Five of these judges committed perjury to gain their life-long seats - and NOTHING has been done to rectify that -- they deserve worse than peaceful protesters!!
I agree that those five judges did deceive the Senators. But, legally, it's a fool's game to argue perjury. If you listen to their testimony, they carefully avoided the telling of actual lies. They just didn't tell the whole truth, which obviously was their plan to rule against "Roe". Politicians do this sort of thing all the time, shading the truth, spinning, parsing, etc. However, IMO, it is unethical for any judges [let alone SCOTUS judges] to sink to this level, which is equal to the whole of the GOP since Reagan [again IMO].
Frankly, any senator who was fooled by their lies of omission is either irredeemably stupid or a liar herself. (Yes, you, Susan Collins.) They’re all culpable.
The problem here of course is the difficulty of technically proving perjury even though in a common sense they clearly lied(intended to deceive) and obstructed the congressional hearing by intentionally misleading the Senators. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and have not researched this issue, but could this be considered “obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings per 18 USC 1505 or conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 USC 371? Given that there would be at least 52 votes blocking any procedure to remove the recently appointed Justices (probably requires 2/3 anyway) it is a fools game. Yes I said 52, all the Republicans plus Manchin and Sinema.
The court is corrupted and trust has lost, no doubt. Very bad for the clear majority of voters. I guess the enemies of freedom do not care, as they appear to be ending elections as they should be ; free and fair. This is the bitter end of a noble experiment if it continues without real opposition. It makes a mockery of the 'support' of Ukraine.
Lawrence Piper ; It's a 'fool's game' if you are playing. Women are not playing anymore. One can call them fools, but really are fooling themselves if they believe it will deter pushback. All those liars are not trusted, and never will be. A corrupted court will be a hated enemy of freedom.
Yes, Republicans lie with a straight face that protesters who are totally peaceful should have less rights than the violent screamers who make going to an abortion clinic hell for women and their helpers. And, those protesters should be treated like criminals. R.Sheets
Ruth Sheets ; the criminal attack on the Capitol, including killing Capitol police and wounding them, threats to lawmakers even defecating on the walls, deserve severe penalties including significant jail time. It is awful that justice has not been adequately served with so many in our justice department, both houses and on the Supreme Court who actually support the Sedition, and it's leader!
Dee Long ; to say that they used carefully worded testimony is to suspend disbelief. One must be deliberately obtuse to 'miss' the intent. It's mindblowing how the language can be massaged to question the meaning of words. Let's analyze the word 'carefully'. What care was used to what effect? Is this a rationalization for lying? They get away with semantic laundering, like when William Barr used this trick during questioning about his blocking of the release of the Mueller 'investigation'. They 'just get away with it', as a former 'president' said.
The only way we can begin to dig ourselves out of this is for EVERY SANE VOTING PERSON to VOTE VOTE VOTE.... in ALL the primaries available to them - running right now, and in November.... VOTE OUT EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN, PERIOD (exceptions Cheney and Kinzinger and very few more). ALSO VOTE against any republican running for Secty of State, at least. Vote to remove other gop running for other state and local positions as well. None of them can be trusted. It's our last chance and at the very least could send a strong message that we ARE pissed and we're NOT going to take it anymore.
I wonder if we all slant the behavior of others to fit our preconfirmation biases about what is right and wrong, good and bad. I agree with Robert's paradigm, and struggle to understand that of Alito and others, who may think they are as righteously correct as I do.??????
Mark Twain says that Lying has not died with the passage of time. It is a virtue that helps a person in so many ways – recreation, a solace or a way to escape a difficult situation. It is man's best friend, and can never vanish from the face of earth, simply because it has so much utility.
Confirmation biases, preconceptions and assumptions seem to shape and influence every belief and conclusion. What a confounding species! we are.
5 types of lies:
Lies of Denial. This type of lie will involve an untruthful person (or a truthful person) simply saying that they were not involved.
It may be about personal [and moral] justification, which make the means OK. And yes, supported via confirmation bias. Do we lie to ourselves even more than others? :)
I suppose we do lie to ourselves when our defenses are so weak that we need to. Perhaps there's a connection between how often we lie to ourselves and others. If we're not aware of lying to ourselves, it's probably an equal relationship - we'll share the lie with others as often as with ourselves. If we're aware of lying, are we lying to ourselves as well as others, in a way? Hard to separate. I prefer the word accuracy to truth, and it's easy to fudge accuracy to meet our emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual needs, perhaps. It's complicated. I think bottom line, we/I want to feel loved, safe, admired, appreciated, and have some fun once in a while. I have been known to "reframe" accuracy on occasion to accomplish those desires. I don't expect more from others. Just need to know when that process becomes dangerous, and, if so, draw appropriate boundaries. TMI
Lawrence Piper ; You seem to esteem lying, and be an expert. Can't help to wonder if you are gaslighting here. This forum is not about the types of lies. You definitely seem to be an expert on the subject.
Democrats and most Liberals place emphasis on personal integrity and 'choose to believe' the same is true for most people. That's the way I interpret the world and according to Jonathan Haidt in his book "The Righteous Mind" 'we' [as opposed to 'they'] all tend in this same direction ['tend' being an important word here, everyone being variable]. Conservative folks 'tend' to emphasize recognized authority, traditionally chosen morality, and of course their religious beliefs. Most people didn't actually choose to lean one way or the other. We all evolved through nature-nurture to be the way we are, even you, Laurie Blair.
Note: My agenda in life is to encourage general understanding of ourselves along with personal honesty and integrity. I believe this is a necessity and actually it appears most people in the world are tending in this same direction. We're all becoming wiser. We just need to speed things up. :) pip
Lawrence Piper ; I might agree with you, if I could make sense of what you are posting. I am not really on one side or the other totally on all things. The abortion ruling is like being pregnant ; eiither you are for taking that right away from women or you are opposed. You are pregnant or not.
Well, Laurie, you might claim to not understand what I say, but it is pertinent to the current situation. In order to solve these intrackabilities we all first need to understand why we have them. Isn't that the reason we discuss these things in the first place? It is to me. :)
Thank you for bringing up what I think is the big issue here Christian nationalists. These people were put in place for that reason. The Evangelicals would like to turn this country into a theocracy and have voiced that plain and clear. They seem to have forgotten why this country was founded and why our forefathers first words in the first amendment were about religion. The question is how do we put these people in their place along with getting the people out to outvote the Republicans come this fall and then come 2024. I saw something this morning about right now Biden would lose to Trump and we don't want him back in office the country won't last with him at the helm.
The Christian faith is the source of beautifully fantastic ideas — chiefly, the belief in eternal life. Much great art, music, and literature has been produced on the assumption that the life of the individual does not end with physical death. Of course, the set of beautiful, poetic ideas generated by Christian civilization is just that: poetic imaginings. And because these beautiful ideas are “false” from a common-sense assessment, it’s wrong to force these ideas on a population of people of diverse and even contrary poetic images, such as the population of the USA. This is the mistake of evangelical Christians and of the current Supreme Court. Jesus’ approach to life was practical: take care of the poor, the lame, and imprisoned, the widows and orphans — and provide free food and health care whenever possible. Jesus did not tell people to go to church. In fact, he advised people to not pray in public but rather privately so as not to display religiosity, which our so-called Supreme Court members revel in.
But part of the problem with this is what Jesus said take care of the poor, the lame, and imprisoned, the widows and orphans — and provide free food and health care whenever possible. But the Republican party doesn't even being to do these things. If anything they want to do away with all social programs so they can pocket more money they are money grubbers. And just to clear the air I don't follow the Christian faith.
America has changed, and SCOTUS changed too, but not exactly with America, but against it. It is sad to see how the Justices have devolved. Hopefully, once Justice Jackson takes her seat, the Red Justices will be questioned on their interpretations of the law. She is only one woman, but what a woman!
Daniel Solomon, I am thinking about raising an Independent Party. Three players, not two. In any conflict, I was taught by a very evil, very effective political man, divide the interested parties into three polities and pit two against the third.
In my mind the USA is in great need of a third party, not to gang up on one party against the other, (because as we learned in Canada if you split the left it helps the right!) but because this "either/or" system is a breeding ground for exactly what is halpening right now in American politics. I don't know what political ideology your new party would have, but if it is Socialist-leaning I am all for it. Socialism has gotten a very bad rap in the USA, with the capitalists having connected it to Communism when there is no connection. America NEEDS an alternative to capitalism, especially in light of the growing wealth inequities caused by capitalism!
The history of third parties in the USA is bleak. They get outfinanced and are accorded little attention by the media. They get absorbed by one of the established parties. But a thoughtful, well-planned campaign using social media and shoe leather and lots of funding might raise some sand in a short life span. As for Socialism, the US has always been a mix of capitalism and socialism, the public debate should be about the nature of that mix. The person who said that was a far right dingbat, Reagan's Treasury undersecretary and coauthor of the Reagan tax cut. My papa. The US version of socialism is it's socialism for the rich and dog eat dog capitalism for everybody else.
That kind of spcialism is a comedy. It is merely government-supported capitalism. When I say Socialism I am talking about everyo e profiting equa
Ly from their labour, with health care and education free for all, whete there are no bosses or emp.oyees, but everyone in society being equal in every way.
If I read you righr, maybe you can make up for your father's missteps.
It's an attractive approach that probably requires a longer-term plan to pull off... time we don't have right now. I fear that it would only continue to do as history has shown: distract voters from hugely important issues like those we have now, making it difficult to overcome disaster (loss of our democracy and freedoms such as voting & womens' rights).
It is a longterm project, you are correct. But it was certainly not intended to distract voters from what is important right now, and that is DESTROYING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AT THE POLLS! But even that is 6 months away! Saving Roe vs Wade is the biggest issue in America right now, and, in fact, in the world. If American women have their Right to be Persons taken away, other women-haters around the world are going to be emboldened. They too will try to return women to being cattle. If more than 40 Republicans are voted in as senators, Roe vs Wade will not be saved. Keeping women as persons is the most important fight in America right now, and anyone who does not see that needs to be re-educated.
We have to ask whether American voters care more about inflation or abortion. I think you know the answer. Further bad news: expect the Supreme Court to pull another Bush v. Gore. We need to elect state attorneys general, governors, and state legislators. Just like our opponents have been doing for 30 or more years.
Especially State Secretaries of State! They are the people in charges of VOTING, from who can vote to who is counting the votes and everything in between. And while some people will care more about the economy, more people, especially women-and half the voters are women--will care about Roe v Wade.
Question: If Congress can change the number of Justices, how many Senators would be needed to make a change proposal from the House of Representaftives legal? 51? Or 60?
And there goes any hope to add some justices to take away the Republican majority. These justices are not putting aside their biases, but rather operating to their hiases and ignoring their oaths of non-partisanship.
Daniel said we could all move to Red States and ultimately out-vote them. I thought about moving to Lancaster, CA so I could vote against Kevin McCarthy, but it's a very impractical strategy
I don't think he will kill it, because it may be needed next time the Repuglycans are in opposition. But he will find a way around the filibuster to get what he wants when he wants it. Like his stupid rule that a Supreme Court justice cannot be appointed in an election year. How he got the DPems to agree to that I have no idea, but as soon as the shoe was on the other foot he threw that "rule" out the window. What is good for the gander is not good for the goose, and he believes his party is the gander in American politics. The Dems have no balls!
Solution? Who mentioned solution? All I said is I hope she can be a voice for the people. The best solution, if it is even possible, is impeaching those judges who swore to keep their hands off Roe v Wade, then did a 180. The way things are right now, unless the people take this into their own hands, there is NO SOLUTION! And that is how the minority Repuglycans want it to stay!
The only way I see is a General Strike, bringing the economy to its knees. Up to now I have been promoting a Women's Strike, but I think men have to join them. If no one goes to work, en masse, the wealthy lose their piwer, which means the Repuglycans lose their power too! If you wait till the next election to act, it will be TOO LATE!
However, I was a member of the now defunct Prettyman Levanthal Inn of Court. Met in the building that housed the Fed Circuit and Court of Claims. We were seated and were served dinner in alphabetical order. Thomas, Scalia, and I were assigned the same table. Before 9/11 they used to invite us to receptions or to hold our programs at the Supreme Court. I was also a member of the Supreme Court bar and the Supreme Court Historical Society. The last function I attended was when Justice Kagan received the Brandeis Medal. Only Justice Ginsberg attended because it was on the same night as a presidential debate. The last time I was at a SCOTUS reception was in honor of ACUS' 50th anniversary.
I was also a liaison member of ACUS and Scalia, Breyer and I also were active in the Administrative Law section of the ABA.
I always have been a Democrat, but I respected John Paul Stevens above all others, including Douglas. I think that he became educated as a member of the court. and was the last member who valued individual over corporate rights. I think that all of the current batch are deferential to corporations and that there has been a miscarriage of justice, as corporations are not "persons" under the 14th Amendment. .A headnote to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) is the foundation for Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo. However the headnote was issued after a bribe and does not represent the actual decision. The court did not find "personhood" as the headnote was not accurate.
Re Dobbs v Jackson Health, the abortion case, counsel should have asked some of the justices to recuse and asked the chief justice to hold a hearing regarding disqualification.
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
IMHO the standard is the appearance of impropriety.
Thanks. From the link, may have been resurrected. The date is 2020. The listed officers were very active once upon a time. I retired August 2018 and left DC for Miami. Judge Colwell was my colleague, now retired. I'll give him a call. He was a retired military judge before he came to us, was also a member of a military Inn.
Your comment says it all: "Today’s cruel and partisan Supreme Court majority is squandering what remains of the Court’s moral authority. That is perhaps the deepest tragedy of all."
We must understand that the only way to "fix" the problem is a long hard road to change the make up of Congress and the Presidency. Meanwhile, we have to suffer the cruelness of the five henchmen.
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said. "Obviously, we won't know each justice's decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case."
Asked if she believes she was misled by the judges, Collins told CNN, "My statement speaks for itself."
Unenumerated rights are the same thing as unalienable rights (meaning G-d given human rights). To have listed (aka enumerated) our G-d given rights, would have limited them to the list, so the framers decided not to list them, lest they forget some of them, or inadvertently limit them by poorly chosen words.
Instead, our Constitution explicitly prohibits infringement on all G-d given human rights with language in the 9th amendment that reads,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The language in the court’s draft decision regarding Roe v Wade, opens the door to the court’s elimination of every unenumerated right, thereby reducing our rights to ONLY those mentioned in the Constitution. IOW, this decision is not just about abortion, this is about every right NOT listed in the Constitution.
For example, in this draft ruling, Alito eliminated “privacy” as well as abortion rights. I think the reason is simple. Our innate, G-d given, human rights are the single, largest obstacle to world domination by the rich and powerful. Yes indeed folks, I honestly think that some people believe they should run the world.
Apparently, Alito is now claiming to have reviewed historic customs of the time as further excuse. Let's see, the historic custom of the time included 3/5 of a person and chattel slavery. How does that justify his sorry, lyin' arse ‽ Just wonderin'. Also, I hold that "god given right" language highly suspect. Historically, the only ones who could claim such rights were the nobility, and they declared them under force of arms as their heathen god's chosen to rule.
DZK ; 'when 'originalist' interpretation works for them and they don't 'suggest' : They just do what works best for themselves, ethics and precedent even decency be damned!
What about habeas corpus? In the Latin meaning " you shall have the body". What about the meaning in a court of law? Does a person have a right to control their own body, at least when brought before a judge? Is it not for the court to determine when or why they can justify taking away a person's control over their own bodily autonomy?
Used against Lincoln during the civil war. Known as "extraordinary writs."
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia to give military authorities the power to silence dissenters and rebels. Under this order, commanders could arrest and detain individuals who were deemed threatening to military operations. The suspension was partially lifted with the issuance of Proclamation 148 by Andrew Johnson, and the Act became inoperative with the end of the Civil War.
Ex Parte Merryman suspeby Lincoln in a time of war was affirmednsion of habeus corpus
In Ex Parte Milligan SCOTUS found "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
No doubt. This is similar to the idea that certain people who are more educated can make better decisions than the people, and we have the electoral college.
More educated? Not in my book. They don’t show any evidence of being educated. Education results in the ability to think critically, a trait that is obviously missing from most of our “leaders.”
Laurie, you have my agreement, in full. I don't know if its pride, hubris, opportunism or something else, but I am so motivated to prove them wrong, I scare myself.
Those unenumerated rights include privacy, which means that if nullified, Alito et al don’t get to have protestors removed from in front of their houses. My heart bleeds for them, and yes, that’s sarcasm.
Right! 9th Amendment. Things like right to travel, right to vote, common law rights.
The word "Privacy" was not in general use in 1790 but yeomen land owners in England had a right not to be disturbed. In 1604 Sir Edward Coke (pronounced cook) (1552-1634) declared that “the house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress as well for defence against injury and violence, as for his repose” which over the years has become simplified to “a man's home is his castle”. I assume it became common law, incorporated by the 9th Amendment.
A (wo)man's home is is one's castle....or at least should be.
The problem with the home being a castle is what allowed men to beat and rape their wives and children. If we go back to that kind of verbiage we might as well just "lay back and try to enjoy it," as some fool Republican just told women (cannot remember who that was!) they should do.
Having grown up in such a "castle" I know firsthand how much of a hell that is!
That joke was ancient when I heard it 50 yrs ago. A lot of jokes from half a century ago are no longer told by those of us who've rejected those values. Still . . . y'got'ta sympathize a bit with stand-up comics, these days!
I would love to see God appear in court to say what rights He gave to people. Our rights do not come from anyone but ourselves, and therefore, We the Pepple should have the power to say what rights people have. To give that power to 9 Justices, with 5 or 6 corrupt judges amongst them, is to turn the foxes loose in the chicken ooop. As it presently stands, 5 having power against 200,000,000 is a huge miscarriage of justice. IMHO.
rawgod ; the numbers make things easier for them, But ! They still are a minority! Voters win when it's free and fair elections! We are in for a rough ride if they screw us!
Those unenumerated rights include privacy, which means that if nullified, Alito et al don’t get to have protestors removed from in front of their houses. My hear bleeds for them, and yes, that’s sarcasm.
Professor, you were gifted the opportunity to argue cases before giants, and if anyone were qualified to compare what we have now relative to what we had then, it is you. Thanks so much for this essay; I wish everyone in America could read in this time of crisis what you have to say.
Stan of Stanistan ; They demanded RESPECT! " GIVE IT TO ME!". It was a very popular song for good reason. No wonder they were named "The Supremes"! They put this latest version of the Court in the SHADE!
Hmmmm...... I wonder what the response would be to activists walking quietly in the streets outside the Justices' Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer homes to thank them for their defense of privacy and human rights. Seems like we seldom see their life work acknowledged.
oh my FOX propaganda machine would have a circus with lies and false natives - would not sending thank you cards in mass numbers be better and more affective
OK! Have them carry protest signs that express "SCREW FOX NEWS" in every wording they can think of, and make sure to rub them into the cameraman's kisser - or lens, as it were!
I see your point. It would just make it harder for people like me to convince my "Fox News loving" Republican friends that there are good, decent folks on the "other side" in spite of the false crap put out by Fox.
Stuff 'em up with their own reasoning about the 1/6 insurgents, that >they're< just the radicals and don't represent the nice, "god fearing" majority of protestors. You might specify, "like you say about . . ." and shake your head about such people >on both sides!< Hell! That'd be ol' Tweety himself a'talkin' to 'em - backwards! (That's as opposed to "there are >good< people . . . on both sides.)
Cliff ; Bill boards might be more environmentally friendly. But ads in certain markets might get the message across. Maybe featuring each one separately. Or all of them with a brief, message, like " Thank You all for being Respectable!".
Thats a great story. Thank you! We need to expand the Court.
I remember watching Robert's confirmation when he waxed poeticly about growing up in the amber waves of gold in Indiana. I wanted someone to ask him if he had the capacity to relate to people less privileged from other areas. I've noticed that many anti-choice protesters don't have a clue about orher areas and Americans.
In the Austin Statehouse, shortly before Senator Wendy Davis' historic filibuster, we noticed most anti-choice protesters were white and looked like they had never worked a day in the sun. They had large family support structures. Their leader looked just like the weird Pentacostal snake-charming preacher in Will Ferrell's "The Campaign." The nicest thing I can say about them is that it probably took the whole group praying together to God for enough intelligence to walk and chew bubble gum, and wave their gross banners. I dont like to be mean, but I'm pretty sure Deliverence country was missing a few school busses that day.
This out-of-touch, sheltered, and unsophisticated looking anti-choice minority is who the majority of the Supreme Court stands with and protects. What are the anti-Roe Justices thinking? Do they think women should have no say about their pregnancies? What could make them "protect the unborn," and ignore the "life"and lives of 165 milliion women? Does forcing a pregnancy give them some moral authority that allows them to ignore people, rights and the reality of millions of unimaginable pregnancy situation?
The Roberts' Court is intelllectually and morally bankrupt. And now they,'re upset that 100 women would peacefully prixket outside their homes? Lol. Just because they want to institutionalize.forced pregnancy and motherhood, and force milliions into poverty, and forbid women from making private, potentially life-saving health care decisions in the privacy of a doctor's office?
I guess they want a world where they can institutionize horrific experiences on millions of women, and they don't have to listen to a single woman, or see 100 women picketing. They want to evicerate women's' right to privacy, but they expect total privacy? Now that's
what you call Supreme hipocracy.. EXPAND THE COURT!
The problem with discarding the filibuster is that senators Sinema and Manchin are secretly Reptilians: they’re doubtless being paid to take their stance on the filibuster and abortion.
Rather, you wish Senator Schumer would get rid of the filibuster, like Senator McConnell did. We can't blame all Democrats when that decision is made by only Schumer. I doubt #2 Durbin, or any caucus of Democratic Senator, has any say. I wonder what it would take for Schumer to mix the filibuster? I have a hunch it's a bigger majority so Manchin won't jump ship and put Dems in the minority. At this moments, getting rid of the filibuster would give Republicans something to run on with attack ads like '"Democrats abuse of power." While I wish Schumer would nix the filibuster, I think we need.a stronger majority to pull it off.
The Ohio Senate race is huge. Ryan is great. Vance wrote a book about Appillacians and now he's qualified to be a US Senator? He worked for Peter Steal, a ruthless poc, and he's qualified to be in the Senate?
The US really needs Ryan. But Peter Steal is likely setting up groups to funnell hundreds of millions in attack ads against Ryan. This is a major problem.
I recall a time when I too looked at the Supreme Court with respect and a degree of trust to protect the rights of all people, without political ideologies. That changed over the years for obvious reasons, beginning with the courts opinion on “McCullen v. Coakley” that removed the 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics that was designed to protect those seeking health services from attacks, both physical and verbal as they entered a clinic. I’m sorry, but I find the Supreme Courts indignation about protesters to close to their homes to be ridiculously hypocritical. Not to mention the protesters in front of state Governors, Attorney General, Secretary of State and election official homes during the 2020 election. Where was the Supreme Courts outcry then? Sorry, but I don’t believe they should get any more privileges, especially considering how they got on the bench. I would have loved to be fly in the room when Professor Reich stood in front of the court, that must have been so great!! *Read about the SC ruling here and note the justices names too. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-clinics-high-court-says
The Sedition Party (formerly the Republican Party) has destroyed yet another institution of our democracy. When will the American people get rid of this contemptable and authoritarian theocratic minority?
Originalism is the new legal buzzword, and perhaps it’s some kind of real law, but it seems to have been raised up as the law of true patriots. The Originalism in use by the 5 right-wing justices on the current Supreme Court sounds like a set of legal interpretations engineered by the right to claim special knowledge of the literal meaning of our Constitution, although how they channel our founders is a mystery. This Originalism uses linguistics and myth in the service of right-wing ideology. You cannot use an Originalist argument when there are no women in our documents until women were allowed to vote in 1920. If we had a true court they would never respect this kind of reasoning or allow such a bogus argument to tarnish their oeuvre. Our court has been taken over ready to be an authoritarian rubber stamp ti the next Republican president.
People of color have rescued the United States a few times. Ditto young people. Maybe again. There are several outfits - Working People's Party, Field Team 6 Register Democrats to name two -who are working at it. But Maybe is not a policy. The US has broken apart. We are in another civil war. There will be more bloodshed. We now know what good Germans saw and felt in the 1930's. I have friends moving to Mexico, Canada, France, Portugal, Spain. Though Europe does seem a frying pan or a fire. There are 4 so-far-reliably-blue states - Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachusetts. Sauve qui peut, you all. In what's left of my lifetime, I'm not likely to see improvement in Fortress America.
With respect, I'm experiencing disappointment in, quickly approaching utter contempt for the Sauve qui peut crew. They're not the solution. They're the problem - particularly come election day.
I have voted in every election since 1964. I don't plan to stop. I do plan to save my husband's life and mine. I'm alive because my grandparents escaped Europe. The lesson is not lost on me. I offer it as salvific to everyone.
using the Holocaust is very naïve as the issue the professor is describing " "Today’s Supreme Court majority doesn’t have a clue about the Court’s moral authority, and couldn’t care less. They are political hacks, rigid ideologues, and small minds intent on entrenching the power of the already powerful, comforting the already comfortable, and inflicting pain on the already inflicted. (Five were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote. Three were nominated by a president who instigated a coup against the United States; they were confirmed because a rogue Republican Party mounted scorched-earth campaigns to put them on the Court.)" is far more complicated than racial hatred.
Cliff, that is no reason to call anyone "naive"! Martha has as much right as anyone else here to express her opinions. All she said was her grandparents escaped Europe. That does not give you the right to assume anything. My mother and her family escaped Europe (specifically a German-owned Ukraine) back 100 years ago this year. She was not Jewish, nor had the Nazis taken power yet! She was escaping the violence and poverty of a war-torn country.
How many other people came to North America to "ESCAPE EUROPE!" America and Canada are both built on what those already here disparagingly called "Displaced Persons"! And now, 100 years later, here we are dealing with another flood of prople coming to North America to escape the ravages of war! Are uou going to sutomatically brand tnem as "holocsust durvivors too"?
Can you explain the logical steps between "I'm alive because my grandparents escaped Europe" and "using the Holocaust is very naive?" You may have read that I think the future for the USA includes more breaking apart, potential civil war, and more fascist takeover; that these trends aren't going to abate in the rest of my lifetime. if you don't feel like increasing your exposure to those miseries, you can leave the country, as my grandparents did. It seems perhaps you created an inference that was not a part of what I said.
@Cliff. I agree - racial hatred is just one of the tools that the moneyed interests wield against democracy and just one of the ways they tempt poor unfortunates to vote against their own interests...
I think that next time, the peaceful protesters should openly embrace their 2nd Amendment rights as well. In OH, we had "peaceful demonstrators" gathering around the State House open carrying AR-15's and tacked with assorted hand guns in support of abolishing all gun regulations.
>And nobody batted an eye!<
After all, these horses' arses made it all possible. Screw the Post. (Besides, the protesters may need to defend themselves from gun-totin' Tweety-freak counter-protesters, the likes of whom showed up at the OH State House, in future protests.) Sure, it could possibly have ugly consequences, but ugly consequences in the a$$holes' dooryard - not in some other city and on TV in the comfort of their easy-chairs. Maybe one or more of them could become "collateral damage" of someone who really can't shoot worth a damn! It happens out here in the streets & neighborhoods -
>all the goddam time!<
That's not “bring[ing] direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary.” That's letting them share in the "freedom" they've inflicted on us all. What better evidence could they possibly need in their goddam "evidence-based and rational" decision-making process ‽
As I’ve said before, they should be careful what they wish for. Glad you agree, my friend David/Dwight/Dennis/Daniel/Didier/Desmond or whatever your real name is.
Besides, I'd rather not meet any of you on the street and having any of you know who I am. I've tasted a scant 5 minutes of the apocryphal "15 minutes of fame," and will gladly defer the balance I'm owed to whoever's batty enough to take it! I think maybe MTG snagged a bit of it! LOL! ];-)>
Five of these judges committed perjury to gain their life-long seats - and NOTHING has been done to rectify that -- they deserve worse than peaceful protesters!!
I agree that those five judges did deceive the Senators. But, legally, it's a fool's game to argue perjury. If you listen to their testimony, they carefully avoided the telling of actual lies. They just didn't tell the whole truth, which obviously was their plan to rule against "Roe". Politicians do this sort of thing all the time, shading the truth, spinning, parsing, etc. However, IMO, it is unethical for any judges [let alone SCOTUS judges] to sink to this level, which is equal to the whole of the GOP since Reagan [again IMO].
Frankly, any senator who was fooled by their lies of omission is either irredeemably stupid or a liar herself. (Yes, you, Susan Collins.) They’re all culpable.
The problem here of course is the difficulty of technically proving perjury even though in a common sense they clearly lied(intended to deceive) and obstructed the congressional hearing by intentionally misleading the Senators. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and have not researched this issue, but could this be considered “obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings per 18 USC 1505 or conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 USC 371? Given that there would be at least 52 votes blocking any procedure to remove the recently appointed Justices (probably requires 2/3 anyway) it is a fools game. Yes I said 52, all the Republicans plus Manchin and Sinema.
The court is corrupted and trust has lost, no doubt. Very bad for the clear majority of voters. I guess the enemies of freedom do not care, as they appear to be ending elections as they should be ; free and fair. This is the bitter end of a noble experiment if it continues without real opposition. It makes a mockery of the 'support' of Ukraine.
Lawrence Piper ; It's a 'fool's game' if you are playing. Women are not playing anymore. One can call them fools, but really are fooling themselves if they believe it will deter pushback. All those liars are not trusted, and never will be. A corrupted court will be a hated enemy of freedom.
exactly
Why are we not doing something about this, because it’s egregious and true?
I sent a message to the department of Justice at https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice requesting that these justices be investigated for perjury.
Dee ; thanks for the link. I sent the same request immediately.
Thanks for that link!
Yes, Republicans lie with a straight face that protesters who are totally peaceful should have less rights than the violent screamers who make going to an abortion clinic hell for women and their helpers. And, those protesters should be treated like criminals. R.Sheets
Ruth Sheets ; the criminal attack on the Capitol, including killing Capitol police and wounding them, threats to lawmakers even defecating on the walls, deserve severe penalties including significant jail time. It is awful that justice has not been adequately served with so many in our justice department, both houses and on the Supreme Court who actually support the Sedition, and it's leader!
Dee Long ; to say that they used carefully worded testimony is to suspend disbelief. One must be deliberately obtuse to 'miss' the intent. It's mindblowing how the language can be massaged to question the meaning of words. Let's analyze the word 'carefully'. What care was used to what effect? Is this a rationalization for lying? They get away with semantic laundering, like when William Barr used this trick during questioning about his blocking of the release of the Mueller 'investigation'. They 'just get away with it', as a former 'president' said.
The only way we can begin to dig ourselves out of this is for EVERY SANE VOTING PERSON to VOTE VOTE VOTE.... in ALL the primaries available to them - running right now, and in November.... VOTE OUT EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN, PERIOD (exceptions Cheney and Kinzinger and very few more). ALSO VOTE against any republican running for Secty of State, at least. Vote to remove other gop running for other state and local positions as well. None of them can be trusted. It's our last chance and at the very least could send a strong message that we ARE pissed and we're NOT going to take it anymore.
Dee ; Definitely agree! Hell has no fury like a wronged woman! There are wronged people who are MOTHERS! GOD is coming and man is she pissed!!!!!
I wonder if we all slant the behavior of others to fit our preconfirmation biases about what is right and wrong, good and bad. I agree with Robert's paradigm, and struggle to understand that of Alito and others, who may think they are as righteously correct as I do.??????
Mark Twain says that Lying has not died with the passage of time. It is a virtue that helps a person in so many ways – recreation, a solace or a way to escape a difficult situation. It is man's best friend, and can never vanish from the face of earth, simply because it has so much utility.
Confirmation biases, preconceptions and assumptions seem to shape and influence every belief and conclusion. What a confounding species! we are.
5 types of lies:
Lies of Denial. This type of lie will involve an untruthful person (or a truthful person) simply saying that they were not involved.
Lies of Omission. ...
Lies of Fabrication. ...
Lies of Minimization. ...
Lies of Exaggeration.
It may be about personal [and moral] justification, which make the means OK. And yes, supported via confirmation bias. Do we lie to ourselves even more than others? :)
I suppose we do lie to ourselves when our defenses are so weak that we need to. Perhaps there's a connection between how often we lie to ourselves and others. If we're not aware of lying to ourselves, it's probably an equal relationship - we'll share the lie with others as often as with ourselves. If we're aware of lying, are we lying to ourselves as well as others, in a way? Hard to separate. I prefer the word accuracy to truth, and it's easy to fudge accuracy to meet our emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual needs, perhaps. It's complicated. I think bottom line, we/I want to feel loved, safe, admired, appreciated, and have some fun once in a while. I have been known to "reframe" accuracy on occasion to accomplish those desires. I don't expect more from others. Just need to know when that process becomes dangerous, and, if so, draw appropriate boundaries. TMI
Bobbi Monnette ; You could feature this study of prevarication on your newsletter to better effect. It is not relevant to the subject of this forum.
Lawrence Piper ; You seem to esteem lying, and be an expert. Can't help to wonder if you are gaslighting here. This forum is not about the types of lies. You definitely seem to be an expert on the subject.
I'll ignore your unpleasant inferences, Laurie.
Democrats and most Liberals place emphasis on personal integrity and 'choose to believe' the same is true for most people. That's the way I interpret the world and according to Jonathan Haidt in his book "The Righteous Mind" 'we' [as opposed to 'they'] all tend in this same direction ['tend' being an important word here, everyone being variable]. Conservative folks 'tend' to emphasize recognized authority, traditionally chosen morality, and of course their religious beliefs. Most people didn't actually choose to lean one way or the other. We all evolved through nature-nurture to be the way we are, even you, Laurie Blair.
Note: My agenda in life is to encourage general understanding of ourselves along with personal honesty and integrity. I believe this is a necessity and actually it appears most people in the world are tending in this same direction. We're all becoming wiser. We just need to speed things up. :) pip
Lawrence Piper ; I might agree with you, if I could make sense of what you are posting. I am not really on one side or the other totally on all things. The abortion ruling is like being pregnant ; eiither you are for taking that right away from women or you are opposed. You are pregnant or not.
Well, Laurie, you might claim to not understand what I say, but it is pertinent to the current situation. In order to solve these intrackabilities we all first need to understand why we have them. Isn't that the reason we discuss these things in the first place? It is to me. :)
Thanks for the great memories. That must have been something, arguing before such legal giants as Douglas, Marshal and Blackmun.
Now the country is cursed with a hateful, narrow-minded theocracy, disguised as the SCOTUS.
Republicans opened a Pandora's box when they aligned themselves with white, Christian nationalists, and this country is paying a terrible price.
Deborah, you’re absolutely correct 🤔🥲
Yes, we are entering (or re-entering) the era of Bible-based Sharia Law.
"Amen!" Perhaps Alito is recruiting for Taliban Supreme Leader...
Thank you for bringing up what I think is the big issue here Christian nationalists. These people were put in place for that reason. The Evangelicals would like to turn this country into a theocracy and have voiced that plain and clear. They seem to have forgotten why this country was founded and why our forefathers first words in the first amendment were about religion. The question is how do we put these people in their place along with getting the people out to outvote the Republicans come this fall and then come 2024. I saw something this morning about right now Biden would lose to Trump and we don't want him back in office the country won't last with him at the helm.
The Christian faith is the source of beautifully fantastic ideas — chiefly, the belief in eternal life. Much great art, music, and literature has been produced on the assumption that the life of the individual does not end with physical death. Of course, the set of beautiful, poetic ideas generated by Christian civilization is just that: poetic imaginings. And because these beautiful ideas are “false” from a common-sense assessment, it’s wrong to force these ideas on a population of people of diverse and even contrary poetic images, such as the population of the USA. This is the mistake of evangelical Christians and of the current Supreme Court. Jesus’ approach to life was practical: take care of the poor, the lame, and imprisoned, the widows and orphans — and provide free food and health care whenever possible. Jesus did not tell people to go to church. In fact, he advised people to not pray in public but rather privately so as not to display religiosity, which our so-called Supreme Court members revel in.
But part of the problem with this is what Jesus said take care of the poor, the lame, and imprisoned, the widows and orphans — and provide free food and health care whenever possible. But the Republican party doesn't even being to do these things. If anything they want to do away with all social programs so they can pocket more money they are money grubbers. And just to clear the air I don't follow the Christian faith.
Not only that, but the extreme hypocrisy coming continuously from the far "Christian" right is a huge problem. Too bad it doesn't seem to bother THEM.
Powell, Rehnquist, Harlan II supported "massive resistance" to civil rights.
America has changed, and SCOTUS changed too, but not exactly with America, but against it. It is sad to see how the Justices have devolved. Hopefully, once Justice Jackson takes her seat, the Red Justices will be questioned on their interpretations of the law. She is only one woman, but what a woman!
Up to the parties. Need a majority. One swallow doth not a summer make.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx
https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html
Daniel Solomon, I am thinking about raising an Independent Party. Three players, not two. In any conflict, I was taught by a very evil, very effective political man, divide the interested parties into three polities and pit two against the third.
In my mind the USA is in great need of a third party, not to gang up on one party against the other, (because as we learned in Canada if you split the left it helps the right!) but because this "either/or" system is a breeding ground for exactly what is halpening right now in American politics. I don't know what political ideology your new party would have, but if it is Socialist-leaning I am all for it. Socialism has gotten a very bad rap in the USA, with the capitalists having connected it to Communism when there is no connection. America NEEDS an alternative to capitalism, especially in light of the growing wealth inequities caused by capitalism!
The history of third parties in the USA is bleak. They get outfinanced and are accorded little attention by the media. They get absorbed by one of the established parties. But a thoughtful, well-planned campaign using social media and shoe leather and lots of funding might raise some sand in a short life span. As for Socialism, the US has always been a mix of capitalism and socialism, the public debate should be about the nature of that mix. The person who said that was a far right dingbat, Reagan's Treasury undersecretary and coauthor of the Reagan tax cut. My papa. The US version of socialism is it's socialism for the rich and dog eat dog capitalism for everybody else.
That kind of spcialism is a comedy. It is merely government-supported capitalism. When I say Socialism I am talking about everyo e profiting equa
Ly from their labour, with health care and education free for all, whete there are no bosses or emp.oyees, but everyone in society being equal in every way.
If I read you righr, maybe you can make up for your father's missteps.
Well, there is a business model like the one you describe, in place at a corporation called Mondragon, in Spain.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation. In the USA, there is something called a public benefit corporation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_benefit_corporation. In Japan, there are public benefit corporations and public interest corporations https://www.jnpoc.ne.jp/en/nonprofits-in-japan/legal-framework/. But please let me ask, given the history of the United States, on what bases do you forsee such a socialism developing in the USA?
As for rectifying the sins of the fathers, though I tried, I failed.
It's an attractive approach that probably requires a longer-term plan to pull off... time we don't have right now. I fear that it would only continue to do as history has shown: distract voters from hugely important issues like those we have now, making it difficult to overcome disaster (loss of our democracy and freedoms such as voting & womens' rights).
It is a longterm project, you are correct. But it was certainly not intended to distract voters from what is important right now, and that is DESTROYING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AT THE POLLS! But even that is 6 months away! Saving Roe vs Wade is the biggest issue in America right now, and, in fact, in the world. If American women have their Right to be Persons taken away, other women-haters around the world are going to be emboldened. They too will try to return women to being cattle. If more than 40 Republicans are voted in as senators, Roe vs Wade will not be saved. Keeping women as persons is the most important fight in America right now, and anyone who does not see that needs to be re-educated.
We have to ask whether American voters care more about inflation or abortion. I think you know the answer. Further bad news: expect the Supreme Court to pull another Bush v. Gore. We need to elect state attorneys general, governors, and state legislators. Just like our opponents have been doing for 30 or more years.
Especially State Secretaries of State! They are the people in charges of VOTING, from who can vote to who is counting the votes and everything in between. And while some people will care more about the economy, more people, especially women-and half the voters are women--will care about Roe v Wade.
Passports rule.
Question: If Congress can change the number of Justices, how many Senators would be needed to make a change proposal from the House of Representaftives legal? 51? Or 60?
Probably 60. Manchin et al will make sure the filibuster remains.
And there goes any hope to add some justices to take away the Republican majority. These justices are not putting aside their biases, but rather operating to their hiases and ignoring their oaths of non-partisanship.
See my remedy below. Hostile takeover of red states.
Daniel said we could all move to Red States and ultimately out-vote them. I thought about moving to Lancaster, CA so I could vote against Kevin McCarthy, but it's a very impractical strategy
Haven't been able to find it yet. This thread is extremely lengthy. I'll keep o looking, but...
I will bet $100 to a mutually agreed upon charity the first thing McConnell does when he can is kill the filibuster.
I don't think he will kill it, because it may be needed next time the Repuglycans are in opposition. But he will find a way around the filibuster to get what he wants when he wants it. Like his stupid rule that a Supreme Court justice cannot be appointed in an election year. How he got the DPems to agree to that I have no idea, but as soon as the shoe was on the other foot he threw that "rule" out the window. What is good for the gander is not good for the goose, and he believes his party is the gander in American politics. The Dems have no balls!
thinking a woman is the solution for this core enormously dangerous court is quit naïve
Solution? Who mentioned solution? All I said is I hope she can be a voice for the people. The best solution, if it is even possible, is impeaching those judges who swore to keep their hands off Roe v Wade, then did a 180. The way things are right now, unless the people take this into their own hands, there is NO SOLUTION! And that is how the minority Repuglycans want it to stay!
The only way I see is a General Strike, bringing the economy to its knees. Up to now I have been promoting a Women's Strike, but I think men have to join them. If no one goes to work, en masse, the wealthy lose their piwer, which means the Repuglycans lose their power too! If you wait till the next election to act, it will be TOO LATE!
Never argued before SCOTUS.
However, I was a member of the now defunct Prettyman Levanthal Inn of Court. Met in the building that housed the Fed Circuit and Court of Claims. We were seated and were served dinner in alphabetical order. Thomas, Scalia, and I were assigned the same table. Before 9/11 they used to invite us to receptions or to hold our programs at the Supreme Court. I was also a member of the Supreme Court bar and the Supreme Court Historical Society. The last function I attended was when Justice Kagan received the Brandeis Medal. Only Justice Ginsberg attended because it was on the same night as a presidential debate. The last time I was at a SCOTUS reception was in honor of ACUS' 50th anniversary.
I was also a liaison member of ACUS and Scalia, Breyer and I also were active in the Administrative Law section of the ABA.
I always have been a Democrat, but I respected John Paul Stevens above all others, including Douglas. I think that he became educated as a member of the court. and was the last member who valued individual over corporate rights. I think that all of the current batch are deferential to corporations and that there has been a miscarriage of justice, as corporations are not "persons" under the 14th Amendment. .A headnote to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) is the foundation for Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo. However the headnote was issued after a bribe and does not represent the actual decision. The court did not find "personhood" as the headnote was not accurate.
Re Dobbs v Jackson Health, the abortion case, counsel should have asked some of the justices to recuse and asked the chief justice to hold a hearing regarding disqualification.
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
IMHO the standard is the appearance of impropriety.
Ah, I had not known about the bribe. Thank you. I had also not known that the Prettyman-Leventhal Inn of Court was defunct. For those who don't know about it: https://inns.innsofcourt.org/for-members/inns/the-prettyman-leventhal-american-inn-of-court/
Thanks. From the link, may have been resurrected. The date is 2020. The listed officers were very active once upon a time. I retired August 2018 and left DC for Miami. Judge Colwell was my colleague, now retired. I'll give him a call. He was a retired military judge before he came to us, was also a member of a military Inn.
Always an edifying pleasure to hear of your personal experience.
Your comment says it all: "Today’s cruel and partisan Supreme Court majority is squandering what remains of the Court’s moral authority. That is perhaps the deepest tragedy of all."
We must understand that the only way to "fix" the problem is a long hard road to change the make up of Congress and the Presidency. Meanwhile, we have to suffer the cruelness of the five henchmen.
Call Susie Collins to the stand.
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said. "Obviously, we won't know each justice's decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case."
Asked if she believes she was misled by the judges, Collins told CNN, "My statement speaks for itself."
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/09/susan-collins-challenge-call-for-the-impeachment-of-brett-kavanaugh_partner/
The henchmen are imploding our democracy 🤬
Unenumerated rights are the same thing as unalienable rights (meaning G-d given human rights). To have listed (aka enumerated) our G-d given rights, would have limited them to the list, so the framers decided not to list them, lest they forget some of them, or inadvertently limit them by poorly chosen words.
Instead, our Constitution explicitly prohibits infringement on all G-d given human rights with language in the 9th amendment that reads,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The language in the court’s draft decision regarding Roe v Wade, opens the door to the court’s elimination of every unenumerated right, thereby reducing our rights to ONLY those mentioned in the Constitution. IOW, this decision is not just about abortion, this is about every right NOT listed in the Constitution.
For example, in this draft ruling, Alito eliminated “privacy” as well as abortion rights. I think the reason is simple. Our innate, G-d given, human rights are the single, largest obstacle to world domination by the rich and powerful. Yes indeed folks, I honestly think that some people believe they should run the world.
Apparently, Alito is now claiming to have reviewed historic customs of the time as further excuse. Let's see, the historic custom of the time included 3/5 of a person and chattel slavery. How does that justify his sorry, lyin' arse ‽ Just wonderin'. Also, I hold that "god given right" language highly suspect. Historically, the only ones who could claim such rights were the nobility, and they declared them under force of arms as their heathen god's chosen to rule.
Those 3/5 people were slaves. Abortion was not permitted because slave owners had an economic interest in owning more "livestock." their chattel.
Right! And these wankers have the temerity to suggest "originalist" interpretation is appropriate, how?
DZK ; 'when 'originalist' interpretation works for them and they don't 'suggest' : They just do what works best for themselves, ethics and precedent even decency be damned!
Daniel Solomon ; similar to today when they want more 'wage slaves' and 'cannon fodder'!
What about habeas corpus? In the Latin meaning " you shall have the body". What about the meaning in a court of law? Does a person have a right to control their own body, at least when brought before a judge? Is it not for the court to determine when or why they can justify taking away a person's control over their own bodily autonomy?
Used against Lincoln during the civil war. Known as "extraordinary writs."
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia to give military authorities the power to silence dissenters and rebels. Under this order, commanders could arrest and detain individuals who were deemed threatening to military operations. The suspension was partially lifted with the issuance of Proclamation 148 by Andrew Johnson, and the Act became inoperative with the end of the Civil War.
Ex Parte Merryman suspeby Lincoln in a time of war was affirmednsion of habeus corpus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
In Ex Parte Milligan SCOTUS found "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan
I remember that - from American history. The legal details are well taken.
No doubt. This is similar to the idea that certain people who are more educated can make better decisions than the people, and we have the electoral college.
More educated? Not in my book. They don’t show any evidence of being educated. Education results in the ability to think critically, a trait that is obviously missing from most of our “leaders.”
They serve those to whom they are indebted!
Laurie, you have my agreement, in full. I don't know if its pride, hubris, opportunism or something else, but I am so motivated to prove them wrong, I scare myself.
raffey ; in that case remain motivated ; We all need to prove them wrong, as scary as it can be.
Sometimes to speak truth to power when that power is in the wrong hands and being abused it is scariest! Damn the torpedoes!!!
Those unenumerated rights include privacy, which means that if nullified, Alito et al don’t get to have protestors removed from in front of their houses. My heart bleeds for them, and yes, that’s sarcasm.
Right arm, sister!
🙂
Right! 9th Amendment. Things like right to travel, right to vote, common law rights.
The word "Privacy" was not in general use in 1790 but yeomen land owners in England had a right not to be disturbed. In 1604 Sir Edward Coke (pronounced cook) (1552-1634) declared that “the house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress as well for defence against injury and violence, as for his repose” which over the years has become simplified to “a man's home is his castle”. I assume it became common law, incorporated by the 9th Amendment.
A (wo)man's home is is one's castle....or at least should be.
The problem with the home being a castle is what allowed men to beat and rape their wives and children. If we go back to that kind of verbiage we might as well just "lay back and try to enjoy it," as some fool Republican just told women (cannot remember who that was!) they should do.
Having grown up in such a "castle" I know firsthand how much of a hell that is!
That joke was ancient when I heard it 50 yrs ago. A lot of jokes from half a century ago are no longer told by those of us who've rejected those values. Still . . . y'got'ta sympathize a bit with stand-up comics, these days!
I would love to see God appear in court to say what rights He gave to people. Our rights do not come from anyone but ourselves, and therefore, We the Pepple should have the power to say what rights people have. To give that power to 9 Justices, with 5 or 6 corrupt judges amongst them, is to turn the foxes loose in the chicken ooop. As it presently stands, 5 having power against 200,000,000 is a huge miscarriage of justice. IMHO.
rawgod ; the numbers make things easier for them, But ! They still are a minority! Voters win when it's free and fair elections! We are in for a rough ride if they screw us!
Those unenumerated rights include privacy, which means that if nullified, Alito et al don’t get to have protestors removed from in front of their houses. My hear bleeds for them, and yes, that’s sarcasm.
Professor, you were gifted the opportunity to argue cases before giants, and if anyone were qualified to compare what we have now relative to what we had then, it is you. Thanks so much for this essay; I wish everyone in America could read in this time of crisis what you have to say.
Our country is in crisis, and the Supremes are not part of the solution, they are a disgrace.
I prefer the Supremes as led by Diana Ross.
They were awesome, weren’t they?
Yep. I wish they’d stayed together.
Definitely! They knew what they needed! Too bad those with lots of formal 'education' do not see what was so important then and especially today.
Stan of Stanistan ; They demanded RESPECT! " GIVE IT TO ME!". It was a very popular song for good reason. No wonder they were named "The Supremes"! They put this latest version of the Court in the SHADE!
At least this current imbalanced one.
Hmmmm...... I wonder what the response would be to activists walking quietly in the streets outside the Justices' Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer homes to thank them for their defense of privacy and human rights. Seems like we seldom see their life work acknowledged.
oh my FOX propaganda machine would have a circus with lies and false natives - would not sending thank you cards in mass numbers be better and more affective
OK! Have them carry protest signs that express "SCREW FOX NEWS" in every wording they can think of, and make sure to rub them into the cameraman's kisser - or lens, as it were!
This would backfire! Fox News would love it! Proof to their viewers that the protesters are a**holes.
They would anyway. So what's to lose - credibility amongst already prejudiced viewers?
I see your point. It would just make it harder for people like me to convince my "Fox News loving" Republican friends that there are good, decent folks on the "other side" in spite of the false crap put out by Fox.
Stuff 'em up with their own reasoning about the 1/6 insurgents, that >they're< just the radicals and don't represent the nice, "god fearing" majority of protestors. You might specify, "like you say about . . ." and shake your head about such people >on both sides!< Hell! That'd be ol' Tweety himself a'talkin' to 'em - backwards! (That's as opposed to "there are >good< people . . . on both sides.)
Just to support my point, they already have! : https://youtu.be/7ieL7zNHrlk
Tim Baldwin : Worry about their snipes and pushback will silence us!
Tim Baldwin ; Nobody can outdo the wingers and Putin Lovers in assininity!
putdo? I like it. Maybe "putzdo" would be slightly better! (I know it's a typo, but yet . . .)
DZK Haha! See my correction above.
Cliff ; Bill boards might be more environmentally friendly. But ads in certain markets might get the message across. Maybe featuring each one separately. Or all of them with a brief, message, like " Thank You all for being Respectable!".
As long as they pass in an orderly line and hand-salute properly as they pass, as in a parade passing by a review stand.
Thats a great story. Thank you! We need to expand the Court.
I remember watching Robert's confirmation when he waxed poeticly about growing up in the amber waves of gold in Indiana. I wanted someone to ask him if he had the capacity to relate to people less privileged from other areas. I've noticed that many anti-choice protesters don't have a clue about orher areas and Americans.
In the Austin Statehouse, shortly before Senator Wendy Davis' historic filibuster, we noticed most anti-choice protesters were white and looked like they had never worked a day in the sun. They had large family support structures. Their leader looked just like the weird Pentacostal snake-charming preacher in Will Ferrell's "The Campaign." The nicest thing I can say about them is that it probably took the whole group praying together to God for enough intelligence to walk and chew bubble gum, and wave their gross banners. I dont like to be mean, but I'm pretty sure Deliverence country was missing a few school busses that day.
This out-of-touch, sheltered, and unsophisticated looking anti-choice minority is who the majority of the Supreme Court stands with and protects. What are the anti-Roe Justices thinking? Do they think women should have no say about their pregnancies? What could make them "protect the unborn," and ignore the "life"and lives of 165 milliion women? Does forcing a pregnancy give them some moral authority that allows them to ignore people, rights and the reality of millions of unimaginable pregnancy situation?
The Roberts' Court is intelllectually and morally bankrupt. And now they,'re upset that 100 women would peacefully prixket outside their homes? Lol. Just because they want to institutionalize.forced pregnancy and motherhood, and force milliions into poverty, and forbid women from making private, potentially life-saving health care decisions in the privacy of a doctor's office?
I guess they want a world where they can institutionize horrific experiences on millions of women, and they don't have to listen to a single woman, or see 100 women picketing. They want to evicerate women's' right to privacy, but they expect total privacy? Now that's
what you call Supreme hipocracy.. EXPAND THE COURT!
I'm sympathetic to your description of the Court but not necessarily to the solution. I wish Democrats would begin by discarding the filibuster.
The problem with discarding the filibuster is that senators Sinema and Manchin are secretly Reptilians: they’re doubtless being paid to take their stance on the filibuster and abortion.
Rather, you wish Senator Schumer would get rid of the filibuster, like Senator McConnell did. We can't blame all Democrats when that decision is made by only Schumer. I doubt #2 Durbin, or any caucus of Democratic Senator, has any say. I wonder what it would take for Schumer to mix the filibuster? I have a hunch it's a bigger majority so Manchin won't jump ship and put Dems in the minority. At this moments, getting rid of the filibuster would give Republicans something to run on with attack ads like '"Democrats abuse of power." While I wish Schumer would nix the filibuster, I think we need.a stronger majority to pull it off.
The Ohio Senate race is huge. Ryan is great. Vance wrote a book about Appillacians and now he's qualified to be a US Senator? He worked for Peter Steal, a ruthless poc, and he's qualified to be in the Senate?
The US really needs Ryan. But Peter Steal is likely setting up groups to funnell hundreds of millions in attack ads against Ryan. This is a major problem.
Of course, no GOP women ever have abortions, and are never interviewed on the record about their abortions.
I recall a time when I too looked at the Supreme Court with respect and a degree of trust to protect the rights of all people, without political ideologies. That changed over the years for obvious reasons, beginning with the courts opinion on “McCullen v. Coakley” that removed the 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics that was designed to protect those seeking health services from attacks, both physical and verbal as they entered a clinic. I’m sorry, but I find the Supreme Courts indignation about protesters to close to their homes to be ridiculously hypocritical. Not to mention the protesters in front of state Governors, Attorney General, Secretary of State and election official homes during the 2020 election. Where was the Supreme Courts outcry then? Sorry, but I don’t believe they should get any more privileges, especially considering how they got on the bench. I would have loved to be fly in the room when Professor Reich stood in front of the court, that must have been so great!! *Read about the SC ruling here and note the justices names too. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-clinics-high-court-says
The Sedition Party (formerly the Republican Party) has destroyed yet another institution of our democracy. When will the American people get rid of this contemptable and authoritarian theocratic minority?
Originalism is the new legal buzzword, and perhaps it’s some kind of real law, but it seems to have been raised up as the law of true patriots. The Originalism in use by the 5 right-wing justices on the current Supreme Court sounds like a set of legal interpretations engineered by the right to claim special knowledge of the literal meaning of our Constitution, although how they channel our founders is a mystery. This Originalism uses linguistics and myth in the service of right-wing ideology. You cannot use an Originalist argument when there are no women in our documents until women were allowed to vote in 1920. If we had a true court they would never respect this kind of reasoning or allow such a bogus argument to tarnish their oeuvre. Our court has been taken over ready to be an authoritarian rubber stamp ti the next Republican president.
People of color have rescued the United States a few times. Ditto young people. Maybe again. There are several outfits - Working People's Party, Field Team 6 Register Democrats to name two -who are working at it. But Maybe is not a policy. The US has broken apart. We are in another civil war. There will be more bloodshed. We now know what good Germans saw and felt in the 1930's. I have friends moving to Mexico, Canada, France, Portugal, Spain. Though Europe does seem a frying pan or a fire. There are 4 so-far-reliably-blue states - Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachusetts. Sauve qui peut, you all. In what's left of my lifetime, I'm not likely to see improvement in Fortress America.
With respect, I'm experiencing disappointment in, quickly approaching utter contempt for the Sauve qui peut crew. They're not the solution. They're the problem - particularly come election day.
I have voted in every election since 1964. I don't plan to stop. I do plan to save my husband's life and mine. I'm alive because my grandparents escaped Europe. The lesson is not lost on me. I offer it as salvific to everyone.
using the Holocaust is very naïve as the issue the professor is describing " "Today’s Supreme Court majority doesn’t have a clue about the Court’s moral authority, and couldn’t care less. They are political hacks, rigid ideologues, and small minds intent on entrenching the power of the already powerful, comforting the already comfortable, and inflicting pain on the already inflicted. (Five were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote. Three were nominated by a president who instigated a coup against the United States; they were confirmed because a rogue Republican Party mounted scorched-earth campaigns to put them on the Court.)" is far more complicated than racial hatred.
Cliff, that is no reason to call anyone "naive"! Martha has as much right as anyone else here to express her opinions. All she said was her grandparents escaped Europe. That does not give you the right to assume anything. My mother and her family escaped Europe (specifically a German-owned Ukraine) back 100 years ago this year. She was not Jewish, nor had the Nazis taken power yet! She was escaping the violence and poverty of a war-torn country.
How many other people came to North America to "ESCAPE EUROPE!" America and Canada are both built on what those already here disparagingly called "Displaced Persons"! And now, 100 years later, here we are dealing with another flood of prople coming to North America to escape the ravages of war! Are uou going to sutomatically brand tnem as "holocsust durvivors too"?
Can you explain the logical steps between "I'm alive because my grandparents escaped Europe" and "using the Holocaust is very naive?" You may have read that I think the future for the USA includes more breaking apart, potential civil war, and more fascist takeover; that these trends aren't going to abate in the rest of my lifetime. if you don't feel like increasing your exposure to those miseries, you can leave the country, as my grandparents did. It seems perhaps you created an inference that was not a part of what I said.
@Cliff. I agree - racial hatred is just one of the tools that the moneyed interests wield against democracy and just one of the ways they tempt poor unfortunates to vote against their own interests...
Bravo, citizen Martha!
I think that next time, the peaceful protesters should openly embrace their 2nd Amendment rights as well. In OH, we had "peaceful demonstrators" gathering around the State House open carrying AR-15's and tacked with assorted hand guns in support of abolishing all gun regulations.
>And nobody batted an eye!<
After all, these horses' arses made it all possible. Screw the Post. (Besides, the protesters may need to defend themselves from gun-totin' Tweety-freak counter-protesters, the likes of whom showed up at the OH State House, in future protests.) Sure, it could possibly have ugly consequences, but ugly consequences in the a$$holes' dooryard - not in some other city and on TV in the comfort of their easy-chairs. Maybe one or more of them could become "collateral damage" of someone who really can't shoot worth a damn! It happens out here in the streets & neighborhoods -
>all the goddam time!<
That's not “bring[ing] direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary.” That's letting them share in the "freedom" they've inflicted on us all. What better evidence could they possibly need in their goddam "evidence-based and rational" decision-making process ‽
As I’ve said before, they should be careful what they wish for. Glad you agree, my friend David/Dwight/Dennis/Daniel/Didier/Desmond or whatever your real name is.
Besides, I'd rather not meet any of you on the street and having any of you know who I am. I've tasted a scant 5 minutes of the apocryphal "15 minutes of fame," and will gladly defer the balance I'm owed to whoever's batty enough to take it! I think maybe MTG snagged a bit of it! LOL! ];-)>
Okay, D. 😀
"D" is just fine with me! (It intimates a nefarious denizen of the "deep state!" LOL! ];-)>)