of all my city errands on my xtracycle (it still needs a name). You can check out www.xtracycle.com, it's basically an attachment that makes your bike a little longer, and you can haul lots of stuff.
Having experienced some Alaska weather, I can say that it's a little more tolerable here in Portland, OR, but I applaud you for sticking it out in the utterly crappy conditions. My workday starts at 7am, which about my least favorite time to ride a bike in 35 degree blowing rain. Somehow we do it, because it makes life simple and strangely satisfying.
I also disagree with the prior comment about looking for trouble- I don't think you are looking for any kind of experiences, and I thoroughly enjoy reading about the genuine experiences you find yourself having. Thanks for sharing so much, it brightens my day.Hey Anon,
Nice armchair pshycoanalyis. Really. Not bad. It's interesting to me that my choices come across as self-flaggelation. I don't view them that way at all, nor do I view my lifestyle as adverse or as a manifestation of some kind of survivor complex. I view my life as interesting and exciting. I have my good days and bad; everyone does. I would act the same no matter where I resided. I lived most of my life in the a warm and populated part of the Lower 48 (Salt Lake City), and followed a similar pattern ... every weekend I was off on some adventure, hiking, boating and camping throughout Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. I'd argue my life is more tame now than it was in the Lower 48, because I'm by and large locked into the same small area that I know very well here, whereas I used to travel deep into remote deserts and mountain ranges with much less experience and knowledge than I have now.
As to whether I'm pathetically desperate for attention, I'm not going to be able to change your mind in that regard. Many people hold that view about bloggers and that's fine. I know my motivations and I'm satisfied with them. I've been a "journalist" since I was 8 years old. I have volumes and volumes stocked away at my parents' house. The fact that I now keep my journal online started as convenience and turned to habit, networking and training records.
Either way, I'll probably keep doing it as long as I don't accidentally hit the "delete this blog" button, and I'll probably keep enjoying my life, too, even if it's not the kind of life everyone would enjoy living.- AnonymousApril 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Actually, if I had read your post entitled "Why I Like Endurance" I wouldn't have needed to bring up the subject above about why you seek out these experiences:
"So a very good question that I'm often asked is - "Why?" Why put myself through it?
I think it goes back to high school, when I was looking for a place in the world. I was an odd duck like everyone else. I was introspective but not intellectual, smart but not studious, active but not athletic. I never played competitive sports and wasn't about to join the Mathletes, but I used to wonder - why can't there be a sport for the nonathletic? An intellectual challenge for the nonacademic? I never knew I could have it all in a single event - endurance cycling."
You've "found your place in the world" by being "Jill the Alaskan biker". Not only do you get the thrill and adventure from the experiences, but you've also found your own personal niche in life that lets you stand out from the crowd and brings you attention.


text:
Buy A Bakkie Load Firewood Of 1000 Pieces
What is the best Firewood Near Me Forest Heights has to offer?
If you've never bought a bakkie load firewood before or are new to the procedure, we will help clear the air and ensure you get the most bang for your buck.
The ideal bakkie load firewood is what is easily accessible in your area, is seasoned, split, and competitively priced. You'll be shocked at how much wood you'll need, so choose a local Firewood Near Me Forest Heights supplier like us, who keep a common type in store all year. Don't be too concerned with the type of wood. Instead, consider how well-seasoned and divided it is. 'Seasoned' firewood has been sitting outside, shielded from the elements, for at least 6 months. For most woods, the seasoning process takes 18 months or longer. The firewood is considered 'green' after it has been split, indicating that the moisture level is still considerable.
Seasoned firewood has cracks on the edges, the bark has fallen off, and it is substantially lighter than green wood. When in doubt, listen to how it sounds when dropped on a hard surface. Dry wood has a hollow sound, whereas green wood has a muffled, heavy sound.
How Much Storage Space Do I Need for the Bakkie Load Firewood?
You may be tempted to buy firewood in quantity to get a cheaper rate and to have enough to last a long time, but consider how much storage space you have.
Aside from ensuring that you have enough space to store the wood, keep in mind that it is ideal to store it with plenty of space between the logs to allow drying and prevent rotting. Also, don't store firewood too close to your house or garage – consider mice, insects, and fire hazards.
After several months of sitting outside, the moisture in the wood evaporates, and the wood becomes dry enough to burn. A Firewood Near Me Forest Heights company proud to be of service.


text:
This week, the media was all about the Pope's latest message about condoms being ok sometimes, but not others. Two stories have run in the Austin American Statesman about this "burning" issue.
Here are my list of gripes:
- The media consistently fails to point out that whatever the Pope/Vatican has to say is self-serving. In this case. using condoms to stem AIDS infections would certainly take a little heat off the Vatican from health experts who have rightly pointed out that its policies are tantamount to murder. Condoms also have the very helpful benefit of not leaving DNA behind in the behinds of boys molested by priests. Furthermore the Pope still frowns on any contraceptive usage that might reduce the number of potential future tithers. Self-serving "moral" pronouncements are nothing more than propaganda and they should not be repeated in the media.
- Neither the Pope nor anyone at the Vatican is qualified to speak on health issues. They just have nothing valid to say and health advice from anyone so blatantly unqualified should not be repeated in the media. To make matters worse, it's rare to see any news piece that will add at least a little balance by quoting a health expert. Even a junior trainee at a family planning clinic would be far more qualified. I have yet to see an acknowledgment in most articles about Vatican pronouncements that the they are on the wrong side of this issue by consensus of 99% of the people who DO have qualifications.
- I personally think the Pope is unqualified to speak on moral issues. I'm sure most atheists would agree. His moral sensibilities are hopelessly broken by his indoctrination in to a church that has perpetrated some of the most ghastly horrors conceived. The Christian holy book is a genocide manual and loaded with atrocities and immoral teachings.
- The Vatican is a criminal enterprise. I can't think of any reason why US media should serve as a mouthpiece for an organization that has systematically molested tens of thousands of children in dozens of countries over at least four decades. (This is just the tip of the criminal iceberg, but hopefully fresh enough for journalists to have some awareness.) The Pope himself authored some of the most odious policies and shuffled priests personally. Yes, the Vatican has yet to be brought to justice in the US. This is only because our "tough on crime" elected officials are whimpering pussies when it comes to the guys with the big hats and magic crackers. Even if you want to play the "guilty until proven innocent" card, there's no reason to actively promote the Vatican until they are properly tried. Don't hold your breath.
- The Vatican will never accept responsibility for its actions. The Pope's pronouncements are considered "news" because there is an assumption that many people will follow his bad advice. Publishing Papal pronouncements is a tacit admission by the media that a sizable fraction of Catholics are unwilling or unable to reason for themselves and take responsibility for their own actions. The media then completely fails to hold the Pope/Vatican responsible for the impact of its policies on the world. Either Ratzinger's opinion carries no weight and there's no reason to print it, or it does carry weight and the Church is responsible for the effect of their dogma. I see plenty of puff pieces promoting Catholic dogma, but very very few investigative reports on how many people have been negatively impacted by Catholic dogma. I would love to see some real reporting on how many people have become infected with AIDS as a result of the Vatican's condom policies, or the number of women who have become pregnant when they didn't want a child but followed Catholic "moral" teaching for whatever reason. The Vatican is creating victims without any moral accountability. I would like to see the Vatican compensate these victims--especially anyone who may have been impacted who is not Catholic. I think that municipalities should be taxing Catholic charities to recoup the expenses related to Vatican contraceptive misinformation.


text:
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The Best-Kept Secrets in Bourbon Are Hiding in Plain Sight
There are some really terrific bourbons out there that most people overlook. In many cases they are old brands that the manufacturers sell but don't support. Some offer a chance to taste something a little different, others are among the best bourbons you can buy, and all are great values. While a few have limited distribution, many are hiding in plain sight at your neighborhood whiskey monger.
A prime example is Weller 12-Year-Old. This wheated bourbon from Sazerac is right up there with the very best bourbons available today, and it costs less than $30 a bottle in most places. A few years ago it was in very short supply but now seems readily available. If you are pining for Pappy but have never had Weller 12, what's wrong with you?
At the other end of the spectrum is Very Old Barton, another Sazerac product. It is a 6-year-old, rye-recipe bourbon that used to be sold only in Kentucky and a few southern states. In Kentucky, it is very popular and competes head-to-head with Jim Beam and Jack Daniel's. It is now more widely available but not national. Unless you drink 1792 or Ten High, you've probably never tasted a bourbon from this distillery. Very Old Barton is a solid, reliable, standard bourbon that usually sells for less than $20, often a lot less.
Old Forester is the brand that launched Brown-Forman 143 years ago. It was the first bourbon to be sold only in bottles. It has the same recipe as Woodford Reserve. The 86° proof (43% ABV) is usually about $20 and the 100° proof (50% ABV) is usually about $25. Again, it is just a good, solid, dependable rye-recipe bourbon at an excellent price.
Old Grand-Dad, discussed here on Monday, is one of the few high-rye bourbons and definitely the least expensive one. Its bonded expression has long been the best-selling bonded bourbon in the country. The bond usually sells for about $20, the 80° proof (40% ABV) is about $17. It's made by Beam.
Also from Beam is Jim Beam Black Label, which is 8-years-old, 86° proof (43% ABV), and about $22 a bottle. Compare that to Knob Creek, which is the same juice at 9-years-old and 100° proof (50% ABV), and about $30. Even though it carries the Jim Beam name, or perhaps because of it, many bourbon fans overlook this superb value. It's available everywhere.
Evan Williams Black Label is Heaven Hill's flagship brand and the #3 best-selling American whiskey, after Jack and Jim. Again it's a good, solid, standard rye-recipe bourbon, selling in many places for around $10.
No one who really knows bourbon would turn their nose up at any of these.
45 comments:
- Bozkurt "bozzy" Karasu said...
Great post... Great list...
- March 14, 2013 at 7:43 AM
- The Chowfather said...
Yes! The Weller is my "house" bourbon
- March 14, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Right on (as we used to say in the 60s)! Each of the bourbons you list is of first quality. If I lived someplace where only these bourbons were available, I'd save a heap of money yet still be drinking among the best. Of course, I'd miss one brand in this mythical realm of limited selection - Buffalo Trace. To my taste, there is nothing better at any price. And the price is comparable to some you mentioned in your post. Fact is, excellent bourbon is widely available at really low prices. But sometimes it's fun to spend a lot more. The resulting lightness in your wallet leads to anticipation of lightness in your head as the pricey stuff is consumed. Plus, you get to post pictures of your expensive booze bottles on your favorite bourbon forum site.
Tom Troland - March 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM
They are likely going to revoke your account over on sb.com for recommending Old Forester and JBB!
Spot on with the recommendations. - March 14, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Add Evan Williams 1783 to your Heaven Hill product list.
Benchmark from Buffalo Trace Distillery excellent bourbon with high rye mash bill. - March 14, 2013 at 8:44 AM
- Mike said...
I completely agree on the Weller 12. Fantastic bourbon, and unbeatable at $21-23 in Central Texas.
I recently picked up a bottle of Very Old Barton 86 proof. Only one bottle on the shelf at a store I stopped at while driving by (never been in before). It was $12. I picked it up, remembered that other reviewers liked it, put it back down because "it can't be good for only $12?!?", and finally grabbed it again. I'm glad I did. It has a good flavor profile and progression, but everything is just "shortened."
I didn't care for my airplane bottle of Old Forester 86 Classic.
Thanks for highlighting the other labels. I'll check them out. - March 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM
I completely agree with what you said. I would have added the new expression Larceny to your list. If you go the next step up in good value, I would put Four Roses Small Batch and Elijah Craig 12 year old.
- March 14, 2013 at 9:07 AM
- imbibenc said...
Great list! Two other common ones under $30 are Four Roses Small Batch and Elijah Craig 12, which I find new things to love each time I try them. Old Fitzgerald Bonded is one of the best cheap bourbons out there as well.
- March 14, 2013 at 9:09 AM
On the Tennessee whiskey side, George Dickel No. 8 is a great whiskey for a great price.
- March 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM
I agree whole-heartedly about the Weller 12yo, the bonded VOB, and the bonded OGD. I love that I can find bottles at these prices and sip some of the best on the cheap.
I'm okay with the EW Black Label, but for another $12 or so I can get the vintage EW. I consider that and the Dickel No 12 and the Rittenhouse BiB to be the holy trinity of whiskey value. - March 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM
- Chuck Cowdery said...
I didn't intend my list to be definitive. These are all good additions.
- March 14, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Gary said:
Completely agree . . . with weller_tex . . . Mods are reviewing your account as we speak ;-)
And agree with the post overall. I've found it to be a lot of fun to buy/try different labels. You don't find a gem under every rock, but you also don't find them unless you're looking. - March 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM
I really hope nobody is reading this post. I don't want to see prices go up on these. At the same time, I don't want to see them discontinued either.
- March 14, 2013 at 1:26 PM
- Damon said...
Great list everyone. Its nice to do some bottom feeding (on price) and not sacrifice taste. The Weller is a favorite of mine too. Both the 12yr and the Antique 107 are wonderful.
Is the barrel aging (and final proof) the only thing that separates JB Black and Knob? Are they near each other in the rickhouse? I'm definitely going to line these two up for a taste test.
- March 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM
Weller 12 is a great bourbon. Used to be my "house" bourbon until CC turned me on to VOB. I'll dig into these others, too.
- March 14, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Just a small correction, Beam Black is 86 proof these days. It was 90 proof when it was 7 years old.
- March 14, 2013 at 3:25 PM
- Crash said...
Love this piece, Chuck, but my Jim Beam Black bottles read 86-pf, not 90. The "Distiller's Series", is 90-pf and 7-years old (the bottle with Fred Noe's smiling face on it, for anyone not familiar with it)
VOB 6-yr, 100-pf is the most amaing Bourbon bargain in the world, I think. I sell it for $13.99. Hope I didn't just jinx it! - March 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM
- Crash said...
Oh, and I'd have to add Ancient Age 100-pf; seriously good juice.
- March 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM
The Weller is quite good and I picked that for little over $20. Tremendous value. I would add Rebel Reserve to the Good Value list. Very smooth and also around $20.
- March 14, 2013 at 4:35 PM
- Chuck Cowdery said...
Thanks, everybody. I fixed the Beam Black proof.
- March 14, 2013 at 6:05 PM
- Greg said...
Weller and Barton are ones I like to keep around. Another one I find is quite good is the Evan Williams BIB running at about $12/750.
- March 14, 2013 at 8:51 PM
Let me tell you something, "Chuck," I KNOW good Bourbon and until they release a $20 Stitzel-Weller Bourbon, I will not be buying any of these. Consider my nose turned UP!
- March 14, 2013 at 9:09 PM
- Imbibe Hour said...
Couldn't agree more. Lots of people like the chase the rare, but there's lots of good bourbon to be had that's much easier to get, and easier on your WALLET!
- March 14, 2013 at 9:26 PM
- Serendipity said...
You can't forget Elijah Craig 12 at $24, and Elijah Craig 18 when it was available was a steal at $48! I mean how many good quality 18 year old bourbons can you get for under $50? Unfortunately, the answer today may be zero
- March 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM
If you wanna talk value, let's look at Costco's Kirkland brand Bourbon...aka Knob Creek aged 7 years instead of 9, and bottled at 103 proof.
Oh, and it's 1 liter, not 750 ml, for under $20.
Can I get an amen? - March 15, 2013 at 1:23 AM
These are all great offers at great prices. In OK, the VOB is $11 a bottle. At that price it is the best bang for your bourbon buck on any shelf. I keep bottles of this bunkered and decant it into a nice crystal decanter when company comes over. NO ONE ever guesses that its not a "top shelf" bourbon.
- March 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM
The Weller 12 is an excellent value. Luckily my local store has a good stockpile as well as OGD 114 and BIB. I still have my eye on a 17yr Vintage on a local shelf for $65. Just can't pull the trigger when I've already got an unopened bottle on mine.
- March 15, 2013 at 7:56 AM
One Word ------> Dickel
"Filtered" Bourbon with 84/8/8 mashbill.
Four Variations.....Cascade Hollow, #8, #12, Small Batch
Smooooooth !*!*! - March 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Oh, I had forgotten about the OGD 114. I have a bottle tucked away that I expect will be opened tonight.
That's one of the things I love about this sort of post: Chuck gets a great list started, others weigh in, I learn more and maybe remember a bottle I have hidden from the wife, ...er, tucked away at the back of a higher shelf and had forgotten. Happy Friday. - March 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM
One of my favorites not yet mentioned is Old Charter 10 yr. I get all slobbery just thinking about a glass of it served neat, or maybe splashed with the tiniest bit of water. And as for "David D.," maybe vodka is more his thing.
- March 15, 2013 at 8:01 PM
There's always the highest rated bourbon in the country, Angel's Envy. Even though it's moderately priced at $45 a bottle, it just got 5 stars from Paul Pacult.... Enjoy responsibly my friends!
- March 16, 2013 at 4:44 AM
Spot on recommendations Chuck! EW Black is what I always buy. Inexpensive, widely available, and consistently good. That is my go to sippin' whiskey!
- March 18, 2013 at 7:02 AM
"Old Forester...was the first bourbon to be sold only in bottles."
What, did some Bourbons used to be sold in sheep-bladders or something? - March 18, 2013 at 4:35 PM
- Chuck Cowdery said...
No, but perhaps you've heard of oak barrels.
- March 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Mr Cowdery, great list. I have been a bourbon drinker for years and have just discovered the whiskey blog world. Man, am I learning stuff. I have a question for you. Is there a "family tree" of bourbons anywhere? It weems that one label aged a year or two more becomes another label and another price.
- March 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM
- Chuck Cowdery said...
For a whiskey family tree, go over to Straightbourbon.com, to the discussion forum, and search for "Whiskey Tree."
- March 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Hi Chuck: I think I might do a roundup of these "great bourbons you may have overlooked" on the menu this Spring at the Flatiron, brought to you by Chuck Cowdery. It's a really fun list. Thanks. Heather Greene
- March 29, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Interesting article. Of those originally listed, I like the Weller 12 far above the others. VOB is solid for it's price point. I don't really care for OGD, OF, or JBB, but that's more my preference than their quality. I propose one other contender - Wild Turkey 101. I don't think it holds up well after opening and getting dusty on a shelf, but out of a new bottle, it's got lots of likable character.
- April 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM
You guys are crazy to not put Old Fitzgerald Prime in this list. Find me a $9 liter that's better, for god's sake I can drink it neat!
- February 17, 2015 at 8:39 AM
The Stitzel-Weller distillery closed in 1992. WL Weller 12 year is the closest thing youre going to get.
- April 19, 2015 at 2:05 PM
- Unknown said...
I have a Very Old Barton, decanter it's black and bronze porcelain. No one can tell me anything about it. Its like they don't exist, how do I find out if it's worth anything?
- March 5, 2016 at 4:24 AM
- Chuck Cowdery said...
I don't know. You might want to see if you can make contact with bottle and decanter collectors, as opposed to whiskey collectors, but I'm not sure where to point you.
- March 5, 2016 at 4:41 PM
Nothing new to add. Just want to bump one of my favorite posts from this blog. Now that I am retired and living on a reduced budget, I am appreciating the bourbons discussed in this post more and more.
- February 16, 2018 at 10:37 PM
Recently acquired 86, 90, and 100 proof versions of VOB. Are there any mash bill differences between these proofs or is the amount of water the only real difference? Thanks for this post for turning me on to VOB a year or two ago.
- May 30, 2018 at 12:27 PM
- Stacy Thomas said...
This is a good example of the straightforward, informed commentary that Chuck provides better than anybody else in the business. It would be interesting to read an updated version of this 6-year-old (i.e., fully matured) post since there has been a fair amount of change in the availability of the selections mentioned. For example, if only Old Fitz BIB was still around -- I'm hoarding the remains of my last 1.75L jug for some momentous occasion.
- August 16, 2019 at 3:54 PM


text:
Ann Romney Delivers: 'She May Have Privilege, But She Understands'
A soft murmur of familiarity rippled through the packed GOP convention hall Tuesday night when Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, spoke not of their "storybook marriage" but of one touched by cancer, multiple sclerosis and the trials of raising five sometimes screaming children.
"A storybook marriage? Not at all," she said, during her much anticipated prime-time speech. "What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage."
It was that moment that encapsulated the job that Ann Romney had to do, and how well she managed it.
From her perch of privilege and prerogative, she managed to convey not ordinariness, but at least a familiarity with struggle and a connection with women — actually, mothers were her exclusive focus — who have gone to bed exhausted; who have struggled with health issues as she has with breast cancer and multiple sclerosis; and who, when juggling the demands of raising children and running a home while her husband pursued his education and fortune, has wondered what she'd gotten herself into.
"I was so glad she had this opportunity to talk to the women of America, to have them hear about the trials they went through," said Barbara Bair, 47, a convention delegate from York, Pa. "And to hear that her husband is a man that stands behind her, supporting her through breast cancer. There is nothing scarier for families than cancer."
The speech, the experts and pundits proclaimed, needed to humanize Mitt Romney. But it really served as a vehicle to humanize her — a woman of great attractiveness and expensive polish — and, by extension, him. And that's all intended, of course, to help him appeal more to women who have been spooked by the Republican Party's positions on reproductive and workplace rights.
"She may have privilege, but she understands," said Kitty Dunn, 65, a Utah delegate who has met the Romneys.
That's not to say that Ann Romney stuck with her speech's opening line, "I want to talk to you about love."
About halfway through her speech, the soft tones of reminiscence of family and young love gave way to a tougher, more strident defense of her husband, his unheralded good works, his business success.
"Do we want to raise our children to be afraid of success?" she asked with a tough edge. And she defended Bain as a dream launcher, a company that "has helped so many others lead better lives."
That part was clearly a tougher sell.
But her soft sell, from her "I love you women!" exclamation — it wasn't on the teleprompter — and the connection she made talking about her own struggles, was effective.
"She gave an energetic explanation of marriage — and I know, because I have three children at home," said Greg Treat, 34, a delegate and state senator from Oklahoma. "I think Ann Romney will make a difference. Michelle Obama is a huge positive for the president, and Mrs. Romney will be for her husband as well."


text:
Kyrill (Yonchev) of Pittsburgh
His Eminence, the Most Reverend Archbishop Kyrill (Yonchev) of Pittsburgh (1920-2007) was the ruling bishop of the OCA Diocese of Western Pennsylvania and of the OCA Bulgarian Diocese. Prior to his service in the OCA, he was the sole hierarch of the ROCOR's Bulgarian Diocese in Exile during its twelve-year existence.
Abp. Kyrill was born Ilia Yonchev on February 26, 1920, in Panaguriste, Bulgaria, the son of Mancho and Anna Yonchev. He attended the St.John of Rila Theological Seminary in Sofia, Bulgaria, graduating in 1940. He was tonsured to monastic orders on January 19, 1941, and given the name Kyrill. On the next day he was ordained a deacon. He was ordained to the priesthood in April 1943.
Fr. Kyrill attended the St. Clement of Ochrid School of Theology. After graduating in 1944, he was appointed instructor of theology in the seminary in Plovdiv, Bulgaria and also was appointed abbot of the Bachkovo Monastery. As the abbot, he participated with other Bulgarian leaders helping protect the Jewish population of Bulgaria from actions of the Nazi occupation against the Jews during World War II.
Following World War II, Fr. Kyrill attended advanced studies in theology and philosophy in Bern, Switzerland. With the communist takeover of Bulgaria, Fr. Kyrill, in 1950, immigrated to the United States where he was soon assigned as pastor of St. George Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Toledo, Ohio, as part of the Bulgarian Eastern Diocese of North and South America and Australia. Fr. Kyrill was elevated to the rank of archimandrite on December 6, 1959.
In 1964, Metr. Andrei of the Bulgarian Diocese petitioned the Holy Synod of the Church of Bulgaria for his return to the Bulgarian episcopacy and to continue to lead the diocese in America. With the return of Metr. Andrei and his diocese to the Church of Bulgaria, a group under Fr. Kyrill broke with Metr. Andrei and joined the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) as the Bulgarian Diocese in Exile.
On August 9, 1964, Kyrill was consecrated by ROCOR as Bishop of Toledo and Toronto of the Bulgarian Diocese in Exile. On December 20, 1976, Bp. Kyrill and his diocese broke from the ROCOR and joined the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), with Kyrill appointed as the ruling bishop of a Bulgarian diocese under the OCA. In October 1977, Bp. Kyrill was appointed locum tenens of the Diocese of Western Pennsylvania. In 1978, Bp. Kyrill was elected the ruling bishop of the Pittsburgh diocese, which he led for the next 29 years. He also continued to lead the OCA's Bulgarian Diocese. In 1992, he was raised to the dignity of archbishop.
During his tenure as head of the Pittsburgh diocese, Abp. Kyrill served as a member of the OCA Lesser Synod of Bishops, the Canonization Commission, and the Board of Theological Education. He was also a trustee of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary.
Abp. Kyrill reposed on June 17, 2007, after a period of failing health. His funeral services were conducted on June 21 and 22, 2007, at the St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Allison Park, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death Abp. Kyrill was the longest-serving Orthodox hierarch in America.
Kyrill (Yonchev) of Pittsburgh | ||
Preceded by: Andrei (Petkov) |
Bishop of Toledo and Toronto Bulgarian Diocese in Exile (ROCOR) 1964-1976 |
Succeeded by: Michael (Donskoff) |
Preceded by: see created |
Bishop of Bulgarian Diocese (OCA) 1976-2007 |
Succeeded by: Alexander (Golitzin) |
Preceded by: Theodosius (Lazor) |
Archbishop of Pittsburgh (OCA) 1978-2007 |
Succeeded by: Melchisedek (Pleska) |
- The Orthodox Church, Vol 43/No 3, Summer 2007, p. 30.
External link
Categories > People > Clergy > Bishops
Categories > People > Clergy > Bishops > Bishops by century > 20th-21st-century bishops
Categories > People > Clergy > Bishops > Bishops by city > Bishops of Pittsburgh
Categories > People > Clergy > Bishops > Bishops by city > Bishops of Toledo
Categories > People > Clergy > Bishops > Bishops by city > Bishops of Toronto