I’ll grant you that; but, when it gets to matters like the understanding of the Commerce Clause and other established precedent, the reaction has a very long term.
And, yes, it is legislating from the bench; but, for all intents and purposes, it’s still legislating. Which, I imagine, saves the party from having to try to move grossly unpopular laws through Congress and the Executive Branch and tarring itself in the process.
3 Likes
Well, actually I was thinking about the other side of the Big Pond in the 1930s, but it would be good if things went this way too. Of course, it would take some introspection to do that, which I doubt this group is equipped with.
1 Like
I have a number of married gay friends. One published this after the confirmation yesterday:
Sad day for me and my family.
If you never had your constitutional or civil rights as an American tax paying citizen put on a ballot or brought to the Supreme Court of the United States, you don’t have a clue about the privilege you have. Nor do most have the empathy to recognize it …
We’ve only been able to legally marry for 5 years. I can’t imagine losing that and all the protections straight couples take for granted. And that’s just the start of where we’re headed! I am really scared!
This is what Joe needs to acknowledge too. The protections for non-traditional marriages are on the table. Thousands, if not millions, will lose everything they’ve enjoyed and this is only the beginning of the transition to a nation where only the ‘elect’ get to say what’s right.
10 Likes
Ginni Thomas yapping in his ear renders one of them incapable of thoughtful introspection.
3 Likes
Neither, however, I believe she will become irrelevant within 5 years. Roberts will have a need to reign in the Court. His best bet is to say you are your own worst enemy and invite the expansion of the Court if you go hog wild. A couple may take those words under advisement, a couple will say fuck them. The result will be either the expansion of the court (my preference) or seats will be removed. Both precedents have occurred and the SC at the time tried and failed to do anything about it, the Constitution specifically leaves that up to Congress, and if the court balks the Congress has the power of the purse. In fact, the Court was reduced under President Johnson, specifically so that he could not name a Justice. Once he left office the Court was expanded to its present size.
My preference will expand the SC as well as the Appellate court based on population. My basis is not political but workload. The SC should have one member per Appellate and should be selected from the current membership of the Appellate bench at the time. That means the Appellate reflects the area of the country they oversee and the SC gets an Associate Justice that has a known record for review. I am not sure if there should be a limit to the term of a Justice, whether it be length or age, an expanded court will dilute the ideology of any individual.
6 Likes
Don’t be surprised to see a case before the Fascist Court challenging Social Security AND Medicare/Medicaid.
The Robber Barons want to return the US to the 1840s when they had near Feudal control of the citizenry and the legislatures, when they would have their lackeys plunk down bags of CASH on the desks of the Congressmen and Senators to vote the way they wanted, right out in the open.
Their end-game is to repeal every Constitutional Amendment after the 12th, and to return the US to “Originalism” where ONLY White, Male, Landowners can vote, Slavery is LEGAL, there are NO TAXES, there are NO Regulatory Impediments to their businesses, only WASPs like themselves have any real power in the entire country, and you can order your private army to beat, shoot, or LYNCH anyone who opposes you (if the ignorant, uneducated, religiously bigoted workers you control via their dirt-poor jobs don’t do it for you first.)
You know: “The Good Old Days”. /s
4 Likes
-
Assuming lawyers in the next Democratic administration make some effort in the direction you’re proposing, I think the Court’s response would depend on the nature of what the lawyers actually say, i. e., how blatant they are about it. If they are too subtle, Roberts et al. may simply ignore them. In their shoes, that’s probably what I would do, because I doubt the Court will suffer any reduction in legitimacy.
-
That said, I do not foresee lawyers in any Democratic administration making any effort in the direction you’re proposing – because, for whatever reason, the lawyers we hire tend to express faith in the power of rationality and the power of debate – plus, as you may have noticed, lawyers can be as self-interested (in their own future careers) as anyone else …
2 Likes
Biden:
The rushed and unprecedented confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court, in the middle of an ongoing election, should be a stark reminder to every American that your vote matters
I seriously hope it is also a reminder to you Joe… There are NO Elected/Selected republicans that can be trusted. Stop the bipartisan shtick now.
4 Likes
By the terms of your argument … Was Roe v. Wade a reactive or proactive decision? Was it judicial activism? Was it always unsustainable?
With Boofie Kavanaugh in the role of Roland Freisler?
1 Like
And were the lawyers to be blatant?
1 Like
Assuming you’re right … How did Scalia get away with being Scalia?
Despite his views, was he safe walking down the street merely because his nomination and appointment had not been handled in the same way?
Or are there other differences?
Assuming it would still be Roberts making the call? I don’t see a lot of drama in the offing. From their perspective, there’s no need.
2 Likes
The ACA is a REPUBLICAN healthcare plan, created for Mitt Romney by the Heritage Foundation. It does virtually nothing to advance Medicare for All and it totally defers to massive health insurance companies which are at the core of the very problem we have. Biden will veto any Medicare for All bills, so what the hell are we so excited about? Biden is owned and operated by corporate masters, especially when it comes to healthcare and the military. And, he’s assured his donors that “fundamentally, nothing will change” in his administration. Oh, joy! We’re so lucky to have Joe Biden looking out for “The People’s” interests.
1 Like
You’re correct. The most obvious example that comes to my mind, was the ruling in Shelby, overturning a near unanimous Congressional vote, and Scalia going on record (I believe in the actual opinion) that If Congress lacks the political will, then SCOTUS was going to do it for them.
But longer term, while they can make rulings like that, it becomes increasingly untenable, if not supported by new legislation.
4 Likes
What are the odds that Barrett discovers one of her seven children is gay?
Surely that would make no difference whatsoever in her principled legal thinking but still …
3 Likes
Yes, Roe v. Wade was reactive, in terms that it was a challenge to an exisiting law that was brought before the Court and the court reacted to the case. The Court did not write new laws to replace the existing one(s), they struck down a law.
Personally, I don’t think it was an example of judicial activism, but rather, was simply building upon existing precedent to a right to privacy, citing Griswold and the 14th Amendment. And I think the Griswold decision was correct also, that while a right to privacy is not explicitly spelled out, its quite clear that it’s intended via the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments, all of which are protecting various rights to privacy.
5 Likes
1 Like
Yeah, I’ve seen that script before. Doesn’t really change anything.
1 Like