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!!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 ‽
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!!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 ‽