Neither had Lorie Smith suffered a specific injury -- or any injury at all. By the parameters you're talking about, the usual test of standing, she had no standing either. This court acts like standing ain't even a thing.
The company [or the person running the graphic business] in the other case may exist, but the Gay boogeymen don't exist. That is, no gay couple tried to hire this person to do anything.
The case that Reich is referring to presents basically the same issue but the fact arrangement is different. In that case, the State is claiming to be the "injured party" even though it's not directly affected either
I was going to bring that up. In fact, that is what I initially thought Dr. Reich was going to talk about. It just reinforces his argument. I wasn't aware of that aspect of the Missouri case.
Jaime, yes, the SC loved the MO case because it let them screw the Democrats with the state's made-up standing. It worked well as has every other appalling ruling this court has done since Johnny R became Chief, a known racist and misogynist. Baby Bush looked hard for someone who would look distinguished (I hear Roberts looks distinguished) and had a record that was not too blatant, but certain in its racism, misogyny, homophobia, and willingness to do whatever the Republican Party wanted him to do. It is interesting that Baby Bush played as a guy who supported "minorities" through appointments like Powell and Rice, but in reality, he picked folks who would go along with whatever Bush told them and lie when expected to. I find that pretty racist of Bush, even though I somewhat admired both Powell and Rice. I get it that they were in difficult positions and wanted to be role models for Black Americans. Unfortunately, their efforts did not advance Black people much because of the groundwork Bush helped lay in the Party for undermining our nation and our democracy with its desire to return to the Jim Crow days. It's terrible, but how can we stop it when we can't even get Biden to see that an expanded SC is a critical tool to save our "justice" system?
"Baby Bush" as you call him, or "Shrub" as the late, great Molly Ivins called him, is a pseudo-President and an uncharged war criminal. His Supreme Court appointees continue to enact the will of America's version of "Brahmins." What Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld's conniving lies did are in a long line of lies and deceptions our government "leaders" have used to get done what they want done, on the backs and out of the wallets of willing followers. We desperately need government reform, both parties, all levels. Fix the Supreme Court. Fix/eliminate the Electoral College. Fix our elections system (put Jocelyn Benson in charge!). Get rid of Louis DeJoy (USPS - SAVE the USPS!!). Fix the methods used to "vet" nominees to the courts, most critically the lifetime appointments like the Supreme Court and absolutely repudiate the Federalist Society and it's like as an incubator of "Illuminati" judges AND prosecute judicial nominees who LIE to Congress in their hearings!
And while we're at it, disbarment and criminal charges against Bill Barr, just to give even a weak nod to the much- touted rule of law! I imagine he thought that if he did enough "consigliere" work for his "Don" he might be on the Supreme Court by now. Instead, that mouthpiece for elected criminals and their mob cult, is all over the media pontificating and evaluating the VERY PEOPLE and IDEAS HE enabled!
There's a lot of reform and correction needed. Let's get going!
Well Ruth, I completely agree. I just don’t understand why republicans can’t figure out they’re
supporting politicians who are actively trying to remove their freedoms. But it’s not just that, they want to totally change our way of life-not for the better, but for the worse.
The republican majority on the Supreme crt were chosen by the Federalist Society to do exactly what they’re doing. Just like the Republican party has backed only idiots who would agree to do what they
are told. It would be almost impossible to randomly
have that many shameless idiots in Congress at once. Choosing those people was part of a decades long plan, just like Citizens United was part of their plan.
If the Supreme Court majority isn’t even bothering to insist on “standing” anymore, it may be more important to to address them than anything else.
They’re on summer break, so dems have a couple of months to figure out what they’re going to do, but
even if they have a plan, it may require republican votes to get it passed.
Susan, I don't get it either, first that a once-respected political party would have sold out for less than mediocre representation all over the country and is willing to give away its rights or rather, the rights of their constituents. They have become fascist, deny it, but keep moving further into fascism. I just wish Democrats would call them out on it more regularly and itemize what they are doing and the harm it is causing. The next problem, how to get the media to cover what they say because our media seems to be enthralled with the shenanigans of the Republican party and its toddler-leadership.
Well, I think it’s worth trying to “shame” the media
with a grassroots campaign of sorts. If enough people post comments about it maybe it’ll have some affect. Same goes for corporations. There are long-term consequences for their support of fascist ideology that they wouldn’t like, but they, like
the media, seem unable to grasp that. It very similar to the oil & gas industry. They are hell-bent on making as much money as possible for as long as possible without regard for consequences. That’s grossly irresponsible, but if people aren’t complaining about it they have no reason to change.
Same for the pharmaceutical industry. Republicans have coddled to these entities and blocked legislation meant to rein them in for far too long.
Hey Ruth, I think President Biden understands the need to expand the Supreme Crt., have term limits for Justices and a code of ethics. I don’t know this for a fact, but I think he’s hesitating because of the 2024 election. As we all know, Republicans make mountains out of molehills...and that’s putting it nicely. They’ve thoroughly brainwashed their supporters to believe anything Trump or his GOP Congressional colleagues say with zero evidence.
There might be enough republicans in the House that would agree to a code of ethics for the Supreme Crt, but I doubt they would agree to have substantial penalties for failure to comply, so what would be the point? If President Biden tries to expand the Court, I don’t know if he literally needs an act of Congress to do that, if he could do it via executive order or what
other process might be available.
Right now Republicans say they’re going to impeach Sec. Mayorkas. For what, I don’t know. They also
say they’re going to impeach President Biden. Again,
I have no idea what their premise for doing that would be, but expanding the Court might qualify for today’s republicans. I doubt either Biden or Mayorkas would be forced out of their positions, but there’s no question that it would be a three-ring circus dragged out as long as possible.
So, it boils down to what’s more important--doing nothing about the Supreme Court & allow them to continue wreaking havoc when they re-convene after their summer break in order to not give republicans more ammunition, or if it’s possible,
expand the court, etc. without republican cooperation and by doing so risk the presidency. I realize it’s not that cut and dried, but it’s the basic framework that needs to be considered.
Susan, good explanation of the dilemma the president and the rest of us have related to our rogue SC. Those justices have clearly forgotten their oath and instead have been reworking the Constitution to their own personal beliefs. That is not what is supposed to happen in our democracy, but Roberts does not seem to ever have been too fond of democracy. His contempt of "average" Americans is evident and his racism and misogyny are also clear for all to see. His 5 other "conservatives" (I am not sure that this is the right term since what they are trying to create is not traditional conservatism, but white supremacy, white christian dominance, male supremacy, and more, want white men to rule with impunity. I read somewhere that the SC 6 want to be the unelected "president" and Congress and court all wrapped up in one ignorant fascist package. It sounds like reality to me. How do we get the word out. I know the SC is already pretty unpopular, but what good is that knowledge when they can still disrupt our lives because so many state legislatures are just loving all the pain the SC is causing, and all the power they are pushing into the hands of legislators who are white supremacists, as well as racists, homo/transphobes, xenophobes, and toddler-adults. We are in trouble. Biden and other administration officials need to be calling for a code of ethics and suggest things that should be in it, on a regular basis and force the media to cover that. Maybe they need to do something a bit outrageous at their press conferences and speeches and ribbon cuttings to get the media to notice. Republicans who have less to offer anyone constantly get media attention for their lying, cheating, and gaslighting. Dems need to do that for the truth and reality.
Of course, this can come back & bite them. We could just as easily not serve Christians, bigots or straight old white men, for example, due to our deeply held moral principles.
The Supreme Court has essentially wiped out precedent as a factor in deciding cases, along with ignoring what the Constitution says, not requiring any showing of injury by plaintiff, nor deferring powers of setting law to the legislative or executive branches, which means they can decide cases anyway they want & pursue whatever agenda they want
Is there no check on the power of those in the Supreme Court majority to do what they will without legal obligation and to obliterate precedent with which they don’t politically agree? Apparently it ain’t even two things.
The supremes have now taken the role of God while being the dogs. They are there only to insure religion, and those who are rich and support religion, get their way. Their handlers are the Catholic bishops of America and, church history tells us it does not bode well for us. Church history tells us they are out to purge American society of non-christians and move right on to inquisitionsand demands that we all attend Sunday school. These sloths also want to change our laws to church law and our constitution to serve the church.
From a medical perspective they are like a cancer that is in need of removal. The fact that Biden won't do anything about this US travesty makes me wonder if he has made a pact with Faust.
Please read my response to Ruth Sheets. I think Biden is hesitating due to the 2024 election. Does he want to give republicans more ammunition to use against him right before the next election, or is it worthwhile or even possible (for that matter) to deal with the Court even if the republican majority House
But what can we do to be heard? It is getting harder and harder to keep taking this blatant disrespect for not only the LAW but for all those of us who truly know the law and that we are to obey it but they don’t. There has to be a faster comeuppance.
Someone asked me today what being a patriot meant to me and I said, “ pay your taxes”!
That's a good question. A burning question. For now, call SCOTUS out on this, and keep calling them out, to anyone who will listen. Read Justice Sotomayor's dissent in full, if you can (it's available through the NPR website) to understand how blatantly this decision goes against precedent, and how wrong the majority are to use the First Amendment to shelter discrimination clothed under "freedom of speech." Don't give up!
No Darlin” ... they behave as though “Only They Know When a Thing is a Thing, how all of us should see/understand that Thing, and that also how we re entitled to engage with that Thing. From the very beginning of an any Dispute/Dialogue about that “Thing,” we are plunged into a Wonderland in which only the Red Queen has the right to set the Rules. John Roberts is a little more “subtle” than to actually yell, “Off With Their Heads,” but regardless of how he phrases his opinions - that’ the gist of what he’s saying and what .... from the depths of his White Male Privilege & Misogyny - that’s what he’s truly chosen to believe. It will be our Job, our Mission, and eventually our Privilege - to disabuse him of these notions.
For a Court majority that claims to be recovering the "traditional," and the desires of the Founders, they sure are breaking new and questionable juridical ground. They should be labeled the "Cowboy Court." Rogue justices, making it up as they go along . . .
Is this you, Robert Reich, or a scam? The real Robert Reich should have access to our emails and let us know if he wishes to communicate with us outside the sub stack.
This spambot has been VERY active the past two days, commenting on HUNDREDS of posts! Just report the bot AND the comment as many times as you are able or willing.
I've been seeing this same jack-ass, posing as Robert Reich, & posting on RR's posts for at least 3-4 days now....& it smells awfully fishy, doesn't it, folks??!! Most likely it's a damn troll...??!!
I clicked on his face and it took me to a profile page with nothing on it - no notes or anything else! So I then clicked on the 3 dots that brings down the choices to report whether it's spam or someone pretending to be someone else, and if you want them blocked. I did that.
Was suspicious from the get go as I have written directly to Professor Robert Reich on some very serious matters that have been discussed here over the past 12 months, in addition to POTUS & VP of which I have not had any response, not that I expected any from POTUS or VP, both impotent Politically, Party wise, systemic and endemic not to mention conflicts of interest. Even paid A$34.00 to have the same details mailed to The White House as per the switchboard operators instructions.
Yep, exactly, Daniel. Reported it a couple days ago, but evidently nothing has been done yet. Platform admins should have blocked the IP address, I would think.
I got two of these messages also. I am dubious that Dr Reich would send this. The cross emoji also does not seem like him. I did text back and now I wonder what scam I have subjected myself to?!?!?
:-) Sometimes it pays to be tech illiterate. I got a similar reply and had no idea what it meant. I thought it was some kind of "like". Was a bit confused about the cross. Basically ignored it. What a world. One can't trust anything anymore! We're in a state of perpetual paranoia.
I received the same in an email.i thought it was strange and ignored it. What I wonder about is how my email got out to a bot. Has this server been compromised? Does the reich wing now have all of our emails?
Dr.Reich can you please weigh in on this. These phone numbers could be capturing our phone numbers. For what nafarious reason we do not know. Will we all start getting bot calls from tRumps brown shirts?
I have been reporting whoever this imposter is. I am thinking it’s a BOT inserted by the Russians who want their puppet Trump to win. Got most of them removed.
I have also gotten 2 of these messages n my e-mail asking me to text him at that #. Is someone trying to steal identities? Can sub stack block this and block ncestigate?
I posted this earlier - perhaps it will be helpful. I suspect there's some kind of malware afoot.
NOTE: For those of you having issues with an apparent comment back from Prof. Reich, it's been seen on earlier substacks. I suggest reporting it here - https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/5780787855252-How-do-I-report-a-comment- . It does get cleaned up, but apparently there is a larger issue since it seems to be cropping up repeatedly.
Jeff, thanks for noticing that. Trolls and scammers entertain themselves by trying to introduce a tad of chaos or uncertainty. I hope he (it is probably a he) is satisfied and will move on. He is not appreciated here.
Yes. I delete the emails instead of clicking, frightened of what might happen if I click it. Maybe nothing, maybe they send out feelers to see if a vulnerable user, will start to engage, and for those they have a plan. Extracting money (“for Robert”) or something?
Liar. I have clicked on your so-called profile picture and it took me to a dummy site with no information or history. Nice try, comrade. I have reported you and blocked you, so f*** right off.
Everybody, note that the above post containing 10 words also contains 7 grammatical or punctuation errors. Would Robert Reich ever post a comment with such poor English? You all know the answer to that question.
The “1” is for long distance. The area code starts with “7”. I am getting texts as well. At first I thought it was just me. But then I see you are as well. I get responses but not quickly.
That message is repeatedly sent so as to be annoying. It makes me think someone HAS hacked in with a BOT or something that repeats. Seems like something the Russians would do or the Republicans...
Marlo. I suspect this is entertainment for him. There is no pattern I can discern as to when the messages come. It seems this jerk has a way onto this thread and just drops junk into people's sections of the thread wherever he can, just for laughs, or he is getting paid from someone to do it, thinking it will disrupt sufficiently to make people want to leave the thread. How pathetic if that is his useless job. Another thought is that he is trying to see what he can get away with so he can do some real damage in the future.
I think it is PURPOSEFUL, from the political opposition. It’s creepy they have hacked in to have my phone number. I wonder what OTHER information they have?? Mr Reich should put out a breach notice!
Sometimes I think that Russians and Republicans are the same thing, what with Ruskie disinformation on FOX! Jack Smith needs to prosecute, if only to show Fox watchers what garbage they are ingesting.
Randy, I suspect the Republican Party and Russian operatives have cross-pollinated, sharing the new techniques they have learned to brainwash, lie, abuse or usurp the media, gaslight, push incompetent candidates for office or positions within the government, etc. That should be seen as criminal, but somehow Republicans in leadership don't find themselves held accountable for anything. I hope the Trump and Santos indictments lead an avalanche of demands for accountability among Republican leadership.
Russofascists & republofascists are practically indistinguishable. From his poor English, one might surmise that he's Russian, but then, Republicans are so poorly educated.
Or, actually, abolish it. Oh wait, that would be unconstitutional. Then how about rewriting the Constitution? Or simply use it as a base for case law, like the Magna Carta, and then abolish SCOTUS?
It's been 236 years since this document was written by white, slave-owning, male aristocrats. And it's so open to interpretation that it really has little place in modern life. Money is free speech, teenagers can buy machine guns, now students cannot get redress from loan sharks.
The Constitution got this country off to a great start. Time to move on.
I disagree, Michael. The Constitution has been needlessly subjected to interpretation, but if read as written, with no one skewing it to fit their personal prejudices and biases. It is very well written and still pertinent today. What we need to do is pass legislation to prevent others from interpreting the written word to mean something other than is written.
Fay, I agree that it's well-written, however ALL language is open to interpretation. Even the legislation you propose would be to prevent others from interpreting the document differently from the way YOU want it interpreted.
There are no absolutes here, which is why the 5 originalists on the court should not be on the court. Better still, SCOTUS should not exist. There's a good precedent: English Law is Case Law, based on current judicial decisions made by regular courts in every era - reflecting continuously changing modern societies - rather than on interpretations of an 800 year old document known as the Magna Carta.
Case in point: Roe v Wade. Settled Law, right? It would have been in England, but in the US, hell no, it was open to interpretation by the originalist perjurers, now on SCOTUS, who were appointed by a fascist moron with a very bad orange combover.
The thing is, Michael, their Constitutional reference in Dobbs was correct. There is no mention of "abortion" anywhere in the Constitution, therefor if there is to be any law or regulation regarding abortion it is given to the States and the people, per Amendment 10. To my way of thinking (opinion) since there are no State laws pertaining to appendectomies or colectomies, there should be no laws against abortion. There are no laws against treatment of testicular cancer either. Abortion, whether spontaneous (miscarriage) or elective is a medical procedure and should involve only the patient (necessarily female) and her licensed physician. No laws are necessary. Religious laws are NOT civil laws and pertain only to members of that religion. Per Amendment 1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," I don't seen anything in that phrase suggesting 'unless the legislator or Supreme Court Justice has religious exceptions'.
The Ninth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. All the rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. In other words, the rights of the people are not limited to just the rights listed in the Constitution.
Alito and Thomas admit that they apply "natural law" before they apply the text of the Constitution. Natural law is Catholic dogma.
The right to privacy was fully expressed in GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT
U.S. Supreme Court 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Decided June 7, 1965. Douglas: We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Before the Constitution we had common law. which I argue includes a right to privacy, which was not a common term used in 1791, but which in part is expressed in among other places other amendments. The Third Amendment protects the zone of privacy in the home. Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fifth Amendment is the right to not testify against yourself during a trial. In the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to privacy is implied by the guarantee of due process for all individuals, meaning that the state cannot exert undue control over citizens' private lives.
At common law, the right of privacy is, most simply, the right of a person to be let alone, to be free from unwarranted publicity, and to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned. Strutner v. Dispatch Printing Co., 2 Ohio App. 3d 377 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County 1982).
A person has an actionable right to be free from the invasion of privacy. Black v. Aegis Consumer Funding Group, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2632 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2001). An actionable invasion of the right of privacy is the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality, the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities in such a manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
From the 13th century to the early 19th century induced abortion was legal under English common law, before the onset of quickening at 15 to 18 weeks gestation. However, to cause the death of an animate child in utero was considered homicide.
Thank you for this, Daniel. I'm still sticking to my own opinion on abortion. It should be covered under privacy as well. Marriage was an invention of MEN when Homo sapiens became "civilized" meaning an agricultural and therefor land owning society. Marriage determined the man's property rights in the female and in his offspring from her body. I'd hazard a guess that damned few women in the United States today would consider themselves and their children the property right of their husband. Opinion: I think it is this lingering property right in the minds of some men, that is responsible for the failure of the ERA amendment. Abortion, spontaneous or elective, is still and remains a medical procedure and therefor should not be in the realm of governmental regulation
Quickening is when the mother feels the life inside her. We now know that a fetus has a brain, nervous system, and feels pain much sooner. I believe a fetus should be protected. But in our for profit system it becomes a practical matter whether to have a child. No one is guaranteed food, shelter, or healthcare. That causes the mother's, and possibly her other children's interests to be in opposition to the unborn fetus' life in many cases. That is why the decision to end a pregnancy needs to be the mother's and why she should have early access to determine if she is pregnant and the ability to end the pregnancy in its earliest stages. This issue along with other cultural issues are used by the wealthiest through their bribed political puppets to sway the masses towards voting against their own economic interests.
And "Catholic dogma", as you so correctly call it, is directing too much of our government. What is profoundly disturbing is that our LAWS are not applied to criminals acting behind the veil of "Catholic dogma"!!
I think you know the Constitution considerably better than some of the Supreme Court justices, & we'd be better off if you were in the place of, say, Alito.
As much as I agree with the holding of Griswold, it seems to me that Hugo Black nailed the problem in his dissent:
"Dissents
Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart dissented from the Court's decision. Both justices' dissents argued that because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly mention privacy in any of its provisions, the Court had no basis to strike down Connecticut's Comstock Law. Black's dissent concluded: "I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."
If we want a federal right of privacy, individual dignity or access to health care, then amend or rewrite the constitution and include. Legislation alone will not survive constitutional review by these right-winger judges period
Very well said Daniel Solomon. You pegged it on the Catholic church. The Catholic bishops of America are now the handlers of the supreme court when it comes to the six. We need to get rid of this filth from out government.
And if you need another example, just look at how Christians have used different interpretations of the Bible to justify any number of crimes, including the death penalty. They also conveniently disregard the teachings of Christ whenever they feel it doesn't apply in their situation. Like racism, or immigration, or gun laws. I could go on forever....
It needs some safeguards. No lifetime terms and lying during confirmation gets you booted off. If you break any law you are booted. These dudes and chick are now seen to be public liars. No ethics. They can't be standards for justice. Kindergarten children are taught not to lie and cheat and take money for doing bad things.
Bad hair ex 'president' notwithstanding , how would ending SCOTUS help? the interpretation thing is always there isn't it? Along with semantics,( one of Bill Barr's favorites?) ; somebody has to decide where the rubber meets the road!? With messy Democracy, it would help to have a 'foolproof' vetting process. where is the 'candidate' justice 'coming from? what are their credentials? experience? track record? History of fairness? Taking bribes should be a no no ; can they pass a security clearance? Do they have debts? to whom?
I think holding a Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea. The Heritage Foundation and ALEC have been hoping for this day for a long time. They already hold mock CC'c to prepare for this situation. They are decades ahead of us with these things. No way at this point and the condition the republican party is in, do we want to take that risk. The best way to avoid it is to get involved in local politics. They will need 3/4 of the states to ratify and we are dangerously close to it becoming a reality. Show up and vote for democrats and only democrats on all levels.
when do we stop making decisions out of fear, and stand up to bullies with a constitution that supports a multiracial pluralistic democracy. Keeping things the way they are is supporting the loss of rights and demise of democracy
I agree. However, They have been working at this a long time and we have not. They have the Supremes, they have the House let's not be hasty or we shoot ourselves in the foot. We need to strengthen our position on the battlefield before we strike. And that's what they believe this is, war. Have you seen the doc. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy? By Greg Palast, you'll see what I mean.
That's like saying the Bible should be interpreted as written. Written by whom? In what century and language. By the way, it's time to throw that out as well.
Fay, good point. I am not in favor of rewriting our Constitution. I do wish, though that the courts, particularly the SC would acknowledge and follow the Amendments as much as they pretend to do the body of the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment which they misused this past week to end Affirmative Action. Then, they looooove the 2nd Amendment which they deliberately misread to give their white male friends weapons they can use against their fellow citizens. For the SC conservatives, the first Amendment is just a suggestion and religion means only their branch of Christianity, speech means only what rich white men say, press means Fox and that crowd, assembly means only the people they like and agree with assembling, and petition something that can be ignored entirely. We need to expand the sC to get more actually qualified justices, give them 18-year term limits, expect a basic set of qualifications nominees must have before being considered, have a fixed code of ethics and actual punishments for those who break them including immediate removal from office, no impeachment nonsense, and other requirements to keep a super majority of any political point of view from sitting on the SC. That would be a good start.
This is exactly what the church members of the supreme Court want to do. Then they could write their own constitution which is exactly what the church wants again the Catholic bishops of America wants well as the Evangelicals want.
I agree we need some amendments, but the second amendment is pretty clear as written. We just need to force the GOP and the Supreme Court to read the entire amendment AS written and not just the last phrase as currently interpreted. The whole Amendment 2 states "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You will notice the use of a comma, not a semi-colon, after the word 'State'. This indicates a single statement, not an either or. The weapons manufacturers and their lackeys in Congress have chosen to read only the last short phrase. Any smart attorney, cognizant of the English language could argue the overthrow of all legislation allowing the unalloyed purchase and use of weapons meant for use in war, not hunting or other sports. Plus the only well-regulated militia in United States today is the National Guard. The proud boys, oath keepers, neo-nazis, and white supremacists, would have a hard time arguing they were even regulated, let alone well-regulated.
Totally agreed with what you said. Unfortunately, those who are interpreting that amendment to mean that anyone has a right to any gun(s) they want without regulation are at present winning the argument due to judicial and legislative interpretations. At least there should be a clarification added, for those who seem to be morons and/or supporters of the gun manufacturers.
Good idea Cathie, but anyone trying to clarify the verbiage would do so in vain. the morons, their supporters and the weapons industry are making billions of dollars. And as you know in present day America MONEY is the new god those people worship.
Fay ; It looks like this forum has been compromised. Very concerning. I'm seeing comments that don't seem like what the poster usually would say. Something is off.
See the 3 dots to the right of "reply" at the lower right corner of your comment? Click on it & you'll see the word "report". Click on that & you'll get a box in which you can characterize the problem . Afterwards that post will disappear from view, but you can click it to view it. I assume the administrator of this comment forum is thereby notified, but whether or how long it will take before they do anything about it, I have no idea.
The(ir) King James NOVEL is also considered to be "very well written" by many, but it is also perverted and twisted in interpretation by those who would use it as a basis to do evil to all 'others'.
Maybe we should throw out everything (including any/all separation of church and state) and just use that 'good book' as the basis for our law, the way that the ChristoFASCIST NAZIS insist we do?!?
You may get your wish. There has been a movement on the right to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments, as allowed by Article V of the Constitution. That requires approval of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, and a number of Republican-dominated legislatures have already signed on. While that is not a bad idea in theory, in our hyper-polarized environment, I can imagine it turning into a brawl, with the dark money special interests prevailing.
As well as the voraciously loud Q'aNAZIS and general fascists prevailing (YES, basically the same thing as dark money/big corporations prevailing). :( :(
you cannot disregard scotus because the constitution is established by a union of the people governed by the people. without the constitution there is no union of the people to govern
it's up to us to decide who runs the country and how. that's our job.
The majority are also ethically challenged. Thomas and Alito freely admit they apply "natural law" before the Constitution. Same guys cannot follow the rules for financial disclosure, refused to disclose apparent conflicts although they are held to an "appearance of impropriety" standard.
SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make laws or enforce the law. They only have the authority to interpret the law. They have obviously gone off the rails and are illegitimate and unethical. According to the Constitution, they should be impeached, but we have seen how that doesn't work with the unsuccessful impeachment of Trump. Thomas Jefferson stated that each generation "has a right to decide "the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness."
actually no. the usa is a common law country. MOST law in the us is common law, which is the sum of all us and prior to the us, uk court rulings
the constitution says the supreme court is both a law court and a court of equity
quote The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.endquote
a court of equity writes law where law does not exist except common law
quote: A court of equity, also known as an equity court or chancery court, is a court authorized to apply principles of equity rather than principles of law to cases brought before it. These courts originated from petitions to the Lord Chancellor of England and primarily heard claims for relief other than damages, such as specific performance and extraordinary writs.endquote
unless there is a written law which supersedes common law, the supreme court is specifically a court of equity and the constitution requires it to oversee all equity courts in the country. bankruptcy courts are courts of equity. various special courts such as the veterans administration review court and others, courts for alcoholic and drug addiction defendants, etc. where judges use judgements based on individual cases and casework.
SCOTUS 1819 McCulloch v Maryland rules that the us is the union of the people governed by the people for the sake of the people, written by chief justice John Marshall. who wrote a law not in the constitution which became the fundamental law of the whole US. later amendments 13 14 15 19 incorporate that rule into the constitution explicitly
the current roberts court is systematically trying to overturn McCulloch v Maryland and write corporations in and people out
roberts says the court alone is responsible for the behavior of anyone on the court. justices are literally immune he says ... the supreme court alone can reprimand itself which is frankly absurd
I would be VERY worried about re-writing the Constitution by contemporary operators. Amendments have fixed some of its needed changes.
Do you want a group that included Bill Barr, Samuel Alito, Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, George "W" Bush, Leo Leopold et al re-writing the CONSTITUTION??!!
Rewriting the Constitution is a chaotic process that could turn the US into a theocracy and undo all our rights. Progressives would not be the majority doing the writing, folks.
Those White, slave owning aristocrats as you call them did a pretty good job of giving birth to a democratic nation that still stands today as a shining beacon or freedom to the mostly undemocratic world. No group of men and women in this day and age could do it better and shouldn’t even try to. Happy 4th to you, too.
Our founding fathers had NO intention of creating a democracy and they didn't. They created a republic with representatives who make the laws (not us) and a Supreme Court which is not chosen by anyone but the President (not us). At our nation's birth only white land owning men could vote. Little by little blacks and women got the right to vote but we still haven't passed the Equal Rights amendment making women equal to men in this country. And gays and trans people have no Federal protections at all and are legally discriminated against in many states. We are not a democracy except in generally accepted myth and in the hopes of many for a real democracy. We are a corporate oligarchy which is inimical to anything even beginning to resemble a democracy. But we keep deluding ourselves........
Obviously not the lib-driven democracy/republic you would prefer, but still a democracy (as, say, favorably compared to a dictatorship) where voter sentiments are filtered thru their elected legislatures. Say what you want, and of course you will, but our democrattic republic, with the possible English Commos an exception, is the best the world has ever seen or will ever see. So, get used to never getting everything you want. No one in a democracy/republic ever does.
We almost LOST that little bit of actual democracy we have when the (your??) rightwingnut fascists tried to overthrow this government and install said DICTATORSHIP in a violent, enraged attempt to "get everything THEY want".
Of course, aided, abetted, and cajoled to do so by a wannabe DESPOT and it's outright fascism demanding minions.
This democracy has proven to be way, way, way too fragile to the whims of the authoritarians, and MUST BE strengthened by eliminating the effing POS Electoral College which guaranteed the wealthy white supremacists who wrote the laws, their free labor. ;)
Google best democracies in the world. Check out South Africa. We are not that. We rank as having the worst healthcare of any industrialized country often for twice the cost. Other countries do many things better than the US. Continuing the delusion that we are the best doesn’t allow for introspection and positive problem solving.
I think maybe you are a tad confused with the word 'Democracy'? When you cast spurious claims as to another's VOTW and it's meaning (interpretation) it's helpful to check your own assumptions.
Types of democracy as follows and right now America is the divided states of the US, pretty much the same as post the Civil War
They were, in fact, wealthy white, slave-owning, land-owning Aristocrats. This is important to remember, simply because many situations common today are universes beyond what any of them could have predicted. If you’re saying that it wasn’t their job to decide legal questions that didn’t exist at the time, then I’d ask you why we’re still using their admittedly out-of-date document to decide legal questions that didn’t exist at the time.
Sure enough. I'd just lob you a small suggestion. In phrasing, use 'democratic government' instead of "democratic nation". Thanks! Have a great day, and a super 4th!
Thanks. Another commenter said, correctly, that ours is not a true democracy (you’ll only find that at Maine town hall meetings) but a republic, to which I add, as Lincoln said in his Gettysburg address, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Mr Lincoln was the master of small, confident steps. So much we see today demonstrates how our leaders rush blindly and point to the wind, that is really just history and their followers catching up.
What Fay Reid said...It’s not the fault of the Constitution. It’s the fault of republicans. The Constitution works very well. It’s the willingness of both the Supreme Court and republicans to operate corruptly that’s the problem.
It's the fault of language. A written document can be interpreted to mean just about whatever you want. That's why corporate lobbying is free speech (First Amendment) and teenagers can buy machine guns (Second Amendment) for example.
The Constitution served this country well at its inception. IMHO it's time to go back to case law, like in England.
I don't know about expanding it but some type of reform as to how justices are appointed to the court would greatly improve the present system where the president fills an opening, and term limits would be something to consider.
Won't change a thing. The process by which SCOTUS judges are chosen and approved by the Senate assures that ONLY GOP-approved nominees will be placed on the SCOTUS bench. In the minority in the Senate, the Republicans will simply filibuster to Doomsday. In the majority in the Senate it will be a repeat of the McConnell-Garland fiasco. That is, ONLY GOP-approved nominees will be approved.
If SCOTUS were to be expanded to, say 15, what We would most likely be trading in Our 6-3 split for a 12-3 split. Even if it means that the GOP has to wait until they have both the WH and the Senate.
That is why, CaptainPatch we need to dispense with the filibuster. It is not in the Constitution. It is not a Law signed by the President. It is a Senate rule - like turn off the lights if you are the last to leave. Another rule we need to get rid of in both houses is the one that allows the Senate Majority leader and the House Speaker to dump any legislature he/she disagrees with into a drawer (same as a round file in essence) a practice Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy have used to successfully see that only their party's legislation is assigned to committees. This is certainly against the will of the voters who are "supposed" to be the beneficiaries of elective Representatives and Senators. We in blue States have no votes.
UNFORTUNATELY, the ONLY people that have the Power to make such changes are the ones that most benefit from the status quo: "Our" (supposedly) elected legislators. They refuse to change those rules because they _want_ those rules. The GOP because they already know their value to their partisan politics. The Dems because IF the shoe is ever on the other foot and something really, really important comes along, they may want to use those rules themselves.
As long as it is the Parties that get to choose just who We are permitted to vote for -- because "EVERYBODY knows" only a Democrat or a Republican stands a decent chance of winning they they don't want to "waste their vote" on those candidates they ACTUALLY want -- We can be certain "our" legislators don't work for Us.
How true! But at this point we can’t even get the President we vote for. Which is why we need to call/email our state representative and push for the popular vote!
Good point. Should they ever see the handwriting on the wall about an impending turnover in the Senate majority, I suspect that THEN they'll put it back. Filibustering, after all, favors whoever is in the Minority. Then again, looking at the ages and health of the SCOTUS justices, it's going to be quite awhile before the next opening. (And I seriously doubt that Congress will allow the proposed SCOTUS expansion.)
The “1” is for long distance. The area code starts with “7”. I am getting texts as well. At first I thought it was just me. But then I see you are as well. I get responses but not quickly.
That message is repeatedly sent so as to be ANNOYING! Is that the PURPOSE??
It makes me think someone HAS hacked in with a BOT or something that repeats. Seems like something the Russians would do or the Republicans...
It's a scammer of some sort, who has posted several comments as well, asserting he's the real Robert Reich. They are full of grammatical & punctuation errors, proving that it's not Robert Reich, but most likely a Russian troll.
The six republican extremists on the SCOTUS are intent on remaking American society in their image by hook or crook (or both).
Extremist are zealots, like Trump's MAGA hordes, so historical facts (and in the case of the six SCOTUS extremists) established precedents mean nothing, as long as they can twist meanings to fit their immutable preconception of their ideal (dystopian) society.
Thus, the SCOTUS has become the least accountable, unconstitutional, unethical and authoritarian branch of the Federal government and we are all in peril, as a result.
And the ruling in favor of the homophobic web designer was based on a hypothetical case--an out and out lie. It seems the only ones who will experience “specific harm” are the LBGTQ community--certainly not the fraudster who brought this case to court.
This is phishing by someone fraudulently representing him/herself as Robert Reich. I just reported them and urge others to do the same. Click the three dots on the post to report.
The Supreme Court is rapidly becoming a sham. Upholding the laws of the land should be its prime function and the politicizing of this body is becoming its downfall. When the countries populace begins loosing confidence in the highest court in the land, we the people are on a slippery slope.
The Supreme Court is behaving as if it supersedes the other branches of government and is not subject to checks and balances or any oversight. This is dangerous for democracy.
In a similar vein, how did the case of the non-existent web design service with the non-existent harm from the non-existent customer who was not even gay ever make it to the Supreme Court, no less obtain a judgment there? Where were all the people pointing out these facts, all this time? And why did the other side not know or pursue these issues?
It's like my concern about the legitimacy of the Congress. Fake resumes, dirty , maybe even foreign money, shared with three others with similar resumes, who may have been seated in Congress. Is there any truth to this? If so, why no investigation? Why is Santos still in Congress and voting as if he is legitimate?
They probably ensured his victory in the Senate race because of this. Since I don't want to lose any of the 3 major Democratic candidates for the California Senate, I was hoping that his main opponents, Barbara Lee & Katie Porter, would withdraw their campaigns & galvanize around Schiff to show their solidarity with him, & defend their House seats.
I absolutely agree with you. This Court is out of control and needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary. And in the case of Lorie what’s-her-name in Colorado who didn’t want to have to design websites for gay couples planning their wedding, the Court decided in her favor, ignoring the fact that a bogus email—which didn’t even request help designing a website—was used to create standing even though it was dated the day AFTER the lawsuit was filed. Furthermore, the email’s address and identity of the man was stolen, and the man from whom it was stolen has adamantly reported this to the media.
the 'Supreme' court is acting like a crime syndicate rubber stamp; probably because the majority of them have been bought or brought by one ; the Republican party.
Impeach and convict Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes and then unlawfully refusing to recuse themselves from cases involving their bribers. Can't be done until 2025. Bur historically more judges have been successfully impeached and removed from office than presidents
Get those who lied in their confirmation hearings on perjury, and remove them! Thomas and Alito on taking bribes and not reporting the gifts. that should clean things up.
Is the current court returning to "Irish Need Not Apply" and restrictions on school and services for American Black People? Perhaps the republican justices should have had to study history, literature, and sociology instead of what seems to me to be a total immersion in abstract law!
Joan I wish they had total immersion in any law, abstract or otherwise. Some of the decisions handed down last week were not only Unconstitutional, they weren't even lawful. The religious decision on the Colorado anti-LGBTQ+ for instance was based on a lie that the lower courts should have thrown out as baseless. It should ever even have reached the Supreme Court. It is no wonder American have lost their faith in the highest Court in the land. This is a tragedy for all law abiding citizens.
Yes, my first thought was the Supreme Court will overthrow this, and then I realized this WAS the Supreme Court. I've heard better arguments from high school debaters.
It should surprise no one that a Supreme Court that allowed to stand a Texas law that empowers otherwise disinterested citizens of the state to sue abortion providers, and anyone who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion, for a $10,000 bounty despite plaintiffs’ clear lack of standing to sue or ability to demonstrate they suffered actual harm, should now formalize a thorough dismantling of the very foundation of American civil law.
There is a remedy, however: using these SCOTUS decisions as precedent, disinterested third parties must begin suing anyone and everyone, from one end of this country to the other, not despite their lacking standing and ability to prove harm, but precisely BECAUSE they cannot prove it, until it sews so much chaos within the civil court system, so overburdening them and judges unsure as to how to proceed with even the most routine cases, that it forces a reckoning among the public and, most particularly, businesses, whose ability to function in the the face of what, under normal and sensible conditions would be considered spurious and vexatious lawsuits, will grind to a halt. It is only tangible, real-world consequences — adverse to the point of disastrous — that will force SCOTUS to, if you will, sue for peace and revisit their decision.
A great, and perhaps the only, way to fight back since there seems to be zero political will on either side in Congress to expand the Court which is what needs to happen.
Avie Hern ; there seems no limit to treachery when the 'Supreme' court can allow a state to declare open season on women who are expecting a child. the 'bounty hunter's only interest (besides hate) would be the $10,000; greed. that was the tip off that things were awry!
Dr. Reich, thank you for clarifying who has really been packing the court by not allowing the Senate to vote on nominees appointed by Democrats. Republicans have been getting away with dirty politics for decades. They have to be defeated at the polls and exposed for their lies and bad faith in governance. As for the sham justices who seem unable or unwilling to recognize whether or not a case has standing, or what constitutes speech, Congress must act to ensure the justices are not above the law. Our current Supreme Court is the laughing stock of the world. That’s what happens when the hard work of democracy is taken for granted. We all have our duty to protect our rights and freedoms. Voters must vote in good faith for the best candidates rather than for cynical objectives that become Pyrrhic victories. The President must consider increasing the number of Supreme Court justices and agreeing to term limits as you have advocated for. The current Chief Justice has an inexplicable notion of the expansiveness of his authority and needs to answer to the Senate. He refuses and his lack of compliance and professional courtesy need to be questioned.
Hi Marge. I have some fond memories of MN. I live in Upstate NY, land of Elise Stefanik and Brandon Williams. The indignity of having them represent NY! A lot of MAGAs around here. A few were caught participating in the insurrection on 1/6. They shouldn’t be voting for a few years, but their enablers are still in office.
I’m so sorry for your wackadoodle representatives. Of course we had our own Michelle Bachman. And let’s not forget that we elected Jesse “The Body” Ventura as governor some years ago. We’re not perfect but I’m ecstatic that we have a trifecta now and are passing some very progressive policies/laws. I do tremble at the thought that a conservative backlash is inevitable.......
Hi Marlo. I am a private citizen and retired. I’m not an authority on anything but my own opinion, and I feel comfortable sharing within this community. I am not familiar with the Nextdoor community. I stay away from most social media. If you want to use my words as a topic of discussion without my name that’s fine.
Too late for not wanting to politicize the court. That ship sailed when pitiful Clarence Thomas was confirmed to replace intellectual giant Thurgood Marshall.
Way too idealistic to ever pass but I agree with most of your points. If I ran the country ….. things would be different. My mean dog would make a better SC Justice than the ones appointed by our corrupt former and ex Presidents.
These corrupt SC Justices are hate mongering slime bags. I do wish something could be done about this blatant disregard for the will of the people. The only way to counter this is to expand the number of Justices to 13. Biden is against that.
It’s very sad. I’m traveling now and Europe seems much more civilized at least on the surface. Sad that the US is no longer the great country it once was - it’s has been declining since the 60s. - which is accelerating more now than GLOBAL WARMING!
You are so right, the United States isn't a great nation any longer. I has been in a steep decline since the 60s. When Donald TUMP came onto the scene in 2015 the USA dropped off of a cliff in less greatness. I have been talking with this lady sometimes that immigrated from the USA to Canada, and she told me the difference between Canada is astounding. She told me she moved there so her children would not have to worry about getting shot and killed at school from a crazed killer with an AR 15 rifle. She is thriving there and loves it there.. I am going to Canada if somehow the orange baboon steals the election next year and becomes the United States first dictator. I am not going to tolerate his insane BS.
Look what that crook Clarence Thomas' wife did, according to what i have read, she had a part in planning that JAN 6 insurrection and riots at the Capitol building. And the asshat knew darn well all this time what she did..
1. Statutes of Limitations are reasonable, depending on the crime. There is no limitation on murder, for instance. Perhaps they could be changed so that physical abuse against persons under the age of 18 have no limitations, for instance. But petty theft? It's not worth the court's time.
2. Ridiculous sentencing, the reason for these seemingly stupid sentences is the equally ridiculous parole regulations. A life sentence is 20 to 25 years depending on the state. But with time off for "good behavior" it can end even earlier. Perhaps we just need to put teeth into life sentence without possibility of parole.
3. Agreed. 4. Requires a Constitutional Amendment - good luck with that.
5. There is nothing in the Constitution that even suggests lifetime appointments, what it says is "during good behavior" and there are rules set up (which were routinely enforced in the 19th century) when many judges at all levels were impeached AND convicted for bad behavior.
6 Agreed. 7. Articl;e 2 section 2 "and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Trump probably overstepped his 'power' . but again it requires an Amendment to change.
8. A "flat tax" is exceedingly regressive and hurts the poor and middle classes excessively while giving the wealthiest enormous tax breaks. Take a person working at $15/hour full time. That is $31,200 per year at even 10% flat tax that is $3,120 a huge burden relative to his total income, but to a multi millionaire earning $312,000,000 a year $31,200,000 is chump change and with all the loop holes they get granted plus the ability to hide a large portion of that money offshore or just hidden in "creative accounting" their real tax share wouldn't even amount to 0.1%. The IRS tries to fit the tax to the ability to pay, but with all the Republican (supported by some Democrats) tax cuts and loop holes our entire tax structure needs an overhaul.
9 though12 Agreed. 13. Expansion would be ok, term limits - which would be Constitutional would be better. especially if they were staggered.
I agree with everything but the flat tax, which disproportionately affects people in lower income strata. There are other ways to get more revenue for infrastructure, safety net programs, healthcare, etc. Use them all! Luxury tax, tax on wealth as well as income for the richest, penalties for off-shoring to avoid taxes, shoring up the IRS with the expertise to actually audit the intentionally complex finances of the rich, etc.
Sam, great ideas! But with regard to 3. the exception of Majority rules for the Presidency, there is currently a push to have the National Vote be the determining factor, not the electorate. So whoever wins the National Vote would win the election.
This Supreme Court is corrupt and unethical because there are no consequences. Just like those in Congress who aided and abetted the attempted overthrow of our government. Unless they are held accountable, removed, indicted and imprisoned, we can expect more of this destruction of our Democracy.
Chief Justice Roberts is now whining the court is not being respected by we, the People. That’s both rich and pathetic. He and his wife are just as corrupt as the other members.
The only way forward to change this, is to vote for Democrats to achieve a majority in both House and Senate, and then begin impeachments.
I remember as a child being taught the Supreme Court were the best legal minds in the country, who protected our rights and the Constitution. Sadly it is now a corrupt sham.
Neither had Lorie Smith suffered a specific injury -- or any injury at all. By the parameters you're talking about, the usual test of standing, she had no standing either. This court acts like standing ain't even a thing.
That's right, her case never should have made it to the Supreme Court. It's infuriating
Agreed. In fact, it shouldn't have made it to ANY court!
Right! If what I'm reading in multiple sources is true, the company that was supposedly injured didn't even exist.
The company [or the person running the graphic business] in the other case may exist, but the Gay boogeymen don't exist. That is, no gay couple tried to hire this person to do anything.
The case that Reich is referring to presents basically the same issue but the fact arrangement is different. In that case, the State is claiming to be the "injured party" even though it's not directly affected either
I was going to bring that up. In fact, that is what I initially thought Dr. Reich was going to talk about. It just reinforces his argument. I wasn't aware of that aspect of the Missouri case.
Jaime, yes, the SC loved the MO case because it let them screw the Democrats with the state's made-up standing. It worked well as has every other appalling ruling this court has done since Johnny R became Chief, a known racist and misogynist. Baby Bush looked hard for someone who would look distinguished (I hear Roberts looks distinguished) and had a record that was not too blatant, but certain in its racism, misogyny, homophobia, and willingness to do whatever the Republican Party wanted him to do. It is interesting that Baby Bush played as a guy who supported "minorities" through appointments like Powell and Rice, but in reality, he picked folks who would go along with whatever Bush told them and lie when expected to. I find that pretty racist of Bush, even though I somewhat admired both Powell and Rice. I get it that they were in difficult positions and wanted to be role models for Black Americans. Unfortunately, their efforts did not advance Black people much because of the groundwork Bush helped lay in the Party for undermining our nation and our democracy with its desire to return to the Jim Crow days. It's terrible, but how can we stop it when we can't even get Biden to see that an expanded SC is a critical tool to save our "justice" system?
"Baby Bush" as you call him, or "Shrub" as the late, great Molly Ivins called him, is a pseudo-President and an uncharged war criminal. His Supreme Court appointees continue to enact the will of America's version of "Brahmins." What Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld's conniving lies did are in a long line of lies and deceptions our government "leaders" have used to get done what they want done, on the backs and out of the wallets of willing followers. We desperately need government reform, both parties, all levels. Fix the Supreme Court. Fix/eliminate the Electoral College. Fix our elections system (put Jocelyn Benson in charge!). Get rid of Louis DeJoy (USPS - SAVE the USPS!!). Fix the methods used to "vet" nominees to the courts, most critically the lifetime appointments like the Supreme Court and absolutely repudiate the Federalist Society and it's like as an incubator of "Illuminati" judges AND prosecute judicial nominees who LIE to Congress in their hearings!
And while we're at it, disbarment and criminal charges against Bill Barr, just to give even a weak nod to the much- touted rule of law! I imagine he thought that if he did enough "consigliere" work for his "Don" he might be on the Supreme Court by now. Instead, that mouthpiece for elected criminals and their mob cult, is all over the media pontificating and evaluating the VERY PEOPLE and IDEAS HE enabled!
There's a lot of reform and correction needed. Let's get going!
Ahh Molly Ivins. I miss her acerbic and laser-focused dismantlings of 43 and his cronies. Her wit in observing and reporting truth are sorely missed.
B-R-A-V-O, Annie! Agree 1000% on all counts. Shrub's misdeeds have been swept under the rug, and he still needs to be called to account.
I blame Cheney as much or more than Shrub. War criminals.
And Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and a bunch of others. All part of PNAC.
And shrub didn’t even win an election, his brother Jeb! did it for him.
With crucial help from the Republican Supreme Court.
Well Ruth, I completely agree. I just don’t understand why republicans can’t figure out they’re
supporting politicians who are actively trying to remove their freedoms. But it’s not just that, they want to totally change our way of life-not for the better, but for the worse.
The republican majority on the Supreme crt were chosen by the Federalist Society to do exactly what they’re doing. Just like the Republican party has backed only idiots who would agree to do what they
are told. It would be almost impossible to randomly
have that many shameless idiots in Congress at once. Choosing those people was part of a decades long plan, just like Citizens United was part of their plan.
If the Supreme Court majority isn’t even bothering to insist on “standing” anymore, it may be more important to to address them than anything else.
They’re on summer break, so dems have a couple of months to figure out what they’re going to do, but
even if they have a plan, it may require republican votes to get it passed.
Susan, I don't get it either, first that a once-respected political party would have sold out for less than mediocre representation all over the country and is willing to give away its rights or rather, the rights of their constituents. They have become fascist, deny it, but keep moving further into fascism. I just wish Democrats would call them out on it more regularly and itemize what they are doing and the harm it is causing. The next problem, how to get the media to cover what they say because our media seems to be enthralled with the shenanigans of the Republican party and its toddler-leadership.
Well, I think it’s worth trying to “shame” the media
with a grassroots campaign of sorts. If enough people post comments about it maybe it’ll have some affect. Same goes for corporations. There are long-term consequences for their support of fascist ideology that they wouldn’t like, but they, like
the media, seem unable to grasp that. It very similar to the oil & gas industry. They are hell-bent on making as much money as possible for as long as possible without regard for consequences. That’s grossly irresponsible, but if people aren’t complaining about it they have no reason to change.
Same for the pharmaceutical industry. Republicans have coddled to these entities and blocked legislation meant to rein them in for far too long.
Hey Ruth, I think President Biden understands the need to expand the Supreme Crt., have term limits for Justices and a code of ethics. I don’t know this for a fact, but I think he’s hesitating because of the 2024 election. As we all know, Republicans make mountains out of molehills...and that’s putting it nicely. They’ve thoroughly brainwashed their supporters to believe anything Trump or his GOP Congressional colleagues say with zero evidence.
There might be enough republicans in the House that would agree to a code of ethics for the Supreme Crt, but I doubt they would agree to have substantial penalties for failure to comply, so what would be the point? If President Biden tries to expand the Court, I don’t know if he literally needs an act of Congress to do that, if he could do it via executive order or what
other process might be available.
Right now Republicans say they’re going to impeach Sec. Mayorkas. For what, I don’t know. They also
say they’re going to impeach President Biden. Again,
I have no idea what their premise for doing that would be, but expanding the Court might qualify for today’s republicans. I doubt either Biden or Mayorkas would be forced out of their positions, but there’s no question that it would be a three-ring circus dragged out as long as possible.
So, it boils down to what’s more important--doing nothing about the Supreme Court & allow them to continue wreaking havoc when they re-convene after their summer break in order to not give republicans more ammunition, or if it’s possible,
expand the court, etc. without republican cooperation and by doing so risk the presidency. I realize it’s not that cut and dried, but it’s the basic framework that needs to be considered.
Susan, good explanation of the dilemma the president and the rest of us have related to our rogue SC. Those justices have clearly forgotten their oath and instead have been reworking the Constitution to their own personal beliefs. That is not what is supposed to happen in our democracy, but Roberts does not seem to ever have been too fond of democracy. His contempt of "average" Americans is evident and his racism and misogyny are also clear for all to see. His 5 other "conservatives" (I am not sure that this is the right term since what they are trying to create is not traditional conservatism, but white supremacy, white christian dominance, male supremacy, and more, want white men to rule with impunity. I read somewhere that the SC 6 want to be the unelected "president" and Congress and court all wrapped up in one ignorant fascist package. It sounds like reality to me. How do we get the word out. I know the SC is already pretty unpopular, but what good is that knowledge when they can still disrupt our lives because so many state legislatures are just loving all the pain the SC is causing, and all the power they are pushing into the hands of legislators who are white supremacists, as well as racists, homo/transphobes, xenophobes, and toddler-adults. We are in trouble. Biden and other administration officials need to be calling for a code of ethics and suggest things that should be in it, on a regular basis and force the media to cover that. Maybe they need to do something a bit outrageous at their press conferences and speeches and ribbon cuttings to get the media to notice. Republicans who have less to offer anyone constantly get media attention for their lying, cheating, and gaslighting. Dems need to do that for the truth and reality.
The correct term for them is "fascist". Alito & Thomas are full-blown fascists. The other 4 are borderline fascist.
I was so mad, I hastily ripped off a comment before seeing yours and others here. lol
Most of the time I comment before looking at other posts.
Ditto.
Of course, this can come back & bite them. We could just as easily not serve Christians, bigots or straight old white men, for example, due to our deeply held moral principles.
LOL
The Supreme Court has essentially wiped out precedent as a factor in deciding cases, along with ignoring what the Constitution says, not requiring any showing of injury by plaintiff, nor deferring powers of setting law to the legislative or executive branches, which means they can decide cases anyway they want & pursue whatever agenda they want
Very scary stuff.
Is there no check on the power of those in the Supreme Court majority to do what they will without legal obligation and to obliterate precedent with which they don’t politically agree? Apparently it ain’t even two things.
The supremes have now taken the role of God while being the dogs. They are there only to insure religion, and those who are rich and support religion, get their way. Their handlers are the Catholic bishops of America and, church history tells us it does not bode well for us. Church history tells us they are out to purge American society of non-christians and move right on to inquisitionsand demands that we all attend Sunday school. These sloths also want to change our laws to church law and our constitution to serve the church.
From a medical perspective they are like a cancer that is in need of removal. The fact that Biden won't do anything about this US travesty makes me wonder if he has made a pact with Faust.
Please read my response to Ruth Sheets. I think Biden is hesitating due to the 2024 election. Does he want to give republicans more ammunition to use against him right before the next election, or is it worthwhile or even possible (for that matter) to deal with the Court even if the republican majority House
won’t cooperate?
I fear we are tipping toward a theocracy.
Oh, we are tipping toward a theocracy, but I think most Americans don’t realize that. When they do,
I think it will galvanize voters to protest.
Susan, I can only hope that you are right, meaning left.
Right. It's like Mr. Toad's wild ride from Wind in the Willows.
As long as either the House or Senate has a republican majority there’s no way to deal with
the Supreme Court that I know of. Right now the House will block any attempt to check the Supreme court’s power.
I wonder if the specific injury she might suffer is a sudden lack of business, but I doubt it ..
It's not clear that she has a business or has ever designed any websites at all, let alone being forced to design them by crazy queer people.
They’ve further disgraced themselves by taking on a hypothetical case and actually ruling on it. What the heck is wrong with them?
Exactly. Forget standing, forget precedent, just goose it any way they want. They are totally running amok.
But what can we do to be heard? It is getting harder and harder to keep taking this blatant disrespect for not only the LAW but for all those of us who truly know the law and that we are to obey it but they don’t. There has to be a faster comeuppance.
Someone asked me today what being a patriot meant to me and I said, “ pay your taxes”!
That's a good question. A burning question. For now, call SCOTUS out on this, and keep calling them out, to anyone who will listen. Read Justice Sotomayor's dissent in full, if you can (it's available through the NPR website) to understand how blatantly this decision goes against precedent, and how wrong the majority are to use the First Amendment to shelter discrimination clothed under "freedom of speech." Don't give up!
No Darlin” ... they behave as though “Only They Know When a Thing is a Thing, how all of us should see/understand that Thing, and that also how we re entitled to engage with that Thing. From the very beginning of an any Dispute/Dialogue about that “Thing,” we are plunged into a Wonderland in which only the Red Queen has the right to set the Rules. John Roberts is a little more “subtle” than to actually yell, “Off With Their Heads,” but regardless of how he phrases his opinions - that’ the gist of what he’s saying and what .... from the depths of his White Male Privilege & Misogyny - that’s what he’s truly chosen to believe. It will be our Job, our Mission, and eventually our Privilege - to disabuse him of these notions.
For a Court majority that claims to be recovering the "traditional," and the desires of the Founders, they sure are breaking new and questionable juridical ground. They should be labeled the "Cowboy Court." Rogue justices, making it up as they go along . . .
Yes. Maybe even...Kangaroo Court?
Why is the man Lorie Smith falsely claimed was seeking her help with a gay marriage web site not suing her for defamation?
Is this you, Robert Reich, or a scam? The real Robert Reich should have access to our emails and let us know if he wishes to communicate with us outside the sub stack.
SCAM. There seems to be no policing of this kind of thing.
I get these phony RR postings now every week.
This spambot has been VERY active the past two days, commenting on HUNDREDS of posts! Just report the bot AND the comment as many times as you are able or willing.
I've been seeing this same jack-ass, posing as Robert Reich, & posting on RR's posts for at least 3-4 days now....& it smells awfully fishy, doesn't it, folks??!! Most likely it's a damn troll...??!!
Report it. It’s garbage.
Yeah! I've already done it! 👍
I clicked on his face and it took me to a profile page with nothing on it - no notes or anything else! So I then clicked on the 3 dots that brings down the choices to report whether it's spam or someone pretending to be someone else, and if you want them blocked. I did that.
I got a message like this ostensibly from you. I can't text. Only email.
Was suspicious from the get go as I have written directly to Professor Robert Reich on some very serious matters that have been discussed here over the past 12 months, in addition to POTUS & VP of which I have not had any response, not that I expected any from POTUS or VP, both impotent Politically, Party wise, systemic and endemic not to mention conflicts of interest. Even paid A$34.00 to have the same details mailed to The White House as per the switchboard operators instructions.
Yep, exactly, Daniel. Reported it a couple days ago, but evidently nothing has been done yet. Platform admins should have blocked the IP address, I would think.
I got two of these messages also. I am dubious that Dr Reich would send this. The cross emoji also does not seem like him. I did text back and now I wonder what scam I have subjected myself to?!?!?
I did, too, but fortunately I got the number wrong.
I've had at least five of these now and no, I'm not opening them at all!
Hmmmm... Robert Reich would at least make sure that any reply to us would be grammatically correct, unlike the one to you, Gloria. Very un-RR!
Also as you already pointed out in another comment, this scammer has already given several different numbers
:-) Sometimes it pays to be tech illiterate. I got a similar reply and had no idea what it meant. I thought it was some kind of "like". Was a bit confused about the cross. Basically ignored it. What a world. One can't trust anything anymore! We're in a state of perpetual paranoia.
The attack of the Putiebots. ;)
David, What's a Putiebot? I don't understand tech and definitely don't speak the language :-)
Jaime - I have kept track. There are 3 different numbers so far. I don't know if they can be tracked. Someone is trolling, for sure.
I received the same in an email.i thought it was strange and ignored it. What I wonder about is how my email got out to a bot. Has this server been compromised? Does the reich wing now have all of our emails?
Dr.Reich can you please weigh in on this. These phone numbers could be capturing our phone numbers. For what nafarious reason we do not know. Will we all start getting bot calls from tRumps brown shirts?
I keep getting receipts for sub stacks I don't remember subscribing to.
Yes, I’ve been seeing these sent to my email and I believe it’s a troll.
I have been reporting whoever this imposter is. I am thinking it’s a BOT inserted by the Russians who want their puppet Trump to win. Got most of them removed.
The same message was posted repeatedly on “Steady” Dan Rather’s Substack recently, with the same phone # to text.
how do you report this?
Click on the three horizontal dots next to the "reply" icon, then click "report," and go from there.
Thanks.
Glad to help. Boot the trolls!
I have also gotten 2 of these messages n my e-mail asking me to text him at that #. Is someone trying to steal identities? Can sub stack block this and block ncestigate?
Report the troll impersonating the read RR.
How does one report a scammer to Substack?
I posted this earlier - perhaps it will be helpful. I suspect there's some kind of malware afoot.
NOTE: For those of you having issues with an apparent comment back from Prof. Reich, it's been seen on earlier substacks. I suggest reporting it here - https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/5780787855252-How-do-I-report-a-comment- . It does get cleaned up, but apparently there is a larger issue since it seems to be cropping up repeatedly.
Thank you
I ignore the faux robert.
I even get texts!
Hmmm... Why would this scammer think that no one is going to notice the +17 (Bahamas) country code?
Jeff, thanks for noticing that. Trolls and scammers entertain themselves by trying to introduce a tad of chaos or uncertainty. I hope he (it is probably a he) is satisfied and will move on. He is not appreciated here.
I’m ignorant of country codes. But what does responding (which I did) subject me to?
Yes. I delete the emails instead of clicking, frightened of what might happen if I click it. Maybe nothing, maybe they send out feelers to see if a vulnerable user, will start to engage, and for those they have a plan. Extracting money (“for Robert”) or something?
Your private number keeps changing.
Yes, my version had a different number also.
Liar. I have clicked on your so-called profile picture and it took me to a dummy site with no information or history. Nice try, comrade. I have reported you and blocked you, so f*** right off.
Everybody, note that the above post containing 10 words also contains 7 grammatical or punctuation errors. Would Robert Reich ever post a comment with such poor English? You all know the answer to that question.
Hmmm... Why would this scammer think that no one is going to notice the +17 (Bahamas) country code?
The “1” is for long distance. The area code starts with “7”. I am getting texts as well. At first I thought it was just me. But then I see you are as well. I get responses but not quickly.
That message is repeatedly sent so as to be annoying. It makes me think someone HAS hacked in with a BOT or something that repeats. Seems like something the Russians would do or the Republicans...
Marlo. I suspect this is entertainment for him. There is no pattern I can discern as to when the messages come. It seems this jerk has a way onto this thread and just drops junk into people's sections of the thread wherever he can, just for laughs, or he is getting paid from someone to do it, thinking it will disrupt sufficiently to make people want to leave the thread. How pathetic if that is his useless job. Another thought is that he is trying to see what he can get away with so he can do some real damage in the future.
I think it is PURPOSEFUL, from the political opposition. It’s creepy they have hacked in to have my phone number. I wonder what OTHER information they have?? Mr Reich should put out a breach notice!
Sometimes I think that Russians and Republicans are the same thing, what with Ruskie disinformation on FOX! Jack Smith needs to prosecute, if only to show Fox watchers what garbage they are ingesting.
Randy, I suspect the Republican Party and Russian operatives have cross-pollinated, sharing the new techniques they have learned to brainwash, lie, abuse or usurp the media, gaslight, push incompetent candidates for office or positions within the government, etc. That should be seen as criminal, but somehow Republicans in leadership don't find themselves held accountable for anything. I hope the Trump and Santos indictments lead an avalanche of demands for accountability among Republican leadership.
Oh ya. Divisive Russian misinformation being picked up by Fox is a huge problem. And yes again to the idea that it should be seen as criminal.
Agree!
Russofascists & republofascists are practically indistinguishable. From his poor English, one might surmise that he's Russian, but then, Republicans are so poorly educated.
or the fact that this is a HIGHLY educated and/or intelligent group of people.
I think this is a US number with a 737 area code.
Who cares? It is clearly not valid or worth taking time to figure out. It is not Robert so don't give it any more of your time.
Obviously, many people here care.
Hey Jaime, does the number give a name if Googled?
I have no idea, Ruth.
The "real" Robert Reich comment would have the word "Author" and a pen symbol by the name. You are a fraud!
Over a dozen mistakes in grammar, punctuation & capitalization in the above post
No "Author" or pen symbol by the name = Fraud!
It's long past time to expand the Supreme Court.
Or, actually, abolish it. Oh wait, that would be unconstitutional. Then how about rewriting the Constitution? Or simply use it as a base for case law, like the Magna Carta, and then abolish SCOTUS?
It's been 236 years since this document was written by white, slave-owning, male aristocrats. And it's so open to interpretation that it really has little place in modern life. Money is free speech, teenagers can buy machine guns, now students cannot get redress from loan sharks.
The Constitution got this country off to a great start. Time to move on.
I disagree, Michael. The Constitution has been needlessly subjected to interpretation, but if read as written, with no one skewing it to fit their personal prejudices and biases. It is very well written and still pertinent today. What we need to do is pass legislation to prevent others from interpreting the written word to mean something other than is written.
Fay, I agree that it's well-written, however ALL language is open to interpretation. Even the legislation you propose would be to prevent others from interpreting the document differently from the way YOU want it interpreted.
There are no absolutes here, which is why the 5 originalists on the court should not be on the court. Better still, SCOTUS should not exist. There's a good precedent: English Law is Case Law, based on current judicial decisions made by regular courts in every era - reflecting continuously changing modern societies - rather than on interpretations of an 800 year old document known as the Magna Carta.
Case in point: Roe v Wade. Settled Law, right? It would have been in England, but in the US, hell no, it was open to interpretation by the originalist perjurers, now on SCOTUS, who were appointed by a fascist moron with a very bad orange combover.
The thing is, Michael, their Constitutional reference in Dobbs was correct. There is no mention of "abortion" anywhere in the Constitution, therefor if there is to be any law or regulation regarding abortion it is given to the States and the people, per Amendment 10. To my way of thinking (opinion) since there are no State laws pertaining to appendectomies or colectomies, there should be no laws against abortion. There are no laws against treatment of testicular cancer either. Abortion, whether spontaneous (miscarriage) or elective is a medical procedure and should involve only the patient (necessarily female) and her licensed physician. No laws are necessary. Religious laws are NOT civil laws and pertain only to members of that religion. Per Amendment 1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," I don't seen anything in that phrase suggesting 'unless the legislator or Supreme Court Justice has religious exceptions'.
The Ninth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. All the rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. In other words, the rights of the people are not limited to just the rights listed in the Constitution.
Alito and Thomas admit that they apply "natural law" before they apply the text of the Constitution. Natural law is Catholic dogma.
The right to privacy was fully expressed in GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT
U.S. Supreme Court 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Decided June 7, 1965. Douglas: We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Before the Constitution we had common law. which I argue includes a right to privacy, which was not a common term used in 1791, but which in part is expressed in among other places other amendments. The Third Amendment protects the zone of privacy in the home. Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fifth Amendment is the right to not testify against yourself during a trial. In the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to privacy is implied by the guarantee of due process for all individuals, meaning that the state cannot exert undue control over citizens' private lives.
At common law, the right of privacy is, most simply, the right of a person to be let alone, to be free from unwarranted publicity, and to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned. Strutner v. Dispatch Printing Co., 2 Ohio App. 3d 377 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County 1982).
A person has an actionable right to be free from the invasion of privacy. Black v. Aegis Consumer Funding Group, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2632 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2001). An actionable invasion of the right of privacy is the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality, the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities in such a manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
From the 13th century to the early 19th century induced abortion was legal under English common law, before the onset of quickening at 15 to 18 weeks gestation. However, to cause the death of an animate child in utero was considered homicide.
Thank you for this, Daniel. I'm still sticking to my own opinion on abortion. It should be covered under privacy as well. Marriage was an invention of MEN when Homo sapiens became "civilized" meaning an agricultural and therefor land owning society. Marriage determined the man's property rights in the female and in his offspring from her body. I'd hazard a guess that damned few women in the United States today would consider themselves and their children the property right of their husband. Opinion: I think it is this lingering property right in the minds of some men, that is responsible for the failure of the ERA amendment. Abortion, spontaneous or elective, is still and remains a medical procedure and therefor should not be in the realm of governmental regulation
Quickening is when the mother feels the life inside her. We now know that a fetus has a brain, nervous system, and feels pain much sooner. I believe a fetus should be protected. But in our for profit system it becomes a practical matter whether to have a child. No one is guaranteed food, shelter, or healthcare. That causes the mother's, and possibly her other children's interests to be in opposition to the unborn fetus' life in many cases. That is why the decision to end a pregnancy needs to be the mother's and why she should have early access to determine if she is pregnant and the ability to end the pregnancy in its earliest stages. This issue along with other cultural issues are used by the wealthiest through their bribed political puppets to sway the masses towards voting against their own economic interests.
And "Catholic dogma", as you so correctly call it, is directing too much of our government. What is profoundly disturbing is that our LAWS are not applied to criminals acting behind the veil of "Catholic dogma"!!
I think you know the Constitution considerably better than some of the Supreme Court justices, & we'd be better off if you were in the place of, say, Alito.
As much as I agree with the holding of Griswold, it seems to me that Hugo Black nailed the problem in his dissent:
"Dissents
Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart dissented from the Court's decision. Both justices' dissents argued that because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly mention privacy in any of its provisions, the Court had no basis to strike down Connecticut's Comstock Law. Black's dissent concluded: "I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."
If we want a federal right of privacy, individual dignity or access to health care, then amend or rewrite the constitution and include. Legislation alone will not survive constitutional review by these right-winger judges period
Very well said Daniel Solomon. You pegged it on the Catholic church. The Catholic bishops of America are now the handlers of the supreme court when it comes to the six. We need to get rid of this filth from out government.
I agree completely with your example of abortion, Fay. I also agree with Michael's point that all writing/language is subject to interpretation.
And if you need another example, just look at how Christians have used different interpretations of the Bible to justify any number of crimes, including the death penalty. They also conveniently disregard the teachings of Christ whenever they feel it doesn't apply in their situation. Like racism, or immigration, or gun laws. I could go on forever....
It needs some safeguards. No lifetime terms and lying during confirmation gets you booted off. If you break any law you are booted. These dudes and chick are now seen to be public liars. No ethics. They can't be standards for justice. Kindergarten children are taught not to lie and cheat and take money for doing bad things.
Bad hair ex 'president' notwithstanding , how would ending SCOTUS help? the interpretation thing is always there isn't it? Along with semantics,( one of Bill Barr's favorites?) ; somebody has to decide where the rubber meets the road!? With messy Democracy, it would help to have a 'foolproof' vetting process. where is the 'candidate' justice 'coming from? what are their credentials? experience? track record? History of fairness? Taking bribes should be a no no ; can they pass a security clearance? Do they have debts? to whom?
Michael, “originalist perjurers” has a certain oomph! I like it.
One could argue it was well-written, but they still made LOTS of bone-headed blunders and terrible assumptions.
I think holding a Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea. The Heritage Foundation and ALEC have been hoping for this day for a long time. They already hold mock CC'c to prepare for this situation. They are decades ahead of us with these things. No way at this point and the condition the republican party is in, do we want to take that risk. The best way to avoid it is to get involved in local politics. They will need 3/4 of the states to ratify and we are dangerously close to it becoming a reality. Show up and vote for democrats and only democrats on all levels.
John, I totally agree. Right now we would run the risk of a rewritten Constitution that would turn us into a theocracy.
when do we stop making decisions out of fear, and stand up to bullies with a constitution that supports a multiracial pluralistic democracy. Keeping things the way they are is supporting the loss of rights and demise of democracy
I agree. However, They have been working at this a long time and we have not. They have the Supremes, they have the House let's not be hasty or we shoot ourselves in the foot. We need to strengthen our position on the battlefield before we strike. And that's what they believe this is, war. Have you seen the doc. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy? By Greg Palast, you'll see what I mean.
That's like saying the Bible should be interpreted as written. Written by whom? In what century and language. By the way, it's time to throw that out as well.
Fay, good point. I am not in favor of rewriting our Constitution. I do wish, though that the courts, particularly the SC would acknowledge and follow the Amendments as much as they pretend to do the body of the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment which they misused this past week to end Affirmative Action. Then, they looooove the 2nd Amendment which they deliberately misread to give their white male friends weapons they can use against their fellow citizens. For the SC conservatives, the first Amendment is just a suggestion and religion means only their branch of Christianity, speech means only what rich white men say, press means Fox and that crowd, assembly means only the people they like and agree with assembling, and petition something that can be ignored entirely. We need to expand the sC to get more actually qualified justices, give them 18-year term limits, expect a basic set of qualifications nominees must have before being considered, have a fixed code of ethics and actual punishments for those who break them including immediate removal from office, no impeachment nonsense, and other requirements to keep a super majority of any political point of view from sitting on the SC. That would be a good start.
Bravo!
This is exactly what the church members of the supreme Court want to do. Then they could write their own constitution which is exactly what the church wants again the Catholic bishops of America wants well as the Evangelicals want.
And application of amendment where necessary. Like amending the 2nd amendment.
I agree we need some amendments, but the second amendment is pretty clear as written. We just need to force the GOP and the Supreme Court to read the entire amendment AS written and not just the last phrase as currently interpreted. The whole Amendment 2 states "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You will notice the use of a comma, not a semi-colon, after the word 'State'. This indicates a single statement, not an either or. The weapons manufacturers and their lackeys in Congress have chosen to read only the last short phrase. Any smart attorney, cognizant of the English language could argue the overthrow of all legislation allowing the unalloyed purchase and use of weapons meant for use in war, not hunting or other sports. Plus the only well-regulated militia in United States today is the National Guard. The proud boys, oath keepers, neo-nazis, and white supremacists, would have a hard time arguing they were even regulated, let alone well-regulated.
Totally agreed with what you said. Unfortunately, those who are interpreting that amendment to mean that anyone has a right to any gun(s) they want without regulation are at present winning the argument due to judicial and legislative interpretations. At least there should be a clarification added, for those who seem to be morons and/or supporters of the gun manufacturers.
Good idea Cathie, but anyone trying to clarify the verbiage would do so in vain. the morons, their supporters and the weapons industry are making billions of dollars. And as you know in present day America MONEY is the new god those people worship.
Fay ; It looks like this forum has been compromised. Very concerning. I'm seeing comments that don't seem like what the poster usually would say. Something is off.
I wonder how the sender of the “text me” posts could be blocked? Everything else seems ok.
See the 3 dots to the right of "reply" at the lower right corner of your comment? Click on it & you'll see the word "report". Click on that & you'll get a box in which you can characterize the problem . Afterwards that post will disappear from view, but you can click it to view it. I assume the administrator of this comment forum is thereby notified, but whether or how long it will take before they do anything about it, I have no idea.
The(ir) King James NOVEL is also considered to be "very well written" by many, but it is also perverted and twisted in interpretation by those who would use it as a basis to do evil to all 'others'.
Maybe we should throw out everything (including any/all separation of church and state) and just use that 'good book' as the basis for our law, the way that the ChristoFASCIST NAZIS insist we do?!?
Yeah, much and many /s after that last line above. ;)
Oh thank goodness I thought you were mad.
Yeah, sometimes on here one must put those little /s denotes, as some actually cannot read the floodgates of snark flowing over the dam. ;)
You may get your wish. There has been a movement on the right to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments, as allowed by Article V of the Constitution. That requires approval of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, and a number of Republican-dominated legislatures have already signed on. While that is not a bad idea in theory, in our hyper-polarized environment, I can imagine it turning into a brawl, with the dark money special interests prevailing.
As well as the voraciously loud Q'aNAZIS and general fascists prevailing (YES, basically the same thing as dark money/big corporations prevailing). :( :(
Carolyn, I totally agree.
you cannot disregard scotus because the constitution is established by a union of the people governed by the people. without the constitution there is no union of the people to govern
it's up to us to decide who runs the country and how. that's our job.
IMHO there are criminal aspects.
The majority are also ethically challenged. Thomas and Alito freely admit they apply "natural law" before the Constitution. Same guys cannot follow the rules for financial disclosure, refused to disclose apparent conflicts although they are held to an "appearance of impropriety" standard.
DOJ should have been all over this, and determine whether crimes have been committed. Perjury. Bribery. Thomas' wife is implicated with the friggin' insurrection. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/06/15/ginni-thomas-john-eastman-emails/
SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make laws or enforce the law. They only have the authority to interpret the law. They have obviously gone off the rails and are illegitimate and unethical. According to the Constitution, they should be impeached, but we have seen how that doesn't work with the unsuccessful impeachment of Trump. Thomas Jefferson stated that each generation "has a right to decide "the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness."
actually no. the usa is a common law country. MOST law in the us is common law, which is the sum of all us and prior to the us, uk court rulings
the constitution says the supreme court is both a law court and a court of equity
quote The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.endquote
a court of equity writes law where law does not exist except common law
quote: A court of equity, also known as an equity court or chancery court, is a court authorized to apply principles of equity rather than principles of law to cases brought before it. These courts originated from petitions to the Lord Chancellor of England and primarily heard claims for relief other than damages, such as specific performance and extraordinary writs.endquote
unless there is a written law which supersedes common law, the supreme court is specifically a court of equity and the constitution requires it to oversee all equity courts in the country. bankruptcy courts are courts of equity. various special courts such as the veterans administration review court and others, courts for alcoholic and drug addiction defendants, etc. where judges use judgements based on individual cases and casework.
SCOTUS 1819 McCulloch v Maryland rules that the us is the union of the people governed by the people for the sake of the people, written by chief justice John Marshall. who wrote a law not in the constitution which became the fundamental law of the whole US. later amendments 13 14 15 19 incorporate that rule into the constitution explicitly
the current roberts court is systematically trying to overturn McCulloch v Maryland and write corporations in and people out
That last sentence makes me fear for the individuality of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Thank goodness for me that our lives are infinite!
roberts says the court alone is responsible for the behavior of anyone on the court. justices are literally immune he says ... the supreme court alone can reprimand itself which is frankly absurd
I would be VERY worried about re-writing the Constitution by contemporary operators. Amendments have fixed some of its needed changes.
Do you want a group that included Bill Barr, Samuel Alito, Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, George "W" Bush, Leo Leopold et al re-writing the CONSTITUTION??!!
Rewriting the Constitution is a chaotic process that could turn the US into a theocracy and undo all our rights. Progressives would not be the majority doing the writing, folks.
Those White, slave owning aristocrats as you call them did a pretty good job of giving birth to a democratic nation that still stands today as a shining beacon or freedom to the mostly undemocratic world. No group of men and women in this day and age could do it better and shouldn’t even try to. Happy 4th to you, too.
Our founding fathers had NO intention of creating a democracy and they didn't. They created a republic with representatives who make the laws (not us) and a Supreme Court which is not chosen by anyone but the President (not us). At our nation's birth only white land owning men could vote. Little by little blacks and women got the right to vote but we still haven't passed the Equal Rights amendment making women equal to men in this country. And gays and trans people have no Federal protections at all and are legally discriminated against in many states. We are not a democracy except in generally accepted myth and in the hopes of many for a real democracy. We are a corporate oligarchy which is inimical to anything even beginning to resemble a democracy. But we keep deluding ourselves........
Obviously not the lib-driven democracy/republic you would prefer, but still a democracy (as, say, favorably compared to a dictatorship) where voter sentiments are filtered thru their elected legislatures. Say what you want, and of course you will, but our democrattic republic, with the possible English Commos an exception, is the best the world has ever seen or will ever see. So, get used to never getting everything you want. No one in a democracy/republic ever does.
We almost LOST that little bit of actual democracy we have when the (your??) rightwingnut fascists tried to overthrow this government and install said DICTATORSHIP in a violent, enraged attempt to "get everything THEY want".
Of course, aided, abetted, and cajoled to do so by a wannabe DESPOT and it's outright fascism demanding minions.
This democracy has proven to be way, way, way too fragile to the whims of the authoritarians, and MUST BE strengthened by eliminating the effing POS Electoral College which guaranteed the wealthy white supremacists who wrote the laws, their free labor. ;)
Google best democracies in the world. Check out South Africa. We are not that. We rank as having the worst healthcare of any industrialized country often for twice the cost. Other countries do many things better than the US. Continuing the delusion that we are the best doesn’t allow for introspection and positive problem solving.
You can leave any time you want. Nobody’s holding you back. if you don’t love it, leave it, please.
I think maybe you are a tad confused with the word 'Democracy'? When you cast spurious claims as to another's VOTW and it's meaning (interpretation) it's helpful to check your own assumptions.
Types of democracy as follows and right now America is the divided states of the US, pretty much the same as post the Civil War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy#Other_types_of_democracy
They were, in fact, wealthy white, slave-owning, land-owning Aristocrats. This is important to remember, simply because many situations common today are universes beyond what any of them could have predicted. If you’re saying that it wasn’t their job to decide legal questions that didn’t exist at the time, then I’d ask you why we’re still using their admittedly out-of-date document to decide legal questions that didn’t exist at the time.
Then WHY are WE the ONLY SINGLE 'democracy' around today with an effing racist based, and about as UN-democratic as can ever be, Electoral College??!?
Sure enough. I'd just lob you a small suggestion. In phrasing, use 'democratic government' instead of "democratic nation". Thanks! Have a great day, and a super 4th!
Thanks. Another commenter said, correctly, that ours is not a true democracy (you’ll only find that at Maine town hall meetings) but a republic, to which I add, as Lincoln said in his Gettysburg address, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
A beautiful ideal. Not our reality.
Mr Lincoln was the master of small, confident steps. So much we see today demonstrates how our leaders rush blindly and point to the wind, that is really just history and their followers catching up.
What Fay Reid said...It’s not the fault of the Constitution. It’s the fault of republicans. The Constitution works very well. It’s the willingness of both the Supreme Court and republicans to operate corruptly that’s the problem.
It's the fault of language. A written document can be interpreted to mean just about whatever you want. That's why corporate lobbying is free speech (First Amendment) and teenagers can buy machine guns (Second Amendment) for example.
The Constitution served this country well at its inception. IMHO it's time to go back to case law, like in England.
I don't know about expanding it but some type of reform as to how justices are appointed to the court would greatly improve the present system where the president fills an opening, and term limits would be something to consider.
Won't change a thing. The process by which SCOTUS judges are chosen and approved by the Senate assures that ONLY GOP-approved nominees will be placed on the SCOTUS bench. In the minority in the Senate, the Republicans will simply filibuster to Doomsday. In the majority in the Senate it will be a repeat of the McConnell-Garland fiasco. That is, ONLY GOP-approved nominees will be approved.
If SCOTUS were to be expanded to, say 15, what We would most likely be trading in Our 6-3 split for a 12-3 split. Even if it means that the GOP has to wait until they have both the WH and the Senate.
That is why, CaptainPatch we need to dispense with the filibuster. It is not in the Constitution. It is not a Law signed by the President. It is a Senate rule - like turn off the lights if you are the last to leave. Another rule we need to get rid of in both houses is the one that allows the Senate Majority leader and the House Speaker to dump any legislature he/she disagrees with into a drawer (same as a round file in essence) a practice Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy have used to successfully see that only their party's legislation is assigned to committees. This is certainly against the will of the voters who are "supposed" to be the beneficiaries of elective Representatives and Senators. We in blue States have no votes.
UNFORTUNATELY, the ONLY people that have the Power to make such changes are the ones that most benefit from the status quo: "Our" (supposedly) elected legislators. They refuse to change those rules because they _want_ those rules. The GOP because they already know their value to their partisan politics. The Dems because IF the shoe is ever on the other foot and something really, really important comes along, they may want to use those rules themselves.
As long as it is the Parties that get to choose just who We are permitted to vote for -- because "EVERYBODY knows" only a Democrat or a Republican stands a decent chance of winning they they don't want to "waste their vote" on those candidates they ACTUALLY want -- We can be certain "our" legislators don't work for Us.
Dump legislation not legislature. Dang autocorrect! :-)
How do we achieve those objectives?
I’ve always felt if we could vote issues instead of representatives, we’d come much closer to a true democracy.
How true! But at this point we can’t even get the President we vote for. Which is why we need to call/email our state representative and push for the popular vote!
Both Trump and Bush lost the popular vote.
I do. But I live in Texas. Not much of a chance with my “representatives”.
Simple solution. If you seriously want to save our democracy and a legitimate Scotus, vote blue at every level.
Right on down to the school boards and local dog catcher!! ;) :)
The Republican majority eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations which is how we got the Trump 3. They won’t put it back.
Good point. Should they ever see the handwriting on the wall about an impending turnover in the Senate majority, I suspect that THEN they'll put it back. Filibustering, after all, favors whoever is in the Minority. Then again, looking at the ages and health of the SCOTUS justices, it's going to be quite awhile before the next opening. (And I seriously doubt that Congress will allow the proposed SCOTUS expansion.)
Thank you. We have some sorry Supreme Court Justices. They do not care about the people they only care about what they believe in not what the law is.
Or money and power.
But Mostly the extreme need to be 'right'. (win)
Hmmm... Why would this scammer think that no one is going to notice the +17 (Bahamas) country code?
The “1” is for long distance. The area code starts with “7”. I am getting texts as well. At first I thought it was just me. But then I see you are as well. I get responses but not quickly.
That message is repeatedly sent so as to be ANNOYING! Is that the PURPOSE??
It makes me think someone HAS hacked in with a BOT or something that repeats. Seems like something the Russians would do or the Republicans...
Hit the three dots to the right of the message and select "report comment." It helps to police these nonsense spam bots.
Thank you. I have reported several and will continue to do so.
Why thank you! That is the right thing to do! There are A LOT!
The Vladbots are gettin' sloppy!
Incomprehensible "English"! Who'd expect the most grammatically incorrect comment would come from Professor Reich?
I've responded as well, not having noticed the Bahamas area code. I wonder what this is all about?
It's a scammer of some sort, who has posted several comments as well, asserting he's the real Robert Reich. They are full of grammatical & punctuation errors, proving that it's not Robert Reich, but most likely a Russian troll.
The six republican extremists on the SCOTUS are intent on remaking American society in their image by hook or crook (or both).
Extremist are zealots, like Trump's MAGA hordes, so historical facts (and in the case of the six SCOTUS extremists) established precedents mean nothing, as long as they can twist meanings to fit their immutable preconception of their ideal (dystopian) society.
Thus, the SCOTUS has become the least accountable, unconstitutional, unethical and authoritarian branch of the Federal government and we are all in peril, as a result.
And the ruling in favor of the homophobic web designer was based on a hypothetical case--an out and out lie. It seems the only ones who will experience “specific harm” are the LBGTQ community--certainly not the fraudster who brought this case to court.
This is phishing by someone fraudulently representing him/herself as Robert Reich. I just reported them and urge others to do the same. Click the three dots on the post to report.
Please report it. Click on the dots. I have reported several. I could use help!
Will do! Thanks for telling me how!
I got a reply by the “faux” Robert saying ‘I am trying to help the community’ & ‘I am not a scammer ‘.
Will the real Robert Reich please stand up snd speak up?! Someone is impersonating you!
The real Robert Reich actually knows how to use punctuation!
The Supreme Court is rapidly becoming a sham. Upholding the laws of the land should be its prime function and the politicizing of this body is becoming its downfall. When the countries populace begins loosing confidence in the highest court in the land, we the people are on a slippery slope.
The Supreme Court is behaving as if it supersedes the other branches of government and is not subject to checks and balances or any oversight. This is dangerous for democracy.
In a similar vein, how did the case of the non-existent web design service with the non-existent harm from the non-existent customer who was not even gay ever make it to the Supreme Court, no less obtain a judgment there? Where were all the people pointing out these facts, all this time? And why did the other side not know or pursue these issues?
It's like my concern about the legitimacy of the Congress. Fake resumes, dirty , maybe even foreign money, shared with three others with similar resumes, who may have been seated in Congress. Is there any truth to this? If so, why no investigation? Why is Santos still in Congress and voting as if he is legitimate?
You are referring to Santos. Who are the three others?
1 of them is Luna, the one who brought up the proposal to censure Schiff. She's one of many LUNAtic politicians in Florida.
And now is is leaving the House. They are driving out all the good, honest, smart people.
They probably ensured his victory in the Senate race because of this. Since I don't want to lose any of the 3 major Democratic candidates for the California Senate, I was hoping that his main opponents, Barbara Lee & Katie Porter, would withdraw their campaigns & galvanize around Schiff to show their solidarity with him, & defend their House seats.
Tom ; all good questions!
Thank you!
I absolutely agree with you. This Court is out of control and needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary. And in the case of Lorie what’s-her-name in Colorado who didn’t want to have to design websites for gay couples planning their wedding, the Court decided in her favor, ignoring the fact that a bogus email—which didn’t even request help designing a website—was used to create standing even though it was dated the day AFTER the lawsuit was filed. Furthermore, the email’s address and identity of the man was stolen, and the man from whom it was stolen has adamantly reported this to the media.
the 'Supreme' court is acting like a crime syndicate rubber stamp; probably because the majority of them have been bought or brought by one ; the Republican party.
Excellent summary of the standing issue!
Do you mean at this number?
It’s fake, malware or hacking job. Same thing showed up on Dan Rather’s substack recently, with the same #
Yes, thanks. When I saw the same reply on many other comments yesterday I figured it must be. Ugh.
Impeach Kavanaugh for attempted rape. Remove Alito and Thomas for corruption.
Impeach and convict Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes and then unlawfully refusing to recuse themselves from cases involving their bribers. Can't be done until 2025. Bur historically more judges have been successfully impeached and removed from office than presidents
Get those who lied in their confirmation hearings on perjury, and remove them! Thomas and Alito on taking bribes and not reporting the gifts. that should clean things up.
They weren’t bribes, merely gratuities! Lolololol
Interestingly, Kavanaugh has voted twice now with the progressive minority on the court bench.
He seems to be about at the same place on the ideological scale as Roberts, which is far right, but not extreme right (fascist) like Thomas & Alito.
Is the current court returning to "Irish Need Not Apply" and restrictions on school and services for American Black People? Perhaps the republican justices should have had to study history, literature, and sociology instead of what seems to me to be a total immersion in abstract law!
Joan I wish they had total immersion in any law, abstract or otherwise. Some of the decisions handed down last week were not only Unconstitutional, they weren't even lawful. The religious decision on the Colorado anti-LGBTQ+ for instance was based on a lie that the lower courts should have thrown out as baseless. It should ever even have reached the Supreme Court. It is no wonder American have lost their faith in the highest Court in the land. This is a tragedy for all law abiding citizens.
Fay Reid ; Yes, it looks like they have been bought.
Yes, my first thought was the Supreme Court will overthrow this, and then I realized this WAS the Supreme Court. I've heard better arguments from high school debaters.
Thomas said he doesn’t read current news articles.
It should surprise no one that a Supreme Court that allowed to stand a Texas law that empowers otherwise disinterested citizens of the state to sue abortion providers, and anyone who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion, for a $10,000 bounty despite plaintiffs’ clear lack of standing to sue or ability to demonstrate they suffered actual harm, should now formalize a thorough dismantling of the very foundation of American civil law.
There is a remedy, however: using these SCOTUS decisions as precedent, disinterested third parties must begin suing anyone and everyone, from one end of this country to the other, not despite their lacking standing and ability to prove harm, but precisely BECAUSE they cannot prove it, until it sews so much chaos within the civil court system, so overburdening them and judges unsure as to how to proceed with even the most routine cases, that it forces a reckoning among the public and, most particularly, businesses, whose ability to function in the the face of what, under normal and sensible conditions would be considered spurious and vexatious lawsuits, will grind to a halt. It is only tangible, real-world consequences — adverse to the point of disastrous — that will force SCOTUS to, if you will, sue for peace and revisit their decision.
A great, and perhaps the only, way to fight back since there seems to be zero political will on either side in Congress to expand the Court which is what needs to happen.
Avie Hern ; there seems no limit to treachery when the 'Supreme' court can allow a state to declare open season on women who are expecting a child. the 'bounty hunter's only interest (besides hate) would be the $10,000; greed. that was the tip off that things were awry!
A great idea! If I could afford a lawyer....
Dr. Reich, thank you for clarifying who has really been packing the court by not allowing the Senate to vote on nominees appointed by Democrats. Republicans have been getting away with dirty politics for decades. They have to be defeated at the polls and exposed for their lies and bad faith in governance. As for the sham justices who seem unable or unwilling to recognize whether or not a case has standing, or what constitutes speech, Congress must act to ensure the justices are not above the law. Our current Supreme Court is the laughing stock of the world. That’s what happens when the hard work of democracy is taken for granted. We all have our duty to protect our rights and freedoms. Voters must vote in good faith for the best candidates rather than for cynical objectives that become Pyrrhic victories. The President must consider increasing the number of Supreme Court justices and agreeing to term limits as you have advocated for. The current Chief Justice has an inexplicable notion of the expansiveness of his authority and needs to answer to the Senate. He refuses and his lack of compliance and professional courtesy need to be questioned.
Now let's talk about gerrymandering and state laws supporting voter suppression.
I vote obsessively but that hasn’t changed anything. Of course being in a Blue state means I am voting to preserve what we have in Minnesota.
Hi Marge. I have some fond memories of MN. I live in Upstate NY, land of Elise Stefanik and Brandon Williams. The indignity of having them represent NY! A lot of MAGAs around here. A few were caught participating in the insurrection on 1/6. They shouldn’t be voting for a few years, but their enablers are still in office.
I’m so sorry for your wackadoodle representatives. Of course we had our own Michelle Bachman. And let’s not forget that we elected Jesse “The Body” Ventura as governor some years ago. We’re not perfect but I’m ecstatic that we have a trifecta now and are passing some very progressive policies/laws. I do tremble at the thought that a conservative backlash is inevitable.......
Can I quote you? I like to put things on the political platforms Nextdoor (Defeat Trump & National Politics) to inform people.
Hi Marlo. I am a private citizen and retired. I’m not an authority on anything but my own opinion, and I feel comfortable sharing within this community. I am not familiar with the Nextdoor community. I stay away from most social media. If you want to use my words as a topic of discussion without my name that’s fine.
Ok. I didn’t want to take credit, how about just MB?
Sure
Yup. Expand the court. Re expansion, Biden burbled about not wanting to "politicize" the court. Please!
Too late for not wanting to politicize the court. That ship sailed when pitiful Clarence Thomas was confirmed to replace intellectual giant Thurgood Marshall.
Oh my, yes!
Replace the illegitimate six justices installed by illegitimate 'Presidents'! No more illegitimate presidents or judges!
It's too fucking late! If SCOTUS is not now politicized English words have no more meaning!
What Has Happened To America?
It’s time to get back to (Majority Rules!)
Our Supreme Court has become a discriminatorium! A band of Bigots!
Soon we will be just like Gilead if we don’t take a stand now and stop minority groups!
Food for Thought
Here is a list of rules, regulations, policies and laws that in my opinion need to be changed.
1. Statutes of limitations: why should there be a time limit on criminal activities? Too many criminals escape penalty due to the S.O.L.
2. Ridiculous sentencing: I.E. he was given 5 life sentences! We only have 1 life!! How about life without parole instead of sounding Stupid!
3. Senate Filibuster: majority rules except in our Senate and our Presidential elections!
4. Electoral College: see number 3
5. Lifetime Appointment to the Supreme Court: they should have a reasonable term limit.
6. Once a lawyer is disbarred: they should have their law license revoked in all 50 states!
7. Presidential Pardon: removal of this privilege. If you do the crime and you are found guilty you serve the time no matter who you are!
8. Flat tax with No Loopholes: everyone pays the same % of their income!
9. Equal Justice for everyone: race, gender, religion, President, etc…“all men are created equal!”
10. Outlaw weapons of war for Citizens: they belong in the military only!
11. Financial support for mental health facilities:
12. Clamp down on wasteful spending: starting with the military.
13. Expand the SCOTUS before they repeal all of our rights.
We had a flat income tax in Alberta, Canada. It ensured that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer faster., so we got rid of it.
Yes, a flat tax does punish the poor, less affluent and Is a Bad Idea.
But the rich are all for it.
Way too idealistic to ever pass but I agree with most of your points. If I ran the country ….. things would be different. My mean dog would make a better SC Justice than the ones appointed by our corrupt former and ex Presidents.
These corrupt SC Justices are hate mongering slime bags. I do wish something could be done about this blatant disregard for the will of the people. The only way to counter this is to expand the number of Justices to 13. Biden is against that.
Without term limits we could still be doomed in the future.
I agree, i think we are doomed. I sure would like to get out of the United States before it really gets unbearable.
It’s very sad. I’m traveling now and Europe seems much more civilized at least on the surface. Sad that the US is no longer the great country it once was - it’s has been declining since the 60s. - which is accelerating more now than GLOBAL WARMING!
You are so right, the United States isn't a great nation any longer. I has been in a steep decline since the 60s. When Donald TUMP came onto the scene in 2015 the USA dropped off of a cliff in less greatness. I have been talking with this lady sometimes that immigrated from the USA to Canada, and she told me the difference between Canada is astounding. She told me she moved there so her children would not have to worry about getting shot and killed at school from a crazed killer with an AR 15 rifle. She is thriving there and loves it there.. I am going to Canada if somehow the orange baboon steals the election next year and becomes the United States first dictator. I am not going to tolerate his insane BS.
Well they could be impeached for their actions of accepting bribes and taking on cases which do not pass the standings test.
Look what that crook Clarence Thomas' wife did, according to what i have read, she had a part in planning that JAN 6 insurrection and riots at the Capitol building. And the asshat knew darn well all this time what she did..
1. Statutes of Limitations are reasonable, depending on the crime. There is no limitation on murder, for instance. Perhaps they could be changed so that physical abuse against persons under the age of 18 have no limitations, for instance. But petty theft? It's not worth the court's time.
2. Ridiculous sentencing, the reason for these seemingly stupid sentences is the equally ridiculous parole regulations. A life sentence is 20 to 25 years depending on the state. But with time off for "good behavior" it can end even earlier. Perhaps we just need to put teeth into life sentence without possibility of parole.
3. Agreed. 4. Requires a Constitutional Amendment - good luck with that.
5. There is nothing in the Constitution that even suggests lifetime appointments, what it says is "during good behavior" and there are rules set up (which were routinely enforced in the 19th century) when many judges at all levels were impeached AND convicted for bad behavior.
6 Agreed. 7. Articl;e 2 section 2 "and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Trump probably overstepped his 'power' . but again it requires an Amendment to change.
8. A "flat tax" is exceedingly regressive and hurts the poor and middle classes excessively while giving the wealthiest enormous tax breaks. Take a person working at $15/hour full time. That is $31,200 per year at even 10% flat tax that is $3,120 a huge burden relative to his total income, but to a multi millionaire earning $312,000,000 a year $31,200,000 is chump change and with all the loop holes they get granted plus the ability to hide a large portion of that money offshore or just hidden in "creative accounting" their real tax share wouldn't even amount to 0.1%. The IRS tries to fit the tax to the ability to pay, but with all the Republican (supported by some Democrats) tax cuts and loop holes our entire tax structure needs an overhaul.
9 though12 Agreed. 13. Expansion would be ok, term limits - which would be Constitutional would be better. especially if they were staggered.
I agree with everything but the flat tax, which disproportionately affects people in lower income strata. There are other ways to get more revenue for infrastructure, safety net programs, healthcare, etc. Use them all! Luxury tax, tax on wealth as well as income for the richest, penalties for off-shoring to avoid taxes, shoring up the IRS with the expertise to actually audit the intentionally complex finances of the rich, etc.
Sam, great ideas! But with regard to 3. the exception of Majority rules for the Presidency, there is currently a push to have the National Vote be the determining factor, not the electorate. So whoever wins the National Vote would win the election.
Everyone should sign the petition that is circulating online in FAVOR of the POPULAR VOTE. Take action! I did, DID YOU?
What site is that petition on?
MoveOn.org
They have been responsible for many positive changes. You can even start your own petition.
Thanks. I might have even signed on to that one already. There are so many petitions from them and I am usually on board.
Me too! I signed the Clarence Thomas one for sure!
Call email your state representatives. And sign the MoveOn.org petition
This Supreme Court is corrupt and unethical because there are no consequences. Just like those in Congress who aided and abetted the attempted overthrow of our government. Unless they are held accountable, removed, indicted and imprisoned, we can expect more of this destruction of our Democracy.
Chief Justice Roberts is now whining the court is not being respected by we, the People. That’s both rich and pathetic. He and his wife are just as corrupt as the other members.
The only way forward to change this, is to vote for Democrats to achieve a majority in both House and Senate, and then begin impeachments.
I remember as a child being taught the Supreme Court were the best legal minds in the country, who protected our rights and the Constitution. Sadly it is now a corrupt sham.