Today the Supreme Court followed up on yesterday’s decision gutting affirmative action with three decisions that will continue to push the United States back to the era before the New Deal. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis the court said that the First Amendment protects website designer Lorie Smith from having to use words she doesn’t believe in support of gay marriage. To get there, the court focused on the marriage website designer’s contention that while she is willing to work with LGBTQ customers, she doesn’t want to use her own words on a personalized website to celebrate gay marriages. Because of that unwillingness, she said, she wants to post on her website that she will not make websites for same-sex weddings. She says she is afraid that in doing so, she will run afoul of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws, which prevent public businesses from discriminating against certain groups of people.
If we make term limits of 18 years and allow presidents to appoint 2 per term, then the court will become less partisan. Add that if the Senate fails to vote on an appointment within 60 days, that appointment will stand (no more Merrick Garland).
If and when we can get the democrats to act we need to make the Senate represented by the people not two senators from each state. Hardly fair when New York and California have millions more people than many of the small states but still only have 2 senators. Hardly a fair playing field.
There is a convoluted (and, I think, wrong) argument that Congress could limit the justices of the Extreme Court to set terms. But would the court accept that? I doubt that even the “liberal” justices would do so.
We the People DON'T CARE if "the court" accepts it. We are done with them and their illegitimacy. They manufacture bogus "rules" to justify their paid-for promises to Leo Leo,.... so, can (and should) we.
A few weeks ago, I posted that Trump's reaction to his indictment, in light of the detailed factual allegations showed that the nation is divided into two groups: Those who believe in the rule of law, and those who are opposed to it. Which side are you on? If it is the side of those supporting the rule of law, then you have to care about whether the court would accept it, because the rule of law depends upon accepting court rulings, even when we believe they are dead wrong.
I would be very concerned as to how a law or ruling or whatever that "the Court" "doesn't accept" would or could be enforced. Legally amending the law is the only thing I personally would accept. I mean, are we insurrectionists? Seriously?
The way to remedy the problem of the Supreme Court apparently is to elect Congress members who can over rule the Court. Congress has to pass laws that set a standard of ethics and that are enforceable. Biden can overrule too, but he has said he won't because it would look like he was prejuducung the case with his power. The legal procedure is tedious and detailed, but if it's done right, it's secure in theory. Rule of law sure beats rule by monarchical whimsey, but it's not inherited: every gemeration has to learn how to maintain our democracy, and teach each following generation, or we lose it to the money grubbing autocrats.
We the People absolutely do NOT care if the Court accepts term limits or not. It is time to reform the Constitution. It was cobbled together over 200 years ago to replace the Articles of Confederation, which were not working very effectively. I have to wonder if the founders thought the document they put together would still be around after 200 years. They also assumed people of good character would hold office. Look what happens when you assume! Trump, the radicals on the Court ( courtesy of Trump and Mitch McConnell) have exposed the cracks in the country's foundation. Screw what John Roberts thinks; he has greatly contributed to the court's illegitimacy.
And if Biden does not initiate expansion, why do Democrats think Republicans won't expand the court to seal off this avenue to preserve democracy? Republicans have shown no qualms about stacking the courts with the most corrupt players they can find.
It takes a Senate that would pass such legislation. We don't have the numbers - yet. If Biden starts beating the drum for expansion before we achieve the Blue Trifecta next year, he will simply be creating a distraction. Instead, do what's doable and talk about how effective it has been.
I am 100% for expanding the Supreme Court. When it's a realistic possibility: January 2025
Seems to me it’s all about getting out the vote in 24...winning with huge majorities and effecting important legislation that actually allows for checks and balances. Things seem quite lopsided now, with the minority rule having way too much unfettered power.
And we have to make CERTAIN that any third party people running for President (or really, ANY office) in '24 cannot take any votes from Democratic office seekers. From republicans, sure. We - the United States of America - just cannot afford another debacle like 2016
Makes perfect sense, Bill and I agree with you, except for the fact that doing it right now, immediately on the heels of the Confederate 6 would fire that shot across the bow and:
1. Signal to the GQP that we are Dead-Ass serious now and the party's over
2. Possibly be the inspiration that brings those on-the-fence Indies finally over
3. Cement every non-white, LGBTQ, interracial, agnostic or "different" as blue
4. Show the weak GOP that they are going to Lose Re-election by supporting
5. Be the "test run" for 2025 you mention just like GQP did on Jan 6
Like many others here say, being timid has so often been the death-knell of the Dems. Using the agency of this very moment to capture the outright fury of the Majority of this country is what the GQP would do,...because it works. They act openly as a minority with impunity because the Dems don't take them to task.
I am only suggesting that acting with gusto in an in-your-face challenge will possibly capture the anger of this moment and lift the Dems immeasurably at the time it's needed. What's to lose? If the points above are true the votes come late 2024 take the country blue by large margins according to Simon Rosenberg of Hopium Chronicles: https://simonwdc.substack.com
Then your point about doing it in Jan 2025 is a slam dunk. By all rights it could be done another way via impeaching C Thom Ass, Brewsky Kavenaw & Phoney Barrett for flat out ethics and lying under oath. Either way, it has to be done.
As I said above the Senate needs to be represented by all the people, giving 2 senate seats to each state is not representative. Think of New York and Wyoming or California and Idaho.
Bill is correct. Nothing can be done until we have an “EFFECTIVE” Blue trifecta. So it all comes down to we the people voting the right people into office. Our most effective way to do that is to register voters, (especially Gen Z constituents), engage & motivate them, along with those who have given up and who feel their vote doesn’t matter.
It truly is up to us to have conversations with those we know, and those we don’t know, to talk about how the Democrats are working to make our democracy representative of all Americans and to make lives better for all.
- An economy built from the bottom up and the middle out
- Effective regulation of corporations.
- A fair tax system where all pay their fair share, individuals & corporations.
- A fair social safety net to care for our citizens: healthcare, family care, Medicare, social security.
Well expressed. And as you referenced, the youth vote will be the key. Gen Y and Z will offer about 45% of elegible voters. Most reject the reactionary nonsense and bigoted behavior of the GQP.
"Now is not the time" has been the death rattle of aspirations for democracy. It has become a popular stereotype joke among critics of Democrats, and not without reason.
What's the point of rattling sabers when we don't have enough to fight the fight? We don't have the House. We don't have enough of the Senate. Where is SCOTUS impeachment (which should happen) going to come from? This Congress isn't going to impeach anyone. And they certainly won't vote to expand the Court.
As horrific as this Extreme Court is, flailing against windmills will not achieve anything.
We can certainly campaign on the idea that we want a President and a Congress that will nominate and confirm "normal" justices who really believe in equality. We can campaign on the idea that Justices shouldn't be corrupt.
Agree wholeheartedly Bill. Saber rattling with out the wherewithal to accomplish it wastes energy. Democrats need to focus on the NOW and the REAL. Yes Democrats have a lot to be LOUD about. And if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak, with dreadful SCOTUS decisions that impacted Republicans, you KNOW they would be filled the printed page and the airwaves with memorable "clips' that would capture the narrative. Let's hear more of the Secretary of Education recounting in Loud and Blunt and Memorable sentences how many people with NOT GET student loan relief in Repub. districts, etc etc. because of the Court. Get the message out!
This. Run on the issues that everyday people care about, drive vote numbers and win seats. Get your majority and THEN make the changes that ensure fairness and equality. Republicans are only in this advantageous position because Dems rally for presidential elections and run somnolent and nonchalant races in non-pres years. If there's one thing Dems can learn from R's is the necessity to win as many races as you can, every election.
OK then DO that. Believe the polls of what people say they want done. Saber rattling??? Good lord. Should a political party responsible for forming a government be fearful to advocate for what is in the preamble of our own Constitution?
This is odd. I believe that you and I want the same stuff. When I say "Saber rattling" I mean trying to introduce legislation is dead on arrival.
Of course, we shouldn't be fearful of advocating for the removal of corrupt justices. But it's like trying to hit a homerun before the game has started. Before the team got off the plane.
Of course, we can say we believe in expanding the court. But pining away about it is time and energy we could be investing in getting out the vote. Registering new voters. Educating independents about how the court is stripping away their Constitutional rights.
Bullshit. American voters think proposed radical change (Medicare for All is an example, and another is the Equal Rights Amendment) smacks of communism. Pushing for big change usually results in losing an election.
Dems should have seen this coming decades ago. Bill Moyers warned us. I have watched it all play out with great trepidation, and abject fear as chump lit the fuse. This says it all - from Derek DelGaudio on Twitter several years ago. “I used to rig card games for a living. I’d watch people sit down and lose everything, again and again. But they didn’t lose because they “played by the rules” and we didn’t. They lost because it wasn’t a game. It just looked like one.” What better description of the last 40 years.
I am very tired of hearing about Biden’s failures. Even some of his supporters focus on them and do not mention his many successes. The biggest failure lies with voters who did not take Trump’s candidacy seriously. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but if we are going to use that as a way to fault Biden, at least write articles and remind us that the American (non-)voter(s) got us into this mess in the first place.
He has already indicated that he doesn’t feel expanding the Court is the answer as it will be politicized. I disagree with him, wholeheartedly. How many times are we going to allow the Catholic 6 to trounce on us?
The Catholic Church has its own government, including a secret police, Opus Dei ("works of God") which has to do with the Inquisition, or court. When one Inquisition is settled, the next case is taken up. Bill Barr and Leonard Leo are members.
This is why Pastor Martin Niemoller, who was put in prison by the Nazis, wrote,
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the socialist, and I did not speak out, be ausr I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionist, and I did not speak out, be ausr I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew
I agree with you, Marlene. The Extreme Court is ALREADY politicized. Expanding the Court would merely balance it. I'm getting very weary of the Dem passive tut-tuts to these corrupt R crooks and thieves. Enough with the "when they go low, we go high..." BS.
It. Isn't. Working.
Get down in the trenches, Dems, and fight back with everything we have!
Bill Alstrom is right. We do what we can with the numbers we have. Can you imagine the corrupt Manchin and worse Sinema voting with the Senate democrats to expand the court? Of course not.
We are all furious, but unlike the fascist evangelical right we will not take up arms or illegal and pointless means to fix this great evil.
Vote Democratic as if your life depends on it,because it does. I wish there were good people on both sides, and maybe there are some, but their silence is an evil also.
Prior to and during World War II, Hitler's genocidal Nazi party used variations on the triangle to identify citizens and concentration camp prisoners according to religion, ideology, sexual preferences and numerous other catagories. Some of the symbols were:
Yellow (Star of David): Jews
Pink Triangle: homosexuals
Brown:. Gypsies
Purple:. Jehovah's Witnesses
Red:. German Political Prisoners -
Communists, Socialists
Green:. Habitual Criminals
Blue:. Emigrants
Remember please that all Americans are decendents of emigrants.
Not all Americans. i think we can safely allow that Native Americans were here when we Europeans arrived. Since Native people had been here for thousands of years, hard to call them descendants of emigrants. (Though technically that is true).
Speaking of attacking, I hope Mullins’ and MTG’s opponents in their next race make a big issue of the financial windfall THEY got and their constituents did not.
The court's decisions comply with the will of the oligarchs not that of the people. But scholars have shown the same is true of the decisions of Congress. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
This makes prattle of "save our democracy" seem a bit naive. Parties, currently the Republican, but don't hold Democrats unaccountable either, are really working to convince us to preserve an oligarchy.
True or not, and I’m sure you know more than I, I think it a bit disingenuous to blame Biden. He inherited a country in nearly existential peril after the debacle of Trump’s discourteous (!!) and unwilling exit. Covid still raged. The Supreme Court was anticipated to be, uh. . . controversial in future rulings, and already had flexed some eyebrow-raising muscle. But still, there was a mountain of crises to deal with and Biden, plate overflowing, was new to the job.
To expect him to have acted immediately on the Supreme Court is Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst sort.
It has been his fate to be a a brilliant President while not being wanted by his own party to run again.
As for the Supremes, they are a key factor in determining how fast America can run backwards.
Their decisions this week are nothing short of a disgrace. They are, as a group, a walking advertisement for how impotent your Constitution is. The bought and sold Six are pounding the country into the ground, while the minority of Three squirms, uncomfortable to even be associated with the others.
Like climate change, American decline into some insipid and inconsequential shadow of what it should be is rapidly surging. So many institutions crumbling into fratricidal irrelevance at once - the Supreme Court, Congress, the DOJ with Garland at its head, the turgidly slow (for those with means) court system. . . are all collapsing simultaneously in what looks like a slow motion replay of the planned implosion of a large building. State legislatures have become a joke as they compete with one another like children to pass the most punishing, malicious and immoral laws.
America, your children are killing themselves at three times the rate they did ten years ago. Your country’s education levels are falling faster than the proverbial stone. The country is presently baking in heat and climate change remains (literally) a back burner issue. Malignant clowns concoct inane but dangerous conspiracy theories, pandering to the tens of millions who will dress them up and madly nurture them. The fentanyl crisis is raging out of control because your citizens are in such internal pain.
I give Biden enormous credit for tackling the most pressing problems head on. But even as he does, the country becomes more fragmented, people feel more isolated and and the most dangerous actors wear black robes and take bribes.
Heather’s huge group must continue to work to re-elect Biden - forget his age, sometimes you have to roll the dice - and good Democrats downstream. Then the Supreme Court can be taken on. The first days of the first term were laden with crisis. Go hard now.
Linda, can you provide a couple of real examples of “necessary steps” to expand the court. In other words, what tools are available? Congressional Action? We are being overwhelmed by the “right wing.” Already the Biden’s student loan forgiveness was deemed unconstitutional….we are left with a SCOTUS that has no scruples….and will fight tooth and nail to nix expanding the court and applying term limits. The corruptness is an embarrassment and insult to the millions of hard-working Americans and debt burdened students.
POLITICAL CAPITAL is what's necessary. That's how FDR did it, threatening the stack the Court with a Congressional supermajority. They capitulated and allowed the legislation they were fighting to pass.
Anyone with a brain can see this court is illegal. Impeachment is a viable option. I won’t be surprised if the House is overturned by big numbers in 2024. Even with no voter protection laws.
Each of these illegal rulings, and the one they made-up can be repealed and turned into settled law by Congress. Which seems to me to be the quickest way to undo the damage done to the our Constitution.
Do not expect one Republican to lift a hand to help. The decent ones, (if there is such a thing) decided to not run for re-election, allowing others to step in and tear up our democracy, not stay and stand up for their oath of office. They help perpetuate this mockery. Cowards, greediness, sold to the highest bidder they all are.
I ran into a MAGA person while taking my mother to an eye appointment. She quoted Steve Bannon and the NWO shtick he does. “Putin isn’t a bad guy because he’s keeping the global economy from collapse. Put God in charge of the government.”With her huge hairdo, she totally bought into this rubbish.
They don’t understand the first thing a fascist leader will do is confiscation of all guns from the citizens. The only reason we have so many now is that fascism hasn’t totally taken over, yet. They’ll believe it when the police are knocking down their door and removing any and all guns in their possession. It’s one of the first things a fascist leader will do. Our rights will be taken until we have none.
And why is Donald Trump walking around free?
How in the hell is he running for President? The SCOTUS is giving him a wide berth which to win by. However, the Dobbs decision is what will be the court’s undoing. It is not the purpose of the SCOTUS to take away given rights to Americans. It’s job is to protect our rights. Women are very upset with this and know to voice their disapproval at the ballot box. We’ll see.
There was no way that was going to happen then. Do you think every Democratiic senator would have supported the idea? Manchin or Sinema could have killed such a bill, and would have.
It's clear to me that the only Democrat that wasn't listening to what the Republicans said they were going to do and have done was Joe Biden. Biden has a fatal flaw in that he thinks people will do the right thing. They don't. When Biden took office a large number of Democrats were preaching about the expansion of the Supreme Court . I remember a number interviews including Klobuchar and Warren warning that the Supreme Court has to be expanded or the Republicans will rule through it. Guess what. They were right. We're screwed. Don't think they have stopped here.
Jon I am a firm member of the reality club not the pandora club that you belong to. Are you paying attention to how Biden is being plowed under by the media and the GOP?
Biden never had the votes of Feinstein, Manchin or Sinema to expand the court even if Schumer blew up the filibuster to get it to a vote. I read this week, I believe Michael Waldman, head of Brennan Ctr for Justice at NYU, who served on Biden’s review commission of Supreme Court, that they were instructed NOT to make conclusions to support specific changes.
If your argument is right, won’t Republicans take the chance to expand the court and further secure their majority on the court if they ever have the power to do so? Not doing the right thing because you’re afraid the bad guys will do it seems like a very weak argument to me.
Susan, do you have a source for this statement? Everything I have read about Joe Biden's parents states that they were both Irish Catholics and raised their children that way.
And some of the beliefs held by some of the Catholic justices are not Catholic teaching, but beliefs of extremist right wingers, such as members of Opus Dei like Barr and Leo (and maybe Thomas) who feel they must tell us who have strayed how to live. Sort of Catholic evangelicals if you will.
Just for fun, if you haven't already read that awful novel by Dan Brown, it's an airplane read with five adjectives and adverbs, but it succeeded in being banned by THE church here, and it reached a lot of heretofore complacent faithfuls.
I'm of the opinion the fact that Biden is Catholic doesn't matter, but it concerns me that so many Americans are still triggered by the supposed threat of Catholic leaders.
I have no interest in the religion followed by our public figures beyond the answers to two questions. First, do they follow the moral teachings of their faith that are common to all religions, non-hypocritically? Second, are they trying to force others to follow the prescriptions of their faith that *aren't* common to all religions.
If the answers are "yes" to one and "no" to two, I'm done with the issue.
If the answers are "no" and "no" or "yes" and "yes" they're dismissed and they'll never get my support.
If the answers are "no" and "yes" they are my mortal enemy and I will support their utter destruction any way I can.
Oh, oh, my memory failed me. I guess you're right, because I can't find the source I thought I had in my notes. Thanks for correcting me, I guess, but now I feel rather hopeless as to maintaining a democracy. There's too many cons, not enough pros.
P.S. Looking again at the Biden biography on wikipedia, I now think that (some years ago) upon reading that both his wives were from Protestant backgrounds, i had hoped they would have some influence on him, just a wild idea I can see now. I don't see how we can have separation of church and state if the leaders answer to the Pope. So, thanks for setting me straight. I'll quit now.
Again, I think the "Catholics answer to the Pope first" is an invalid hypothetical argument. Raised a Catholic myself, I've maintained lifelong relationships with others living their lives with various levels of devotion to Catholic doctrine. In my experience, none of them looks to the Pope for guidance on how to behave as a citizen of the US. Sadly, a few reject the Pope's leadership because they believe that their interpretations of the tenets of the faith are superior (like some members of Opus Dei in the US). The vast majority think of the Pope once or twice a year, if that. In my opinion, President Biden has consistently demonstrated that his allegiance to his church is personal and secondary to his commitment to Democratic principles of governance in his many decades of public service.
Susan, I am in disbelief to see you or anyone repeating such an ancient prejudice and misconception of the followers of Catholicism. It was actually believed in the United States before John F. Kennedy was elected president that it was unconstitutional for a Catholic to hold the office. I thought all that had laid to rest with Kennedy’s election.
Maybe you are an exception, but when push comes to shove, anyone not Catholic is considered heathen and consigned to hell, by Hitler's Willing Executioners.
We are the proverbial frog in the kettle of water. The temperature is rising and will soon boil it alive, but it is too insensitive to the lethal threat to realize it and take action. What the current U.S. Supreme Court is doing is emasculating the federal government's power, benefitting the ultra wealthy and the religious right.
Richard, love you frog in the pot analogy. I totally agree with you that the Court is emasculating the federal government From my view, the SCOTUS thumbing its nose and having fun doing it…..little by little chipping away the standards we’ve fought so hard to attain. I will add a tidbit about frogs in the pot…the water temp should raised slowly so the frog does not realize what’s happening and not do anything….is this what the SCOTUS is doing to us?
I don’t know, Linda. Feels like after these three days of nails in the coffin , millions of us do realize what’s happening. Forgive my pun, but we are boiling mad at this assault on democracy and Separation of Powers. If we can, let’s turn it around. The “Supremacist” Court has truly betrayed us all and damaged its own reputation unequivocally.
Linda, we need a present-day Thomas Paine: "These are the times that try men's and women's souls." There is a cancer on the body politic. In part the reason is that many of us don't have the critical thinking skills to realize that we're being had.
Expanding the court would only be a temporary fix and start a race to the bottom eventually making the court meaningless, Biden's logic on this is right. I don't want to live in a country where the SCOTUS has 50 or more judges which is what could happen every time parties exchange power.
The 18 year rule is the best change I've seen to date if coupled with meaningful oversight for SCOTUS justices. That would be the quickest route to a more stable court.
On-going expansion of the court is folly, which is why it’s not part of my comment; I believe a limited increase, allotting one justice per legislative jurisdiction reduces the likelihood of an imbalanced court. Paired with an 18 year limit is an absolute must.
I didn't say you did, I was just stating my thoughts on expansion. We can mince words that a limited increase is not an expansion but I have to admit there are valid reasons to grow the court. In a sense its size should be proportional to the rest of the country. This is why I believe the House of Representatives should be bigger than it is and give the areas of denser population the representation they deserve. I'm done with minority rule.
I would approve of one justice per federal legal jurisdiction, limits for all judges and for sure.....ABOLISH LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS! I do not think a greater number of judges would make a difference in a well thought out decision.
Also in my opinion, decisions should be made to honor and respect all citizens and persons, for the health and well-being of our nation and not to please a particular political party, but should benefit all Americans.
Agreed … let’s remember that the loss of a white cis patriarchy, and the inclusion of women, people of color, disabled people, LGBTQ+, immigrants and just anyone who is different are the motivations behind pleasing a particular political party instead of all Americans.
How unbelievably unrecognizable some of our fellow citizens have become, or perhaps they stopped hiding their true selves. Either way, it’s distressing.
Zella Would it require a constitutional amendment to abolish lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices? There is precedence for Congress to alter the number of Supreme Court justices, though this hasn’t been done for more than a century. Would it require approval in both Houses and from the president?
The number of seats on the Court is set by Congress. Last done in 1869, established at 9. We are a vastly different country now than we were 200 years ago.
I support having the same number of seats on SCOTUS as there are District Courts, so 13.
Term limits would, unfortunately, require a Constitutional amendment. The language in Article III says, 'for Good Behavior' but doesn't define what that is.
When the Constitution was written, judges rode a circuit, had a difficult life and generally died/retired around 55. Doubt the framers envisioned them living until they were in their 80s.
Maria Fortunately our most important chief justice, John Marshall, died in office at age 79. He should have recused himself from perhaps his most significant decision (Marbury v. Madison), since the case involved appointments that he had signed as Secretary of State (under President Adams). He and President Jefferson had a massive showdown.
Intriguing thoughts here. Question arises: What reasoning was behind lifetime appointments for SCOTUS justices? Answer is loaded with irony: To “help ensure that the decisions they make are guided by law and judgment rather than trying to placate political interests to save their job.”
Biden should have packed the court before Dobbs, when it was obvious this SCOTUS had gone off the rails, but before it had done the lasting harm of this session. That opportunity has passed. If, however, Congress abolished lifetime appointments and applied existing rules of ethics under which Federal judges work, it wouldn't be necessary to expand SCOTUS; and perhaps it would take less than a generation to rectify the harm this court has caused.
It’s easy to say Biden should have done this or that but he needed to votes in the Senate and the votes were not there. Remember that Democratic senators from red states must vote to please their constituents if they expect to be re elected. Joe Manchin is an example. It’s better to have him in the senate as a conservative democrat than a Republican. He may not always vote as we would want but he helps us hold the majority which is no small thing.
I think we need to create a new higher court. The Supreme Court of Appeals, or the Exalted Court! Let Biden appoint all of the members of that court, and let that court set rules to keep each member accountable, as well as the Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court has no mechanism to enforce their decisions, and I am of the opinion that just as the Supreme Court is taking over Biden's branch of government, Biden could take theirs over by ignoring their decisions. In that way, we have a situation where we let them see that they have to follow the rules or else they won't be in play. The rule is not that they can do anything they please, and a good way to let them understand that, and the billionaires that bankrolled these bogus cases like the made up gay service case, and the made up Affirmative action case, brought on by phony people. We have white billionaires bankrolling both cases, in order to set up their access to whatever they want to do. I would be great if wealthy democrats started bankrolling the kind of lawsuits that get us back our rights. We should stop these courts in their tracks. We could have a Prigozhin moment where the Executive Branch says, I protest the courts rulings and I am not going to abide by them. However, I know Biden will not do that because he is trying to stabilize our government after the chaos we suffered under Trump, and to legitimize our democracy by supporting the institutions that are supposed to support it, but that seems to be crumbling in the face of too much bad legislation, which has allowed these evil billionaires to take over. Thank goodness a lot of alternate press is springing up to speak truth to power.
Biden can expand the Supreme court by 4 Justices merely by nominating them and having the Dems in the Senate ram the nominations through. Unfortunately, Mankin and Sinema would not go along, making this impossible. We need Biden to win in 2024 and the Dems to have 50 Dems in the Senate willing to confirm 4 more Justices. Start working now towards that end! The other changes you suggest require an amendment to the Constitution -- which Biden or other Dems should propose.
Would the same standards apply if she refused to create web sites for hetero Christian couples? But really - who is behind this? It seems oddly random that one lone web designer would come up with this idea and bring it all the way to the Supreme Court.
And yet, no same sex couple even asked the web designer to create a web page for their wedding--it was a hypothetical and you can't have a court case if someone brings about a complaint if they don't have a real life complaint against them. Yet, the Supremacist Court does regardless because no one regulates them...supreme abuse of power!
Yes, this fact trumps all the other issues with this illegitimate SCOTUS decision. Smith has not suffered any actual harm, therefore she lacked standing to bring a complaint before the Court. The fact that the Court ever granted certiorari in this case is proof of how desperate the radical "conservative' justices are to lay down even the most flimsy precedents in "religious freedom" cases, before the American people finally force the other branches of government to rein in their lawlessness.
If your religious beliefs are paramount then you have the right to discriminate. That is basically my summary. Before long we will once again see separate restrooms, separate entrances, or no service if you aren’t a white, christian, and hetero male.
Thank you John parrticularly the reference to the "flimsy precedent" manufactured by KRISTIN WAGGONER. Source on the faux Plaintiif's Attorney's name is Amy Howe at SCOTUS blog.com.
Bryan, tempting as this is, when Biden says this would set up too dangerous a precedent, I believe him. We need to have reform to block sexual predators from being seated and for removing corrupt and criminal judges.
UPDATE: All eyes on State i4f Colorado Attorney Genera, PHILIP J WEISER, to file a Motion for Re-hearing ( Rule 44) at SCOTUS within twenty-five (25) days of the "advisory opinion" given to a a psuedo web designer based on pure hypothetical, FALSE facts.
If I were the CO AG I would hire NEAL KATYAL to file a Rule 44.2 Motion for Re-hearimg making NEAL's fifty-first (51st) apperance at SCOTUS. Then stand back.
Background: Alexandra, I realize I owe you a response. I am very busy digesting this Communities' thoughts including your important Comment. I, of course, concur with your Comments about the nomination process such as it is & the need for urgent repairs.
Also, there has been another Mass Shooting in Baltimore, MD. 2 deceased. & 28 injured per msnbc Anchor, Judy. Note also, SCOTUS has a 2nd Amendment case on the docket next Term.
Further Reply to Alexandra at 8:30 am Pacific with Context: 1.) 4/14/22 was the date first formal proposal for the 13-Justices-for- the-13-Circuits Bill; 2) the Judiciary Act of 2023 was revised on 5/16/23.:3.) A caucus of Dem Senators are involved notanly Sen. Whitehouse with many factors churning.
The right wing nuts (SC especially) smell success in practically all areas of their agenda. I predict that they will Take it to the mat while they have the means.
I defer to your experience in law. However, where is the chilling? Smith didn't have a business. She alleged that if she chose to start a business the hypothetical that she might be asked to provide service to a gay couple might force her to violate her sincerely-held bigoted beliefs against a protected class -- let alone that she perjured herself when she presented "evidence" that was probably made up from whole cloth after the suit was filed. As my kids would say: "suss"
Yes, Sophia at least an abuse of judicial power possibly much worse. The Associated Press is reporting the alleged customer "Stewart" likely never existed as a genuine customer meaning the required "actual controversy" did NOT exist. See , Sotomayor's Dissent joined by Justices Kagan &Jackson. on absence of standing. Note, dissents are not the forum for newly discovered facts not part of record on appeal.
Apparently, the State of Colorado did make inquiries into the CADA legitimacy of this manufactured claim. Further & intense investigations are needed asap to uncover admissible facts. This manufactured opinion is now open to collateral attack.
UPDATE: The Guardian's Sam Levine in New York has the developing late 6/29 story in factual context & perhaps spoiliation of evidence,. See, "The Fake Gay Marriage Website ...".
FURTHER UPDATE: I & others have asked the CO AG to file a Rule 44 Motion for a Re-Hearing within 25 days of this bogus advisory opinion, an appalling license to discriminate based on a fake controversy.
I posted about this exact same thing--how sorry I feel for them having to show up to work every morning with these ass****s. And quitting your job is not a realistic option....
Usually, group pictures of the SCOTUS show the justices smiling. I commented to a friend this week that I saw a group photo where Justice Jackson was not smiling and looked very sad.
Not certain Ed but, apparently the Petitioner pled an alleged 1st Amendment violation that she was somehow being forced to "speak". Sotomayor Dissent: "The Court's decision conflates discrimination with freedom of expression . This is grave error".
Freedom of expression is not a free for all. There have to be balancing guardrails to ensure one's "free expression" does not preclude another's social/individual rights. That's the problem with a religious intolerance which stampedes over this balance with its own absolute convictions. Of course, we are mainly talking about "sex" here. Shake my head
The whole thing was based on lies and deceit, but that is the Fascist/NAZI GQP mantra, ''lie and deceive'' and their bought and paid for Extreme Court.
It makes sense, doesn't it? The two justices that were found out to take lavish gifts from rich people, ALWAYS vote for the rich...their excuses are pathetic. Congress needs to act on this--if a justice candidate's action is contrary to what they said during their confirmation hearing under oath, they are immediately relieved of their position....
Thank you! No standing, no more stare decisis and there is someone here who thinks that Biden was raised Methodist. We are in the Upside Down, where is Hopper?
Lorie Smith indicated that this was a RELIGIOUS issue.
Dear Ms Smith, let me remind you of some of the CORE teachings of not just Christianity, but most major religions: “Love thy neighbor as thyself” AND “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16)
I am surprised that this case got that far....wouldn’t most lower court judges throw that out, for “lack of evidence”? Sounds very unscrupulous to me too.
Just watched my replay of Jonathon Capehart sitting in for Lawrence O'Donnel's Friday show on a Holiday Weekend: Jonathan notes, "No gay couple actually asked for the [CO] designer's work". So, the decision is based on a website designer's alleged 1st Amendment rights that were "hypothetical challenged" by a "hypothetical gay couple" who" hypothetically asked for design services".
The faux decision is flimsy & vulnerable to collateral attack.
The wedding site case sounds like an illegal advisory opinion by the US Supreme Court. The federalist society has managed to remove the governor off the engine of the judiciary. The supreme court is now damaging the judiciary’s crankshaft, push rods and valves. This destroys the engine and requires replacement.
Alliance Defending Freedom which is described in the link for Guardian article from yesterday. Of course also funding from Leonard Leo’s SCOTUS dark money shop
Love how they use names the exact opposite of their intent. Straight out of Goebbels. But not a new thing. Goes back to Reagan. Peggy Noonan was his script writer. Wonder what she blathers today. Opinions of SC action???
Sharon, this did not pass the “smell test”! The postal stamp on the “email” shows she mailed the letter after the case was filed. There was no company, no one had complained. Just seems very, very fishy to me.
Molly, the dark money funds everything nefarious and dangerous to democracy. We must never underestimate them….maybe Leonard Leo funded her, who knows?
How does the Supreme Court's decision distinguish between a web designer who refuses to create a web site for a gay couple and one that refuses to create a web site for a Black couple? Both are protected classes, and the designer's decision can just as reasonably be based on personal religious beliefs in either case.
How about an orthodox Muslim who refuses to create a site for a Christian couple? Or an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish operator who refuses to serve a Christian couple or a Muslim couple?
The 14th amendment forbids discrimination on the basis of race. The case was decided on free speech ground not religious freedom. I know, it doesn’t make sense but they did it anyway.
The free speech argument can serve as an end run around the 14th amendment just as it effectively nullifies laws against anti-gay legislation. At least it can for this court.
"she doesn’t want to use her own words on a personalized website to celebrate gay"
And what is this "own words" thing? Can commercial printers decide not to print invitations for gay clients? For black clients? Can restaurant owners reject a gay luncheon?
After this ruling they will likely feel empowered to. I'll be upping my donation to the ACLU in the hopes that they will take every one of these cases to court. Let's make it expensive for religious bigots to discriminate against protected classes. "Oh, you think an illegitimate ruling by SCOTUS will protect you? Yeah well you're going to have to hire a lawyer anyway."
The SC should have never agreed to hear this ridiculous cruel case! Leo probably set Smith up to further put his digs in at liberal causes. Illegitimate justices must not be granted lifetime appointments especially when they have no ethics whatsoever.
Too similar circumstances as the last cake case, or was it a website? These cases are not only bogus, they have to be created by the extreme right for the Supreme court.
Her case was funded by right wing dark money! At the time of the filing she Did Not ‘ have a website!
Secondly as noted by HCR “ Melissa Gira Grant of The New Republic reported that, while the man allegedly behind the email does exist, he is an established designer himself (so why would he hire someone who was not?), is not gay, and married his wife 15 years ago. He says he never wrote to Smith,
and the stamp on court filings shows she received it the day after she filed the suit.”
Appears that the maga lawyer who wrote the law suit subscribed to trumps lying habit! Note the last clause of the quote…the stamp reveals the lies! I guess truthfulness is not part of her alleged Christian principles!
You can believe that Karl Rove, James O’Keefe, or a similar “dirty tricks” expert was behind it. The repubs have no shortage of these cretins. And no shortage of money.
The founder of Domino’s pizza has used the millions he made to establish things like the town in FL where Ave Maria University is located and legal firms like the Thomas More Society, which will look for plaintiffs.
Thank you Justice Kagan and others for honing in on the essential truth of what's happened: the right-wing majority, precedent and laws be damned, is making things up to suit its out-of-the-mainstream views.
One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances and in contradiction to sworn statements at confirmation hearings, has embarked on turning America upside down. Under direct attack are women and minority groups to benefit rich white people, many of whom are religious zealots like the extremist justices themselves.
President Biden yesterday said he didn't support expanding the court because it would politicize it. A baffling statement given that the court isn't just politicized, it seems to be intentionally harming tens of millions of people. Oh what Trump has wrought.
'President Joe Biden continued criticism of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down colleges' affirmative action programs in an interview on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” but said trying to expand the court would be a "mistake." (NBC)
WHY, Mr. President?
'New Marquette Law School Poll national survey finds continuing decline in approval of the way the U.S. Supreme Court is doing its job, with amount varying according to respondents’ partisanship' May 28, 2023
MILWAUKEE – A new Marquette Law School Poll national survey finds that 44% of adults approve of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, while 56% disapprove. This is a slight decline from January, when 47% approved and 53% disapproved. Approval of the Court’s work hit a low of 38% in July 2022 and had risen gradually in every-other-month polling until this new poll. In all of these surveys since the middle of last year, approval has remained well below the 60% rate from July 2021. (Marquette University Law School)
Our Education Secretary knew how to make points after the Supreme Court decisions.
'Education Secretary Miguel Cardona called out the lurch toward turning the government over to the wealthy, supported as it is by religious foot soldiers like Lorie Smith: “Today, the court substituted itself for Congress,” Cardona told reporters. “It’s outrageous to me that Republicans in Congress and state offices fought so hard against a program that would have helped millions of their own constituents. They had no problem handing trillion-dollar tax cuts to big corporations and the super wealthy.”
'Cardona made his point personal: “And many had no problems accepting millions of dollars in forgiven pandemic loans, like Senator Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma had more than $1.4 million in pandemic loans forgiven. He represents 489,000 eligible borrowers that were turned down today. Representative Brett Guthrie from Kentucky had more than $4.4 million forgiven. He represents more than 90,000 eligible borrowers who were turned down today. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia had more than $180,000 forgiven. She represents more than 91,800 eligible borrowers who were turned down today.” (Letter)
That put it in a nutshell! Thank you, Secretary Cardona.
Democrats have got to learn to play “hardball” ... Steve Bannon and many of his ilk (look at how Mitch McConnell treated Obama and Merrick Garland) realize - seem to know as a fact - that the Democrats tend to bring a pillow to a knife or gun fight ... it won’t and doesn’t work that way!!!
I think the Dems think playing hardball means adopting Repub fascist and dirty tricks tactics. I would like them to know that NO, it doesn't mean that! It means using every legal and Constitutional tool, and fighting like he'll with the tools we have, while working toward dismantling the laws Repubs havevput on the books to make their illegal actions legal.
From my decidedly limited understanding of such things, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot be expanded by executive fiat. If that were the case, we would be subject to an "accordion court", depending on the whim of those in power. It would take something akin to a constitutional convention, with a 2/3 majority to ratify. I do not see a way forward there.
That said, it is high time the court was expanded. Each justice is supposed to represent a particular circuit. There are 9 justices and 13 circuits. Why the court wasn't expanded as circuits were added must be a fascinating story, perhaps Dr. Cox-Richardson could help us understand it sometime. I propose the court be expanded to 13 justices with an ombudsman-like office to oversee recusal, ethical and other disputes.
The number of justices is set by Congress. No constitutional amendment necessary. While we are at it, we also need to expand the House of Representatives to meet our increased population.
So, if state’s rights are truly what matters, why is the supreme court (I’m not capitalizing on purpose) sticking its nose to legislation here in Colorado? If we want to be liberal, then let us be liberal. The so-called conservative justices are legislating from the bench -- hmmm, sounds like fascism to me.
I'm trying to find a listing comparing congress people accepting loan forgiveness with students having loans to forgive. So far all I can find is the Huffpost mention of Cardona's remarks. Anybody?
Eileen, if you are referring to the quote of words expressed by the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, that appeared in my comment, the quote was copied directly from HRC's Letter as indicated.
Thanks, Fern. Yes, I knew you were quoting directly from the letter. What I'm wondering is if there is further information about the Secretary of Education's comments, such as more of the hypocrisy of Congress members accepting loan forgiveness and then denying it to students.
Eileen, I would Google his name and check news as well as recent quotes of his. There may be analysis and reports concerning the issue he raised, which may provide more names and details. It's a matter of some research. I do not know what may be in print concerning subject. Happy Hunting!
I don’t understand that either...seems that expanding the court to reflect the increased # of districts is fair and reasonable...not politicizing it at all.
I am only guessing, but I think Biden is taking the high road—bowing to traditional & longstanding practices not to interfere with the separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial)….quite unlike the brazen promises to politicize and weaponize these very institutions by the likes of Trump, DeSantis, etc. I have to say, being mostly clueless on the specifics & intricacies of how it would work, the idea put forth to have a SC justice for each Fed district…that kinda makes sense to me.
I believe he said he was afraid that if he expanded the court, any president could and it would irreparable damage the court by making it intentionally political. All the efforts to prevent politicization have failed because of the games played in the Senate and the lack of ethics rules for the Justices. The Senate should adopt rules on how many days to an election are allowed before a president can't send forward a candidate. The Senate must take up a president's candidate and return a decision within the president's term. No games.
Without diving into the etiology of the word "senate", I can tell you that in the Constitution, the separation of the House (by popular election every two years, the number based on relative population of the states, with enslaved persons counting as 3/5 of a person for census purposes) and the Senate (appointed by the governors of the state, and allotting each state two senators) into the lower and upper houses respectively was designed to put a damper on "the will of the people". Senators moved from appointment to election via the 17th Amendment in 1913.
One would devoutly hope that both the Senate and the House would have "worthy" people elected to those bodies.
Yeah, Ally, in a perfect world they would be worthy of the responsibility and honor of such a public servant role. Of late, and as Heather would probably note in the past as well, such is not the actual case, but an ideal to aspire to. Seems like many of ‘em forgot that part!
I agree with you, Barbara. Biden’s hoping to lead by example and knows an expansion of the SCOTUS would be interpreted as a politicized decision. Unfortunately, the Right itself already politicizes everything that goes counter to its own self-preserving, power-expanding agendas.
And you just know the far-right (having hijacked the Republican Party) would do so in a nanosecond if it suited their purposes, as they’ve shown before. It is such a conundrum to me at the thought of having to resort to unfair and distasteful (maybe even harmful and cruel) methods that an opponent uses without losing one’s integrity and soul?
That high road leads off the cliff. Ted Kennedy should have figured that out after he bowed to W, back in the day. At least dueling fools have the same weapons.
Michael, by stating "One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances and in contradiction to sworn statements at confirmation hearings, has embarked on turning America upside down. Under direct attack are women and minority groups to benefit rich white people, many of whom are religious zealots like the extremist justices themselves.", you are hurting John Roberts' feelings. He already asked that you kindly stop and leave the Court alone.
It is already historic -- it's sending us back to the early 20th century. (This is sadly funny.)
But let's face it -- he, the Defendant Trump appointees, as well as Thomas and Alito, are merely doing the bidding of their patrons.
I suspect his Court will not be viewed favorably by future historians for its resetting of judicial norms (corruption, standing, precedent, etc.) in pursuit of a restructuring of American society against the wishes and beliefs of the majority of the populace. I'm no expert in the matter, but it's safe to say this Court has removed more rights than it has granted or acknowledged; I fear there is more to come, particularly in regard to LGBTQ+ people.
Ally, Roberts gave up on the legacy of “his” court years ago. He lost control and never looked back. It appears to me to be time to follow the money and look for an impeachable offense. It worked with Nixon.
“ One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances…”
As I commented yesterday, once again, the Conservative INJustices of the Supreme Court strike against equality of rights and opportunities. It seems they’ve morphed the interpretation of “supreme” from authority to authoritarianism.
The SCOTUS has no law making or executive functions. It's up to the executive branch to enforce the law. Thought experiment: What if the population lost respect for the "Extreme Court" and ignored their rulings? Particularly the cases where nobody had "standing"? I meant to call SCOTUS the "legislators of and for the oligarchy."
I agree that President Biden's position on mot wanting to expand the Court because that would politicize it is indeed baffling!
Dear Joe: THE COURT IS ALREADY VERY POLITICIZED! And corrupt!
Not expanding the Court leaves us vulnerable to about 50 years of political decisions by this Court, completely untethered to the Constitution, and extremely damaging to our entire Nation!
Let’s rephrase, shall we? “I am your president of lawlessness and disorder…” now that rings more true, but then again truth was never his strong point!
Joe McCarthy was a demagogue and Nixon was bent, but the whole Republican took an Orwellian turn with con-man Reagan's glitzy denigration of democracy snake-oil pitch for plutocracy.
Yeah, Reagan was my gov for two (!) terms & then elected prez…sorry to say, but it was the first time I realized how gullible/stupid my fellow countrymen could be! I surmise he was not the architect of much/most of “his” policies that we are still trying to recover from all these years later….so much damage done! He was a genial, folksy puppet.
Goodness don't disparage the Supreme Court's decisions because it will harmful to that institution and to the country? yet the gopers disparage any administration or senate or house that is not run by their own. What hypocrites they be.
Roberts and his fellow right wing colleagues have no one but themselves to blame for the fact that people are disparaging this court. i hope the three liberals continue to make fiery dissents and read parts of them out loud. How did the web designer even have standing. No one had complained.
The case was based on a made-up request from a person who is heterosexual, was already married at the time the request was supposedly made, and was unaware he had made that request until he was contacted by the media after the Supreme Court decided the case. Is there no penalty for perjury in front of the highest court in the United States?
I guess if the Supremes get to invent their own ethics rules, they can invent their own laws as well.
I doubt Roberts gives a damn. His wife pulled in $10M last year, greasing the wheels of the halls of injustice by recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court.
He only cares enough to whine as he has at the response to these last cases that the liberal justices made. Talk don't wash of course. Whether he likes it or not, he and his court deserve every bit of criticism that they are getting.
Federalist Society, Opus Dei, Evangelical organizations are dangerously close to turning this country into an oligarchic theocracy through the radical members of the Supreme Court who are more beholden to these organizations of which they are members than they are to the Constitution. Money still rules, democracy not so much.
So agree…have been meaning to join The Freedom From Religion Foundation for awhile…they support the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state. https://ffrf.org/
What TFG started by appointing cabinet members that had conflicts of interest (Betsy DeVos) or had advocated defunding their departments (Rick Perry) is being finished by SCOTUS. Any entity that dislikes a government department can bring a case disallowing its ability to govern them. I forecast a drove of cases further attacking the EPA as well as OSHA and the IRS.
Things have reached a point that is so terrifying... I doubt I will sleep tonight. Dr Richardson’s Letter shows that there are powerful people who are succeeding in bending the arc of history backwards, away from Justice.
I’m not sure why your comment brought this to mind (and it will NOT help you sleep, sorry), but I recently read (can’t recall source at the moment, but was in one of my science-y feeds) that humans are considered the earth’s apex predator species. OMG, when I read that I was thunderstruck how true it felt…and sad too for so many reasons & implications.
We have a friend who calls humans the most invasive species. I have just finished a book on the plague which does not address modern times, but the boost the plague made in many ways to invention, certain political entities, etc. One of the things that happened was improvement to ships which allowed them to go further and carry more (and carry guns and cannon). What struck me about the trade numbers in ship building timber, furs, whale, herring, and cod was the fact that a lot of these resources were depleted very quickly causing people to go further afield for some like cod. Of course, there was also a lively slave trade and just not by Europeans, but by Ottomans who had a trade made up of mostly eastern Europeans and East Africans. What was missing of course, was the racial context that prevailed among Europeans.
I’ve long felt that we are like an out-of-balance virus infecting Mother Earth….thing is we will kill ourselves off before our planet…..Earth will chug along just fine w/o us and, sadly, the many other species and ecosystems we destroyed along the way. We have, what, 5 billion years or so before the sun becomes a red giant, so there’s maybe a chance for another intelligent species to evolve (or one already here!) and just maybe live in harmony w/o being a destroyer.
I feel the same. I am always surprised when people talk about several years hence as if things are just going to keep chugging along. Nearly every night the national news has some severe weather news and it is only going to get worse.
It has gotten so upsetting to me, i have had to resort to taking OTC sleeping pills. I hate those things as they make me groggy half of the day after taking them.
I asked my Doctor about melatonin the last i went to her back in April of this year. She told me since i have to take a fairly large dose of the Beta Blocker drug Metoprolol, it would work against Melatonin because it blocks the effects of it. Back in April 2014, i had major surgery on my heart in which they had to saw my breastbone in half to do the surgery. So i have to take a larger dose of that heart drug Metoprolol than most people do. That drug also prevents the migraine spells i have had since i was 9 years old. It has almost eliminated the migraines, thank goodness. While i had those migraines, i was blind as a bat, for about an hour, and sometimes they made me have trouble speaking and understanding what was being said to me. Terrifying is what they are. I passed that defective gene that causes migraines to my daughter and 2 of my sons, and to one of my granddaughters.
The right-wing majority is rewriting our laws! They are showing that they believe they are in charge. Roberts and his Federalist Society-bought justices are anti-Constitution and anti-democracy!
Agree…time to send them a lovely, uplifting card (snail mail!) to thank them for their steadfast efforts—hey, it’s ALWAYS fun to get a card in the mail, yeah?
Bottom line: this court is out of control and has become hyper-political (Sorry, President Biden, but you're wrong that expanding the court would "politicize it". That horse has done left the barn . . . ). The only way we as a nation can fight this is through the ballot box. This radical court could remain in power for many years yet and there are many many other issues their more radicalized members could conceivably take aim at: same sex marriage, contraception, and church/state separation. Regardless of what the people overwhelmingly wish anymore, this out-of-touch arrogant group of privileged White (sorry Thomas is as "white" as they are) zealots will not rest until their Christian Nationalist agenda is thoroughly enacted as law of the land, Constitution be damned.
Today has really taken a lot out of me. I have read and read and read until I can't read any more. Tonight, when the network news came on, after 15 minutes I simply turned it off. I just couldn't bear any more news. (I turned the channel over to baseball, to watch my Braves pummel another opponent. It's my escape these days . . . ) Even though I guess we knew these rulings were going to be handed down, it nevertheless has made for a very very tiring, upsetting day. If like me you're feeling down at everything, I can offer today's letter from the marvelous Jessica Craven as an antidote. Read it if you need to feel uplifted and empowered. She closes with words I try and live by: "Today we grieve. Tomorrow we fight."
Right Bruce ! How does that even make sense ? Reluctance to politicize a court majority of partisan political criminals ? (criminal in that they lied at confirmation) Ballot box - yes. Civil disobedience and unrelenting protests - yes.
"Today’s Supreme Court, packed as it has been by right-wing money behind the Federalist Society and that society’s leader, Leonard Leo, is taking upon itself power over the federal government and the state governments to recreate the world that existed before the New Deal."
We must expand the Court, and the only way that can happen is if we win the trifecta, so, people, let's go to work or continue work we've been doing, in whatever ways we each can, to make that happen. We, the People, must take back control of lives and all three branches of our government to ensure that it works for the common good, not to line the pockets of the oligarchs who, if not stopped, will continue to wrest freedoms from us all.
I am at complete loss to figure out how we recapture our democracy. It is anarchy to have the Supreme Court, our final legal voice, go THIS rogue….
Perhaps at the ballot box IN 24 we dislodge a lot of these guys who gave us this situation…and elect folks who CAN expand the court if necessary….
I am concerned about the the power of the religious right to create a theocracy rather than a democratic republic….decisions from the Court that impose one set of religious beliefs on ALL of us whether it’s opposition to gay marriage or Dobbs, or the use of contraception …..Being cases in point…..
Yes. The crucial factor is turnout. High turnout favors Democrats. Join a get-out-the-vote project that you believe is effective, and put your heart into it, plus whatever money you can spare. The odds will still be poor, but it’s the best you can do.
It takes 60 votes under current rules. With 55 seats, they would probably be able to eliminate the filibuster at the beginning of a Senate session, when rules are up for change. Or something like that. Norm Ornstein (or Al Franken) can explain it. The House doesn’t allow filibusters, so just enough seats to get a majority to agree would be sufficient. With Pelosi in charge, 218 seats were enough. Jeffries is unproven but looks promising and still has Pelosi around for advicecanfmd help.
Thanks….I’m hoping that the Dobbs decision and Trumps appalling behavior and the issues that negatively affect young voters might help to produce the necessary turnout…
The Republican Congress will never allow the court to expand. They packed the court with corrupt liars and they will stick with them. Just like they do with Trump, another felon.
The response should be civil disobedience. Refuse to do business with MAGA people as a religious commitment. Accept twice as many Black applicants to colleges. Don’t pay student loans. Doctors should perform 100,000 abortions.
Let’s get a hundred thousand people to hold a pray-in and surround the Supreme Court next fall and prevent them from doing any more damage. They are corrupt ideologues who have invented their own laws of white, Christian supremacy.
If the Democrats win the Senate and House next time, the opportunity would be available as long as the Dems could muster 60 senators in favor. The problem could be the Democrats themselves. How many of them would favor expanding the Court? The Court has and will provide plenty of incentive to increase the number of justices.
The radical right wants a caste system. They want a social order where they're at the top and everyone else has to serve them. Today's decisions bring us closer to that dystopian reality.
What they want is very nearly what we already have: an oligarchy very much like the one they admire so much in Russia. Time to make sure your passport is up to date.
NZ is wet cold mess right now Barb. I did a video chat with a dear friend last night. Their seasons are the complete opposite of ours. Major flooding troubles on the north island. Another friend who visited NZ from Oregon got stranded in the north as the airport flooded.
Back in the late 60’s there was a fellow high school student (had graduated) a couple of years ahead of me (was part of a group of friends) & he crewed on a sailboat that won a long race—if I recall it was from CA to Hawaii. As a reward the boats owner paid for the crew to sail the south seas for fun. They stopped in NZ and this fellow was smitten. He ended up staying for a number of years and got a job at a school teaching math. He came back and we all got together and he told us about NZ and shared a slide show of the many pics he took. That got me interested & then my granny went there via ocean liner & did a number of excursions at a couple of ports in the 60’s as well and came back very impressed with the country. Then a few yeas later my then husband and I (we married very young) were back in our hometown visiting his folks when we gave a ride to a couple of hitchhikers…it turns out they were New Zealanders hitching through the states….we brought them to his folks house and hosted them for a few days (food & shelter)…and had a heartfelt invitation to come visit them in NZ someday….sure wish we could have!!!
That brought a smile to my face. Yes, extraordinary beauty, warmth and generosity. I spent six months there, took my little car with me on the boat, worked three months in an office in Auckland, working Friday nights washing dishes in a big restaurant. Bought a very small canvas tent from an army disposals store, camped around South Island, picked hops, and back to Australia. Equally smitten. If it hadn't been for Paris, it would have been NZ. I've driven it north, south, east and west, from Cape Reinga to The Bluff. Have lifelong friends there.
Thanks for sharing your adventures…..sigh, never been to Paris either!
But am grateful to live in a place folks travel from far and wide to see….Pacific ocean, old growth redwood & Douglas fir forests, bay, lagoons & rivers….so all in all a good place to be planted and bloom these many decades (and besides it’s hard to hitchhike to NZ or Paris!).
I went kayaking there Xmas of 1999 in the Bay of Islands. The Māori music is great & their canoes & long houses are very similar to the Haida in Quaii Hanas.
Ah, the Bay of Islands! The Māori sing all the time, so lovely. When they passed the marriage for all law, the whole House burst into "Pokarekareana". The French watched this on video, and commented "We fought tooth and nail, they burst into song!"
Portugal is looking better and better to me every day! Even though I feel too old to make a move like that, and leave my beloved adult children, there is no hope in me anymore. My heart breaks daily.
We are in the middle of a civil war. We need everyone working to keep America free. Why leave, just for cheap wine, a great climate, good food, and friendly people. Soon they will be corrupted by too many Americans.
You aren’t wrong, OAITW. The big “but” for us is that our retirement investments depend on us being lawfully married. Since my very existence seems to be against their religious beliefs, I’m not sure if we have as many options.
I have 3 good friends who moved to Portugal last year and are very happy. After weighing the options I've decided on France, and am moving in September. (Portugal is just a bit to warm for my PNW blood).
I am leaving the USA if that happens, i for one will NOT serve them for one minute.. Canada, here i come. Cold and snowy. I will wear all of my thick Carhart overcoats if i have to. Not much need for overcoats here in GA anymore because of the climate warming thing.
I’m waiting, and hoping someone like me - lifelong atheist, totally free of religion - brings a suit against some Christian Nationalist/Evangelical who wants a Jesus-ladened cake made or website designed or wedding photographed.
The older I get, and the more extreme the faithful in the US become, the more and more religion-adverse I become. Therefore, it follows, that religion and a religious lifestyle, go against my deeply held beliefs.
If I had a business, I should bring a suit asking that I be able to discriminate against Christians and Jews and Muslims, right?
Not right, of course, but that’s EXACTLY what this decision sets up. I just hope someone puts it to the test. Soon.
I have thought the exact same thing. Oh for an atheist to deny serving a Christian! To make it fly even more in the face of the religious persuasion of this court I would dearly love a baker or merchant of some sort to refuse service to a Catholic! As a populace we should take this ruling as far as it can go and refuse service to all manner of people on the basis of our First Amendment rights. They've opened up a hornets' nest so let's show them just what mad hornets can do!
Rex. As a fellow non-believer I think you should define "decent" and provide facts and figures. I have known and disagreed with plenty of devout Christians who are wonderful and extremely decent people, certainly not indecent by any definition I'm aware of.
So do I. I didn’t say that no Christian is a decent person, just that a high percentage aren’t. For example, 80% of white Evangelicals voted for Trump. In my book, that means 80% of white Evangelicals are not decent human beings. That leaves 20% who might qualify for the ranks of decency. Additional testing would be required, of course.
Rex, I'm still hopeful that white evangelicals will eventually see the light, so to speak, and discover their own inner decency. I believe it is possible for ignorant, misguided, even stupid people to be basically "decent", though the magamoron in chief himself is truly beyond all redemption.
In any case, decency is hard to define, even if we all think we know it when we see it.
I'm a Christian, and I like to think that I'm in the "low percentile"! Again, there are millions of Christians who are NOT evangelical and very many of us are solidly behind separation of church & state and guarantees of "freedom FROM religion" for them that don't want it.
I watched coverage of todays decision on student loan forgiveness and found it ironic that many of those interviewed were angry at President Biden because he promised that he would waive some of their student loan debt, they made decisions to take out mortgages and other expenses and now they have to pay for those loans. He tried to waive some of their debt. The Supreme Courts 6 Republican appointed Justices ruled against his efforts to help them ease their student loan debt. Today he proposed new efforts to deal with this issue. Their anger at President Biden is misplaced. They should focus their energy on electing Representatives who will support efforts to help ease the crushing student loan. Additionally, those who complain about having to help those with college debt didn’t complain when they received free PPP loans or having the debt for those who attended for profit technical schools waived by this administration because they were charged predatory fees. It would be beneficial for all if the press would cover these issues in a fair and factual way.
There is place for entertainment, and playfulness can reap unexpected benefits. The antics of kittens and our lovable domesticated wolves (Canis lupus domesticus) is serious practice for survival in the wild. Einstein described his creative process as "combinatory play".
BUT, there is also a need to focus, to evaluate, to analyze, to make consequential decisions. That's where fruitful, trustworthy, evidence-based information sources come in, and we all need them to survive. That is something a government of the people, by the people, for the people cannot function without. We are fools to tolerate fluff "news", and the public acceptance of Big Liars. We are especially fools to tolerate those entrusted with critical roles or public trust to lie to us for the sake of clannish conceits, including, and perhaps especially those on "our side". The quality of our own future and of that of our posterity depends on that.
I have read that the Chinese are pouring money into education, which seems like a smart competitive move. What we know is our species' biggest advantage. I attended a private college, but back is the day, state schools were far more subsidized than is the case today, and "student loans" were not a big drag on the economy, or on the lives of so large a portion of our young. Some are carving up the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Who is actually writing these briefs, the Federalist Society Who is writing the legislation for the GOP. Not the actually legislators but their ideological sponsors. Congress and the Court are pawns to dark money. And it keeps getting darker. Heather thanks for your brilliant analysis!
Expand SCOTUS, one justice per federal legal jurisdiction, an increase by four. Institute limits for all judges; abolish lifetime appointments.
If we make term limits of 18 years and allow presidents to appoint 2 per term, then the court will become less partisan. Add that if the Senate fails to vote on an appointment within 60 days, that appointment will stand (no more Merrick Garland).
Agree 100000% And add a SCOTUS ethics & oversight board!!!
Yes! Yes! and Yes!
If and when we can get the democrats to act we need to make the Senate represented by the people not two senators from each state. Hardly fair when New York and California have millions more people than many of the small states but still only have 2 senators. Hardly a fair playing field.
Julie Dahlman,
That will require a constitutional amendment with 2/3 of States ratifying it—the lower population states wouldn’t ratify it.
to bad they listen to Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy. Dems are hapless too much of the time. But vote blue
There is a convoluted (and, I think, wrong) argument that Congress could limit the justices of the Extreme Court to set terms. But would the court accept that? I doubt that even the “liberal” justices would do so.
We the People DON'T CARE if "the court" accepts it. We are done with them and their illegitimacy. They manufacture bogus "rules" to justify their paid-for promises to Leo Leo,.... so, can (and should) we.
It's time.
A few weeks ago, I posted that Trump's reaction to his indictment, in light of the detailed factual allegations showed that the nation is divided into two groups: Those who believe in the rule of law, and those who are opposed to it. Which side are you on? If it is the side of those supporting the rule of law, then you have to care about whether the court would accept it, because the rule of law depends upon accepting court rulings, even when we believe they are dead wrong.
I would be very concerned as to how a law or ruling or whatever that "the Court" "doesn't accept" would or could be enforced. Legally amending the law is the only thing I personally would accept. I mean, are we insurrectionists? Seriously?
The way to remedy the problem of the Supreme Court apparently is to elect Congress members who can over rule the Court. Congress has to pass laws that set a standard of ethics and that are enforceable. Biden can overrule too, but he has said he won't because it would look like he was prejuducung the case with his power. The legal procedure is tedious and detailed, but if it's done right, it's secure in theory. Rule of law sure beats rule by monarchical whimsey, but it's not inherited: every gemeration has to learn how to maintain our democracy, and teach each following generation, or we lose it to the money grubbing autocrats.
We the People absolutely do NOT care if the Court accepts term limits or not. It is time to reform the Constitution. It was cobbled together over 200 years ago to replace the Articles of Confederation, which were not working very effectively. I have to wonder if the founders thought the document they put together would still be around after 200 years. They also assumed people of good character would hold office. Look what happens when you assume! Trump, the radicals on the Court ( courtesy of Trump and Mitch McConnell) have exposed the cracks in the country's foundation. Screw what John Roberts thinks; he has greatly contributed to the court's illegitimacy.
They would have a set time as Supreme Court justices , then serve out the rest of their term as appellate justices.
And if Biden does not initiate expansion, why do Democrats think Republicans won't expand the court to seal off this avenue to preserve democracy? Republicans have shown no qualms about stacking the courts with the most corrupt players they can find.
It takes a Senate that would pass such legislation. We don't have the numbers - yet. If Biden starts beating the drum for expansion before we achieve the Blue Trifecta next year, he will simply be creating a distraction. Instead, do what's doable and talk about how effective it has been.
I am 100% for expanding the Supreme Court. When it's a realistic possibility: January 2025
Seems to me it’s all about getting out the vote in 24...winning with huge majorities and effecting important legislation that actually allows for checks and balances. Things seem quite lopsided now, with the minority rule having way too much unfettered power.
And we have to make CERTAIN that any third party people running for President (or really, ANY office) in '24 cannot take any votes from Democratic office seekers. From republicans, sure. We - the United States of America - just cannot afford another debacle like 2016
How?
E Sonoma, sorry I missed you post before I sent mine. You said the same thing, but more succinctly! 🙂💙🇺🇸
Makes perfect sense, Bill and I agree with you, except for the fact that doing it right now, immediately on the heels of the Confederate 6 would fire that shot across the bow and:
1. Signal to the GQP that we are Dead-Ass serious now and the party's over
2. Possibly be the inspiration that brings those on-the-fence Indies finally over
3. Cement every non-white, LGBTQ, interracial, agnostic or "different" as blue
4. Show the weak GOP that they are going to Lose Re-election by supporting
5. Be the "test run" for 2025 you mention just like GQP did on Jan 6
Like many others here say, being timid has so often been the death-knell of the Dems. Using the agency of this very moment to capture the outright fury of the Majority of this country is what the GQP would do,...because it works. They act openly as a minority with impunity because the Dems don't take them to task.
I am only suggesting that acting with gusto in an in-your-face challenge will possibly capture the anger of this moment and lift the Dems immeasurably at the time it's needed. What's to lose? If the points above are true the votes come late 2024 take the country blue by large margins according to Simon Rosenberg of Hopium Chronicles: https://simonwdc.substack.com
Then your point about doing it in Jan 2025 is a slam dunk. By all rights it could be done another way via impeaching C Thom Ass, Brewsky Kavenaw & Phoney Barrett for flat out ethics and lying under oath. Either way, it has to be done.
As I said above the Senate needs to be represented by all the people, giving 2 senate seats to each state is not representative. Think of New York and Wyoming or California and Idaho.
House districts are allocated by population. The House actually has more power. Not much reaches the Senate if it doesn't first pass the House.
So true, .........
Bill is correct. Nothing can be done until we have an “EFFECTIVE” Blue trifecta. So it all comes down to we the people voting the right people into office. Our most effective way to do that is to register voters, (especially Gen Z constituents), engage & motivate them, along with those who have given up and who feel their vote doesn’t matter.
It truly is up to us to have conversations with those we know, and those we don’t know, to talk about how the Democrats are working to make our democracy representative of all Americans and to make lives better for all.
- An economy built from the bottom up and the middle out
- Effective regulation of corporations.
- A fair tax system where all pay their fair share, individuals & corporations.
- A fair social safety net to care for our citizens: healthcare, family care, Medicare, social security.
Bottom line we must eliminate minority rule.
Well expressed. And as you referenced, the youth vote will be the key. Gen Y and Z will offer about 45% of elegible voters. Most reject the reactionary nonsense and bigoted behavior of the GQP.
"Now is not the time" has been the death rattle of aspirations for democracy. It has become a popular stereotype joke among critics of Democrats, and not without reason.
What's the point of rattling sabers when we don't have enough to fight the fight? We don't have the House. We don't have enough of the Senate. Where is SCOTUS impeachment (which should happen) going to come from? This Congress isn't going to impeach anyone. And they certainly won't vote to expand the Court.
As horrific as this Extreme Court is, flailing against windmills will not achieve anything.
We can certainly campaign on the idea that we want a President and a Congress that will nominate and confirm "normal" justices who really believe in equality. We can campaign on the idea that Justices shouldn't be corrupt.
Democrats have a lot to be LOUD about.
Agree wholeheartedly Bill. Saber rattling with out the wherewithal to accomplish it wastes energy. Democrats need to focus on the NOW and the REAL. Yes Democrats have a lot to be LOUD about. And if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak, with dreadful SCOTUS decisions that impacted Republicans, you KNOW they would be filled the printed page and the airwaves with memorable "clips' that would capture the narrative. Let's hear more of the Secretary of Education recounting in Loud and Blunt and Memorable sentences how many people with NOT GET student loan relief in Repub. districts, etc etc. because of the Court. Get the message out!
This. Run on the issues that everyday people care about, drive vote numbers and win seats. Get your majority and THEN make the changes that ensure fairness and equality. Republicans are only in this advantageous position because Dems rally for presidential elections and run somnolent and nonchalant races in non-pres years. If there's one thing Dems can learn from R's is the necessity to win as many races as you can, every election.
OK then DO that. Believe the polls of what people say they want done. Saber rattling??? Good lord. Should a political party responsible for forming a government be fearful to advocate for what is in the preamble of our own Constitution?
This is odd. I believe that you and I want the same stuff. When I say "Saber rattling" I mean trying to introduce legislation is dead on arrival.
Of course, we shouldn't be fearful of advocating for the removal of corrupt justices. But it's like trying to hit a homerun before the game has started. Before the team got off the plane.
Of course, we can say we believe in expanding the court. But pining away about it is time and energy we could be investing in getting out the vote. Registering new voters. Educating independents about how the court is stripping away their Constitutional rights.
Am I making sense, Ed?
Bullshit. American voters think proposed radical change (Medicare for All is an example, and another is the Equal Rights Amendment) smacks of communism. Pushing for big change usually results in losing an election.
Ed, it's too late. They have already won.
Biden should have taken the necessary steps to initiate the expansion of the Courts when he took office.
This will prove to be his greatest failure.
Dems should have seen this coming decades ago. Bill Moyers warned us. I have watched it all play out with great trepidation, and abject fear as chump lit the fuse. This says it all - from Derek DelGaudio on Twitter several years ago. “I used to rig card games for a living. I’d watch people sit down and lose everything, again and again. But they didn’t lose because they “played by the rules” and we didn’t. They lost because it wasn’t a game. It just looked like one.” What better description of the last 40 years.
Brilliant, Jeri. We could substitute the words "a democracy" for "a game" and it would call the truth out like it has never been told.
I am very tired of hearing about Biden’s failures. Even some of his supporters focus on them and do not mention his many successes. The biggest failure lies with voters who did not take Trump’s candidacy seriously. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but if we are going to use that as a way to fault Biden, at least write articles and remind us that the American (non-)voter(s) got us into this mess in the first place.
Check out the podcast In The Bubble with Andy Slavitt for a very positive and affirming interview with Anita Dunn- a senior advisor to Biden.
Biden will win a second term and get the chance to initiate court expansion.
He has already indicated that he doesn’t feel expanding the Court is the answer as it will be politicized. I disagree with him, wholeheartedly. How many times are we going to allow the Catholic 6 to trounce on us?
The Catholic Church has its own government, including a secret police, Opus Dei ("works of God") which has to do with the Inquisition, or court. When one Inquisition is settled, the next case is taken up. Bill Barr and Leonard Leo are members.
This is why Pastor Martin Niemoller, who was put in prison by the Nazis, wrote,
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the socialist, and I did not speak out, be ausr I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionist, and I did not speak out, be ausr I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left
to speak for me."
The Nazis came for my grandparents. They were gassed in a van at the camp known as Chelmno..
I agree with you, Marlene. The Extreme Court is ALREADY politicized. Expanding the Court would merely balance it. I'm getting very weary of the Dem passive tut-tuts to these corrupt R crooks and thieves. Enough with the "when they go low, we go high..." BS.
It. Isn't. Working.
Get down in the trenches, Dems, and fight back with everything we have!
Bill Alstrom is right. We do what we can with the numbers we have. Can you imagine the corrupt Manchin and worse Sinema voting with the Senate democrats to expand the court? Of course not.
We are all furious, but unlike the fascist evangelical right we will not take up arms or illegal and pointless means to fix this great evil.
Vote Democratic as if your life depends on it,because it does. I wish there were good people on both sides, and maybe there are some, but their silence is an evil also.
Prior to and during World War II, Hitler's genocidal Nazi party used variations on the triangle to identify citizens and concentration camp prisoners according to religion, ideology, sexual preferences and numerous other catagories. Some of the symbols were:
Yellow (Star of David): Jews
Pink Triangle: homosexuals
Brown:. Gypsies
Purple:. Jehovah's Witnesses
Red:. German Political Prisoners -
Communists, Socialists
Green:. Habitual Criminals
Blue:. Emigrants
Remember please that all Americans are decendents of emigrants.
Not all Americans. i think we can safely allow that Native Americans were here when we Europeans arrived. Since Native people had been here for thousands of years, hard to call them descendants of emigrants. (Though technically that is true).
The court Has Been politicized! No doubt about it!
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/02/leonard-leo-federalist-society-00094761 Leo is taking big donor's dark money, using it to help republican judges win, and pocketing some along the way. He claims he's not using it for political gain of course.
Dear President Biden (via Marlene), expanding the court WILL be politicized??? Seems to me that's exactly how we got here in the first place!
By January 20, 2025, he will have changed his mind. You heard it here first.
I sure hope you’re right!
Some speculate that he can't say during campaign season that he will expand the Court.. That would provide the GOP with a key issue to attack him on.
Speaking of attacking, I hope Mullins’ and MTG’s opponents in their next race make a big issue of the financial windfall THEY got and their constituents did not.
The court's decisions comply with the will of the oligarchs not that of the people. But scholars have shown the same is true of the decisions of Congress. https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
This makes prattle of "save our democracy" seem a bit naive. Parties, currently the Republican, but don't hold Democrats unaccountable either, are really working to convince us to preserve an oligarchy.
Isn't that called closing the barn door after the horses got away?
True or not, and I’m sure you know more than I, I think it a bit disingenuous to blame Biden. He inherited a country in nearly existential peril after the debacle of Trump’s discourteous (!!) and unwilling exit. Covid still raged. The Supreme Court was anticipated to be, uh. . . controversial in future rulings, and already had flexed some eyebrow-raising muscle. But still, there was a mountain of crises to deal with and Biden, plate overflowing, was new to the job.
To expect him to have acted immediately on the Supreme Court is Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst sort.
It has been his fate to be a a brilliant President while not being wanted by his own party to run again.
As for the Supremes, they are a key factor in determining how fast America can run backwards.
Their decisions this week are nothing short of a disgrace. They are, as a group, a walking advertisement for how impotent your Constitution is. The bought and sold Six are pounding the country into the ground, while the minority of Three squirms, uncomfortable to even be associated with the others.
Like climate change, American decline into some insipid and inconsequential shadow of what it should be is rapidly surging. So many institutions crumbling into fratricidal irrelevance at once - the Supreme Court, Congress, the DOJ with Garland at its head, the turgidly slow (for those with means) court system. . . are all collapsing simultaneously in what looks like a slow motion replay of the planned implosion of a large building. State legislatures have become a joke as they compete with one another like children to pass the most punishing, malicious and immoral laws.
America, your children are killing themselves at three times the rate they did ten years ago. Your country’s education levels are falling faster than the proverbial stone. The country is presently baking in heat and climate change remains (literally) a back burner issue. Malignant clowns concoct inane but dangerous conspiracy theories, pandering to the tens of millions who will dress them up and madly nurture them. The fentanyl crisis is raging out of control because your citizens are in such internal pain.
I give Biden enormous credit for tackling the most pressing problems head on. But even as he does, the country becomes more fragmented, people feel more isolated and and the most dangerous actors wear black robes and take bribes.
Heather’s huge group must continue to work to re-elect Biden - forget his age, sometimes you have to roll the dice - and good Democrats downstream. Then the Supreme Court can be taken on. The first days of the first term were laden with crisis. Go hard now.
Linda, can you provide a couple of real examples of “necessary steps” to expand the court. In other words, what tools are available? Congressional Action? We are being overwhelmed by the “right wing.” Already the Biden’s student loan forgiveness was deemed unconstitutional….we are left with a SCOTUS that has no scruples….and will fight tooth and nail to nix expanding the court and applying term limits. The corruptness is an embarrassment and insult to the millions of hard-working Americans and debt burdened students.
POLITICAL CAPITAL is what's necessary. That's how FDR did it, threatening the stack the Court with a Congressional supermajority. They capitulated and allowed the legislation they were fighting to pass.
Anyone with a brain can see this court is illegal. Impeachment is a viable option. I won’t be surprised if the House is overturned by big numbers in 2024. Even with no voter protection laws.
Each of these illegal rulings, and the one they made-up can be repealed and turned into settled law by Congress. Which seems to me to be the quickest way to undo the damage done to the our Constitution.
Do not expect one Republican to lift a hand to help. The decent ones, (if there is such a thing) decided to not run for re-election, allowing others to step in and tear up our democracy, not stay and stand up for their oath of office. They help perpetuate this mockery. Cowards, greediness, sold to the highest bidder they all are.
I ran into a MAGA person while taking my mother to an eye appointment. She quoted Steve Bannon and the NWO shtick he does. “Putin isn’t a bad guy because he’s keeping the global economy from collapse. Put God in charge of the government.”With her huge hairdo, she totally bought into this rubbish.
They don’t understand the first thing a fascist leader will do is confiscation of all guns from the citizens. The only reason we have so many now is that fascism hasn’t totally taken over, yet. They’ll believe it when the police are knocking down their door and removing any and all guns in their possession. It’s one of the first things a fascist leader will do. Our rights will be taken until we have none.
And why is Donald Trump walking around free?
How in the hell is he running for President? The SCOTUS is giving him a wide berth which to win by. However, the Dobbs decision is what will be the court’s undoing. It is not the purpose of the SCOTUS to take away given rights to Americans. It’s job is to protect our rights. Women are very upset with this and know to voice their disapproval at the ballot box. We’ll see.
There was no way that was going to happen then. Do you think every Democratiic senator would have supported the idea? Manchin or Sinema could have killed such a bill, and would have.
It's clear to me that the only Democrat that wasn't listening to what the Republicans said they were going to do and have done was Joe Biden. Biden has a fatal flaw in that he thinks people will do the right thing. They don't. When Biden took office a large number of Democrats were preaching about the expansion of the Supreme Court . I remember a number interviews including Klobuchar and Warren warning that the Supreme Court has to be expanded or the Republicans will rule through it. Guess what. They were right. We're screwed. Don't think they have stopped here.
It's time to quit the Nothing-Can-Be-Done Club and the Chicken Little Caucus.
Jon I am a firm member of the reality club not the pandora club that you belong to. Are you paying attention to how Biden is being plowed under by the media and the GOP?
Biden never had the votes of Feinstein, Manchin or Sinema to expand the court even if Schumer blew up the filibuster to get it to a vote. I read this week, I believe Michael Waldman, head of Brennan Ctr for Justice at NYU, who served on Biden’s review commission of Supreme Court, that they were instructed NOT to make conclusions to support specific changes.
Look at magnitude of this blunder.
If your argument is right, won’t Republicans take the chance to expand the court and further secure their majority on the court if they ever have the power to do so? Not doing the right thing because you’re afraid the bad guys will do it seems like a very weak argument to me.
Exactly. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Imagine a SC with not 9 conservatives, but 11 or 12.
These are all solid ideas to correct SCOTUS as it's currently constituted.
The problem is that there is nobody in government with the political will or courage to even attempt to implement one of them, much less all of them.
And Biden, who was raised in the Methodist Church, joined the Catholic Church.
Biden was NOT raised in the Methodist Church.
Susan, do you have a source for this statement? Everything I have read about Joe Biden's parents states that they were both Irish Catholics and raised their children that way.
Thanks
Yes, I think you’re right.
And some of the beliefs held by some of the Catholic justices are not Catholic teaching, but beliefs of extremist right wingers, such as members of Opus Dei like Barr and Leo (and maybe Thomas) who feel they must tell us who have strayed how to live. Sort of Catholic evangelicals if you will.
Just for fun, if you haven't already read that awful novel by Dan Brown, it's an airplane read with five adjectives and adverbs, but it succeeded in being banned by THE church here, and it reached a lot of heretofore complacent faithfuls.
I'm of the opinion the fact that Biden is Catholic doesn't matter, but it concerns me that so many Americans are still triggered by the supposed threat of Catholic leaders.
I have no interest in the religion followed by our public figures beyond the answers to two questions. First, do they follow the moral teachings of their faith that are common to all religions, non-hypocritically? Second, are they trying to force others to follow the prescriptions of their faith that *aren't* common to all religions.
If the answers are "yes" to one and "no" to two, I'm done with the issue.
If the answers are "no" and "no" or "yes" and "yes" they're dismissed and they'll never get my support.
If the answers are "no" and "yes" they are my mortal enemy and I will support their utter destruction any way I can.
What point are you making by saying, although incorrectly, that Biden converted to Catholicism ??
Sorry. I was wrong: I thought I'd read it somewhere, but can't find it in my notes. I appollgize.
Oh, oh, my memory failed me. I guess you're right, because I can't find the source I thought I had in my notes. Thanks for correcting me, I guess, but now I feel rather hopeless as to maintaining a democracy. There's too many cons, not enough pros.
P.S. Looking again at the Biden biography on wikipedia, I now think that (some years ago) upon reading that both his wives were from Protestant backgrounds, i had hoped they would have some influence on him, just a wild idea I can see now. I don't see how we can have separation of church and state if the leaders answer to the Pope. So, thanks for setting me straight. I'll quit now.
Again, I think the "Catholics answer to the Pope first" is an invalid hypothetical argument. Raised a Catholic myself, I've maintained lifelong relationships with others living their lives with various levels of devotion to Catholic doctrine. In my experience, none of them looks to the Pope for guidance on how to behave as a citizen of the US. Sadly, a few reject the Pope's leadership because they believe that their interpretations of the tenets of the faith are superior (like some members of Opus Dei in the US). The vast majority think of the Pope once or twice a year, if that. In my opinion, President Biden has consistently demonstrated that his allegiance to his church is personal and secondary to his commitment to Democratic principles of governance in his many decades of public service.
Susan, I am in disbelief to see you or anyone repeating such an ancient prejudice and misconception of the followers of Catholicism. It was actually believed in the United States before John F. Kennedy was elected president that it was unconstitutional for a Catholic to hold the office. I thought all that had laid to rest with Kennedy’s election.
Maybe you are an exception, but when push comes to shove, anyone not Catholic is considered heathen and consigned to hell, by Hitler's Willing Executioners.
We are the proverbial frog in the kettle of water. The temperature is rising and will soon boil it alive, but it is too insensitive to the lethal threat to realize it and take action. What the current U.S. Supreme Court is doing is emasculating the federal government's power, benefitting the ultra wealthy and the religious right.
Richard, love you frog in the pot analogy. I totally agree with you that the Court is emasculating the federal government From my view, the SCOTUS thumbing its nose and having fun doing it…..little by little chipping away the standards we’ve fought so hard to attain. I will add a tidbit about frogs in the pot…the water temp should raised slowly so the frog does not realize what’s happening and not do anything….is this what the SCOTUS is doing to us?
I don’t know, Linda. Feels like after these three days of nails in the coffin , millions of us do realize what’s happening. Forgive my pun, but we are boiling mad at this assault on democracy and Separation of Powers. If we can, let’s turn it around. The “Supremacist” Court has truly betrayed us all and damaged its own reputation unequivocally.
Linda, we need a present-day Thomas Paine: "These are the times that try men's and women's souls." There is a cancer on the body politic. In part the reason is that many of us don't have the critical thinking skills to realize that we're being had.
yes, to all of these!
Expanding the court would only be a temporary fix and start a race to the bottom eventually making the court meaningless, Biden's logic on this is right. I don't want to live in a country where the SCOTUS has 50 or more judges which is what could happen every time parties exchange power.
The 18 year rule is the best change I've seen to date if coupled with meaningful oversight for SCOTUS justices. That would be the quickest route to a more stable court.
On-going expansion of the court is folly, which is why it’s not part of my comment; I believe a limited increase, allotting one justice per legislative jurisdiction reduces the likelihood of an imbalanced court. Paired with an 18 year limit is an absolute must.
I didn't say you did, I was just stating my thoughts on expansion. We can mince words that a limited increase is not an expansion but I have to admit there are valid reasons to grow the court. In a sense its size should be proportional to the rest of the country. This is why I believe the House of Representatives should be bigger than it is and give the areas of denser population the representation they deserve. I'm done with minority rule.
Zella, I’m with you one hundred percent. Why is this not talked about in the media? Or even by Biden & Co.?
Did you forget who owns the media ? Murdock reigns.
Zella,
I would approve of one justice per federal legal jurisdiction, limits for all judges and for sure.....ABOLISH LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS! I do not think a greater number of judges would make a difference in a well thought out decision.
Also in my opinion, decisions should be made to honor and respect all citizens and persons, for the health and well-being of our nation and not to please a particular political party, but should benefit all Americans.
Agreed … let’s remember that the loss of a white cis patriarchy, and the inclusion of women, people of color, disabled people, LGBTQ+, immigrants and just anyone who is different are the motivations behind pleasing a particular political party instead of all Americans.
How unbelievably unrecognizable some of our fellow citizens have become, or perhaps they stopped hiding their true selves. Either way, it’s distressing.
And demand a code of ethics!
This is Senator Markey's proposal. It should be brought to the floor in the Senate.
Zella Would it require a constitutional amendment to abolish lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices? There is precedence for Congress to alter the number of Supreme Court justices, though this hasn’t been done for more than a century. Would it require approval in both Houses and from the president?
The number of seats on the Court is set by Congress. Last done in 1869, established at 9. We are a vastly different country now than we were 200 years ago.
I support having the same number of seats on SCOTUS as there are District Courts, so 13.
Term limits would, unfortunately, require a Constitutional amendment. The language in Article III says, 'for Good Behavior' but doesn't define what that is.
When the Constitution was written, judges rode a circuit, had a difficult life and generally died/retired around 55. Doubt the framers envisioned them living until they were in their 80s.
Maria Fortunately our most important chief justice, John Marshall, died in office at age 79. He should have recused himself from perhaps his most significant decision (Marbury v. Madison), since the case involved appointments that he had signed as Secretary of State (under President Adams). He and President Jefferson had a massive showdown.
Intriguing thoughts here. Question arises: What reasoning was behind lifetime appointments for SCOTUS justices? Answer is loaded with irony: To “help ensure that the decisions they make are guided by law and judgment rather than trying to placate political interests to save their job.”
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/2022/06/19/civics-column-explains-why-supreme-court-justices-get-lifetime-jobs/7645371001/#
RW There was a provision for impeachment of SC justices. This was initiated once—Justice
Chase—in the early 1800s and failed in the Senate.
Biden should have packed the court before Dobbs, when it was obvious this SCOTUS had gone off the rails, but before it had done the lasting harm of this session. That opportunity has passed. If, however, Congress abolished lifetime appointments and applied existing rules of ethics under which Federal judges work, it wouldn't be necessary to expand SCOTUS; and perhaps it would take less than a generation to rectify the harm this court has caused.
It’s easy to say Biden should have done this or that but he needed to votes in the Senate and the votes were not there. Remember that Democratic senators from red states must vote to please their constituents if they expect to be re elected. Joe Manchin is an example. It’s better to have him in the senate as a conservative democrat than a Republican. He may not always vote as we would want but he helps us hold the majority which is no small thing.
It is easy to say, and you're right, it wouldn't have had a chance in the Senate.
New Deal? The President doesn't have the authority to forgive debt. Show me in the
constitution where is says that?
What the constitution does say in the 14th amendment is that Harvard can't discriminate against Asians in favor of Blacks and Hispanics.
I think we need to create a new higher court. The Supreme Court of Appeals, or the Exalted Court! Let Biden appoint all of the members of that court, and let that court set rules to keep each member accountable, as well as the Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court has no mechanism to enforce their decisions, and I am of the opinion that just as the Supreme Court is taking over Biden's branch of government, Biden could take theirs over by ignoring their decisions. In that way, we have a situation where we let them see that they have to follow the rules or else they won't be in play. The rule is not that they can do anything they please, and a good way to let them understand that, and the billionaires that bankrolled these bogus cases like the made up gay service case, and the made up Affirmative action case, brought on by phony people. We have white billionaires bankrolling both cases, in order to set up their access to whatever they want to do. I would be great if wealthy democrats started bankrolling the kind of lawsuits that get us back our rights. We should stop these courts in their tracks. We could have a Prigozhin moment where the Executive Branch says, I protest the courts rulings and I am not going to abide by them. However, I know Biden will not do that because he is trying to stabilize our government after the chaos we suffered under Trump, and to legitimize our democracy by supporting the institutions that are supposed to support it, but that seems to be crumbling in the face of too much bad legislation, which has allowed these evil billionaires to take over. Thank goodness a lot of alternate press is springing up to speak truth to power.
Biden can expand the Supreme court by 4 Justices merely by nominating them and having the Dems in the Senate ram the nominations through. Unfortunately, Mankin and Sinema would not go along, making this impossible. We need Biden to win in 2024 and the Dems to have 50 Dems in the Senate willing to confirm 4 more Justices. Start working now towards that end! The other changes you suggest require an amendment to the Constitution -- which Biden or other Dems should propose.
Would the same standards apply if she refused to create web sites for hetero Christian couples? But really - who is behind this? It seems oddly random that one lone web designer would come up with this idea and bring it all the way to the Supreme Court.
And yet, no same sex couple even asked the web designer to create a web page for their wedding--it was a hypothetical and you can't have a court case if someone brings about a complaint if they don't have a real life complaint against them. Yet, the Supremacist Court does regardless because no one regulates them...supreme abuse of power!
Yes, this fact trumps all the other issues with this illegitimate SCOTUS decision. Smith has not suffered any actual harm, therefore she lacked standing to bring a complaint before the Court. The fact that the Court ever granted certiorari in this case is proof of how desperate the radical "conservative' justices are to lay down even the most flimsy precedents in "religious freedom" cases, before the American people finally force the other branches of government to rein in their lawlessness.
If your religious beliefs are paramount then you have the right to discriminate. That is basically my summary. Before long we will once again see separate restrooms, separate entrances, or no service if you aren’t a white, christian, and hetero male.
Christine, yes. And people scoffed when we said the election of tfg would be the start of a literal Handmaid's Tale. But here we are...
Not necessarily true.
I don’t follow. What is not necessarily true?
Thank you John parrticularly the reference to the "flimsy precedent" manufactured by KRISTIN WAGGONER. Source on the faux Plaintiif's Attorney's name is Amy Howe at SCOTUS blog.com.
Right on! SCOTUS is power grabbing over other arms of government without restraint. What can stop them?
There is drafted Legilation to create 1 SCOTUS seat for each of the 13 separate Circuit Courts. 7 vs 6 = 13.
Bryan, tempting as this is, when Biden says this would set up too dangerous a precedent, I believe him. We need to have reform to block sexual predators from being seated and for removing corrupt and criminal judges.
UPDATE: All eyes on State i4f Colorado Attorney Genera, PHILIP J WEISER, to file a Motion for Re-hearing ( Rule 44) at SCOTUS within twenty-five (25) days of the "advisory opinion" given to a a psuedo web designer based on pure hypothetical, FALSE facts.
If I were the CO AG I would hire NEAL KATYAL to file a Rule 44.2 Motion for Re-hearimg making NEAL's fifty-first (51st) apperance at SCOTUS. Then stand back.
Background: Alexandra, I realize I owe you a response. I am very busy digesting this Communities' thoughts including your important Comment. I, of course, concur with your Comments about the nomination process such as it is & the need for urgent repairs.
Also, there has been another Mass Shooting in Baltimore, MD. 2 deceased. & 28 injured per msnbc Anchor, Judy. Note also, SCOTUS has a 2nd Amendment case on the docket next Term.
Further Reply to Alexandra at 8:30 am Pacific with Context: 1.) 4/14/22 was the date first formal proposal for the 13-Justices-for- the-13-Circuits Bill; 2) the Judiciary Act of 2023 was revised on 5/16/23.:3.) A caucus of Dem Senators are involved notanly Sen. Whitehouse with many factors churning.
The End..
The right wing nuts (SC especially) smell success in practically all areas of their agenda. I predict that they will Take it to the mat while they have the means.
and that takes political capital ....
Standing law is different in 1A cases were a chilling effect is claimed; it doesn’t require actual damages.
I defer to your experience in law. However, where is the chilling? Smith didn't have a business. She alleged that if she chose to start a business the hypothetical that she might be asked to provide service to a gay couple might force her to violate her sincerely-held bigoted beliefs against a protected class -- let alone that she perjured herself when she presented "evidence" that was probably made up from whole cloth after the suit was filed. As my kids would say: "suss"
She lied. Probably a sock puppet for christo-fascists. Joyce Vance explains it better than I can. She’s on Substack.
Zero doubt that she's carrying water for Alliance Defending Freedom, who certainly fit the Christofacist profile https://secularhumanism.org/2020/08/the-christian-rights-destructive-courthouse-moment-has-arrived/
Standing is different in 1A cases where the party claims a chilling effect. Actual damages are not required. Apparently truth is not required, either.
Yes, Sophia at least an abuse of judicial power possibly much worse. The Associated Press is reporting the alleged customer "Stewart" likely never existed as a genuine customer meaning the required "actual controversy" did NOT exist. See , Sotomayor's Dissent joined by Justices Kagan &Jackson. on absence of standing. Note, dissents are not the forum for newly discovered facts not part of record on appeal.
Apparently, the State of Colorado did make inquiries into the CADA legitimacy of this manufactured claim. Further & intense investigations are needed asap to uncover admissible facts. This manufactured opinion is now open to collateral attack.
UPDATE: The Guardian's Sam Levine in New York has the developing late 6/29 story in factual context & perhaps spoiliation of evidence,. See, "The Fake Gay Marriage Website ...".
FURTHER UPDATE: I & others have asked the CO AG to file a Rule 44 Motion for a Re-Hearing within 25 days of this bogus advisory opinion, an appalling license to discriminate based on a fake controversy.
I'm at a loss as to how the justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson can sit on the same "bench" as the other six. The stench must be nauseating.
I posted about this exact same thing--how sorry I feel for them having to show up to work every morning with these ass****s. And quitting your job is not a realistic option....
I can't imagine working in that environment. Are they expected interact with them socially? Acting like they are friends. I could not do that.
Usually, group pictures of the SCOTUS show the justices smiling. I commented to a friend this week that I saw a group photo where Justice Jackson was not smiling and looked very sad.
Anthony, they do it for all of us. I don't know that I could bear it, either.
What happened to the need for a petitioner to confirm damage to have standing to bring a suit?
Not certain Ed but, apparently the Petitioner pled an alleged 1st Amendment violation that she was somehow being forced to "speak". Sotomayor Dissent: "The Court's decision conflates discrimination with freedom of expression . This is grave error".
I want to read Lawrence Tribe's analysis.
Freedom of expression is not a free for all. There have to be balancing guardrails to ensure one's "free expression" does not preclude another's social/individual rights. That's the problem with a religious intolerance which stampedes over this balance with its own absolute convictions. Of course, we are mainly talking about "sex" here. Shake my head
Well written Frank, thx.
The whole thing was based on lies and deceit, but that is the Fascist/NAZI GQP mantra, ''lie and deceive'' and their bought and paid for Extreme Court.
Exactly! This was a setup. Were the republicans on the court part of that end?
And how much cash and how many vacations and private jet rides did they take in order to "decide" these absurd decisions?
SCORRUPTUS.
I like this, Sander. I'll stick with my SCROTUS because, well, I am well-attuned with my junior high self.
LOL
WOW ! Ilike it.
It makes sense, doesn't it? The two justices that were found out to take lavish gifts from rich people, ALWAYS vote for the rich...their excuses are pathetic. Congress needs to act on this--if a justice candidate's action is contrary to what they said during their confirmation hearing under oath, they are immediately relieved of their position....
Important, the Judiciary Act of 2023.
I was using SCROTUS but then someone here said "The Supremacist Court." That really nails it.
(I would love to give the poster credit but It's so hard to find a post with Substack's system....)
WOW, I am glad to see that I wasn’t alone in my thinking!
I totally agree with that.
Thank you! No standing, no more stare decisis and there is someone here who thinks that Biden was raised Methodist. We are in the Upside Down, where is Hopper?
Lorie Smith indicated that this was a RELIGIOUS issue.
Dear Ms Smith, let me remind you of some of the CORE teachings of not just Christianity, but most major religions: “Love thy neighbor as thyself” AND “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16)
Perhaps we shall meet in H E double toothpicks.
I am surprised that this case got that far....wouldn’t most lower court judges throw that out, for “lack of evidence”? Sounds very unscrupulous to me too.
I have doubted her veracity this entire time. Follow the money. The trail isn't long.
The case is flimsy window dressing for the blatant machinations of a corrupted judiciary.
After all, half of the right wing court members were elected by an man under many counts of criminal indictment.
But also they were put in place by someone who bought them...Leonard Leo!
That would be likely. Do you have a story on that?
Google Leonard Leo or Federalist Society and you will find LOTS of information.
This is from last August, but still appropriate...
Watch "Top Psychiatrist SOUNDS ALARM on Trump’s Deteriorating Mental Fitness | The Weekend Show" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/DREKGn4nPhQ
Just watched my replay of Jonathon Capehart sitting in for Lawrence O'Donnel's Friday show on a Holiday Weekend: Jonathan notes, "No gay couple actually asked for the [CO] designer's work". So, the decision is based on a website designer's alleged 1st Amendment rights that were "hypothetical challenged" by a "hypothetical gay couple" who" hypothetically asked for design services".
The faux decision is flimsy & vulnerable to collateral attack.
The wedding site case sounds like an illegal advisory opinion by the US Supreme Court. The federalist society has managed to remove the governor off the engine of the judiciary. The supreme court is now damaging the judiciary’s crankshaft, push rods and valves. This destroys the engine and requires replacement.
SCORRUPTUS!
Exactly!!
Who paid for her to take it to the extreme court?
Alliance Defending Freedom which is described in the link for Guardian article from yesterday. Of course also funding from Leonard Leo’s SCOTUS dark money shop
I heard it was Josh Hawley’s wife!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/30/christian-hate-group-funding-us-anti-lgbtq-anti-abortion-organizations
Yep, not far at all.
There is a right wing group that took up her case, though I don't remember the name. It is a prospecting case intended to push legal limits.
It's a Christian right group Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF. There's a Wikipedia entry, if you want more info.
Love how they use names the exact opposite of their intent. Straight out of Goebbels. But not a new thing. Goes back to Reagan. Peggy Noonan was his script writer. Wonder what she blathers today. Opinions of SC action???
Thanks, Ruth!
Barf!
I hope someone brings that exact scenario. The Satanic Temple has the resources...
Sharon, this did not pass the “smell test”! The postal stamp on the “email” shows she mailed the letter after the case was filed. There was no company, no one had complained. Just seems very, very fishy to me.
She certainly has gotten publicity for her web site -- free publicity if others paid the legal and other expenses.
Molly, the dark money funds everything nefarious and dangerous to democracy. We must never underestimate them….maybe Leonard Leo funded her, who knows?
How does the Supreme Court's decision distinguish between a web designer who refuses to create a web site for a gay couple and one that refuses to create a web site for a Black couple? Both are protected classes, and the designer's decision can just as reasonably be based on personal religious beliefs in either case.
How about an orthodox Muslim who refuses to create a site for a Christian couple? Or an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish operator who refuses to serve a Christian couple or a Muslim couple?
Yep, perhaps every business in the US should refuse to serve the Thomases for being an interracial couple....
Or for being a Seditionist couple.
That's probably next.
Let George Soros’s son bankroll!
Still waiting on my check from George. I have been accused of being on his payroll.. lol
Same, Jeri. Never seen a cent of that money I'm accused of taking for being a liberal thinker.
The 14th amendment forbids discrimination on the basis of race. The case was decided on free speech ground not religious freedom. I know, it doesn’t make sense but they did it anyway.
The free speech argument can serve as an end run around the 14th amendment just as it effectively nullifies laws against anti-gay legislation. At least it can for this court.
"she doesn’t want to use her own words on a personalized website to celebrate gay"
And what is this "own words" thing? Can commercial printers decide not to print invitations for gay clients? For black clients? Can restaurant owners reject a gay luncheon?
After this ruling they will likely feel empowered to. I'll be upping my donation to the ACLU in the hopes that they will take every one of these cases to court. Let's make it expensive for religious bigots to discriminate against protected classes. "Oh, you think an illegitimate ruling by SCOTUS will protect you? Yeah well you're going to have to hire a lawyer anyway."
That's a great idea, John.
Same here. I have been "a card-carrying member of the ACLU" since 1986, two years before George Bush tried to disparage Dukakis with that statement.
Yes!
The SC should have never agreed to hear this ridiculous cruel case! Leo probably set Smith up to further put his digs in at liberal causes. Illegitimate justices must not be granted lifetime appointments especially when they have no ethics whatsoever.
Too similar circumstances as the last cake case, or was it a website? These cases are not only bogus, they have to be created by the extreme right for the Supreme court.
Absolutely!!
Her case was funded by right wing dark money! At the time of the filing she Did Not ‘ have a website!
Secondly as noted by HCR “ Melissa Gira Grant of The New Republic reported that, while the man allegedly behind the email does exist, he is an established designer himself (so why would he hire someone who was not?), is not gay, and married his wife 15 years ago. He says he never wrote to Smith,
and the stamp on court filings shows she received it the day after she filed the suit.”
Appears that the maga lawyer who wrote the law suit subscribed to trumps lying habit! Note the last clause of the quote…the stamp reveals the lies! I guess truthfulness is not part of her alleged Christian principles!
It's the bakery all over again.
The ones behind it are the people donating the “Dark Money” to get their beliefs become the law of the land.
You can believe that Karl Rove, James O’Keefe, or a similar “dirty tricks” expert was behind it. The repubs have no shortage of these cretins. And no shortage of money.
Absolutely bizarre!
The founder of Domino’s pizza has used the millions he made to establish things like the town in FL where Ave Maria University is located and legal firms like the Thomas More Society, which will look for plaintiffs.
https://twitter.com/heidireports/status/1674818405843582995?s=46
https://twitter.com/heidireports/status/1674819398106857486?s=46
Thank you Justice Kagan and others for honing in on the essential truth of what's happened: the right-wing majority, precedent and laws be damned, is making things up to suit its out-of-the-mainstream views.
One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances and in contradiction to sworn statements at confirmation hearings, has embarked on turning America upside down. Under direct attack are women and minority groups to benefit rich white people, many of whom are religious zealots like the extremist justices themselves.
President Biden yesterday said he didn't support expanding the court because it would politicize it. A baffling statement given that the court isn't just politicized, it seems to be intentionally harming tens of millions of people. Oh what Trump has wrought.
'President Joe Biden continued criticism of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down colleges' affirmative action programs in an interview on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” but said trying to expand the court would be a "mistake." (NBC)
WHY, Mr. President?
'New Marquette Law School Poll national survey finds continuing decline in approval of the way the U.S. Supreme Court is doing its job, with amount varying according to respondents’ partisanship' May 28, 2023
MILWAUKEE – A new Marquette Law School Poll national survey finds that 44% of adults approve of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, while 56% disapprove. This is a slight decline from January, when 47% approved and 53% disapproved. Approval of the Court’s work hit a low of 38% in July 2022 and had risen gradually in every-other-month polling until this new poll. In all of these surveys since the middle of last year, approval has remained well below the 60% rate from July 2021. (Marquette University Law School)
Our Education Secretary knew how to make points after the Supreme Court decisions.
'Education Secretary Miguel Cardona called out the lurch toward turning the government over to the wealthy, supported as it is by religious foot soldiers like Lorie Smith: “Today, the court substituted itself for Congress,” Cardona told reporters. “It’s outrageous to me that Republicans in Congress and state offices fought so hard against a program that would have helped millions of their own constituents. They had no problem handing trillion-dollar tax cuts to big corporations and the super wealthy.”
'Cardona made his point personal: “And many had no problems accepting millions of dollars in forgiven pandemic loans, like Senator Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma had more than $1.4 million in pandemic loans forgiven. He represents 489,000 eligible borrowers that were turned down today. Representative Brett Guthrie from Kentucky had more than $4.4 million forgiven. He represents more than 90,000 eligible borrowers who were turned down today. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia had more than $180,000 forgiven. She represents more than 91,800 eligible borrowers who were turned down today.” (Letter)
That put it in a nutshell! Thank you, Secretary Cardona.
The hypocrites were called out. I hope the voters in those states are listening .
I doubt it, Angelica. They listen to what Right-wing media tells them, and nothing else. They’re brainwashed!
Democrats have got to learn to play “hardball” ... Steve Bannon and many of his ilk (look at how Mitch McConnell treated Obama and Merrick Garland) realize - seem to know as a fact - that the Democrats tend to bring a pillow to a knife or gun fight ... it won’t and doesn’t work that way!!!
I think the Dems think playing hardball means adopting Repub fascist and dirty tricks tactics. I would like them to know that NO, it doesn't mean that! It means using every legal and Constitutional tool, and fighting like he'll with the tools we have, while working toward dismantling the laws Repubs havevput on the books to make their illegal actions legal.
Call out disinformation posted by members of Congress & their followers with information. Even if only 1 person is enlightened by it.
From my decidedly limited understanding of such things, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot be expanded by executive fiat. If that were the case, we would be subject to an "accordion court", depending on the whim of those in power. It would take something akin to a constitutional convention, with a 2/3 majority to ratify. I do not see a way forward there.
That said, it is high time the court was expanded. Each justice is supposed to represent a particular circuit. There are 9 justices and 13 circuits. Why the court wasn't expanded as circuits were added must be a fascinating story, perhaps Dr. Cox-Richardson could help us understand it sometime. I propose the court be expanded to 13 justices with an ombudsman-like office to oversee recusal, ethical and other disputes.
The number of justices is set by Congress. No constitutional amendment necessary. While we are at it, we also need to expand the House of Representatives to meet our increased population.
The judiciary Act of 2023!
(Cool ... more Norcal) :)
So, if state’s rights are truly what matters, why is the supreme court (I’m not capitalizing on purpose) sticking its nose to legislation here in Colorado? If we want to be liberal, then let us be liberal. The so-called conservative justices are legislating from the bench -- hmmm, sounds like fascism to me.
I'm trying to find a listing comparing congress people accepting loan forgiveness with students having loans to forgive. So far all I can find is the Huffpost mention of Cardona's remarks. Anybody?
Eileen, if you are referring to the quote of words expressed by the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, that appeared in my comment, the quote was copied directly from HRC's Letter as indicated.
Thanks, Fern. Yes, I knew you were quoting directly from the letter. What I'm wondering is if there is further information about the Secretary of Education's comments, such as more of the hypocrisy of Congress members accepting loan forgiveness and then denying it to students.
Eileen, I would Google his name and check news as well as recent quotes of his. There may be analysis and reports concerning the issue he raised, which may provide more names and details. It's a matter of some research. I do not know what may be in print concerning subject. Happy Hunting!
I don’t understand that either...seems that expanding the court to reflect the increased # of districts is fair and reasonable...not politicizing it at all.
I am only guessing, but I think Biden is taking the high road—bowing to traditional & longstanding practices not to interfere with the separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial)….quite unlike the brazen promises to politicize and weaponize these very institutions by the likes of Trump, DeSantis, etc. I have to say, being mostly clueless on the specifics & intricacies of how it would work, the idea put forth to have a SC justice for each Fed district…that kinda makes sense to me.
I believe he said he was afraid that if he expanded the court, any president could and it would irreparable damage the court by making it intentionally political. All the efforts to prevent politicization have failed because of the games played in the Senate and the lack of ethics rules for the Justices. The Senate should adopt rules on how many days to an election are allowed before a president can't send forward a candidate. The Senate must take up a president's candidate and return a decision within the president's term. No games.
The "Senate" - isn't a "senate"a wise, upper house? worthy and proven lawgivers??
Without diving into the etiology of the word "senate", I can tell you that in the Constitution, the separation of the House (by popular election every two years, the number based on relative population of the states, with enslaved persons counting as 3/5 of a person for census purposes) and the Senate (appointed by the governors of the state, and allotting each state two senators) into the lower and upper houses respectively was designed to put a damper on "the will of the people". Senators moved from appointment to election via the 17th Amendment in 1913.
One would devoutly hope that both the Senate and the House would have "worthy" people elected to those bodies.
Yeah, Ally, in a perfect world they would be worthy of the responsibility and honor of such a public servant role. Of late, and as Heather would probably note in the past as well, such is not the actual case, but an ideal to aspire to. Seems like many of ‘em forgot that part!
I agree with you, Barbara. Biden’s hoping to lead by example and knows an expansion of the SCOTUS would be interpreted as a politicized decision. Unfortunately, the Right itself already politicizes everything that goes counter to its own self-preserving, power-expanding agendas.
The ostrich is not the creature to emulate at this point.
And you just know the far-right (having hijacked the Republican Party) would do so in a nanosecond if it suited their purposes, as they’ve shown before. It is such a conundrum to me at the thought of having to resort to unfair and distasteful (maybe even harmful and cruel) methods that an opponent uses without losing one’s integrity and soul?
That high road leads off the cliff. Ted Kennedy should have figured that out after he bowed to W, back in the day. At least dueling fools have the same weapons.
Michael, by stating "One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances and in contradiction to sworn statements at confirmation hearings, has embarked on turning America upside down. Under direct attack are women and minority groups to benefit rich white people, many of whom are religious zealots like the extremist justices themselves.", you are hurting John Roberts' feelings. He already asked that you kindly stop and leave the Court alone.
Doug, don't forget his "worry" about how The Roberts Court would be viewed.
He's off the rails. Completely. The Roberts Court will be historic, but not in the way he hoped. (I hope.)
It is already historic -- it's sending us back to the early 20th century. (This is sadly funny.)
But let's face it -- he, the Defendant Trump appointees, as well as Thomas and Alito, are merely doing the bidding of their patrons.
I suspect his Court will not be viewed favorably by future historians for its resetting of judicial norms (corruption, standing, precedent, etc.) in pursuit of a restructuring of American society against the wishes and beliefs of the majority of the populace. I'm no expert in the matter, but it's safe to say this Court has removed more rights than it has granted or acknowledged; I fear there is more to come, particularly in regard to LGBTQ+ people.
Ally, Roberts gave up on the legacy of “his” court years ago. He lost control and never looked back. It appears to me to be time to follow the money and look for an impeachable offense. It worked with Nixon.
Hahaha
Boo hoo, John.
“ One of the three branches of government, without checks and balances…”
As I commented yesterday, once again, the Conservative INJustices of the Supreme Court strike against equality of rights and opportunities. It seems they’ve morphed the interpretation of “supreme” from authority to authoritarianism.
The name Supreme Court has become evil and dread-inspiring. The Star Chamber, the Inquisition.
They have become the legislators of the oligarchy.
De facto. By what right? They (not the law, but they) outrank the President?
The SCOTUS has no law making or executive functions. It's up to the executive branch to enforce the law. Thought experiment: What if the population lost respect for the "Extreme Court" and ignored their rulings? Particularly the cases where nobody had "standing"? I meant to call SCOTUS the "legislators of and for the oligarchy."
I agree that President Biden's position on mot wanting to expand the Court because that would politicize it is indeed baffling!
Dear Joe: THE COURT IS ALREADY VERY POLITICIZED! And corrupt!
Not expanding the Court leaves us vulnerable to about 50 years of political decisions by this Court, completely untethered to the Constitution, and extremely damaging to our entire Nation!
"Completely untethered to the Constitution"??
Hypocrisy thy name is Roberts
And Thomas and Alito and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett
And the whole freakin' Republican Party.
" I am your president of law and order..." - Donald J Trump
Let’s rephrase, shall we? “I am your president of lawlessness and disorder…” now that rings more true, but then again truth was never his strong point!
Joe McCarthy was a demagogue and Nixon was bent, but the whole Republican took an Orwellian turn with con-man Reagan's glitzy denigration of democracy snake-oil pitch for plutocracy.
Yeah, Reagan was my gov for two (!) terms & then elected prez…sorry to say, but it was the first time I realized how gullible/stupid my fellow countrymen could be! I surmise he was not the architect of much/most of “his” policies that we are still trying to recover from all these years later….so much damage done! He was a genial, folksy puppet.
He was a better actor than I ever gave him credit for. Pretended with the best of the phonies
Well said and true
Chump is likely gleeful over these developments. Could he be feeling that he will never be held accountable if he can appeal ad nauseam
"Your favourite president - me!" - Donald J Trump
Emetic.
"Emetic too".
I would say,'' I am your Dictator of unlawful and disorder,'' Donald J TUMP.
Who are sitting on high smirking at their lowly adversaries.
Someone must have him by the balls. Epstein's girlfriend ?
Goodness don't disparage the Supreme Court's decisions because it will harmful to that institution and to the country? yet the gopers disparage any administration or senate or house that is not run by their own. What hypocrites they be.
Roberts and his fellow right wing colleagues have no one but themselves to blame for the fact that people are disparaging this court. i hope the three liberals continue to make fiery dissents and read parts of them out loud. How did the web designer even have standing. No one had complained.
The case was based on a made-up request from a person who is heterosexual, was already married at the time the request was supposedly made, and was unaware he had made that request until he was contacted by the media after the Supreme Court decided the case. Is there no penalty for perjury in front of the highest court in the United States?
I guess if the Supremes get to invent their own ethics rules, they can invent their own laws as well.
Ethics doesn't enter into it.
I don't even think ''Ethics'' is a part of their vocabulary. Either that, or they disregard it and believe Ethics doesn't apply to them.
This case just reeks. The outfit behind this will be everywhere looking for made up cases which should have no standing and then perjury.
I doubt Roberts gives a damn. His wife pulled in $10M last year, greasing the wheels of the halls of injustice by recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court.
He only cares enough to whine as he has at the response to these last cases that the liberal justices made. Talk don't wash of course. Whether he likes it or not, he and his court deserve every bit of criticism that they are getting.
Republicans make it up as they go. Rules are demands they place on others.
Typical whimsey monarchy rule, medievil.
Federalist Society, Opus Dei, Evangelical organizations are dangerously close to turning this country into an oligarchic theocracy through the radical members of the Supreme Court who are more beholden to these organizations of which they are members than they are to the Constitution. Money still rules, democracy not so much.
So agree…have been meaning to join The Freedom From Religion Foundation for awhile…they support the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state. https://ffrf.org/
Thank you for this site, Barbara.
Sounds interesting. I’ll check it out and pass it along to friends. Thanks.
Jesus wept
What else could he do?
Ellie Griffith UK expression
Scary truth.
What TFG started by appointing cabinet members that had conflicts of interest (Betsy DeVos) or had advocated defunding their departments (Rick Perry) is being finished by SCOTUS. Any entity that dislikes a government department can bring a case disallowing its ability to govern them. I forecast a drove of cases further attacking the EPA as well as OSHA and the IRS.
Things have reached a point that is so terrifying... I doubt I will sleep tonight. Dr Richardson’s Letter shows that there are powerful people who are succeeding in bending the arc of history backwards, away from Justice.
I’m not sure why your comment brought this to mind (and it will NOT help you sleep, sorry), but I recently read (can’t recall source at the moment, but was in one of my science-y feeds) that humans are considered the earth’s apex predator species. OMG, when I read that I was thunderstruck how true it felt…and sad too for so many reasons & implications.
We have a friend who calls humans the most invasive species. I have just finished a book on the plague which does not address modern times, but the boost the plague made in many ways to invention, certain political entities, etc. One of the things that happened was improvement to ships which allowed them to go further and carry more (and carry guns and cannon). What struck me about the trade numbers in ship building timber, furs, whale, herring, and cod was the fact that a lot of these resources were depleted very quickly causing people to go further afield for some like cod. Of course, there was also a lively slave trade and just not by Europeans, but by Ottomans who had a trade made up of mostly eastern Europeans and East Africans. What was missing of course, was the racial context that prevailed among Europeans.
I’ve long felt that we are like an out-of-balance virus infecting Mother Earth….thing is we will kill ourselves off before our planet…..Earth will chug along just fine w/o us and, sadly, the many other species and ecosystems we destroyed along the way. We have, what, 5 billion years or so before the sun becomes a red giant, so there’s maybe a chance for another intelligent species to evolve (or one already here!) and just maybe live in harmony w/o being a destroyer.
I too have come to view humans as a virus and climate change as the earth’s anti-virus, one that we created. The seeds of our own destruction….
I feel the same. I am always surprised when people talk about several years hence as if things are just going to keep chugging along. Nearly every night the national news has some severe weather news and it is only going to get worse.
66 million years ago our ancestors were rodents.. we might be ok.
It has gotten so upsetting to me, i have had to resort to taking OTC sleeping pills. I hate those things as they make me groggy half of the day after taking them.
Try melatonin. The gummies work well.
I asked my Doctor about melatonin the last i went to her back in April of this year. She told me since i have to take a fairly large dose of the Beta Blocker drug Metoprolol, it would work against Melatonin because it blocks the effects of it. Back in April 2014, i had major surgery on my heart in which they had to saw my breastbone in half to do the surgery. So i have to take a larger dose of that heart drug Metoprolol than most people do. That drug also prevents the migraine spells i have had since i was 9 years old. It has almost eliminated the migraines, thank goodness. While i had those migraines, i was blind as a bat, for about an hour, and sometimes they made me have trouble speaking and understanding what was being said to me. Terrifying is what they are. I passed that defective gene that causes migraines to my daughter and 2 of my sons, and to one of my granddaughters.
The right-wing majority is rewriting our laws! They are showing that they believe they are in charge. Roberts and his Federalist Society-bought justices are anti-Constitution and anti-democracy!
I feel so sorry for Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Can you imagine the torture they must feel going to work every morning....
Agree…time to send them a lovely, uplifting card (snail mail!) to thank them for their steadfast efforts—hey, it’s ALWAYS fun to get a card in the mail, yeah?
You put a bug in my ear--I'm going to send them a sympathy card....
If they do in fact rewrite the laws, then they are in charge. What's next?
Bottom line: this court is out of control and has become hyper-political (Sorry, President Biden, but you're wrong that expanding the court would "politicize it". That horse has done left the barn . . . ). The only way we as a nation can fight this is through the ballot box. This radical court could remain in power for many years yet and there are many many other issues their more radicalized members could conceivably take aim at: same sex marriage, contraception, and church/state separation. Regardless of what the people overwhelmingly wish anymore, this out-of-touch arrogant group of privileged White (sorry Thomas is as "white" as they are) zealots will not rest until their Christian Nationalist agenda is thoroughly enacted as law of the land, Constitution be damned.
Today has really taken a lot out of me. I have read and read and read until I can't read any more. Tonight, when the network news came on, after 15 minutes I simply turned it off. I just couldn't bear any more news. (I turned the channel over to baseball, to watch my Braves pummel another opponent. It's my escape these days . . . ) Even though I guess we knew these rulings were going to be handed down, it nevertheless has made for a very very tiring, upsetting day. If like me you're feeling down at everything, I can offer today's letter from the marvelous Jessica Craven as an antidote. Read it if you need to feel uplifted and empowered. She closes with words I try and live by: "Today we grieve. Tomorrow we fight."
https://chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions.substack.com/p/chop-wood-carry-water-630-2ae
Right Bruce ! How does that even make sense ? Reluctance to politicize a court majority of partisan political criminals ? (criminal in that they lied at confirmation) Ballot box - yes. Civil disobedience and unrelenting protests - yes.
Should we circulate a petition to have Thomas declared as white? Would that send a message?
I felt the same. We watched Father Brown and then I read a mystery.
"Today’s Supreme Court, packed as it has been by right-wing money behind the Federalist Society and that society’s leader, Leonard Leo, is taking upon itself power over the federal government and the state governments to recreate the world that existed before the New Deal."
We must expand the Court, and the only way that can happen is if we win the trifecta, so, people, let's go to work or continue work we've been doing, in whatever ways we each can, to make that happen. We, the People, must take back control of lives and all three branches of our government to ensure that it works for the common good, not to line the pockets of the oligarchs who, if not stopped, will continue to wrest freedoms from us all.
Maybe we all should send messages to Biden!
He does need to be persuaded to work toward Extreme Court expansion.
I am at complete loss to figure out how we recapture our democracy. It is anarchy to have the Supreme Court, our final legal voice, go THIS rogue….
Perhaps at the ballot box IN 24 we dislodge a lot of these guys who gave us this situation…and elect folks who CAN expand the court if necessary….
I am concerned about the the power of the religious right to create a theocracy rather than a democratic republic….decisions from the Court that impose one set of religious beliefs on ALL of us whether it’s opposition to gay marriage or Dobbs, or the use of contraception …..Being cases in point…..
What they call religion is white supremacy.
It is part and parcel their religion, their true beliefs.
It would take a presidency, a House majority, and 55 Senate seats. The probability is roughly 0%.
Do you have a suggestion?
Yes. The crucial factor is turnout. High turnout favors Democrats. Join a get-out-the-vote project that you believe is effective, and put your heart into it, plus whatever money you can spare. The odds will still be poor, but it’s the best you can do.
I did a bit of checking and it apparently takes 60 Senate votes and I’m trying to locate the number of House votes…perhaps a 2/3s majority…?
Agree on turnout!
It takes 60 votes under current rules. With 55 seats, they would probably be able to eliminate the filibuster at the beginning of a Senate session, when rules are up for change. Or something like that. Norm Ornstein (or Al Franken) can explain it. The House doesn’t allow filibusters, so just enough seats to get a majority to agree would be sufficient. With Pelosi in charge, 218 seats were enough. Jeffries is unproven but looks promising and still has Pelosi around for advicecanfmd help.
Thanks….I’m hoping that the Dobbs decision and Trumps appalling behavior and the issues that negatively affect young voters might help to produce the necessary turnout…
The Republican Congress will never allow the court to expand. They packed the court with corrupt liars and they will stick with them. Just like they do with Trump, another felon.
The response should be civil disobedience. Refuse to do business with MAGA people as a religious commitment. Accept twice as many Black applicants to colleges. Don’t pay student loans. Doctors should perform 100,000 abortions.
Let’s get a hundred thousand people to hold a pray-in and surround the Supreme Court next fall and prevent them from doing any more damage. They are corrupt ideologues who have invented their own laws of white, Christian supremacy.
If the Democrats win the Senate and House next time, the opportunity would be available as long as the Dems could muster 60 senators in favor. The problem could be the Democrats themselves. How many of them would favor expanding the Court? The Court has and will provide plenty of incentive to increase the number of justices.
Surely the present rampage is enough to persuade anyone to expand the Court? "Justice" has become a hollow title.
🦾
The radical right wants a caste system. They want a social order where they're at the top and everyone else has to serve them. Today's decisions bring us closer to that dystopian reality.
What they want is very nearly what we already have: an oligarchy very much like the one they admire so much in Russia. Time to make sure your passport is up to date.
I hear New Zealand is nice this time of year….[actually I’ve wanted to travel there since the late 60’s….hmmm…maybe next lifetime….]
NZ is wet cold mess right now Barb. I did a video chat with a dear friend last night. Their seasons are the complete opposite of ours. Major flooding troubles on the north island. Another friend who visited NZ from Oregon got stranded in the north as the airport flooded.
In southern Argentina in South America it was snowing in the far south. Their seasons are opposite of our seasons also.
Yeah, I thought of that as I was typing! The cold and wet I’m used to living in Humboldt County…flooding not so much (at least recently)!!!!
New Zealand is SUPERB even when it's a wet cold mess with maybe an earthquake.
Back in the late 60’s there was a fellow high school student (had graduated) a couple of years ahead of me (was part of a group of friends) & he crewed on a sailboat that won a long race—if I recall it was from CA to Hawaii. As a reward the boats owner paid for the crew to sail the south seas for fun. They stopped in NZ and this fellow was smitten. He ended up staying for a number of years and got a job at a school teaching math. He came back and we all got together and he told us about NZ and shared a slide show of the many pics he took. That got me interested & then my granny went there via ocean liner & did a number of excursions at a couple of ports in the 60’s as well and came back very impressed with the country. Then a few yeas later my then husband and I (we married very young) were back in our hometown visiting his folks when we gave a ride to a couple of hitchhikers…it turns out they were New Zealanders hitching through the states….we brought them to his folks house and hosted them for a few days (food & shelter)…and had a heartfelt invitation to come visit them in NZ someday….sure wish we could have!!!
That brought a smile to my face. Yes, extraordinary beauty, warmth and generosity. I spent six months there, took my little car with me on the boat, worked three months in an office in Auckland, working Friday nights washing dishes in a big restaurant. Bought a very small canvas tent from an army disposals store, camped around South Island, picked hops, and back to Australia. Equally smitten. If it hadn't been for Paris, it would have been NZ. I've driven it north, south, east and west, from Cape Reinga to The Bluff. Have lifelong friends there.
Thanks for sharing your adventures…..sigh, never been to Paris either!
But am grateful to live in a place folks travel from far and wide to see….Pacific ocean, old growth redwood & Douglas fir forests, bay, lagoons & rivers….so all in all a good place to be planted and bloom these many decades (and besides it’s hard to hitchhike to NZ or Paris!).
I went kayaking there Xmas of 1999 in the Bay of Islands. The Māori music is great & their canoes & long houses are very similar to the Haida in Quaii Hanas.
Ah, the Bay of Islands! The Māori sing all the time, so lovely. When they passed the marriage for all law, the whole House burst into "Pokarekareana". The French watched this on video, and commented "We fought tooth and nail, they burst into song!"
Kyle, sometime ago I came across research done by the Pell Institute @ Salve Regina Univ (I’d never heard of it either!)..they posit that much of the cultural divide we have had, and are still experiencing, has to do with waves of immigration over the past 2+ centuries (and who overran & decimated those ALREADY millennia-long inhabitants) and the values/culture that they brought from different parts of the world. I’ve posted this a couple of times here, but find it very thought provoking, so am sharing again: https://www.nationhoodlab.org/a-balkanized-federation/?_ga=2.263986956.1833472375.1688189357-1866133698.1688189357&_gl=1*2y4gai*_ga*MTg2NjEzMzY5OC4xNjg4MTg5MzU3*_ga_B431J06YXW*MTY4ODE4OTM1Ny4xLjEuMTY4ODE4OTQ4Ny4wLjAuMA.. To me it kind of explains entrenched cultural/political views.
This is from the excellent book Americas Nations by Colin Woodard. Every reader on the forum should obtain a book.
I haven’t read it yet, but he is actually the Director of the Nationhood Lab in the link—makes sense!
Thanks.
Portugal is looking better and better to me every day! Even though I feel too old to make a move like that, and leave my beloved adult children, there is no hope in me anymore. My heart breaks daily.
We are in the same boat, Christine. We've got dear friends who live in the Algarve, and are looking hard at moving there.
We are in the middle of a civil war. We need everyone working to keep America free. Why leave, just for cheap wine, a great climate, good food, and friendly people. Soon they will be corrupted by too many Americans.
You aren’t wrong, OAITW. The big “but” for us is that our retirement investments depend on us being lawfully married. Since my very existence seems to be against their religious beliefs, I’m not sure if we have as many options.
And the language is difficult: the expressions change every five kilometers.
Corruption is everywhere, my Portuguese friends tell me. Me . Don't buy a house in Portugal or have a ything to do with a lawyer or car repairman.
I have 3 good friends who moved to Portugal last year and are very happy. After weighing the options I've decided on France, and am moving in September. (Portugal is just a bit to warm for my PNW blood).
My wife worries about the same thing.
I *think* I've solved this by planning to explore Scandinavia & Scotland during the summer months. 😉
😘
I am leaving the USA if that happens, i for one will NOT serve them for one minute.. Canada, here i come. Cold and snowy. I will wear all of my thick Carhart overcoats if i have to. Not much need for overcoats here in GA anymore because of the climate warming thing.
I’m waiting, and hoping someone like me - lifelong atheist, totally free of religion - brings a suit against some Christian Nationalist/Evangelical who wants a Jesus-ladened cake made or website designed or wedding photographed.
The older I get, and the more extreme the faithful in the US become, the more and more religion-adverse I become. Therefore, it follows, that religion and a religious lifestyle, go against my deeply held beliefs.
If I had a business, I should bring a suit asking that I be able to discriminate against Christians and Jews and Muslims, right?
Not right, of course, but that’s EXACTLY what this decision sets up. I just hope someone puts it to the test. Soon.
I have thought the exact same thing. Oh for an atheist to deny serving a Christian! To make it fly even more in the face of the religious persuasion of this court I would dearly love a baker or merchant of some sort to refuse service to a Catholic! As a populace we should take this ruling as far as it can go and refuse service to all manner of people on the basis of our First Amendment rights. They've opened up a hornets' nest so let's show them just what mad hornets can do!
The problem is that a high percentage of atheists are decent human beiings, and a low percentage of Christians are decent human beings.
Rex. As a fellow non-believer I think you should define "decent" and provide facts and figures. I have known and disagreed with plenty of devout Christians who are wonderful and extremely decent people, certainly not indecent by any definition I'm aware of.
So do I. I didn’t say that no Christian is a decent person, just that a high percentage aren’t. For example, 80% of white Evangelicals voted for Trump. In my book, that means 80% of white Evangelicals are not decent human beings. That leaves 20% who might qualify for the ranks of decency. Additional testing would be required, of course.
Rex, I'm still hopeful that white evangelicals will eventually see the light, so to speak, and discover their own inner decency. I believe it is possible for ignorant, misguided, even stupid people to be basically "decent", though the magamoron in chief himself is truly beyond all redemption.
In any case, decency is hard to define, even if we all think we know it when we see it.
I'm a Christian, and I like to think that I'm in the "low percentile"! Again, there are millions of Christians who are NOT evangelical and very many of us are solidly behind separation of church & state and guarantees of "freedom FROM religion" for them that don't want it.
Not all Christians are Evangelicals. Not all Christians belong to a particular denomination.
My assertion makes no claim about all Christians, nor about all atheists.
Or, extending this case, refusing to allow a Catholic to serve on a jury.
I wish somebody would bring a counter suit like that, and see what the justices would say. We could use the same arguments they’re using.
They would choose to not take the case Angie.
I watched coverage of todays decision on student loan forgiveness and found it ironic that many of those interviewed were angry at President Biden because he promised that he would waive some of their student loan debt, they made decisions to take out mortgages and other expenses and now they have to pay for those loans. He tried to waive some of their debt. The Supreme Courts 6 Republican appointed Justices ruled against his efforts to help them ease their student loan debt. Today he proposed new efforts to deal with this issue. Their anger at President Biden is misplaced. They should focus their energy on electing Representatives who will support efforts to help ease the crushing student loan. Additionally, those who complain about having to help those with college debt didn’t complain when they received free PPP loans or having the debt for those who attended for profit technical schools waived by this administration because they were charged predatory fees. It would be beneficial for all if the press would cover these issues in a fair and factual way.
Republicans don’t like professors and colleges, unless they are private religiously right. They will go after professors next.
They already do.
There is place for entertainment, and playfulness can reap unexpected benefits. The antics of kittens and our lovable domesticated wolves (Canis lupus domesticus) is serious practice for survival in the wild. Einstein described his creative process as "combinatory play".
BUT, there is also a need to focus, to evaluate, to analyze, to make consequential decisions. That's where fruitful, trustworthy, evidence-based information sources come in, and we all need them to survive. That is something a government of the people, by the people, for the people cannot function without. We are fools to tolerate fluff "news", and the public acceptance of Big Liars. We are especially fools to tolerate those entrusted with critical roles or public trust to lie to us for the sake of clannish conceits, including, and perhaps especially those on "our side". The quality of our own future and of that of our posterity depends on that.
I have read that the Chinese are pouring money into education, which seems like a smart competitive move. What we know is our species' biggest advantage. I attended a private college, but back is the day, state schools were far more subsidized than is the case today, and "student loans" were not a big drag on the economy, or on the lives of so large a portion of our young. Some are carving up the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Who is actually writing these briefs, the Federalist Society Who is writing the legislation for the GOP. Not the actually legislators but their ideological sponsors. Congress and the Court are pawns to dark money. And it keeps getting darker. Heather thanks for your brilliant analysis!