What a closer. “If Trump is prosecuted as the leader of an attempted coup, a coup that may have included some of those who voted for Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees, what does that do to their positions on the court?”
Win 2 more seats in the Senate, get rid of the filibuster and impeach the last three Scotus appointments for lying to Congress....and as co-conspirators in sedition......alongside Thomas.
... feet to the fire ... that seems more credible than expanding the court - like moving the goalposts in the middle of a game - a tactic that could ping pong back and forth as parties achieve dominance in ongoing elections - hold the line - call them out for disingenuous behaviors and impeach ....
Hold The three or five Justice’s publicly accountable. Who paid of all of Bret’s debt? Who’s been paying the Thomas’s? Does Alito have a heart? Does Barrett even have a brain?
Kavanaugh and Thomas must be impeached. Barrett must recuse on any issue involving Womens’ Health, because of her activism.
Gorsuch must recuse on anything involving Civil Rights because of his activism. Alito needs to be questioned about his involvement with Kennedy’s departure. And Roberts needs to step down as Chief, as he is clearly incapable of maintaining any ethical standards for the Court.
If the only rule a justice follows in determining the constitutionality of an issue/law is whether or not the issue is specifically mentioned in the constitution, a brain is not not needed. A simple algorithm could identify in seconds whether a eyed is phrase is specifically mentioned in the constitution. Hence, those who voted with Alito do not require any thinking …simple vocabulary matching will do: a computer would do the job faster and be much more cost effective…no more salaries for justices and their salaries, benefits, perks, and office costs.
Have you seen "I'm Your Man?"..German film about bespoke robot creations? Couldn't help thinking of Barrett being made specifically for this job. Life imitating art?
Senate removal of House-impeached government officials, including judges, requires a two-thirds majority. It’s not happening.
What can happen, with two more Senators willing to act, is to expand the court, add an enforceable ethics code, and enact other reforms.
I’d like to see judicial review taken away from the broken partisan perjured court entirely and given to a new Federal Review Court. A court established entirely by Congress could have term limits and other reforms. Let the SC confine itself to original jurisdiction cases, the ones assigned it in the constitution.
Lying under oath to Congress is a federal offense.
It seems that the simpler method of removal from the "Bench" for the three Moscow-Mitch pretenders is indictment, adjudication, and incarceration for a very long time + Bankrupt all of those lying Supreme Conspirers and the horse they rode in on!
As a lawyer pointed out to me, the 3 Supreme Court nominees did not lie. They all clearly stated that Roe was settled law that had been upheld -- they DID NOT state they would not overturn it. They all clearly stated they respected precedent-Gorsuch even bragged he wrote a book on it!--they DID NOT state they would not overturn precedence.
They were very carefully coached on how to answer the tricky questions so they wouldn't lie under oath.
They may not have lied, but they deliberately and clearly misled the Senate Judiciary Committee. The fact that they may not or cannot be legally culpable does not change the fact that they were all deliberately hiding their real beliefs behind carefully worded statements meant to make Senators think they respected settled law. Given how they got to the Supreme Court hearings, I wouldn't have believed a word they said. And Senators should have known better than to trust them. No matter how you cut it, these are not the kind of people with the maturity, sensitivity, respect for the rule of law and concern for the American people they are working for, to be even slightly worthy of their current positions. Garbage in, garbage out.
I can't disagree. What the hearings have demonstrated beyond a doubt, thankfully, is how worthless the hearings are. Hearings for SCOTUS nominees didn't even exist until the middle of the 20th Century, and clearly there is no reason for them to continue. Nothing is learned. And the only insightful question I've heard at any of the ones I've watched is then Sen. Kamala Harris ask Kavanaugh what federal laws govern a man's body. He actually stopped and thought, then replied he didn't know of any. A clear win for Harris and why Republicans called her nasty.
Thanks, C C. I hadn't the energy to rebut. I don't agree that the follow-up questions the Senators asked rose to the level of probing. But that's just my opinion.
I would never ask a friend to do something that time consuming and fact checking.
We all know Kavanaugh lied at his Senate Hearing for his previous judgeship--but Roberts rescued him by swearing him in on the SCOTUS before he could be charged/disbarred by his ethics violation.
I don't have a law degree but as a layperson, I listened carefully to at least what Kavanaugh and Barrett said. Your lawyer friend is absolutely right. The fact that the questioners didn't probe their answers is on them. Maybe they didn't probe on purpose...we'll never know.
Would impeaching them remove them? Trump was impeached 2x. Hasn’t stopped him or diminished repugs ability to raise $$ and create more havoc. Not yet. Also here in Paris. Finding it hard amongst friends to try and explain our present reality. It will be interesting to see what today’s session turns up. Is there an interested group of ex-pats that might gather to discuss here in Oaris?
Impeachment and conviction requires a 2/3s vote. That won’t happen. Besides which, none of these judges perjured themselves under oath. They danced around the question of how they would decide on Roe v. Wade. Easily defended, if they were to be impeached. AOC and others calling for impeachment are dreaming.
Such a fine line between “danced around,” misrepresented, lied … it might be dreaming to get 2/3 of Senate to remove the disingenuous justices but that didn’t stop the House from impeaching trump twice and can’t think of a more deserving coda to their judicial biographies than for Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas to all be impeached (perjury, conflict of interest, and/or behavior unbecoming a Supreme Court justice). Not how any of these egomaniacs want to be remembered in the history books.
It’s not a fine line, legally. If any of the three had testified under oath at their confirmation hearing, “I will not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade” and then did so, they might be convicted of perjury. Even then, given that they could argue that circumstances changed between their hearing and the court case, they might not be convicted. No matter what, there’s no way you’d get more than 50 votes (more likely 48) to convict. Republicans would gloat all the way to November about how Democrats were wasting time impeaching SCOTUS justices instead of fixing inflation and gas prices. It would be a disaster for Democrats.
True, timing is critical, waiting until after the midterms (assuming Democrats keep the house and I believe they will, difficult as it may be) would accomplish the same thing - let these justices be forever remembered for the unscrupulous, unethical, power hungry authoritarians that they are.
Unfortunately, I agree. Speaking of dreaming, my dream is that with the overturning of roe versus wade, now so-called pro-life senators can’t just say I’m “pro-life” Knowing that there was nothing they could do about it legislatively. Now it is going to be a huge factor in their reelection. Because legislatively is the only way to protect the right to abortion nationally. Of course, many of these senators are in very conservative states. But if the polls are correct and those energized by the single issue get out and vote, perhaps some of these senators will be in jeopardy. And if we can get 2/3 in the Senate, we can add four more justices. I know, it’s a dream
Maybe, but the Reactionary Party looks like a death cult to me. They idolize weapons of mass murder. They oppose health care. They ran an intense PR campaign to discourage their followers from taking basic public health measures during a pandemic, causing hundreds of thousands of un-necessary deaths. They ran a fifty year campaign to make abortions illegal again, knowing that would cause a large number of preventable maternal deaths from illegal abortions or pregnancy complications.
A clear majority of Americans are in favor of the right to abortion under most circumstances. The overturning of Roe is going to have what physicists call and "equal and opposite reaction," to our great benefit.
Making abortion illegal has never really been pro-life, although many of the rank and file sincerely believe it is. It means more women die - from illegal abortions or pregnancy complications.
Anyone who really wants to reduce abortions would support the actions that have been proven to do that:
1. Give people with wombs as much control as humanly possible over whether or not they get pregnant in the first place.
2. Provide social support for children and parents so that every child is guaranteed decent food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.
I wouldn’t call Susan Collins gullible. That implies she was surprised by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. She knew they would vote to overturn Roe. She needed them to give her plausible deniability, so she could vote to confirm them, and not be seen to be betraying women. Everyone involved knew this was a Kabuki dance, and all knew how it would turn out.
Susie Q is forever all talk and no walk. And yes, she knew and now she is bleating about how she was deceived...my rear. I can't even stand to hear that woman talk. She is pro keeping herself in the Senate and that's it.
May you find the ex-pats in Paris. If the SCOTUS decision prevails and the Republicans take over, the shock will be worldwide. Remember Trump in Europe? The ugly American.
You are so lucky to be out of this country. I'm trying to get to Vancouver with the rest of my family but it's difficult. I'm very scared of the coming years in the U.S. In my lifetime I never thought I'd see what's happening in this country today.
For just a month. I was able to listen today to the special hearing. I know how you feel. I hear it and still can’t believe what I’m hearing. GeneralFlynn took the fifth on every gd question including “ do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?”. Just unbelievable.
Ah, if it could only be done. I am so concerned by the “runaway” court. I feel like Alice, but instead of wonderland we seem to have found ourselves in a maelstrom, or a male storm.
The lying and putting self interest before anything else leaves me breathless with amazement and hurt.
It was way too obvious when the orange (paid) idol descended the escalator and brought republican hell with him and finally unleashed their plan upon the world.
Get two or three more senators, do away with the filibuster and enlarge the court to 13 justices. Not simple, but simpler than multiple impeachments. (Also, I don’t believe Heather was suggesting impeachment, but recusal or cutting all ground out from under their positions on the court.)
Justice Owen Roberts ruled for the New Deal in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (I think there are two "r"s in the name. Thereafter, he generally supported government regulation. His change was known as "the switch in time that saved nine." Whether he had an honest change of mind or was worried about court packing is unclear, as far as I know.
Technically, it can. There are ample grounds. Removal from office would require 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict, which means it won't happen. However, it takes only a working majority in the Congress (meaning,hold the House and add two more Dem senators who would set aside the filibuster) and political will to take away the powers they have so badly abused.
The milder way to do that, would be to expand the Court to 13 or 15 justices plus create an enforceable code of ethics for them.
The more drastic option would be to create a Federal Review Court that would take over all judicial review of laws and executive branch actions. Such a court could have term limits. The constitutionally defined Supreme Court would be restricted to cases where it has "original jurisdiction", such as lawsuits between states. It's called original jurisdiction because those are the cases the constitution gives to the Supreme Court. Power of review was essentially grabbed by the Court in 1796 in Marbury vs Madison. Congress never took it back, but constitutionally they could do it.
Joan As you point out, the relationship between the Supreme Court and Congress is convoluted. Indeed, Congress has set the number of SC justices at 5-to-10. In 1937 FDR sought to pack the SC, proposing that a new justice be added for every existing justice over age 70. This prompted strong negative reaction, even from his strongly Democratic Congress.
Reference was added to the ‘vote of one that saved nine.’ In fact, this was Justice Owen Robert’s vote on, I believe, a mining law. His vote was recorded in conference before FDR’s court-packing proposal. [I had occasion to discuss this with Owen Roberts Jr., when he was consul at our Cairo Embassy and I was researching my book NASSER’S NEW EGYPT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS (1960–banned by Nasser. Because it was banned, gum shoes at the Ministry of Interior kept badgering me for copies, since the wait list for my book at the MinInt was so long.)
Indeed, the Marbury v Madison 1803 ruling in 1803 that ‘established’ the court’s authority to overrule congressional legislative was bizarre. The issue was whether the issuance of justice of the peace authorizations was legal, when they hadn’t been delivered by the issuing administration. JohnMarshall, as Chief Justice, was ruling on authorizations that he had signed, but not delivered, while he was Secretary of State under ZPresident Adams.
This came before the court when President Jefferson, a massive opponent of Marshall, had started impeaching justices. Marshall, who should have recused himself, split political hairs to make his precedent-setting decision. He ruled that the issuance of these authorizations was valid BUT, referring to the underlying law of, I believe, 1793, he ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it assumed authority that was not granted under the Constitution.
PSHAW—-nothing is simple with the Supreme Court. However, the constitutional provision that judges/justices serve during their lifetime seems sacrosanct.
Keith, thank you for your elucidation and date correction.
Supposing Congress were to setup a Federal Review Court to handle judicial review, one of the reasons would be to create term limits. What do you think of the proposal that while FRC judges would remain judges for life, they would have a limited - perhaps 18 years - term on the FRC? After that, they would shift to "senior status" with other duties, perhaps filling in to help with backlogs in other federal courts.
Joan What a bag of worms! The Federal Review Court is an intriguing idea. How might Meany Mitch react, Also, term limits seem to be established in the Constitution. I believe that there already is a ‘senior status.’ I recently noticed that retired Justice Souter participated in a. Federal appeals court case.
Lifetime! Interesting point ! WhAt was the life expectancy in the late 18th century? Did the founding fathers envision a person on the court for 40 years or more?
Louis The Supreme Court, in the early days after the Constitution was ratified, was like second hand Rose. It was difficult to get folks to accept appointment to the SC. One Chief Justice resigned. Another refused to accept appointment. For a full year the Supreme Court did not meet. Only with Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) did the Supreme Court finally begin to exercise its constitutional checks-and-balances role. This also established the federal dominance over states.
As HCR says, it wasn't just about staying alive. Originally, judges had to travel a lot on horseback to hear cases. A man would tire of doing that long before he died of old age.
Winning two more seats in the Senate, dumping the filibuster, admitting Washington,DC as a state, and passing better laws is certainly doable, although not guaranteed.
Impeaching the InJustices won't get rid of them, because removal requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate which we won't get.
The obvious way to diminish the power of these power-mad InJustices is to dilute it by expanding the court. There used to be one justice for each circuit court. There are now 13 circuits, therefore it makes sense to have 13 justices. Also, enact an enforceable code of ethics.
Another, more drastic option would start with the steps above. Then, create an all new Federal Review Court of 13 justices and transfer the Supreme Court's judicial review functions to it. Congress has that power. Leave the SC with only the "original jurisdiction" assigned to it by the Constitution. Include term limits for the new court, in the form of mandatory shift to senior status with other duties after 18 years, and an enforceable ethics code. Have the original 13 serve shorter terms, so that two terms expire every four years. Write reasonable requirements for Senate involvement that do not allow for the kind of shenanigans Moscow Mitch has pulled.
We need to protest, run for office, get out the vote, all that. If we do, we can win this. The majority of the country is on our side.
This moment offers the opportunity to castrate the patriarchy and codify women's rights. What Alito has done may look like a victory for the anti-abortion crowd, but what Sam the Sham failed to factor into his decision was the amount of political energy put into play on the Left by the overturning of Roe. Thanks to Trump & Company, we now clearly understand that the Republicans are fascist monsters hellbent on destroying democracy and human progress in all its forms. Regarding the overturning of Roe, "It had to come to this... for the next thing to happen." Excitement in this moment feels like exactly the correct response to Alito's affront. I am reminded of the confidence generated by the Women's March in Washington D.C. the day after Trump was inaugurated in January of 2017. THAT is the energy that has been given new life by Alito's crass, Neanderthal, spiteful, disingenuous decision.
Ah Greg: the optimism of this post is delightful, if a little fantastical. I was one of those protesters in 2017. It was a wonderful day. It really did absolutely nothing. Because unless the Dem leadership stops wringing their hands and crying "woe is me, what is to be done?" and actually gets off their arses and pushes to challenge every Ghastly Oligarch Party candidate up and down every single damn ticket, the goose-step toward a white supremacist, fascist USA will continue unabated. Moscow Mitch knew exactly what he was doing to agree to the takeover of his party by the fascistic wing. He knew that his judges--many of them deemed "unqualified" by the ABA--would fall into line with whatever rightwingnut branch of Christianity he wants them to espouse and push for a theocratic takeover of the courts. Which is exactly what is happening now. And these judges are unelected and have lifetime appointments. The fascists know that decades of careful grassroots infiltration has reached a tipping point, and that they now have all the power at the bottom to make their dreams of a Whites Only theocracy a reality.
Marching and shouting--and posting here, to be honest--is good for one's sense of solidarity with endangered others. But it has no effect when there is no one at the top willing to step in front of the onrushing stormtroopers.
I agree that something has to be done. But what? And it is early; the reversal is just a couple days old. Other than little stuff, seriously what? Except for one thing, we have very little we can do. The party of doing nothing (R's) is using the levers of political power to do exactly that. The system allows it. The SCOTUS - well we can point fingers at RBG, but it was bad timing that Trump got to pick three (with the help of McConnell pulling the dirty trick of tricks against the Garland nomination). Don't blame the House - Pelosi and company have passed plenty of bills using a simple majority. It's the Senate, our super-slim majority, and the filibuster. Game, set, match. And that only other thing? The vote. It's the magic pill. Get that Senate to 60 reliable Democratic votes and all this shit begins to go away.
Democrats were total wusses about that SCOTUS choice that McConnell stuck his middle finger into. I saw a clip of him laughing about it last night. He needs to be neutered. Well I wrote something much worse but spellcheck saved me.
I, sadly, agree with you. Driving to work yesterday on a beautiful summer day I was feeling happy. Then a seed thought popped into my head. I now live in a Country under an oppressive minority rule.
I have been called out in these comments before for my strident defense of Biden. No more. It appears that President Biden has essentially thrown in the towel. Here is how things are occurring. The fascists make one more anti-Democracy move. Biden gives a speech. Biden takes a trip out of the Country.
So yes. You are very correct in saying:
"But it has no effect when there is no one at the top willing to step in front of the onrushing stormtroopers."
I would have to disagree with you Barbara, I don’t believe the President has thrown in the towel, he’s in Madrid now for maybe the most important NATO meeting since it’s founding. NATO has a very serious shooting war happening on it’s borders, which includes us as a member, with a lunatic the likes of which we haven’t seen since Hitler, yesterday saw his diplomacy succeed with the acceptance of Finland and Sweden’s request for membership, this is a very big deal. We and the rest of the democratic world and that includes independents need to take the long view, just like the repugnantins have done for years, if we want to achieve our aims without a civil war. Alito has given us a gift, women and men all over America are looking at each other and saying “holy shit look at what this decision means for us, or our children and grandchildren”, the democrats have not come up with anything, as good as their programs are, and they are very good for the nation, that will motivate people as passionately to the polls in November, we just have to keep the issue out front, that will be the challenge. The January 6 Committee is doing it’s part in keeping the malfeasance of the insipid one’s administration front and center, it’s going to become increasingly difficult to explain away what fellow repugnantins are testifying they have witnessed. The truth shall set us all free, we have to hold that close.
I disagree. More women have run for office than ever before. I see much more engagement in politics in young people. Will it be enough? We’ll see. But to sit back and do nothing definitely doesn’t help. Defeatism will kill us faster.
I used to be the biggest optimist in the room. Used to be. We can acknowledge we are teetering on the cliff and work like crazy to pull Democracy from going over the edge. It's the smart play in my opinion. Besides. The people in this Country may be politically lazy but they also see what is happening. And they don't care.
Greg, I hope you’re right. My Republican mother was paradoxically a feminist and defender of gay rights. As a result my Republican siblings and nephews are horrified Roe has been overturned. I’ve urged them to make choice a priority when they vote. I see a glimmer of hope in this dark landscape.
Congressman Don Beyer (VA) sent constituents this letter which I felt responded fully to our outrage over the court's decision:
Dear Constituent,
Like so many of you, I am horrified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the case that protected a constitutional right to abortion.
I believe this ruling from a right-wing Supreme Court majority is a dark moment for America.
The conservative justices abandoned 50 years of precedent in a decision which, as Justice Breyer’s dissent put it, “says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of.”
As I feared they would, anti-choice politicians immediately reacted to this decision by activating state laws which, in my view, criminalize essential health care.
Some states have already triggered laws banning abortion with no exceptions – effectively forcing birth even in cases of rape or incest.
In Congress, bills have been introduced to ban abortion at the federal level.
In Virginia, Governor Youngkin and his allies in the closely divided General Assembly signaled that they too will seek new restrictions on abortion. We now face, I believe, an assault on basic human rights here in our Commonwealth.
The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, has published a report finding that criminalizing abortion will do tremendous damage to personal and economic freedom:
“Access to abortion enables people to make the decisions that are right for them and their financial security. Furthermore, the ability to control if and when to have a child has lifelong economic consequences not only for the people directly impacted, but also their families and communities."
I believe the broader implications of this ruling are also profound and terrifying.
Justice Alito wrote that the decision would threaten ‘no other right,’ but this was contradicted by Justice Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion which said that the Court should use this ruling as precedent to revisit past cases that established protections for same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and contraception.
I feel strongly that this ruling must not be the last word, and I am determined to fight for bodily autonomy.
I voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation passed by the House to codify Roe v Wade protections, which I believe is the most important and effective step Congress can take.
I believe that protecting essential health care is more important than arcane procedural rules, and that the Senate must do what it takes to protect abortion rights, including changing filibuster rules if necessary and reforming the Supreme Court.
In the past few days I have heard from so many constituents in Northern Virginia who are deeply upset about the Dobbs decision. To them and to everyone across the country concerned and speaking out, I am with you, I support you, and I will do all I can to help with my voice and my vote.
Ah, but there’s an interesting subplot: How would Tucker Carlson and Faux News react if some ultimate Trump insider, Jared for example, broke down and spilled the beans about everything, from collusion with Russia in 2015 on down? Given that roughly half of our population still thinks Trump is a great guy because Tucker tells them so daily, I suspect our problems would instantly multiply. Buckle up indeed!
Kushner is the son-in-law and “Advisor” of the all-time most corrupt American President.
A number of file boxes labeled Top Secret were illegally hidden At Mar Largo.
Kushner was rejected for Top Secret clearance because of concerns about foreign influence. A trump appointee overruled the rejection and issued Jared his clearance.
Kushner actively defended Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia 2018 killing and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi.
Then the Prince approved Kushner for a two Billion dollar “Loan” from the 600-billion-dollar Saudi “Public Investment Fund’ after the Fund’s management officers initially denied the loan. The Prince then single-handedly rejected their denial.
Was the questionable loan approval by the Prince his potential payback for Kushner’s actions in the White House?
Did Jared share any of the Secret Files hidden at Mar Largo with the Prince as a loan inducement?
Phew!
Something stinks about Jared!
American investigative agencies needs to clear the air from those spilt beans, Eh!?
I think Hannity is going full on into the frying pan. He was the Faux News point man for the coup team. Especially for Meadows. I think Ms Hutchinson might have plenty to say today.
So, Jeri, Fox scum may be doing a lot of damage control instead of being in charge of wreaking damage.
We may get a lot of what you wish for when the films taken for Trumps are reviewed by the 1/6 committee. Huzzah for the 1/6 committee, chairman and membership!
Virginia, it's the absolute LAST thing I wish for. The thought has crossed my mind that this might be Putin's revenge. All he would have to do is release what he has on Trump and the dam would burst. The (heavily armed) Fox News zombies would invent some conspiracy theory about the evidence being fabricated in the basement of the Pentagon. The sane among us would be compelled to try Trump and likely quite a few elected Republicans for Sedition in order to restore faith in our rule of law. The wheels could come off, and blood could run in the streets. Putin wouldn't have had to fire a shot, and the former US of A certainly wouldn't be "meddling with him" in Ukraine. If nothing else, these Russians are great chess players. We may be seeing Putin's "long game" playing out and the thought terrifies me....
May terror drive us to the polls to vote blue. And before that we need to work with our local Indivisible chapters encouraging others to get informed and get to the polls.
Think of Lady Ruby and get to work. The least you can do is write GOTV postcards. And if you have money….
Correct D4N. Eastman's Apple12 Pro has been sent to a DOJ Lab in Northern Virginia & is subject to further Orders from a Court of competent Juirisdiction. No biometric barriers to this Data.
The Trump crime family is due for a reckoning, but will that ever happen? I have many doubts about the first family itself , but those near him are in for it.
Yes. I agree. This is looking more and more like the crime of the century or more importantly the biggest presidential scandal that this country has ever had.I knew there would be some sort of reckoning on this. You can't have the number of people who participated in this and were aware of the actions of others, including the bad actors, and not have this as a crime just waiting to be be exposed. And exposed it is becoming, with what we know so far maybe being just the tip of the iceberg.
I've just forwarded this to my cousin and 2 sisters with the comment: "WOW! DOUBLE WOW!!!! You must read the comments. This is more riveting than Netflex, Hulu etc. could ever dream of."
Unfortunately this is what our country has become. My head is spinning!
I wonder if the j6 committee members have been shocked yet? Cause they are pretty unemotional in their reveals. This certainly is not, "politics, as usual". Or, is it?
It has been my consistent observation that it is the really stupid people who have nothing germane to add to the conversation that are the highly emotional ones who yell the loudest like screaming baboons.
Quite a contrast against the respectful professional demeanor of the cogent discussions by all of the Democrats + two Republicans on the J6 committee, Eh!?
Two of the InJustices are already illegitimate: Gorsuch’s seat was stolen from the president before Trump. Barrett’s seat was stolen from the president after Trump.
Four are openly corrupt due to perjuring themselves to get on the court:
Thomas and Kavanaugh lied under oath about their sexual assault histories. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett lied under oath about their respect for precedent and commitment to non-partisan judging..
Clarence Thomas is additionally corrupt in his behavior relative to his wife’s political activities:
He lied for years on financial disclosure forms about family income, hiding large amounts of money she received for political activities. He refused to recuse himself from a case in which her communications with Trump’s chief of staff about overturning the election were involved.
And none of it matters. 1/2 the electorate is perfectly happy with it and they have the cops, and increasingly the election apparatus on their side too.
Rump and the rest of the seditionist traitors are walking around free. We have Rump on video and voice recordings carrying out myriad crimes, but he hasn't even been charged. Meanwhile a black lady gets 5 years for filling out a ballot by mistake.
There won't be a repeat of 2020, the 'swing' states controlled by Republicans like GA aren't going to make the mistake of impartial vote tallies again.
Perhaps. But not necessarily. It's important not to let pessimism and despair drain energy that could be used to make a difference. At least 60% of the country is with us. We have a chance to turn this around with protests and voting. The further along the fascists get, the harder they will be to overcome. It's worth the effort to stop them now. If we each figure out what we can and will do, and do it, we have a very decent chance to prevail.
We didn’t have mistakes with our vote tallies, Joe Biden won GA unmistakably, and our elected officials stood by the vote count. We still have a good chance of sending the POS to Reidsville to rot, stay tuned.
I would also like to know: what will that do for Clarence Thomas, the Donald Trump of the Supreme Court and his wife? There is, after all, yet “another link between the recent Supreme Court decisions and the January 6 attempt to destroy our democracy that creates an unprecedented situation.”
I read that last paragraph and went "whoa" - that could be a total game changer!! And, the Dems need to pull every legal tool out of the quiver (and play hardball) to offset the effects of the corruption foisted upon this country by the criminal trump and his minions.
I expect that any legal sanctions Senators might face for participating in the 1/6 conspiracy would have no direct impact on the Justices.
That said, any illegal or unethical acts by the Justices themselves, either pre or post-elevation, would be relevant.
Public opinion is another matter.
A crushing election victory for Democrats yielding a true Senate majority, would open the option to changing the rules on terms of service, and the number and composition of sitting panels.
The number of Justices on a panel deciding a particular case could remain fixed at nine.
However, the pool from which panels are selected could be increased, with Justices rotating in and out of the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts with the result that Supreme Court panel members would change with some regularity.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, I have a feeling that Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony today is going to pull Ginni Thomas into the coup conspiracy. It’s been noted how close Ginni was with Mark Meadows. I believe connections between the Supreme Court and all that has been revealed about the planning and intent of January 6th will be suggested or outright declared today through witness testimony.
And the timing of that can possibly prove to be more than strategic.
That closer gave me some much needed hope. If our leaders see this through and prosecute all of those involved in the attempted coup and ensure those found guilty can never serve in a position of public trust again and reversing the damage they did in the furtherance of their cause (such as confirming the last three justices), we may be able to save our democracy. I would expect, though, that the last three justices wouldn't be the only ones who could lose their appointments. Thomas looks a lot like he was part of the coup, as well, given his wife's role in it and his refusal to recuse himself in matters that could lead to exposing her role.
Our leaders by themselves can do a lot of good, but they can't reverse the minority authoritarians' power grabs by themselves. We each have to do whatever we can. If you can, RunForSomething. Me, I write postcards to get out the vote. Whatever. At the very least, make a plan to vote in every election for every post, and encourage the people around you to do so.
Yes indeed. If this plot started in September, what does this say about a justice confirmed in late October?
And what of the role of Ginni and Justice Clarence Thomas?
And why did Kennedy really resign, clearing the way for Kavanaugh? There’s some parallel context here with Nixon investigating several justices to try to force out liberals. Trump (and his minions) was certainly capable of this.
The Kennedy/Kavanaugh questions disappeared too quickly. I never understood why answers weren’t pursued. The members of this current committee have certainly figured out how to track down answers. Even if a Congressional committee couldn’t have been formed, there were certainly well funded Democratic groups that could have done deep dives into the “mysteries.” Is it too late??
This may sound like a Q conspiracy post - but in my case I’m holding out for evidence. The situations certainly look suspect enough to look into very closely.
I thought I saw the clown car parked right by the White House South Lawn during Amy Coney Barrett’s swearing in ceremony. That was right around Halloween, correct?
Oh, Christine....You have made me laugh out loud with your clown car vision. Thanks for making me laugh when there is so little to laugh at these days!
Christine You should do the comic warm up before today’s special 1/6 house hearing. It would get us in the mood to listen to Ivanka’s and others’ banal blather. The Batmobile would be appropriate to recall yesteryear when Ivanka and Jared considered themselves Bat Girl and Batman. All that’s left is bat s—t.
Blackmail? Pure speculation, let's not go Qish to the left. If anything, I'd guess Kennedy's kid had dirt on Trump. Instead I'd bet Trump promised, sweet talked, begged and since Kennedy's kid trusted Trump maybe Justice Kennedy did also.
Look, I’m holding on for evidence, but I do have suspicians. Trump has shown he’s capable of anything. He’s recruited those capable of anything. And blackmail is one of his favorite tools. There is also precedent for another sitting US President trying to dig up dirt to pressure justices into resigning.
"Trump has shown he’s capable of anything. He’s recruited those capable of anything. And blackmail is one of his favorite tools"
Matt, speculate all you want about Trump. It would be easy to imagine Trump is capable of anything to get whatever he wants.
Trump has no moral boundaries at all. None.
Sadly, Trump is not the only rich, white American, with laws supporting them to pretty much do anything they want, to be both able and willing to do anything they want KNOWING they are very unlikely to ever be pulled over by a cop driving home.
Mike the skin color of those people "rich, white American with laws supporting them to pretty much do anything they want" has been changing for some time. Clarence Thomas is black. Tim Scott is black. There are an increasing number of blacks working for FOX and being anti-Democracy in their rhetoric. There are an increasing number of blacks and women who have lost their damn minds and have joined forces with their oppressors. Unbelievable.
Please, people, PLEASE refrain from the linguistic habit of using the phrase "have enjoyed the right," specifically the right to choose abortion. There is NOTHING to enjoy related to an experience of dread, despair, fear, frustration, regret, self-blame, anguish, distress, and physical pain--for those who did not die from the procedure.
Such an important plea, Ellie! As it relates to abortion, it’s unfortunate that in legal terms, “enjoyment” means to exercise a right. To minimize confusion, we could say, “For nearly 50 years, women in the US have been free to exercise their right to an abortion.”
I work in the legal realm and stick to plain language as much as possible. Thank you for your crystal clear plain language that women had been "free to exercise their right to abortion."
The right to make decisions about one’s own body seems to be protected by the 13th Amendment’s ban on slavery and forced work. Forced pregnancy was in fact a very large part of American slavery.
I agree that forced pregnancy and childbirth is slavery--totally fits the definition: no ownership of body or labors. But at least 1/3 of the country would not agree. And even a goodly % of pro-choicers would consider that hyperbole.
It really comes down to control over their bodies and health doesn't it? Abortion has most certainly and rightfully taken the most important position in this but the whole picture of family planning/life and death comes into focus here.
Clearly you have never experienced the exercise of free choice in that particular instance. Even when an abortion is a carefully thought out action of choice it might come with a certain amount of dread, anguish, guilt and pain.
Wrong. Stoicism and pragmatism informs many decisions rather than the popularly depicted gnashing of teeth and rending of garments crew. That depiction of women as emotionally fragile, in need of guidance from the all powerful male, is part of the fallacy. Certainly not all sail through with their equanimity in balance but I’m sick of this depiction of women as victims of their emotions.
Feeling anguish doesn’t make someone fragile. The problem is that many men think they are never affected by emotions. In their view, anger doesn’t count as an emotion which affects their behavior. Ha!
Gail, here’s another perspective from one who’s been there. Stoicism and pragmatism are coping strategies in the face of pain and trauma. They don’t negate the emotions, they rise above them. The moment a women faces an unwanted pregnancy is always difficult, period.
That was not my experience. Instead I was annoyed by my and my partner's carelessness. I was not pained nor traumatized, during either event. Each has her own experience I suppose.
That is certainly true that pragmatism does indeed inform many decisions--I think I made that clear? I said a certain amount--not a rending and wailing...and generally not remorse. No medical procedure comes without some dread and some pain. I do not speak from inexperience but of course, I cannot speak for all recipients, either.
Tinfoil hattie, I totally agree! It seems to be an uncomfortable and unpopular notion that not all women suffer from the decision to have an abortion. I consider the choice over abortion to be a fundamental human right and as such does not require the justification of suffering. I support the choice of women to tell their stories but I do not believe that the full range of abortion stories are being represented.
To be clear, the remark was not about a decision to have an abortion, but about someone who 'has had' an abortion. I cannot even fathom having any medical procedure that doesn't induce some fear, whether the other emotions are relevant or not. Even if overridden by total relief after decision is made, there's still fear for one's own well being that has nothing to do with embrace of the right to do it.
You said it Ellie. Rights are not supposed to be "enjoyed"--any of them. Privileges are "enjoyed." Rights should be inalienable and automatic. But as you know, those who are not white, cis, and in possession of a penis rarely have access to the "rights" those boyz take for granted.
Thank you. This and the casual use of the “rape metaphor” (to describe situations of powerlessness that aren’t rape) are disturbing to many. Would you have a suggestion for how to better refer to this right in the future?
Where does the line between rape and not rape begin or end? Next week I'll be 70 years old and every single day I remember our kindly doctor climbing on top of me, telling me what a pretty young girl I had grown to be. Terror gave me the strength to push him off. I told my mother as we walked out of the office. She made an excuse for him and said I wouldn't have to see him again.
Brava to your wits and courage so young. You show the difference between a legal definition required for prosecution and the lived experience of terror that becomes daily trauma.
Not my point at all. I’ll try to clarify because it is important. I was referring to those who use rape as a metaphorical term or descriptor such as “that car salesman really raped me” or “if the insurance company is going to rape you, you might as well enjoy it”. I continue to hear metaphorical uses of rape in common situations of power imbalance or advantage that are as horrid or worse. That’s what I was referring to. That this kind of usage should cease.
I’m sorry if my effort to allude to this practice led you to think I was discussing legal definitions. I was not. Thank you for your comment.
Thanks, Mike, for taking that on. Of course boys and men can be, and literally are raped, the sheer physical difference of male and female bodies contributes to the use of rape as a metaphor that is usually indicative of force and lack of respect for, as Jesus said, "the little ones," by which he didn't mean just children, but others who, by their status, are less powerful.
My husband has never heard it. My male friends have never heard it. They are all in the film industry. And I know some will say, ¨Oh they just don't want to admit it.¨ But, because we all talk about everything - some are screen writers - and we all use pretty salty language, I don't think that is the case. In The Fantasticks - which I directed - there is a rape. However, in this case, it is an abduction as that is one synonym for rape. In the 1990's the writers of the musical actually created a second song called ¨The Abduction¨ so that theatre companies could choose. I didn't know that when I directed it in 2019 and so we used the original, and I was never comfortable with it. All the others synonyms include molestation, violation, criminal attack. I know that 'raping the land' is something heard. This I understand because it produces a sense of violation upon the earth. Maybe it is time for a course study for women and men in language and how it affects behaviors. I think the only men who would use rape as a metaphor for being screwed over are characters in a David Mamet play.
We could use rape as a metaphor for what this culture does to lands and peoples - and certainly, the attitude that you might as well 'cut the poor me crap' - get over it and enjoy the ride, since you can do nothing to stop it - has a very familiar ring to it ....
Really? It's unbelievably common ( or was a few years ago) for guys in a corporate meeting to say things like “Here's my spread sheet on x and y. Rape it however you want.” When my wife raised an objection to the use of the phrase, she was roundly chastised by her boss for being outspoken and embarrassing the guy! She even got 'written up' for it.
If you have never heard this kind of content in your life, consider yourself lucky. I had a boss who said things like this for years. It was horrid. And he wasn’t the only one.
Hi Matt - trust it, I have more than heard plenty of such content in my life, and know all too well how offensive - and debilitating it is, and can be - and I do agree, we would do well to find other language (along with deeper awareness, sensitivity and conscience) - especially, as actions speak louder than words - and those who are so sexually obsessed that the ol' 'cup runneth over' and spills into everything said and done ... worse, to treat it as a joke, and presume upon others to laugh along ... it is a poisonous pit of sickness that knows no bottom - a visceral form of cognitive dissonance ... so to speak - as it were ..., such as it is ... thank you for sharing!!
Matt, I agree with reserving the term rape for sexual violation, and not using the term as metaphor. For the same reason, I find no humor in jokes about rape or torture.
Women have simply HAD the constitutional right to choose abortion. No other verb is necessary. Thank you for asking.
Rape is a difficult word to hear related to abortion, but it is the best description of making it illegal. Men (or The State) forcibly taking control of a woman's body against her will, causing bodily harm and risk death, to force it do to what they want it do.
Same with the word "slavery" -- lack of ownership of one's own body and labors.
Neither word is considered acceptable to the many; are not persuasive. Just accurate.
That certainly applies to Justice Alioto's comment about making abortion illegal should "increase the number of domestic babies available for adoption."
I agree, Ellie. I might add that I constantly implore people from using the term “pro life”. As in that is something that we must argue against when Republicans spews that nonsense out their mouths. If you are alive and like that condition, then you are pro life. We are talking about PRO CHOICE and the effort to make that available to only some regarding health care choices.
I cannot begin to tell you how many people seethe when the guv in this state blathers on how the “woke left” is not pro life.
In this age of tweets and posts, language counts tremendously.
Indeed!!! "PRO CHOICE" is not about PROmoting the abortion industry ... and it is an industrial arm of standard medical practice (harvesting stem cells for research?) ... indigenous people know how to abort a pregnancy with herbs - no need for doctors or surgical procedures ... of course, naturopathy and practice of herbal medicine was _outlawed_ until not so long ago - would that be another civil rights reversal we can anticipate from this rogue court ...?
... oh, and of course, not to mention historic and ongoing invalidation and suppression of indigenous culture ...
So, just out of curiosity, why are 'we the people' fighting so hard to codify into law the constitutional right to have a medically induced abortion ...?
I assume you're referring to Cassidy Hutchinson? Yes, amazing presence of mind and amazing extent of experience in several Senatorial offices. Olivia Troye (former VP Pence aide) spoke at length about her to Lawrence O'Donnell last night on "The Last Word". It's well worth listening to. Ms. Troye speaks at length about Ms. Hutchinson's experience in Congress and how highly she was regarded by everyone who knew her and worked with her. I was stunned to learn which Senators she had worked for: Scalise & Cruz! https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/fmr-pence-aide-cassidy-hutchinson-s-testimony-shows-her-courage-143047237509
As King said in his book about how to write horror stories (published back in the 80s, a very useful book for people like me), he said "the best monsters have their fur on the inside."
They were in the middle of that conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election when the senate voted in Amy Coney Barrett. At least 4 of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee acted with malice on behalf of the Trump WH - Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Josh Hawley,, and Lindsey Graham. Chuck Grassley may have played a part too, though the evidence so far is inclusive. If she had any sense of duty, she would have pulled out of the process when the plan to “reclaim the election” began to go off the rails. She couldn’t care less about the rigging of democracy; she grabbed that SCOTUS seat and began doing the bidding of her masters.
Along with Kavanaugh and Roberts, Coney Barret was called in (by The Federalist Society) to Florida to monitor the presidential ballot count. Or delay it so the Supreme Court could, oh, stop the count before Al Gore won.
Apropos of too much that comes to me from reading and listening is how fragile is this republic we have assumed certain because of adherence to traditions and belief in the power of worthy laws created by men (and women) of good conscience designed to realize the promises in our declaration of independence and a constition agreed upon to establish this union comprised in and of diversity of people and thought. It is being shown to be fragile, I think. Can it survive? Is their the common will to defend and reaffirm it? Will the price of gas on election day weigh more at the polls in November than the prospect of a facetious transformation from what was hoped for to what was once feared as this nation was born? My fears are great today.
I've been saying this from the get-go. Someone should be sure that Loving becomes part of the big erasure of rights. Maybe that will shut Clarence the f&*k up.
They'll make sure none of the 'justices' are affected by their 'judgments'. Ever hear of a judge getting a drug test? And try exercising the '2nd Amendment right to bear arms' in their courtroom.
I guess I should be grateful to Thomas for not going after the Loving decision. I am half of a mixed race couple. I’d hate to have my 40+ year marriage ruled illegal.
For some reason, though, I cannot be grateful. Just as an aside, we were married in Virginia just 13 years after Loving was decided.
Can you even *imagine* how many interracial couples in the U.S. would be impacted by such a ruling? Same question re same-sex marriages.... What would they do, prosecute all of them? Of course, that's all rhetorical bcz Thomas would never go there.
And McConnell is married to a woman of Chinese descent, that would count as interracial. And, of course, the soon-to-be seated newest Supreme Court Justice also has an interracial marriage.
My thought too! A convenient way to rid himself of a "troublesome spouse". However, I think the damage is already done and he knows it ...thus, the sudden outburst of action trying to prove his creds!
If people have no right to marry who they love because they do not fit the "preponderance of American history" standard, then Loving is definitely out the window along with Obergefell.
Citizen60, that historical standard blows my mind. I guess it means anything in effect before 1830 or so is good for 2022. You know, when women had babies, men had guns, blacks and indigenous people didn’t count and only white men voted and rich men ruled totally supreme and unfettered.
That’s one of Alioto’s rationale. And it’s a lie. Abortion was accepted and legal in many non-Catholic colonies since they landed until 1821 when Connecticut passed the first law making it illegal “after the time of the quickening.” 16-18 weeks. So, if one adds the early Dutch and English founding dates until 1821 then add the Roe decade’s it’s nearly 40% of America’s history. Not half, but definitely a goodly portion.
A single one would help. That's actually one of the tasks of the clerks, not just searching legal decisions/dissents. There is quite of bit of published history of abortion in America since its earlies days--which Alioto ignored or lied about.
My question here is: If these jokers overturn the 'constitutional' right to same sex marriage, what happens? Are we simply declared unmarried? Is this too tossed down to the states, where it began? Do we go back to married in Massachusetts, but not Florida, or Texas, or........?Do we need another Stonewall?
The Obergefell decision related to all federal benefits for same sex marriages as heterosexual marriages have, so I guess overturning it would mean couples would not have the same federal benefits (IRS, Social Security, etc) again. Several states had already made same sex marriage legal.
I believe this SCOTUS would uphold any attempt to pass a national ban on same sex marriage. My son is gay—this is personal in our family.
Wow! Thank you Heather for another immense amount of crucial information. Tomorrow’s hearing should be interesting. And your last paragraph is a bomb waiting to explode.
Perhaps the Republicans are correct in there assertions of voter fraud in the 2020 election; theirs.
Knowingly colluding to pass false lists of electors to an election official, such as the vice-president, amounts to election fraud and conspiracy to commit election fraud. We can add sedition and conspiracy to commit sedition by sworn public officials to the list of charges.
Requesting presidential pardons is direct evidence of guilt; a kind of un-coerced confession, it seems to me.
"Perhaps the Republicans are correct in there assertions of voter fraud in the 2020 election; theirs."
Best post of the day Ralph.
In fact, the only voter fraud that occurred during the 2020 election WAS Trump trying cough up fake electors to hand to Mike Pence, who, was clearly on the Fence about what to do until the last day.
But, somehow Trump has cast his illegal coup attempt as the reaction to a "stolen election".
Herein lies the real problem: Americans.
Americans are now so easily led up the primrose path by BS that even TRUMP can pull the wool over their eyes.
Imagine Trump trying to lie to John Adams. That conversation would probably have lasted 20 seconds and been done.
... so, "Republicans are correct in there assertions of voter fraud in the 2020 election; theirs." - thank you Ralph and Mike - exactly what I was thinking - same as saying the 2016 election was 'rigged' - it was - for tfg to win.
My point many times, the voter fraud in 2020 was widespread and deliberate. 99.99 % republican bull Schitt bought by the cult and spread with self-righteous fervor. All the while, Dems gast was flabbered. I know mine was….
I'd care to support our Dr. HCR's references to Ruth Ben-Ghiat. I've been following her writing for some time now. She writes on Substack too. Highly educational stuff regarding authoritarians. She's not posted anywhere near as long as Heather has, but her stuff is spot on and her credentials are solid. * Ruth Ben-Ghiat's Substack section is named "Lucid".
I would have to quote your entire letter as an example of the lies and deceit of the repubs, their election corruption and the hearings. So I’ll just make this suggestion: instead of metal detectors as repubs line up to enter government buildings and hearings, just have them walk through lie detector machines. Easy and fast.
"Thomas wants to make it easier to sue media outlets because, he wrote, the “New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity."
Like: Fox News making up lies about how inflation is caused by Biden and not Exxon Mobil's historically high profit margins?
Or, Sean Hannity feeding his minions lies about a stolen election?
I welcome Clarence Thomas' aspirations to reign in the media through lawsuits.
The day he "rules" on that new set of "laws", I will be happy to organize a lawsuit against THE most insidious, traitorous, and dangerous lies factory in America:
Fox "News".
I do quite laugh out loud when I write "News" next to Fox.
Waiting for the day. They already won a lawsuit, saying that since they are entertainment, that people should not consider them news. Maybe take that moniker off their trappings, people think it’s for real. Way past time.
I have this dream of Trump, the Trumpscum in the White House, the traitors in the House and Senate, and the five illegitimate traitors on the Supreme Court, all being "perp walked" out of those buildings, all charged with Sedition, the Republican party destroyed by being now known as the Party of Treason.
And yeah, I'm not holding my breath, since I have no desire to turn blue and die.
Yes, TC, a great dream. Criminals actually being arrested.
But, that only happens in the black community for the most part.
White folks are defined as "respectable" even if, like Bill Gates, they are flying out to an island to spend a weekend with "Jeffrey Epstein". Which, apparently, he did do. A weekend where children will be abused and robbed.
I'm trying to imagine what it'll look like to have a certain percentage of our elected officials legislating from behind bars with their illegitimate Federalist Society judiciary right next door.
Oh, Stuart, you ought to know by now that I'm a glass half full kind of gal, though my husband never gets the benefit of that perspective from me...morning!
Oh dear, Lynell, I'm wondering whether i should feel sorry for your husband or rejoice that with him your approach is always based upon reflection and is highly rational, lucid and balanced? I guess that we are both blessed with partners with whom we can be ourselves, grouch a little and dream a lot.
I've gotten so cynical. Friday's Dobb decision feels like one of tr**p's bombs to distract. In this case, from the J6 hearings. So tomorrow's hearing kind of feels like the committee is holding the hearing to refocus public opinion.
I'm so furious at SCOTUS. I have typed & deleted more comments this weekend....
Without a filibuster or with 60 Senators and majority in House, Dems and all reasonable people could pretty much circumscribe this right-wing SCOTUS. Would Dobbs even be filed much less litigated to SCOTUS if federal law allowed-supported abortions in all states? If gun manufacturers did not have liability protections from Congress (WBush) and owning a gun required a $2,000,000 insurance bond and/or 'mental fitness' psychiatric evaluations annually, would anyone be talking about New York's concealed carry law being overturned?
Thank you, HCR for clarifying Clarence Thomas for me a little bit. Why: He’s now the bull in the SCOTUS China shop. After being invisibly awful for years. Tomorrow…J6, will pay particular attention to what the committee presents and how Liz Cheney frames it for Republicans. ❤️🤍💙
gildedtwig, I agree with you that Dobbs has put Thomas under the spotlight--and that he don't look too good. However, I would argue that it's important to note that while he has been a sphinx during open arguments, he has a long string of opinions, usually dissenting or concurring in part, in which his views of the Constitution, the role of government, the mistakes of past decisions, etc., have been very clear. Like Gorsuch--but starting long before him--he has clearly outlined and advocated for interested parties to bring the properly shaped cases to the Court so that it can reach the decisions he has long thought they should. Obviously he was restricted to a minority for a long time by the make-up of the Court. But those opinions have laid around like rotting Easter eggs to be thrown onto the public when the balance shifted.
What a closer. “If Trump is prosecuted as the leader of an attempted coup, a coup that may have included some of those who voted for Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees, what does that do to their positions on the court?”
Win 2 more seats in the Senate, get rid of the filibuster and impeach the last three Scotus appointments for lying to Congress....and as co-conspirators in sedition......alongside Thomas.
... feet to the fire ... that seems more credible than expanding the court - like moving the goalposts in the middle of a game - a tactic that could ping pong back and forth as parties achieve dominance in ongoing elections - hold the line - call them out for disingenuous behaviors and impeach ....
Hold The three or five Justice’s publicly accountable. Who paid of all of Bret’s debt? Who’s been paying the Thomas’s? Does Alito have a heart? Does Barrett even have a brain?
Kavanaugh and Thomas must be impeached. Barrett must recuse on any issue involving Womens’ Health, because of her activism.
Gorsuch must recuse on anything involving Civil Rights because of his activism. Alito needs to be questioned about his involvement with Kennedy’s departure. And Roberts needs to step down as Chief, as he is clearly incapable of maintaining any ethical standards for the Court.
They need to be removed from power altogether.
Disrobed. Recinde their llaw license,
‘'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished…..
Spot on Liz!!!
Barrett may have a brain, but she has no awareness of the world and no empathy. There is a rhyming epithet for her.
I know this is harsh but you don’t need a brain to be a religious zealot
In fact, it's highly preferable NOT to have a brain, for that position...
Robin, in that case, a brain is detrimental to the cause.
You mean that she has no empathy, even though she has an adopted child of color? Poor kid!
More than one from Haiti. I think 3 but someday they will realize what she did and I would hope they denounce her just like one of Elon’s kids has.
This sounds like a theme for a Randy Rainbow song based on one of the Wizard of Oz songs.
If the only rule a justice follows in determining the constitutionality of an issue/law is whether or not the issue is specifically mentioned in the constitution, a brain is not not needed. A simple algorithm could identify in seconds whether a eyed is phrase is specifically mentioned in the constitution. Hence, those who voted with Alito do not require any thinking …simple vocabulary matching will do: a computer would do the job faster and be much more cost effective…no more salaries for justices and their salaries, benefits, perks, and office costs.
Ted, I agree. Public accountability is a must.
Have you seen "I'm Your Man?"..German film about bespoke robot creations? Couldn't help thinking of Barrett being made specifically for this job. Life imitating art?
Always! Artists are prophets.
👍👍👍❤️
Now Ted, we already know the answers to your two final questions.
https://apple.news/AfKx66V9ISOqF6cEI2ZUoqg
Sent this a day or two ago but it fits this conversation.
I agree but that will only work if we have people who believe in law and order in congress. Which would be more Dems.
So much better than having to live with them until they die.
Senate removal of House-impeached government officials, including judges, requires a two-thirds majority. It’s not happening.
What can happen, with two more Senators willing to act, is to expand the court, add an enforceable ethics code, and enact other reforms.
I’d like to see judicial review taken away from the broken partisan perjured court entirely and given to a new Federal Review Court. A court established entirely by Congress could have term limits and other reforms. Let the SC confine itself to original jurisdiction cases, the ones assigned it in the constitution.
Lying under oath to Congress is a federal offense.
It seems that the simpler method of removal from the "Bench" for the three Moscow-Mitch pretenders is indictment, adjudication, and incarceration for a very long time + Bankrupt all of those lying Supreme Conspirers and the horse they rode in on!
As a lawyer pointed out to me, the 3 Supreme Court nominees did not lie. They all clearly stated that Roe was settled law that had been upheld -- they DID NOT state they would not overturn it. They all clearly stated they respected precedent-Gorsuch even bragged he wrote a book on it!--they DID NOT state they would not overturn precedence.
They were very carefully coached on how to answer the tricky questions so they wouldn't lie under oath.
Coached, and or PAID, by the Federalist Society (oligarchy).
They may not have lied, but they deliberately and clearly misled the Senate Judiciary Committee. The fact that they may not or cannot be legally culpable does not change the fact that they were all deliberately hiding their real beliefs behind carefully worded statements meant to make Senators think they respected settled law. Given how they got to the Supreme Court hearings, I wouldn't have believed a word they said. And Senators should have known better than to trust them. No matter how you cut it, these are not the kind of people with the maturity, sensitivity, respect for the rule of law and concern for the American people they are working for, to be even slightly worthy of their current positions. Garbage in, garbage out.
I can't disagree. What the hearings have demonstrated beyond a doubt, thankfully, is how worthless the hearings are. Hearings for SCOTUS nominees didn't even exist until the middle of the 20th Century, and clearly there is no reason for them to continue. Nothing is learned. And the only insightful question I've heard at any of the ones I've watched is then Sen. Kamala Harris ask Kavanaugh what federal laws govern a man's body. He actually stopped and thought, then replied he didn't know of any. A clear win for Harris and why Republicans called her nasty.
Actually, there is one: The Selective Service Act
Thanks, C C. I hadn't the energy to rebut. I don't agree that the follow-up questions the Senators asked rose to the level of probing. But that's just my opinion.
Moscow Mitch's Bit..es, Eh!?
There are more than just one issue each lied to Congress about...have your attorney carefully read the transcripts of each Mitchbit..
I would never ask a friend to do something that time consuming and fact checking.
We all know Kavanaugh lied at his Senate Hearing for his previous judgeship--but Roberts rescued him by swearing him in on the SCOTUS before he could be charged/disbarred by his ethics violation.
I don't have a law degree but as a layperson, I listened carefully to at least what Kavanaugh and Barrett said. Your lawyer friend is absolutely right. The fact that the questioners didn't probe their answers is on them. Maybe they didn't probe on purpose...we'll never know.
They were probed. Each answered they couldn’t/wouldn’t speculate on how they would decide on a hypothetical.
Artful dodging
Seems there is more than one opinion about who is lying, Eh!?
SEE LINK:
'3 Supreme Court Justices Lied Under Oath' - Liz Plank | Zerlina.https://www.youtube.com › watch › v=AQiBohxydG8
Maybe that lawyer doing all the pointing is one of the plethora of former chump attorneys?
Would impeaching them remove them? Trump was impeached 2x. Hasn’t stopped him or diminished repugs ability to raise $$ and create more havoc. Not yet. Also here in Paris. Finding it hard amongst friends to try and explain our present reality. It will be interesting to see what today’s session turns up. Is there an interested group of ex-pats that might gather to discuss here in Oaris?
Sedition makes them ineligible.
Impeachment and conviction requires a 2/3s vote. That won’t happen. Besides which, none of these judges perjured themselves under oath. They danced around the question of how they would decide on Roe v. Wade. Easily defended, if they were to be impeached. AOC and others calling for impeachment are dreaming.
Such a fine line between “danced around,” misrepresented, lied … it might be dreaming to get 2/3 of Senate to remove the disingenuous justices but that didn’t stop the House from impeaching trump twice and can’t think of a more deserving coda to their judicial biographies than for Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas to all be impeached (perjury, conflict of interest, and/or behavior unbecoming a Supreme Court justice). Not how any of these egomaniacs want to be remembered in the history books.
It’s not a fine line, legally. If any of the three had testified under oath at their confirmation hearing, “I will not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade” and then did so, they might be convicted of perjury. Even then, given that they could argue that circumstances changed between their hearing and the court case, they might not be convicted. No matter what, there’s no way you’d get more than 50 votes (more likely 48) to convict. Republicans would gloat all the way to November about how Democrats were wasting time impeaching SCOTUS justices instead of fixing inflation and gas prices. It would be a disaster for Democrats.
True, timing is critical, waiting until after the midterms (assuming Democrats keep the house and I believe they will, difficult as it may be) would accomplish the same thing - let these justices be forever remembered for the unscrupulous, unethical, power hungry authoritarians that they are.
Thanks for your "big picture" reasoning, JR, lest we all go down a rabbit hole with no escape route.
Unfortunately, I agree. Speaking of dreaming, my dream is that with the overturning of roe versus wade, now so-called pro-life senators can’t just say I’m “pro-life” Knowing that there was nothing they could do about it legislatively. Now it is going to be a huge factor in their reelection. Because legislatively is the only way to protect the right to abortion nationally. Of course, many of these senators are in very conservative states. But if the polls are correct and those energized by the single issue get out and vote, perhaps some of these senators will be in jeopardy. And if we can get 2/3 in the Senate, we can add four more justices. I know, it’s a dream
Remember, the political issue and question to hold them to is whether they are pro choice. I’d venture to say that most humans are pro life.
Maybe, but the Reactionary Party looks like a death cult to me. They idolize weapons of mass murder. They oppose health care. They ran an intense PR campaign to discourage their followers from taking basic public health measures during a pandemic, causing hundreds of thousands of un-necessary deaths. They ran a fifty year campaign to make abortions illegal again, knowing that would cause a large number of preventable maternal deaths from illegal abortions or pregnancy complications.
A clear majority of Americans are in favor of the right to abortion under most circumstances. The overturning of Roe is going to have what physicists call and "equal and opposite reaction," to our great benefit.
Good point. I hate the term “pro life“ which is why I put it in quotes and said they were so called.
Not most Republicans.
Making abortion illegal has never really been pro-life, although many of the rank and file sincerely believe it is. It means more women die - from illegal abortions or pregnancy complications.
Anyone who really wants to reduce abortions would support the actions that have been proven to do that:
1. Give people with wombs as much control as humanly possible over whether or not they get pregnant in the first place.
2. Provide social support for children and parents so that every child is guaranteed decent food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.
This is logic, reason. The antithesis of the modern Republican and religious movement. You cannot reason with fanatics.
But #2 would mean the repubs and 1% would need to pay their fair share of taxes as well as Citizens United!!
It's a dream I share with you David.
I like your dream.
In Ohio they are already talking about passing a bill to criminalize abortion with ZERO exceptions and dewine said he will sign it.
Remember the Taliban? These folks are exactly the same. You cannot reason or deal with them.
Sad but true, the gullible believed they had a modicum of honor.
I wouldn’t call Susan Collins gullible. That implies she was surprised by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. She knew they would vote to overturn Roe. She needed them to give her plausible deniability, so she could vote to confirm them, and not be seen to be betraying women. Everyone involved knew this was a Kabuki dance, and all knew how it would turn out.
Susie Q is forever all talk and no walk. And yes, she knew and now she is bleating about how she was deceived...my rear. I can't even stand to hear that woman talk. She is pro keeping herself in the Senate and that's it.
Hmmmmmm.....
Walt Disney dared to dreamed and look what resulted from his perseverance!
May you find the ex-pats in Paris. If the SCOTUS decision prevails and the Republicans take over, the shock will be worldwide. Remember Trump in Europe? The ugly American.
You are so lucky to be out of this country. I'm trying to get to Vancouver with the rest of my family but it's difficult. I'm very scared of the coming years in the U.S. In my lifetime I never thought I'd see what's happening in this country today.
For just a month. I was able to listen today to the special hearing. I know how you feel. I hear it and still can’t believe what I’m hearing. GeneralFlynn took the fifth on every gd question including “ do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power?”. Just unbelievable.
He also drank a fifth before the hearing.
Ah, if it could only be done. I am so concerned by the “runaway” court. I feel like Alice, but instead of wonderland we seem to have found ourselves in a maelstrom, or a male storm.
The lying and putting self interest before anything else leaves me breathless with amazement and hurt.
Jane Ah yes. Was it the red queen who insisted on the verdict first and then the trial? Sounds like the Stench Court.
It was way too obvious when the orange (paid) idol descended the escalator and brought republican hell with him and finally unleashed their plan upon the world.
But it isn’t true self interest. It’s suicide. They haven’t calculated the cost, which will be bankruptcy.
IIRC Rump got 46% of the white, female vote. And the odious ACB is assuredly female
Get two or three more senators, do away with the filibuster and enlarge the court to 13 justices. Not simple, but simpler than multiple impeachments. (Also, I don’t believe Heather was suggesting impeachment, but recusal or cutting all ground out from under their positions on the court.)
Read recently that Roosevelt's threat to expand The Court was sufficient to persuade the justices to back The New Deal.
Justice Owen Roberts ruled for the New Deal in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (I think there are two "r"s in the name. Thereafter, he generally supported government regulation. His change was known as "the switch in time that saved nine." Whether he had an honest change of mind or was worried about court packing is unclear, as far as I know.
Stuart In Paris they had the guillotine. Lacking that, can the Stench Court be impeached according to the ‘originalist’ Constitution?
Technically, it can. There are ample grounds. Removal from office would require 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict, which means it won't happen. However, it takes only a working majority in the Congress (meaning,hold the House and add two more Dem senators who would set aside the filibuster) and political will to take away the powers they have so badly abused.
The milder way to do that, would be to expand the Court to 13 or 15 justices plus create an enforceable code of ethics for them.
The more drastic option would be to create a Federal Review Court that would take over all judicial review of laws and executive branch actions. Such a court could have term limits. The constitutionally defined Supreme Court would be restricted to cases where it has "original jurisdiction", such as lawsuits between states. It's called original jurisdiction because those are the cases the constitution gives to the Supreme Court. Power of review was essentially grabbed by the Court in 1796 in Marbury vs Madison. Congress never took it back, but constitutionally they could do it.
Joan As you point out, the relationship between the Supreme Court and Congress is convoluted. Indeed, Congress has set the number of SC justices at 5-to-10. In 1937 FDR sought to pack the SC, proposing that a new justice be added for every existing justice over age 70. This prompted strong negative reaction, even from his strongly Democratic Congress.
Reference was added to the ‘vote of one that saved nine.’ In fact, this was Justice Owen Robert’s vote on, I believe, a mining law. His vote was recorded in conference before FDR’s court-packing proposal. [I had occasion to discuss this with Owen Roberts Jr., when he was consul at our Cairo Embassy and I was researching my book NASSER’S NEW EGYPT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS (1960–banned by Nasser. Because it was banned, gum shoes at the Ministry of Interior kept badgering me for copies, since the wait list for my book at the MinInt was so long.)
Indeed, the Marbury v Madison 1803 ruling in 1803 that ‘established’ the court’s authority to overrule congressional legislative was bizarre. The issue was whether the issuance of justice of the peace authorizations was legal, when they hadn’t been delivered by the issuing administration. JohnMarshall, as Chief Justice, was ruling on authorizations that he had signed, but not delivered, while he was Secretary of State under ZPresident Adams.
This came before the court when President Jefferson, a massive opponent of Marshall, had started impeaching justices. Marshall, who should have recused himself, split political hairs to make his precedent-setting decision. He ruled that the issuance of these authorizations was valid BUT, referring to the underlying law of, I believe, 1793, he ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it assumed authority that was not granted under the Constitution.
PSHAW—-nothing is simple with the Supreme Court. However, the constitutional provision that judges/justices serve during their lifetime seems sacrosanct.
Keith, thank you for your elucidation and date correction.
Supposing Congress were to setup a Federal Review Court to handle judicial review, one of the reasons would be to create term limits. What do you think of the proposal that while FRC judges would remain judges for life, they would have a limited - perhaps 18 years - term on the FRC? After that, they would shift to "senior status" with other duties, perhaps filling in to help with backlogs in other federal courts.
❤️
Joan What a bag of worms! The Federal Review Court is an intriguing idea. How might Meany Mitch react, Also, term limits seem to be established in the Constitution. I believe that there already is a ‘senior status.’ I recently noticed that retired Justice Souter participated in a. Federal appeals court case.
❤️
Lifetime! Interesting point ! WhAt was the life expectancy in the late 18th century? Did the founding fathers envision a person on the court for 40 years or more?
Louis The Supreme Court, in the early days after the Constitution was ratified, was like second hand Rose. It was difficult to get folks to accept appointment to the SC. One Chief Justice resigned. Another refused to accept appointment. For a full year the Supreme Court did not meet. Only with Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) did the Supreme Court finally begin to exercise its constitutional checks-and-balances role. This also established the federal dominance over states.
As HCR says, it wasn't just about staying alive. Originally, judges had to travel a lot on horseback to hear cases. A man would tire of doing that long before he died of old age.
Stuart, as the saying goes, "Sounds like a plan!" I like it.
YES YES YES
You make it sound. so easy! Could it be?
Winning two more seats in the Senate, dumping the filibuster, admitting Washington,DC as a state, and passing better laws is certainly doable, although not guaranteed.
Impeaching the InJustices won't get rid of them, because removal requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate which we won't get.
The obvious way to diminish the power of these power-mad InJustices is to dilute it by expanding the court. There used to be one justice for each circuit court. There are now 13 circuits, therefore it makes sense to have 13 justices. Also, enact an enforceable code of ethics.
Another, more drastic option would start with the steps above. Then, create an all new Federal Review Court of 13 justices and transfer the Supreme Court's judicial review functions to it. Congress has that power. Leave the SC with only the "original jurisdiction" assigned to it by the Constitution. Include term limits for the new court, in the form of mandatory shift to senior status with other duties after 18 years, and an enforceable ethics code. Have the original 13 serve shorter terms, so that two terms expire every four years. Write reasonable requirements for Senate involvement that do not allow for the kind of shenanigans Moscow Mitch has pulled.
We need to protest, run for office, get out the vote, all that. If we do, we can win this. The majority of the country is on our side.
I think not.
Stuart, we must be related! That would all be on my gift list, and would also take care of the Manchin problem.
Yes, yes, and yes!
100%!
This moment offers the opportunity to castrate the patriarchy and codify women's rights. What Alito has done may look like a victory for the anti-abortion crowd, but what Sam the Sham failed to factor into his decision was the amount of political energy put into play on the Left by the overturning of Roe. Thanks to Trump & Company, we now clearly understand that the Republicans are fascist monsters hellbent on destroying democracy and human progress in all its forms. Regarding the overturning of Roe, "It had to come to this... for the next thing to happen." Excitement in this moment feels like exactly the correct response to Alito's affront. I am reminded of the confidence generated by the Women's March in Washington D.C. the day after Trump was inaugurated in January of 2017. THAT is the energy that has been given new life by Alito's crass, Neanderthal, spiteful, disingenuous decision.
Ah Greg: the optimism of this post is delightful, if a little fantastical. I was one of those protesters in 2017. It was a wonderful day. It really did absolutely nothing. Because unless the Dem leadership stops wringing their hands and crying "woe is me, what is to be done?" and actually gets off their arses and pushes to challenge every Ghastly Oligarch Party candidate up and down every single damn ticket, the goose-step toward a white supremacist, fascist USA will continue unabated. Moscow Mitch knew exactly what he was doing to agree to the takeover of his party by the fascistic wing. He knew that his judges--many of them deemed "unqualified" by the ABA--would fall into line with whatever rightwingnut branch of Christianity he wants them to espouse and push for a theocratic takeover of the courts. Which is exactly what is happening now. And these judges are unelected and have lifetime appointments. The fascists know that decades of careful grassroots infiltration has reached a tipping point, and that they now have all the power at the bottom to make their dreams of a Whites Only theocracy a reality.
Marching and shouting--and posting here, to be honest--is good for one's sense of solidarity with endangered others. But it has no effect when there is no one at the top willing to step in front of the onrushing stormtroopers.
I agree that something has to be done. But what? And it is early; the reversal is just a couple days old. Other than little stuff, seriously what? Except for one thing, we have very little we can do. The party of doing nothing (R's) is using the levers of political power to do exactly that. The system allows it. The SCOTUS - well we can point fingers at RBG, but it was bad timing that Trump got to pick three (with the help of McConnell pulling the dirty trick of tricks against the Garland nomination). Don't blame the House - Pelosi and company have passed plenty of bills using a simple majority. It's the Senate, our super-slim majority, and the filibuster. Game, set, match. And that only other thing? The vote. It's the magic pill. Get that Senate to 60 reliable Democratic votes and all this shit begins to go away.
Democrats were total wusses about that SCOTUS choice that McConnell stuck his middle finger into. I saw a clip of him laughing about it last night. He needs to be neutered. Well I wrote something much worse but spellcheck saved me.
Wusses? Again - what more could have been done? McConnell got lots and lots of bad press about it. IT DIDN"T MATTER. They were in power.
Additionally, the 1/6 traitors were allowed immediately to take their seats in Congress again. Impeachment is off the table, indeed.
Agree
I, sadly, agree with you. Driving to work yesterday on a beautiful summer day I was feeling happy. Then a seed thought popped into my head. I now live in a Country under an oppressive minority rule.
I have been called out in these comments before for my strident defense of Biden. No more. It appears that President Biden has essentially thrown in the towel. Here is how things are occurring. The fascists make one more anti-Democracy move. Biden gives a speech. Biden takes a trip out of the Country.
So yes. You are very correct in saying:
"But it has no effect when there is no one at the top willing to step in front of the onrushing stormtroopers."
I would have to disagree with you Barbara, I don’t believe the President has thrown in the towel, he’s in Madrid now for maybe the most important NATO meeting since it’s founding. NATO has a very serious shooting war happening on it’s borders, which includes us as a member, with a lunatic the likes of which we haven’t seen since Hitler, yesterday saw his diplomacy succeed with the acceptance of Finland and Sweden’s request for membership, this is a very big deal. We and the rest of the democratic world and that includes independents need to take the long view, just like the repugnantins have done for years, if we want to achieve our aims without a civil war. Alito has given us a gift, women and men all over America are looking at each other and saying “holy shit look at what this decision means for us, or our children and grandchildren”, the democrats have not come up with anything, as good as their programs are, and they are very good for the nation, that will motivate people as passionately to the polls in November, we just have to keep the issue out front, that will be the challenge. The January 6 Committee is doing it’s part in keeping the malfeasance of the insipid one’s administration front and center, it’s going to become increasingly difficult to explain away what fellow repugnantins are testifying they have witnessed. The truth shall set us all free, we have to hold that close.
I disagree. More women have run for office than ever before. I see much more engagement in politics in young people. Will it be enough? We’ll see. But to sit back and do nothing definitely doesn’t help. Defeatism will kill us faster.
I used to be the biggest optimist in the room. Used to be. We can acknowledge we are teetering on the cliff and work like crazy to pull Democracy from going over the edge. It's the smart play in my opinion. Besides. The people in this Country may be politically lazy but they also see what is happening. And they don't care.
What's true in physics is true in politics: to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
What's true in physics is true in politics: to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
I was in DC on that day, too!
Greg, I hope you’re right. My Republican mother was paradoxically a feminist and defender of gay rights. As a result my Republican siblings and nephews are horrified Roe has been overturned. I’ve urged them to make choice a priority when they vote. I see a glimmer of hope in this dark landscape.
But they have the power brokers, as intended and achieved. With Rupert as the spokesmodel. But I pray you are right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/biden-democrats-roe-response.html#:~:text=Democrats%20Press%20the%20White%20House%20for%20a%20More%20Assertive%20Response%20to%20Roe%E2%80%99s%20Fall
I recommend this article in the NYT addressing what you are saying. Be forewarned. It does not agree with your position.
Congressman Don Beyer (VA) sent constituents this letter which I felt responded fully to our outrage over the court's decision:
Dear Constituent,
Like so many of you, I am horrified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the case that protected a constitutional right to abortion.
I believe this ruling from a right-wing Supreme Court majority is a dark moment for America.
The conservative justices abandoned 50 years of precedent in a decision which, as Justice Breyer’s dissent put it, “says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of.”
As I feared they would, anti-choice politicians immediately reacted to this decision by activating state laws which, in my view, criminalize essential health care.
Some states have already triggered laws banning abortion with no exceptions – effectively forcing birth even in cases of rape or incest.
In Congress, bills have been introduced to ban abortion at the federal level.
In Virginia, Governor Youngkin and his allies in the closely divided General Assembly signaled that they too will seek new restrictions on abortion. We now face, I believe, an assault on basic human rights here in our Commonwealth.
The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, has published a report finding that criminalizing abortion will do tremendous damage to personal and economic freedom:
“Access to abortion enables people to make the decisions that are right for them and their financial security. Furthermore, the ability to control if and when to have a child has lifelong economic consequences not only for the people directly impacted, but also their families and communities."
I believe the broader implications of this ruling are also profound and terrifying.
Justice Alito wrote that the decision would threaten ‘no other right,’ but this was contradicted by Justice Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion which said that the Court should use this ruling as precedent to revisit past cases that established protections for same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and contraception.
I feel strongly that this ruling must not be the last word, and I am determined to fight for bodily autonomy.
I voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation passed by the House to codify Roe v Wade protections, which I believe is the most important and effective step Congress can take.
I believe that protecting essential health care is more important than arcane procedural rules, and that the Senate must do what it takes to protect abortion rights, including changing filibuster rules if necessary and reforming the Supreme Court.
In the past few days I have heard from so many constituents in Northern Virginia who are deeply upset about the Dobbs decision. To them and to everyone across the country concerned and speaking out, I am with you, I support you, and I will do all I can to help with my voice and my vote.
It is getting worse and almost beyond comprehension how bad it really is.
Hang on tight; the reveals are not over yet - not by a long shot Joe.
Ah, but there’s an interesting subplot: How would Tucker Carlson and Faux News react if some ultimate Trump insider, Jared for example, broke down and spilled the beans about everything, from collusion with Russia in 2015 on down? Given that roughly half of our population still thinks Trump is a great guy because Tucker tells them so daily, I suspect our problems would instantly multiply. Buckle up indeed!
Hey LeMoine Surlamont:
"...spilling the beans..."
Kushner is the son-in-law and “Advisor” of the all-time most corrupt American President.
A number of file boxes labeled Top Secret were illegally hidden At Mar Largo.
Kushner was rejected for Top Secret clearance because of concerns about foreign influence. A trump appointee overruled the rejection and issued Jared his clearance.
Kushner actively defended Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia 2018 killing and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi.
Then the Prince approved Kushner for a two Billion dollar “Loan” from the 600-billion-dollar Saudi “Public Investment Fund’ after the Fund’s management officers initially denied the loan. The Prince then single-handedly rejected their denial.
Was the questionable loan approval by the Prince his potential payback for Kushner’s actions in the White House?
Did Jared share any of the Secret Files hidden at Mar Largo with the Prince as a loan inducement?
Phew!
Something stinks about Jared!
American investigative agencies needs to clear the air from those spilt beans, Eh!?
See details at LINK: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap
Everything stinks about Jared and all the rest of them.
This is all so unbelievable, I keep asking myself, "Is this really happening?"
Fox can never be discounted as to the amount of damage they can do. Yet, MSM rarely mentions them
I think Hannity is going full on into the frying pan. He was the Faux News point man for the coup team. Especially for Meadows. I think Ms Hutchinson might have plenty to say today.
So, Jeri, Fox scum may be doing a lot of damage control instead of being in charge of wreaking damage.
Salud, compatriot! 🗽
Recommend MSNBC. Their people frequently give bits of Faux news. As much as one can stomach (including Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham).
We may get a lot of what you wish for when the films taken for Trumps are reviewed by the 1/6 committee. Huzzah for the 1/6 committee, chairman and membership!
Virginia, it's the absolute LAST thing I wish for. The thought has crossed my mind that this might be Putin's revenge. All he would have to do is release what he has on Trump and the dam would burst. The (heavily armed) Fox News zombies would invent some conspiracy theory about the evidence being fabricated in the basement of the Pentagon. The sane among us would be compelled to try Trump and likely quite a few elected Republicans for Sedition in order to restore faith in our rule of law. The wheels could come off, and blood could run in the streets. Putin wouldn't have had to fire a shot, and the former US of A certainly wouldn't be "meddling with him" in Ukraine. If nothing else, these Russians are great chess players. We may be seeing Putin's "long game" playing out and the thought terrifies me....
May terror drive us to the polls to vote blue. And before that we need to work with our local Indivisible chapters encouraging others to get informed and get to the polls.
Think of Lady Ruby and get to work. The least you can do is write GOTV postcards. And if you have money….
Brilliant comment. Thank you. There are too few American chess players. And too few who know at least two languages (brain polish, like chess),
When chump and his mobster family and friends hightail it to his puppet master in Russia, we will know we're getting close.
Hopefully, no, "prayerfully" his Supreme Court "justices" will go with him.. And Thomas and the woman behind him (she who cannot be named) too!
They will never run, they will instigate civil war first. Their righteous “Christian” rule demands it.
Agree completely
She who must be obeyed.
Correct D4N. Eastman's Apple12 Pro has been sent to a DOJ Lab in Northern Virginia & is subject to further Orders from a Court of competent Juirisdiction. No biometric barriers to this Data.
I believe it is too late.
The Trump crime family is due for a reckoning, but will that ever happen? I have many doubts about the first family itself , but those near him are in for it.
"Presidents are not kings, and you sir aren't even president."
Yes. I agree. This is looking more and more like the crime of the century or more importantly the biggest presidential scandal that this country has ever had.I knew there would be some sort of reckoning on this. You can't have the number of people who participated in this and were aware of the actions of others, including the bad actors, and not have this as a crime just waiting to be be exposed. And exposed it is becoming, with what we know so far maybe being just the tip of the iceberg.
"This is looking more and more like the crime of the century or more importantly the biggest presidential scandal that this country has ever had."
Indeed - bragging rights pending ... 'like you've never seen before - bigger than anything you've ever known' ... ring a bell?
Bigliest!!
And you can’t have such a crime without flashing lights all over pointing to the sheer stupidity of the perpetrators.
I've just forwarded this to my cousin and 2 sisters with the comment: "WOW! DOUBLE WOW!!!! You must read the comments. This is more riveting than Netflex, Hulu etc. could ever dream of."
Unfortunately this is what our country has become. My head is spinning!
I wonder if the j6 committee members have been shocked yet? Cause they are pretty unemotional in their reveals. This certainly is not, "politics, as usual". Or, is it?
Lynn Duffy
It has been my consistent observation that it is the really stupid people who have nothing germane to add to the conversation that are the highly emotional ones who yell the loudest like screaming baboons.
Quite a contrast against the respectful professional demeanor of the cogent discussions by all of the Democrats + two Republicans on the J6 committee, Eh!?
This is the new normal we've been waiting for.
Two of the InJustices are already illegitimate: Gorsuch’s seat was stolen from the president before Trump. Barrett’s seat was stolen from the president after Trump.
Four are openly corrupt due to perjuring themselves to get on the court:
Thomas and Kavanaugh lied under oath about their sexual assault histories. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett lied under oath about their respect for precedent and commitment to non-partisan judging..
Clarence Thomas is additionally corrupt in his behavior relative to his wife’s political activities:
He lied for years on financial disclosure forms about family income, hiding large amounts of money she received for political activities. He refused to recuse himself from a case in which her communications with Trump’s chief of staff about overturning the election were involved.
And that’s only the most visible corruption.
And none of it matters. 1/2 the electorate is perfectly happy with it and they have the cops, and increasingly the election apparatus on their side too.
Rump and the rest of the seditionist traitors are walking around free. We have Rump on video and voice recordings carrying out myriad crimes, but he hasn't even been charged. Meanwhile a black lady gets 5 years for filling out a ballot by mistake.
There won't be a repeat of 2020, the 'swing' states controlled by Republicans like GA aren't going to make the mistake of impartial vote tallies again.
Perhaps. But not necessarily. It's important not to let pessimism and despair drain energy that could be used to make a difference. At least 60% of the country is with us. We have a chance to turn this around with protests and voting. The further along the fascists get, the harder they will be to overcome. It's worth the effort to stop them now. If we each figure out what we can and will do, and do it, we have a very decent chance to prevail.
We didn’t have mistakes with our vote tallies, Joe Biden won GA unmistakably, and our elected officials stood by the vote count. We still have a good chance of sending the POS to Reidsville to rot, stay tuned.
You took the words from my mouth, Peter.
I would also like to know: what will that do for Clarence Thomas, the Donald Trump of the Supreme Court and his wife? There is, after all, yet “another link between the recent Supreme Court decisions and the January 6 attempt to destroy our democracy that creates an unprecedented situation.”
As has been reported Thomas is working on silencing media criticism of 'folks' like him
I read that last paragraph and went "whoa" - that could be a total game changer!! And, the Dems need to pull every legal tool out of the quiver (and play hardball) to offset the effects of the corruption foisted upon this country by the criminal trump and his minions.
Does the DNC, Schumer, et. al. even have the faintest notion how to play hardball??? I doubt it
And the Republicans know it and exploit it.
For all of our sakes they had better learn.
Will Schumer finally get it, one doubts
I expect that any legal sanctions Senators might face for participating in the 1/6 conspiracy would have no direct impact on the Justices.
That said, any illegal or unethical acts by the Justices themselves, either pre or post-elevation, would be relevant.
Public opinion is another matter.
A crushing election victory for Democrats yielding a true Senate majority, would open the option to changing the rules on terms of service, and the number and composition of sitting panels.
The number of Justices on a panel deciding a particular case could remain fixed at nine.
However, the pool from which panels are selected could be increased, with Justices rotating in and out of the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts with the result that Supreme Court panel members would change with some regularity.
I dream, their stranglehold is suffocating
Total cliffhanger with fingers crossed.
Crossing one's fingers could prove very dangerous in a cliff-hanging situation...
Grin !
Good one!
🤣🤣🤣
It also raises the question, what if ТЯцм₽ is convicted and he appeals the case up to the Supreme Court...?
nice font use there!
And he would with obvious results
Speaking of the Supreme Court, I have a feeling that Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony today is going to pull Ginni Thomas into the coup conspiracy. It’s been noted how close Ginni was with Mark Meadows. I believe connections between the Supreme Court and all that has been revealed about the planning and intent of January 6th will be suggested or outright declared today through witness testimony.
And the timing of that can possibly prove to be more than strategic.
Something is up. I can feel it.
Unita! 🗽
Just like my dog, I smell fear in the air.
The Jan. 6 Committee may be saving our hash.
That closer gave me some much needed hope. If our leaders see this through and prosecute all of those involved in the attempted coup and ensure those found guilty can never serve in a position of public trust again and reversing the damage they did in the furtherance of their cause (such as confirming the last three justices), we may be able to save our democracy. I would expect, though, that the last three justices wouldn't be the only ones who could lose their appointments. Thomas looks a lot like he was part of the coup, as well, given his wife's role in it and his refusal to recuse himself in matters that could lead to exposing her role.
Our leaders by themselves can do a lot of good, but they can't reverse the minority authoritarians' power grabs by themselves. We each have to do whatever we can. If you can, RunForSomething. Me, I write postcards to get out the vote. Whatever. At the very least, make a plan to vote in every election for every post, and encourage the people around you to do so.
If that doesn’t move an enlargement of the court, what will?
I dunno know. Maybe make them illegitimate?
I have one word: WOW.
Agree!
that's what I thought, too.
Yes indeed. If this plot started in September, what does this say about a justice confirmed in late October?
And what of the role of Ginni and Justice Clarence Thomas?
And why did Kennedy really resign, clearing the way for Kavanaugh? There’s some parallel context here with Nixon investigating several justices to try to force out liberals. Trump (and his minions) was certainly capable of this.
This onion has many layers yet to peel.
And who paid Kavanaugh's debts?
I've been wondering about that ever since he was nominated.
The Kennedy/Kavanaugh questions disappeared too quickly. I never understood why answers weren’t pursued. The members of this current committee have certainly figured out how to track down answers. Even if a Congressional committee couldn’t have been formed, there were certainly well funded Democratic groups that could have done deep dives into the “mysteries.” Is it too late??
This may sound like a Q conspiracy post - but in my case I’m holding out for evidence. The situations certainly look suspect enough to look into very closely.
I thought I saw the clown car parked right by the White House South Lawn during Amy Coney Barrett’s swearing in ceremony. That was right around Halloween, correct?
Peel, peel peel!
Salud, Matt!
For sure there was a clown car, we know that by the Super Spreader Covid event it became!
Oh, Christine....You have made me laugh out loud with your clown car vision. Thanks for making me laugh when there is so little to laugh at these days!
Christine You should do the comic warm up before today’s special 1/6 house hearing. It would get us in the mood to listen to Ivanka’s and others’ banal blather. The Batmobile would be appropriate to recall yesteryear when Ivanka and Jared considered themselves Bat Girl and Batman. All that’s left is bat s—t.
“batsh*t”. Hahahahahahaha. Good one.
Salud, Keith. 🗽
Nahhhhh. If anything, it would appear Trumps were partial towards to Kennedy and his son, as opposed to threatening. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/12/untangling-the-links-between-trump-deutsche-bank-and-justice-kennedys-son/
But the Trumps family turn on anyone when it suits their interests. Viciously. It is at least plausable that there is some blackmail afoot here.
Blackmail? Pure speculation, let's not go Qish to the left. If anything, I'd guess Kennedy's kid had dirt on Trump. Instead I'd bet Trump promised, sweet talked, begged and since Kennedy's kid trusted Trump maybe Justice Kennedy did also.
Look, I’m holding on for evidence, but I do have suspicians. Trump has shown he’s capable of anything. He’s recruited those capable of anything. And blackmail is one of his favorite tools. There is also precedent for another sitting US President trying to dig up dirt to pressure justices into resigning.
"Trump has shown he’s capable of anything. He’s recruited those capable of anything. And blackmail is one of his favorite tools"
Matt, speculate all you want about Trump. It would be easy to imagine Trump is capable of anything to get whatever he wants.
Trump has no moral boundaries at all. None.
Sadly, Trump is not the only rich, white American, with laws supporting them to pretty much do anything they want, to be both able and willing to do anything they want KNOWING they are very unlikely to ever be pulled over by a cop driving home.
Mike the skin color of those people "rich, white American with laws supporting them to pretty much do anything they want" has been changing for some time. Clarence Thomas is black. Tim Scott is black. There are an increasing number of blacks working for FOX and being anti-Democracy in their rhetoric. There are an increasing number of blacks and women who have lost their damn minds and have joined forces with their oppressors. Unbelievable.
❤️
Follow the $$$. "Nice job your son's got. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it."
Bingo
Plausible that it was kumbaya
Best questions yet!
Please, people, PLEASE refrain from the linguistic habit of using the phrase "have enjoyed the right," specifically the right to choose abortion. There is NOTHING to enjoy related to an experience of dread, despair, fear, frustration, regret, self-blame, anguish, distress, and physical pain--for those who did not die from the procedure.
Such an important plea, Ellie! As it relates to abortion, it’s unfortunate that in legal terms, “enjoyment” means to exercise a right. To minimize confusion, we could say, “For nearly 50 years, women in the US have been free to exercise their right to an abortion.”
I work in the legal realm and stick to plain language as much as possible. Thank you for your crystal clear plain language that women had been "free to exercise their right to abortion."
The right to make decisions about one’s own body seems to be protected by the 13th Amendment’s ban on slavery and forced work. Forced pregnancy was in fact a very large part of American slavery.
I agree that forced pregnancy and childbirth is slavery--totally fits the definition: no ownership of body or labors. But at least 1/3 of the country would not agree. And even a goodly % of pro-choicers would consider that hyperbole.
At least a quarter of the country would privately agree and like it. As for the rest, it is time to make the case and seed the idea widely.
And men have been free to skedaddle
Or to be invisible
It really comes down to control over their bodies and health doesn't it? Abortion has most certainly and rightfully taken the most important position in this but the whole picture of family planning/life and death comes into focus here.
I daresay not every woman who has had an abortion felt dread, despair, fear, anguish, etc.
Clearly you have never experienced the exercise of free choice in that particular instance. Even when an abortion is a carefully thought out action of choice it might come with a certain amount of dread, anguish, guilt and pain.
Wrong. Stoicism and pragmatism informs many decisions rather than the popularly depicted gnashing of teeth and rending of garments crew. That depiction of women as emotionally fragile, in need of guidance from the all powerful male, is part of the fallacy. Certainly not all sail through with their equanimity in balance but I’m sick of this depiction of women as victims of their emotions.
Feeling anguish doesn’t make someone fragile. The problem is that many men think they are never affected by emotions. In their view, anger doesn’t count as an emotion which affects their behavior. Ha!
Gail, here’s another perspective from one who’s been there. Stoicism and pragmatism are coping strategies in the face of pain and trauma. They don’t negate the emotions, they rise above them. The moment a women faces an unwanted pregnancy is always difficult, period.
That was not my experience. Instead I was annoyed by my and my partner's carelessness. I was not pained nor traumatized, during either event. Each has her own experience I suppose.
That is certainly true that pragmatism does indeed inform many decisions--I think I made that clear? I said a certain amount--not a rending and wailing...and generally not remorse. No medical procedure comes without some dread and some pain. I do not speak from inexperience but of course, I cannot speak for all recipients, either.
As you said, “I cannot for speak for all recipients, either”.
Do not presume to tell me what I have experienced.
Tinfoil hattie, I totally agree! It seems to be an uncomfortable and unpopular notion that not all women suffer from the decision to have an abortion. I consider the choice over abortion to be a fundamental human right and as such does not require the justification of suffering. I support the choice of women to tell their stories but I do not believe that the full range of abortion stories are being represented.
To be clear, the remark was not about a decision to have an abortion, but about someone who 'has had' an abortion. I cannot even fathom having any medical procedure that doesn't induce some fear, whether the other emotions are relevant or not. Even if overridden by total relief after decision is made, there's still fear for one's own well being that has nothing to do with embrace of the right to do it.
I've had lots of medical procedures that didn't scare me. I'm sorry that hasn't been your experience.
Fear for one’s own well being particularly if the procedure was done under general anesthesia, which is the closest to becoming dead.
If they were placed first in a two-day artificial coma, perhaps not - but that's not the way it's done.
And why should they?
Huh?
You said it Ellie. Rights are not supposed to be "enjoyed"--any of them. Privileges are "enjoyed." Rights should be inalienable and automatic. But as you know, those who are not white, cis, and in possession of a penis rarely have access to the "rights" those boyz take for granted.
Thank you. This and the casual use of the “rape metaphor” (to describe situations of powerlessness that aren’t rape) are disturbing to many. Would you have a suggestion for how to better refer to this right in the future?
Where does the line between rape and not rape begin or end? Next week I'll be 70 years old and every single day I remember our kindly doctor climbing on top of me, telling me what a pretty young girl I had grown to be. Terror gave me the strength to push him off. I told my mother as we walked out of the office. She made an excuse for him and said I wouldn't have to see him again.
I was 11 years old.
Brava to your wits and courage so young. You show the difference between a legal definition required for prosecution and the lived experience of terror that becomes daily trauma.
This breaks my heart. Oh. 😥😥😥😥😥
Not my point at all. I’ll try to clarify because it is important. I was referring to those who use rape as a metaphorical term or descriptor such as “that car salesman really raped me” or “if the insurance company is going to rape you, you might as well enjoy it”. I continue to hear metaphorical uses of rape in common situations of power imbalance or advantage that are as horrid or worse. That’s what I was referring to. That this kind of usage should cease.
I’m sorry if my effort to allude to this practice led you to think I was discussing legal definitions. I was not. Thank you for your comment.
Who would ever, ever use rape as a metaphor???? I've never heard these sentences in my life by anyone I know.
Gailee,
It is not common but not uncommon to hear that metaphor in all male conversation I am sorry to say.
Thanks, Mike, for taking that on. Of course boys and men can be, and literally are raped, the sheer physical difference of male and female bodies contributes to the use of rape as a metaphor that is usually indicative of force and lack of respect for, as Jesus said, "the little ones," by which he didn't mean just children, but others who, by their status, are less powerful.
I'm going to ask my male friends. Maybe a specific type of male, but no one I would want to know.
Good morning Mike,
My husband has never heard it. My male friends have never heard it. They are all in the film industry. And I know some will say, ¨Oh they just don't want to admit it.¨ But, because we all talk about everything - some are screen writers - and we all use pretty salty language, I don't think that is the case. In The Fantasticks - which I directed - there is a rape. However, in this case, it is an abduction as that is one synonym for rape. In the 1990's the writers of the musical actually created a second song called ¨The Abduction¨ so that theatre companies could choose. I didn't know that when I directed it in 2019 and so we used the original, and I was never comfortable with it. All the others synonyms include molestation, violation, criminal attack. I know that 'raping the land' is something heard. This I understand because it produces a sense of violation upon the earth. Maybe it is time for a course study for women and men in language and how it affects behaviors. I think the only men who would use rape as a metaphor for being screwed over are characters in a David Mamet play.
We could use rape as a metaphor for what this culture does to lands and peoples - and certainly, the attitude that you might as well 'cut the poor me crap' - get over it and enjoy the ride, since you can do nothing to stop it - has a very familiar ring to it ....
Really? It's unbelievably common ( or was a few years ago) for guys in a corporate meeting to say things like “Here's my spread sheet on x and y. Rape it however you want.” When my wife raised an objection to the use of the phrase, she was roundly chastised by her boss for being outspoken and embarrassing the guy! She even got 'written up' for it.
Figures.
That just shows how middle ages american men are. and i'm being kind
“if the insurance company is going to rape you, you might as well enjoy it”.
...?
Context ...?
What would there be to "enjoy" about being taken advantage of {{screwed}} by an insurance company ...?
If you have never heard this kind of content in your life, consider yourself lucky. I had a boss who said things like this for years. It was horrid. And he wasn’t the only one.
Hi Matt - trust it, I have more than heard plenty of such content in my life, and know all too well how offensive - and debilitating it is, and can be - and I do agree, we would do well to find other language (along with deeper awareness, sensitivity and conscience) - especially, as actions speak louder than words - and those who are so sexually obsessed that the ol' 'cup runneth over' and spills into everything said and done ... worse, to treat it as a joke, and presume upon others to laugh along ... it is a poisonous pit of sickness that knows no bottom - a visceral form of cognitive dissonance ... so to speak - as it were ..., such as it is ... thank you for sharing!!
I have heard raping the land as a metaphor. But the use of rape as a metaphor is uncommon.
Good Lord, what a trauma. So glad your terror won
What a bum. Par for the course for many in his generation - I am told the industry has improved ... willing to believe - hard to trust ....
A virtual hug to you.
Matt, I agree with reserving the term rape for sexual violation, and not using the term as metaphor. For the same reason, I find no humor in jokes about rape or torture.
Women have simply HAD the constitutional right to choose abortion. No other verb is necessary. Thank you for asking.
Language is indeed important.
Rape is a difficult word to hear related to abortion, but it is the best description of making it illegal. Men (or The State) forcibly taking control of a woman's body against her will, causing bodily harm and risk death, to force it do to what they want it do.
Same with the word "slavery" -- lack of ownership of one's own body and labors.
Neither word is considered acceptable to the many; are not persuasive. Just accurate.
Exploitation?
That certainly applies to Justice Alioto's comment about making abortion illegal should "increase the number of domestic babies available for adoption."
Something that could have been said by one of the “Commanders” on Handmaids Tale. Sickening.
Saying it out loud. But he left out the word "white" babies, n'est ce pas?
... woah!! Supply and demand dynamics for the domestic baby adoption/ resident sex worker industry ...!?!
think "breeders."
Thank you.
He's a Catholic fanatic, like most of the other 'Justices'
I agree, Ellie. I might add that I constantly implore people from using the term “pro life”. As in that is something that we must argue against when Republicans spews that nonsense out their mouths. If you are alive and like that condition, then you are pro life. We are talking about PRO CHOICE and the effort to make that available to only some regarding health care choices.
I cannot begin to tell you how many people seethe when the guv in this state blathers on how the “woke left” is not pro life.
In this age of tweets and posts, language counts tremendously.
Salud, Ellie. 🗽
Indeed!!! "PRO CHOICE" is not about PROmoting the abortion industry ... and it is an industrial arm of standard medical practice (harvesting stem cells for research?) ... indigenous people know how to abort a pregnancy with herbs - no need for doctors or surgical procedures ... of course, naturopathy and practice of herbal medicine was _outlawed_ until not so long ago - would that be another civil rights reversal we can anticipate from this rogue court ...?
... oh, and of course, not to mention historic and ongoing invalidation and suppression of indigenous culture ...
So, just out of curiosity, why are 'we the people' fighting so hard to codify into law the constitutional right to have a medically induced abortion ...?
Just asking ...
Thanks Ellie.
Makes sense.
I had the exact same response to those words. An unfortunate but necessary choice for many. Enjoy? Hardly.
Thank You Ellie. This is SO important. May I copy and share?
Please do.
Thanks. IncredibIe testimony just now from Meadows aide!!
Yes,I was amazed to learn Stephanie was 25 ! Not amazed to learn TFG was prone to violence. I won’t repeat the rape metaphor TFG used…
The presence she had! I tried to put my 25 year old self in her chair - couldn't imagine.
I assume you're referring to Cassidy Hutchinson? Yes, amazing presence of mind and amazing extent of experience in several Senatorial offices. Olivia Troye (former VP Pence aide) spoke at length about her to Lawrence O'Donnell last night on "The Last Word". It's well worth listening to. Ms. Troye speaks at length about Ms. Hutchinson's experience in Congress and how highly she was regarded by everyone who knew her and worked with her. I was stunned to learn which Senators she had worked for: Scalise & Cruz! https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/fmr-pence-aide-cassidy-hutchinson-s-testimony-shows-her-courage-143047237509
Judith, thanks for the correction. I’ll check out the link about Cassidy.
Wow. Thank You for this clip.
Clarence Thomas is more frightening than any character ever penned by Stephen King.
As King said in his book about how to write horror stories (published back in the 80s, a very useful book for people like me), he said "the best monsters have their fur on the inside."
Mmmm, such as Randall Flagg.
Unidad, TC!
Revelation! Trump really is Randall Flagg, and Giuliani is Trashcan Man.
I was just thinking about Stephen King yesterday, Mark. And one of my favorite of his fictional works comes to mind often of late…..The Stand.
Salud!
It does seem that Thomas appears to live at the edge of some horror town where something bad is happening every day and an evil presence lurks.
:-)
Like the PBS drama series "Midsomer Murders" where, for 130+ episodes there are a couple of murders a day in a small village!! :)
... well, he is a black man in America ...
🤣🤣 I love this. Creepy but true.
Remember, the poor man barely survived a “High Tec Lynching”. He was a monster from day one.
Couldn’t be truer. He sat there like a toxic lump for decades and finally screamed, you can’t say that I’m a do-nothing justice any more. Puke.
I love reading Stephen King's posts. He pulls no punches and says almost what you've written.
They were in the middle of that conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election when the senate voted in Amy Coney Barrett. At least 4 of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee acted with malice on behalf of the Trump WH - Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Josh Hawley,, and Lindsey Graham. Chuck Grassley may have played a part too, though the evidence so far is inclusive. If she had any sense of duty, she would have pulled out of the process when the plan to “reclaim the election” began to go off the rails. She couldn’t care less about the rigging of democracy; she grabbed that SCOTUS seat and began doing the bidding of her masters.
Yes, she couldn't care less... then or now.
Correct. Remember she was apparently part of the “brooks brothers riot” that helped to steal the vote from Gore.
Along with Kavanaugh and Roberts, Coney Barret was called in (by The Federalist Society) to Florida to monitor the presidential ballot count. Or delay it so the Supreme Court could, oh, stop the count before Al Gore won.
They orchestrated that whole fiasco, with help from Stone and Baker. Al Gore did win. We have never recovered from the big cheat.
Yep. That was the cheat that hurts the most. Imagine having had an intelligent environmentalist in the White House.
Omg
(Fixed it😂)
We knew exactly who Amy Coney Barrett is when she accepted the nomination the night RBG died.
I've seen her referred to as Amy Coney Island--very apropos
Yes, we did know. Any woman in whose religious orb is called a "handmaid" is in a scary world, one I do not want to even visit.
Absolutely!
Apropos of too much that comes to me from reading and listening is how fragile is this republic we have assumed certain because of adherence to traditions and belief in the power of worthy laws created by men (and women) of good conscience designed to realize the promises in our declaration of independence and a constition agreed upon to establish this union comprised in and of diversity of people and thought. It is being shown to be fragile, I think. Can it survive? Is their the common will to defend and reaffirm it? Will the price of gas on election day weigh more at the polls in November than the prospect of a facetious transformation from what was hoped for to what was once feared as this nation was born? My fears are great today.
Self righteousness and religious fervor in the court poisons everything. Term limits are the least of the reforms needed.
Does Supreme Court Justice Thomas want to revisit with other laws of historical and cultural character the laws that made miscegenation illegal?
He specifically didn't mention Loving - it was conspicuous by its absence.
I've been saying this from the get-go. Someone should be sure that Loving becomes part of the big erasure of rights. Maybe that will shut Clarence the f&*k up.
They'll make sure none of the 'justices' are affected by their 'judgments'. Ever hear of a judge getting a drug test? And try exercising the '2nd Amendment right to bear arms' in their courtroom.
He has no identity without Ginni, a Stepford husband.
I had the same thought but didn't know the proper term for it. Thanks for supplying it.
I guess I should be grateful to Thomas for not going after the Loving decision. I am half of a mixed race couple. I’d hate to have my 40+ year marriage ruled illegal.
For some reason, though, I cannot be grateful. Just as an aside, we were married in Virginia just 13 years after Loving was decided.
Can you even *imagine* how many interracial couples in the U.S. would be impacted by such a ruling? Same question re same-sex marriages.... What would they do, prosecute all of them? Of course, that's all rhetorical bcz Thomas would never go there.
Judith, he might go after same sex marriages since that doesn’t affect him personally.
Thomas cannot go after the Loving decision -- he's married to a white woman.
Citizen60. My point exactly. And what a winner she is!
And McConnell is married to a woman of Chinese descent, that would count as interracial. And, of course, the soon-to-be seated newest Supreme Court Justice also has an interracial marriage.
Unless he no long wants to be married to her...
My thought too! A convenient way to rid himself of a "troublesome spouse". However, I think the damage is already done and he knows it ...thus, the sudden outburst of action trying to prove his creds!
If people have no right to marry who they love because they do not fit the "preponderance of American history" standard, then Loving is definitely out the window along with Obergefell.
Citizen60, that historical standard blows my mind. I guess it means anything in effect before 1830 or so is good for 2022. You know, when women had babies, men had guns, blacks and indigenous people didn’t count and only white men voted and rich men ruled totally supreme and unfettered.
That’s one of Alioto’s rationale. And it’s a lie. Abortion was accepted and legal in many non-Catholic colonies since they landed until 1821 when Connecticut passed the first law making it illegal “after the time of the quickening.” 16-18 weeks. So, if one adds the early Dutch and English founding dates until 1821 then add the Roe decade’s it’s nearly 40% of America’s history. Not half, but definitely a goodly portion.
SCOTUS need a legitimate historian (such as HCR) on staff.
A single one would help. That's actually one of the tasks of the clerks, not just searching legal decisions/dissents. There is quite of bit of published history of abortion in America since its earlies days--which Alioto ignored or lied about.
My question here is: If these jokers overturn the 'constitutional' right to same sex marriage, what happens? Are we simply declared unmarried? Is this too tossed down to the states, where it began? Do we go back to married in Massachusetts, but not Florida, or Texas, or........?Do we need another Stonewall?
Nothing is “settled law” any longer. Our entire civil society is suddenly up for grabs.
The Obergefell decision related to all federal benefits for same sex marriages as heterosexual marriages have, so I guess overturning it would mean couples would not have the same federal benefits (IRS, Social Security, etc) again. Several states had already made same sex marriage legal.
I believe this SCOTUS would uphold any attempt to pass a national ban on same sex marriage. My son is gay—this is personal in our family.
I keep saying this too
Wow! Thank you Heather for another immense amount of crucial information. Tomorrow’s hearing should be interesting. And your last paragraph is a bomb waiting to explode.
Quite the provocative barnburner. Professor Richardson can close an essay like few others.
Unidad, Karen! 🗽
Perhaps the Republicans are correct in there assertions of voter fraud in the 2020 election; theirs.
Knowingly colluding to pass false lists of electors to an election official, such as the vice-president, amounts to election fraud and conspiracy to commit election fraud. We can add sedition and conspiracy to commit sedition by sworn public officials to the list of charges.
Requesting presidential pardons is direct evidence of guilt; a kind of un-coerced confession, it seems to me.
"Perhaps the Republicans are correct in there assertions of voter fraud in the 2020 election; theirs."
Best post of the day Ralph.
In fact, the only voter fraud that occurred during the 2020 election WAS Trump trying cough up fake electors to hand to Mike Pence, who, was clearly on the Fence about what to do until the last day.
But, somehow Trump has cast his illegal coup attempt as the reaction to a "stolen election".
Herein lies the real problem: Americans.
Americans are now so easily led up the primrose path by BS that even TRUMP can pull the wool over their eyes.
Imagine Trump trying to lie to John Adams. That conversation would probably have lasted 20 seconds and been done.
... so, "Republicans are correct in there assertions of voter fraud in the 2020 election; theirs." - thank you Ralph and Mike - exactly what I was thinking - same as saying the 2016 election was 'rigged' - it was - for tfg to win.
STOP THE REAL STEAL!!!
It is a known propaganda tactic, to accuse others of the behavior you intend to do or perhaps already have done.
I got banned from Twitter for saying just that, attributed it to Goebbels - and Rupert
Truth is truly dangerous to those who would obscure it.
Projection is their weapon always.
John Adams didn't have Fox News playing in the background in every pub.
Hi Mike - I think you will like this:
Salvatierra Farms
https://farmersfootprint.us/salvatierra-farms/
Wishing Well,
ka
Great observation. They always accuse others of what they themselves are up to.
My point many times, the voter fraud in 2020 was widespread and deliberate. 99.99 % republican bull Schitt bought by the cult and spread with self-righteous fervor. All the while, Dems gast was flabbered. I know mine was….
Love..." gast was flabbered".
I'd care to support our Dr. HCR's references to Ruth Ben-Ghiat. I've been following her writing for some time now. She writes on Substack too. Highly educational stuff regarding authoritarians. She's not posted anywhere near as long as Heather has, but her stuff is spot on and her credentials are solid. * Ruth Ben-Ghiat's Substack section is named "Lucid".
Thank you for sharing your opinion. In my opinion, this space is sacred and I too appreciate
Ruth Ben-Ghiat. I would like to encourage each of us to protect this space as we freely share.
Thank you HEATHER for creating this wonderful home for us.
There is a 'run-off" today in my local, and I will be voting!
Did you read what she had to say about DeSantis? Spot on!
I would have to quote your entire letter as an example of the lies and deceit of the repubs, their election corruption and the hearings. So I’ll just make this suggestion: instead of metal detectors as repubs line up to enter government buildings and hearings, just have them walk through lie detector machines. Easy and fast.
Walking “the plank” so to speak. I like it!
Trouble is, no one in that crowd has a conscience, so I fear a lie detector wouldn’t work.
Slip ‘em a mickey, sodium pentathol, a truth serum before they enter.
LOL !
👋 👋 👋
"Thomas wants to make it easier to sue media outlets because, he wrote, the “New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity."
Like: Fox News making up lies about how inflation is caused by Biden and not Exxon Mobil's historically high profit margins?
Or, Sean Hannity feeding his minions lies about a stolen election?
I welcome Clarence Thomas' aspirations to reign in the media through lawsuits.
The day he "rules" on that new set of "laws", I will be happy to organize a lawsuit against THE most insidious, traitorous, and dangerous lies factory in America:
Fox "News".
I do quite laugh out loud when I write "News" next to Fox.
Fox Lies is FAR more accurate.
Waiting for the day. They already won a lawsuit, saying that since they are entertainment, that people should not consider them news. Maybe take that moniker off their trappings, people think it’s for real. Way past time.
I say all three of Trump’s nominees should be thrown off the court.
The circumstances of their confirmations are more than questionable.
I have this dream of Trump, the Trumpscum in the White House, the traitors in the House and Senate, and the five illegitimate traitors on the Supreme Court, all being "perp walked" out of those buildings, all charged with Sedition, the Republican party destroyed by being now known as the Party of Treason.
And yeah, I'm not holding my breath, since I have no desire to turn blue and die.
Yes, TC, a great dream. Criminals actually being arrested.
But, that only happens in the black community for the most part.
White folks are defined as "respectable" even if, like Bill Gates, they are flying out to an island to spend a weekend with "Jeffrey Epstein". Which, apparently, he did do. A weekend where children will be abused and robbed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html
But, its all good.
Bill Gates is rich and white. Zero chance of being arrested for anything he ever does.
Unfortunately, you're right. :-(
👋 👋 👋
I'm trying to imagine what it'll look like to have a certain percentage of our elected officials legislating from behind bars with their illegitimate Federalist Society judiciary right next door.
Morning Lynell. The current worry is that the bars will be there to keep you out and not to keep them in.
Oh, Stuart, you ought to know by now that I'm a glass half full kind of gal, though my husband never gets the benefit of that perspective from me...morning!
Oh dear, Lynell, I'm wondering whether i should feel sorry for your husband or rejoice that with him your approach is always based upon reflection and is highly rational, lucid and balanced? I guess that we are both blessed with partners with whom we can be ourselves, grouch a little and dream a lot.
It's okay to feel sorry for him, I do, too, many a time! But whether half empty or half full, he never fails to refill my glass.
Blessings to your partner who I'm sure dreams right along with you.
❤️❤️
❤️
Oh my goodness, Lynell….a wonderful visual you’ve come up with!
I've gotten so cynical. Friday's Dobb decision feels like one of tr**p's bombs to distract. In this case, from the J6 hearings. So tomorrow's hearing kind of feels like the committee is holding the hearing to refocus public opinion.
I'm so furious at SCOTUS. I have typed & deleted more comments this weekend....
Without a filibuster or with 60 Senators and majority in House, Dems and all reasonable people could pretty much circumscribe this right-wing SCOTUS. Would Dobbs even be filed much less litigated to SCOTUS if federal law allowed-supported abortions in all states? If gun manufacturers did not have liability protections from Congress (WBush) and owning a gun required a $2,000,000 insurance bond and/or 'mental fitness' psychiatric evaluations annually, would anyone be talking about New York's concealed carry law being overturned?
Thank you, HCR for clarifying Clarence Thomas for me a little bit. Why: He’s now the bull in the SCOTUS China shop. After being invisibly awful for years. Tomorrow…J6, will pay particular attention to what the committee presents and how Liz Cheney frames it for Republicans. ❤️🤍💙
gildedtwig, I agree with you that Dobbs has put Thomas under the spotlight--and that he don't look too good. However, I would argue that it's important to note that while he has been a sphinx during open arguments, he has a long string of opinions, usually dissenting or concurring in part, in which his views of the Constitution, the role of government, the mistakes of past decisions, etc., have been very clear. Like Gorsuch--but starting long before him--he has clearly outlined and advocated for interested parties to bring the properly shaped cases to the Court so that it can reach the decisions he has long thought they should. Obviously he was restricted to a minority for a long time by the make-up of the Court. But those opinions have laid around like rotting Easter eggs to be thrown onto the public when the balance shifted.