Judges should not be ruling the US. Challenge their statements and counter them. This is especially true for the corrupt Trump-centered followers, including SCOTU$
Judges should not be ruling the US. Challenge their statements and counter them. This is especially true for the corrupt Trump-centered followers, including SCOTU$
Or just acting like bullies. It seems to me that the core of the whole authoritarian thing is about glorifying being a bully, in a pyramid of bullying, with scapegoats at the bottom. The technically once "party of Lincoln" has gone a long way down that road. The daily news is full of it.
Judges need to review what John Marshall said in the used-to-be-famous case of Marbury v. Madison: the courts have no power to supervise the executive. They can only act within their own sphere. The best answer to a ruling like this is to follow Andy Jackson's example, and ask the judge how he plans to enforce his decision.
Marbury vs Madison: the Courts 'say what the law is'. Court's are not a super legislatures nor are they policymakers but, Courts do have equitable powers which is why some litigators sign off with the mantra: "All rights reserved in law & equity". Regardless, all judicial remedies require sound judicial procedure backed by ADMISSIBLE evidence, As HCR explained accurately that was not the case in one matter appealed immediately to the 5th Circuit.
What does the Supreme Court have to decide before President Biden takes action?
тАШBiden has harshly criticized the Supreme CourtтАЩs sharp pivot to the right, but he has stayed away from endorsing any of the broad array of reforms тАФ including court expansion, term limits and mandatory retirements тАФ тАШ
___тАЩAfter the court last Friday blocked BidenтАЩs plan to forgive student loan debt, Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced legislation to institute 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.тАЩ
___тАЩ The Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of more than 100 lawmakers, recently renewed its push to expand the court. Several Democratic senators, including Sens. Tina Smith (Minn.) and Edward J. Markey (Mass.), have voiced support.тАЩ
тАЬThe court is already in a very unhealthy state,тАЭ said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group that backs court expansion. тАЬThe publicтАЩs confidence in the court has never been lower, and the courtтАЩs legitimacy derives from the public having a belief that its rulings are nonpolitical. The crisis is already here.тАЭ
___тАЩIn another illustration of the issueтАЩs growing potency within the party, three leading Democratic candidates for a U.S. Senate seat from California тАФ Reps. Adam B. Schiff, Barbara Lee and Katie Porter тАФ have all embraced expanding the court.тАЩ
тАШтАЬIf we start the process of trying to expand the court, weтАЩre going to politicize it, maybe forever, in a way that is not healthy,тАЭ Biden told MSNBC.
тАШOnce Biden became the Democratic nominee in 2020 and began facing pressure from other Democrats to embrace the expansion push, he promised to create a commission to study proposals for reforming the court when he became president, which he did.тАЩ
тАШThe commission submitted a 294-page report in December 2021, but Biden has said little about it.тАЩ
тАШ Caroline Fredrickson, who was a member of the commission and is a professor at Georgetown Law, said the commission only interacted with the president once after submitting its report. In December 2022, its members were invited to the White House and met briefly with Biden in the Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. But Fredrickson said the meeting was largely an opportunity for the president to thank the members for their work, not to discuss the report or its recommendations.'
тАШFredrickson, who supports court expansion and term limits, said the courtтАЩs latest term only confirmed her view that it is in тАЬdesperate needтАЭ of reforms.'
тАЬWe have a very problematic system in which we have a court that can assert these incredible powers that affect all of our lives and theyтАЩre not of momentary import, but they can affect generations,тАЭ she said. тАЬItтАЩs a very radical approach to governing, to have a court that can act like a monarchy. It does destabilize our democracy quite a bit.тАЩ
___тАЭBut Democrats, who have been infuriated by the lax rules for the Supreme Court, have vowed to try to tighten ethics rules for the justices, vowing to push legislation if the justices do not adopt an ethics code on their own.'
тАЬThe highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. But for too long that has been the case with the United States Supreme Court. That needs to change,тАЭ Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a joint statement with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who chairs a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the federal judiciary.тАЩ(WAPO) See gifted link below.
Many Democrats are trying to make changes in the Supreme Court.
I totally agree, Fern. Democrats used to be bold, but somehow the leadership has lost that courage when we are at the helm. Anita Hill warned us about Thomas, and he has been rogue for his entire career on the bench; somehow his wife's abetting of the overthrow of the government is overlooked. Then there's Kavanaugh, another credibly excused predator who never recuses himself. And then Roberts' wife is revealed to be gobbling up fees to place attorneys who will argue before the court. Sweet Amy with her chosen family is revealed to have been influenced by a religious cult. And now, we learn about Alito, they guy who positioned himself to be above the fray is on the take from wealthy donors. The ghost of Abe Fortas is having a big belly laugh. While I am deeply grateful for Biden's presidency, by announcing so early, he undermined our ability to propose alternatives. And now those Trump appointed judges are doing what they were chosen to do, to shut down government information.
тАШTwo years after John Roberts' confirmation as the Supreme Court's chief justice in 2005, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, made a pivot. After a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, she refashioned herself as a legal recruiter, a matchmaker who pairs job-hunting lawyers up with corporations and firms.тАЩ
тАШAnd life was indeed good for the Robertses, at least for the years 2007 to 2014. During that eight-year stretch, according to internal records from her employer, Jane Roberts generated a whopping $10.3 million in commissions, paid out by corporations and law firms for placing high-dollar lawyers with them.тАЩ
тАШThat eye-popping figure comes from records in a whistleblower complaint filed by a disgruntled former colleague of Roberts, who says that as the spouse of the most powerful judge in the United States, the income she earns from law firms who practice before the Court should be subject to public scrutiny.'
"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong," the whistleblower, Kendal B. Price, who worked alongside Jane Roberts at the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, told Insider in an interview. "During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane's clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It's natural that they'd do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive."
тАШRoberts' apparent $10.3 million in compensation puts her toward the top of the payscale for legal headhunters. Price's disclosures, which were filed under federal whistleblower-protection laws and are now in the hands of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, add to the mounting questions about how Supreme Court justices and their families financially benefit from their special status, an area that Senate Democrats are vowing to investigate after a series of disclosure lapses by the justices themselves. тАШ (INSIDER) See link below.
Once again, I say it all comes down to the VOTE. We donтАЩt have sufficient majorities to pull this off...vote like your life depends on it, because it does.
Your repeated calls for Americans to vote, along with the voices of many others, is as an echo to the a chorus of likeminded people. Are you open to other civic responsibilities as well? I shall assume you have read the comment. Do you have a opinion about Biden, so far, being all talk and no action with regard to the conduct of the Supreme Court?
Actually, Fern, I am unclear about what point you are actually trying to make here. Your question is impertinant. And, I believe that your thoughts on Biden are opinionated, not opinion (opinion is generally based on something other than one's prejudices). What "action" do you think Biden should take? The options are limited and have repercussions that you don't seem to have given much thought to.
But since Schiff, Lee, and Porter are all running for the same Senate seat, currently held by Dianne Feinstein, we'll only get one vote from the three of them for reform of the Supreme Court.
I was so disheartened when I heard President Biden respond to the question of expanding the Supreme Court during Nicole WallaceтАЩs interview. He was worried it would тАЬpoliticizeтАЭ the court further. Amazing. What does he think is happening now? I am a Biden supporter, but disagree with him on this critical matter.
I love that we have Joe Biden as President now ... but I am dismayed that he refuses to engage with Supreme Court reforms at this point in time. There is an obvious need for reforms - more now than ever - and he's missing his moment. (Nicole also seemed stymied that he responded as he did.)
Does he need Obama (or some other person he respects) to whisper in his ear? How can we make him aware that this is his one moment in time? HELP!
speech is protected so that people are legally free to express themselves. but what if, when you speak, you are not expressing yourself? can you claim first amendment protection? tucker carlson did not believe the things he was saying on tv. he was a mouthpiece for his bosses and his audience. can he claim first amendment protection? the first amendment does not protect propaganda, or libel, or fraud. why would it protect disinformation? the founding fathers feared the urban mob, because it was so easy to stir up the people in a city. it was much harder back then to "organize" the countryside, which was thought to be more stable. nowadays, half of the country is potentially one large urban mob. meanwhile whatever happened to 'don't believe everything you read and even less of what you hear?'
Judges should not be ruling the US. Challenge their statements and counter them. This is especially true for the corrupt Trump-centered followers, including SCOTU$
These "judges" are behaving like high priests of antiquity. The populace prostrates itself? It must stop.
Or just acting like bullies. It seems to me that the core of the whole authoritarian thing is about glorifying being a bully, in a pyramid of bullying, with scapegoats at the bottom. The technically once "party of Lincoln" has gone a long way down that road. The daily news is full of it.
Pyramid of bullying, says it all
Mudsills all.
Judges need to review what John Marshall said in the used-to-be-famous case of Marbury v. Madison: the courts have no power to supervise the executive. They can only act within their own sphere. The best answer to a ruling like this is to follow Andy Jackson's example, and ask the judge how he plans to enforce his decision.
Marbury vs Madison: the Courts 'say what the law is'. Court's are not a super legislatures nor are they policymakers but, Courts do have equitable powers which is why some litigators sign off with the mantra: "All rights reserved in law & equity". Regardless, all judicial remedies require sound judicial procedure backed by ADMISSIBLE evidence, As HCR explained accurately that was not the case in one matter appealed immediately to the 5th Circuit.
What does the Supreme Court have to decide before President Biden takes action?
тАШBiden has harshly criticized the Supreme CourtтАЩs sharp pivot to the right, but he has stayed away from endorsing any of the broad array of reforms тАФ including court expansion, term limits and mandatory retirements тАФ тАШ
___тАЩAfter the court last Friday blocked BidenтАЩs plan to forgive student loan debt, Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced legislation to institute 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.тАЩ
___тАЩ The Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of more than 100 lawmakers, recently renewed its push to expand the court. Several Democratic senators, including Sens. Tina Smith (Minn.) and Edward J. Markey (Mass.), have voiced support.тАЩ
тАЬThe court is already in a very unhealthy state,тАЭ said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group that backs court expansion. тАЬThe publicтАЩs confidence in the court has never been lower, and the courtтАЩs legitimacy derives from the public having a belief that its rulings are nonpolitical. The crisis is already here.тАЭ
___тАЩIn another illustration of the issueтАЩs growing potency within the party, three leading Democratic candidates for a U.S. Senate seat from California тАФ Reps. Adam B. Schiff, Barbara Lee and Katie Porter тАФ have all embraced expanding the court.тАЩ
тАШтАЬIf we start the process of trying to expand the court, weтАЩre going to politicize it, maybe forever, in a way that is not healthy,тАЭ Biden told MSNBC.
тАШOnce Biden became the Democratic nominee in 2020 and began facing pressure from other Democrats to embrace the expansion push, he promised to create a commission to study proposals for reforming the court when he became president, which he did.тАЩ
тАШThe commission submitted a 294-page report in December 2021, but Biden has said little about it.тАЩ
тАШ Caroline Fredrickson, who was a member of the commission and is a professor at Georgetown Law, said the commission only interacted with the president once after submitting its report. In December 2022, its members were invited to the White House and met briefly with Biden in the Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. But Fredrickson said the meeting was largely an opportunity for the president to thank the members for their work, not to discuss the report or its recommendations.'
тАШFredrickson, who supports court expansion and term limits, said the courtтАЩs latest term only confirmed her view that it is in тАЬdesperate needтАЭ of reforms.'
тАЬWe have a very problematic system in which we have a court that can assert these incredible powers that affect all of our lives and theyтАЩre not of momentary import, but they can affect generations,тАЭ she said. тАЬItтАЩs a very radical approach to governing, to have a court that can act like a monarchy. It does destabilize our democracy quite a bit.тАЩ
___тАЭBut Democrats, who have been infuriated by the lax rules for the Supreme Court, have vowed to try to tighten ethics rules for the justices, vowing to push legislation if the justices do not adopt an ethics code on their own.'
тАЬThe highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. But for too long that has been the case with the United States Supreme Court. That needs to change,тАЭ Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a joint statement with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who chairs a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the federal judiciary.тАЩ(WAPO) See gifted link below.
Many Democrats are trying to make changes in the Supreme Court.
President Biden, on the other hand!
https://wapo.st/3O22r4j
I totally agree, Fern. Democrats used to be bold, but somehow the leadership has lost that courage when we are at the helm. Anita Hill warned us about Thomas, and he has been rogue for his entire career on the bench; somehow his wife's abetting of the overthrow of the government is overlooked. Then there's Kavanaugh, another credibly excused predator who never recuses himself. And then Roberts' wife is revealed to be gobbling up fees to place attorneys who will argue before the court. Sweet Amy with her chosen family is revealed to have been influenced by a religious cult. And now, we learn about Alito, they guy who positioned himself to be above the fray is on the take from wealthy donors. The ghost of Abe Fortas is having a big belly laugh. While I am deeply grateful for Biden's presidency, by announcing so early, he undermined our ability to propose alternatives. And now those Trump appointed judges are doing what they were chosen to do, to shut down government information.
тАШTwo years after John Roberts' confirmation as the Supreme Court's chief justice in 2005, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, made a pivot. After a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, she refashioned herself as a legal recruiter, a matchmaker who pairs job-hunting lawyers up with corporations and firms.тАЩ
тАШAnd life was indeed good for the Robertses, at least for the years 2007 to 2014. During that eight-year stretch, according to internal records from her employer, Jane Roberts generated a whopping $10.3 million in commissions, paid out by corporations and law firms for placing high-dollar lawyers with them.тАЩ
тАШThat eye-popping figure comes from records in a whistleblower complaint filed by a disgruntled former colleague of Roberts, who says that as the spouse of the most powerful judge in the United States, the income she earns from law firms who practice before the Court should be subject to public scrutiny.'
"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong," the whistleblower, Kendal B. Price, who worked alongside Jane Roberts at the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, told Insider in an interview. "During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane's clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It's natural that they'd do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive."
тАШRoberts' apparent $10.3 million in compensation puts her toward the top of the payscale for legal headhunters. Price's disclosures, which were filed under federal whistleblower-protection laws and are now in the hands of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, add to the mounting questions about how Supreme Court justices and their families financially benefit from their special status, an area that Senate Democrats are vowing to investigate after a series of disclosure lapses by the justices themselves. тАШ (INSIDER) See link below.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jane-roberts-chief-justice-wife-10-million-commissions-2023-4
Once again, I say it all comes down to the VOTE. We donтАЩt have sufficient majorities to pull this off...vote like your life depends on it, because it does.
Your repeated calls for Americans to vote, along with the voices of many others, is as an echo to the a chorus of likeminded people. Are you open to other civic responsibilities as well? I shall assume you have read the comment. Do you have a opinion about Biden, so far, being all talk and no action with regard to the conduct of the Supreme Court?
Actually, Fern, I am unclear about what point you are actually trying to make here. Your question is impertinant. And, I believe that your thoughts on Biden are opinionated, not opinion (opinion is generally based on something other than one's prejudices). What "action" do you think Biden should take? The options are limited and have repercussions that you don't seem to have given much thought to.
Your rudeness doesn't surprise me. I've received it before and doesn't merit more of a response that this.
But since Schiff, Lee, and Porter are all running for the same Senate seat, currently held by Dianne Feinstein, we'll only get one vote from the three of them for reform of the Supreme Court.
I was so disheartened when I heard President Biden respond to the question of expanding the Supreme Court during Nicole WallaceтАЩs interview. He was worried it would тАЬpoliticizeтАЭ the court further. Amazing. What does he think is happening now? I am a Biden supporter, but disagree with him on this critical matter.
I love that we have Joe Biden as President now ... but I am dismayed that he refuses to engage with Supreme Court reforms at this point in time. There is an obvious need for reforms - more now than ever - and he's missing his moment. (Nicole also seemed stymied that he responded as he did.)
Does he need Obama (or some other person he respects) to whisper in his ear? How can we make him aware that this is his one moment in time? HELP!
speech is protected so that people are legally free to express themselves. but what if, when you speak, you are not expressing yourself? can you claim first amendment protection? tucker carlson did not believe the things he was saying on tv. he was a mouthpiece for his bosses and his audience. can he claim first amendment protection? the first amendment does not protect propaganda, or libel, or fraud. why would it protect disinformation? the founding fathers feared the urban mob, because it was so easy to stir up the people in a city. it was much harder back then to "organize" the countryside, which was thought to be more stable. nowadays, half of the country is potentially one large urban mob. meanwhile whatever happened to 'don't believe everything you read and even less of what you hear?'