I'm so pissed at the court I don't know whether to spit or shine my shoes.
I'm furious.
Their decision on the 14th section 3, “the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.”. Telling us it's unenforceable unless congress passes a law is an affront to all thoughtful people.
Once again they have proven their fealty to trump.
I'm disgusted.
Do they think I'm so stupid as to not see the subterfuge?
I don't believe the members of the court are afraid of trump, I think they're high on their own supply. They truly believe they're above the law themselves.
They should be ashamed.
Now, more than ever, we need restraints on the court. They have run rampant over women's rights, indeed all of our rights. They refuse to hold themselves accountable ethically.
This is something out of a sci-fi dystopian future movie. Are we completely shakled by the court from this point forward? They have shown their stripes. They are partisan hacks, only there to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from the laws of this great nation.
I believe their actions are treasonous.
They have set the stage for the 2024 election and have given trump a green light.
I expect they will issue a weak tea opinion about trump's immunity that leaves us all speechless. Setting the stage for unrest. God help us.
We need to vote in such overwhelming numbers that there can be no doubt about the outcome.
Yes.Of course you are correct.We absolutely do need to vote in mammoth numbers because we know that Trump will never abide by the voters tally if he loses.We are once again going down the Groundhog Day scenario of witch hunt and voter fraud.I know there is no way around this now but it still sickens me that we have this unsavory thing before us.The SCOTUS is a right wing operative just as surely as is the Putin wing of our Peoples House.Such a shame for We The People but we will carry on and prevail we must.
Some time ago, after reading such books as These Truths, Democracy in Chains, Strange Justice I began keeping a list of Enemies of Democracy. Featured members of the list include Samuel Alito, Robert Bork, Aileen Cannon, Ginny and Clarence Thomas, TFG, and the not-soon-enough-to-be retired Mitch McConnell. This list is ever growing. It is so tragic that so many people in high places are actively trying to tear down the democratic precesses that made this country great.
Bob, I think that we all share your frustration, but permitting Red states to remove Democratic candidates' names from ballots on fake charges would have created chaos and if the Supreme Court had ruled in Colorado's favor, that is what would have happened right away, just like the trumped-up impeachment charges against Pres. Biden.
Yes, the real critical decision will be how long they delay the absurd, limitless, immunity claim. Are they trying to thread a needle so Biden can't claim it, but Trump would have a chance to claim it again as long as he is in office?
Having been a toddler with occupation forces during the Nuremberg Trials, I've had a bit more interest in the rise of Hitler and the Germans who thought he couldn't actually be that bad (before he got to about 30%, enough to grab the rest of the power eventually).
I've been sickened in the last few days to find out a few old friends who at some time supported Trump, unintentionally let him get enough power to do so much damage during his term in office. I look at them as sort of technocrats like I thought Herbert Hoover was, who assumed most powerful people were what I liked to call egalitarian capitalists (to me Ben Franklin, Herbert Hoover, Robert Galvin (Motorola), and the TVA administrators, who had higher ethical standards and to varying degrees, imagined most other industry leaders and financiers did, too. I was particularly shattered to find Herbert Hoover may have visited Hitler and been too impressed by Hitlers early boosting the German economy.
I have a lot more questions about the reports of the Hoover, Hitler meeting and how he might have compared FDR's actions to Hitler's during the Great Depression. One of my mother's comments always haunts me, she said Hitler was more popular in Germany than Roosevelt was in America.
People seem to want strong leaders, but what a horrendous difference in the longer term, and the sacrificial victims in the process.
Trump has made it clear he’s not adverse to sacrificial victims; one has only to note what T’s pal, Putin did to Alexi Navalny.
It’s as if we now have TWO Presidents, one on the Oval Office, legally elected by the majority of voters, but with his hands tied by a Congress in stalemate, and one ILLEGALLY sitting in a pseudo Oval Office in Miralago, most likely speaking daily with global autocrats, oligarchs, CEO’s, billionaire backers, Congressional leaders and minions, GOP Governors, and SCOTUS and their minions, while corrupting “Free Speech” on his social media, without any policing.
FYI…Charles Koch’s Libre Initative Action, an affiliate of his political network, is moving across the nation registering Latinos as Republicans. They are now endorsing Republicans candidates in key congressional races.
Bob, but I believe that an individual state needs to be able to decide whether someone can run for a statewide office such as US senator or US representative, just not a nationwide office.
I mean the representative or senator that goes to Washington DC to represent the voters in their state. While I see the problem of having one or three states removing the candidates for President/VP. However, they should be able to remove candidates that a jury has found guilty of insurrection since it would not influence voting in another state.
This court could decide that Trump has presidential immunity. But that would completely undermine its authority. If they said Trump has immunity then all presidents going forward would have immunity. Their logic and interpretation of the law would be a contorted mess. They would be saying that laws are unenforceable. By that logic, we wouldn't have to abide by that ruling either.
I agree with you on the reasoning that charges need to be verified by a trusted venue such as a soberly managed courtroom. While I hate the idea that Trump is still a viable candidate, dividual states shouldn't individually disqualify a federal candidate.
It's really disgusting that the DoJ took so long to indict Trump. It's also unfortunate because a conviction would have added nationally - recognized proof that he's not qualified for office. That would have preempted the SCOTUS majority that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
I'd like to point out that the impeachment attempt against Biden has fallen apart, because there is NO EVIDENCE. I would agree that if there was no evidence that Trump acted as an insurrectionist, he should not be removed from any ballot. There is plenty of evidence.
So this is pointing in two directions.
First, it is making clear that the SC does not trust the states. This is reasonable, given that the states have been tacitly permitted by the SC to gerrymander themselves into fifty banana republics. That's on the SC.
Second, it is saying that charges of insurrection have no way of being established, and is completely invalidating the insurrection clause. That's also on the SC.
Themon, that the Republicans have no verifiable proof of anything doesn't stop them from claiming that there is and taking action on it, removing the candidate from the ballot. It's the Civil War all over again. I think that the three Liberal justices voted as they did for the point that I made - the Red states would find a way to keep a Democratic candidate off the ballot. Bedlam would ensue.
What the Supreme Court did, in part, was to "legislate from the bench." That there are tens of millions who will vote for TFFG is a huge blotch on America. Republican Conservatives support Nikki Haley; the racists and Christian Nationalists support the TFFG.
I love it when people point out that it was the republicans who were against slavery and wanted citizenship for blacks. Back then (Lincoln's time), that was true BUT what happened is that the southern "Democrats" turned republicans wanted slavery and seized power. Now they managed to make segregation legal. South=red=republican. They are not so nice to blacks. I realize this is even less than a monarch guide about political parties and blacks.
Well, if the Congress would stop playing with themselves, maybe construing a definition of insurrection and what would be considered participating or being an accessory would be a good project.
Yeah, we’re kind of seeing this very mess play out with women’s rights to all kinds of healthcare issues that only women have in common with each other, in red-controlled states until it’s all nationalized, that is. SCROTUS can’t seem to make up its compromised mind on states rights or implementing a strong federal response concerning how a(biblical)society can treat women and girls in the future.
France just enshrined abortion rights in their constitution. There is picture of the Statue of Liberty with the words "mon corp mon choix" projected on it. How appropriate.
We need to do more. Just voting and complaining won’t protect us from this court taking more of our rights and freedoms away. Birth control, gay rights, unions, minorities, are in danger. We also will be subjected to more Christian interpretations of the law. We need to find ways to hold demonstrations to show that this court is destroying democracy and not protecting it. Thomas and others are obviously corrupt. They have lost the trust needed for us to respect their decisions. We need to force resignations now!!
2020 was actually a close election. Biden's victory wasn't indisputable. 44,000 votes in 3 swing states, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin would have tied the electoral college.
We need to abolish the electoral college, as it gives red states an advantage. The popular vote wasn't that close.
Bob, as a pragmatic first step to reducing the effects of the electoral college, we can have the electoral votes apportioned by votes per state, instead of the current winner-take-all. This wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment, just a law. For example, a theoretical state would have 20 votes. If person A got 60% of the vote in the general election, they would get 12 electoral votes instead of all 20. It would encourage candidates that are centrists.
Sounds like a very reasonable first step, but since the “legislative” government isn’t doing much law making, and the SCOTUS is trying to, how do we get such a law at the federal level, AND make one not subject to SCOTUS’ rethinking?
Win both the Senate and the House and then propose it. 2nd step is to make voting on Federal positions (House, Senate and President) ranked choice (with open primaries).
At least one state (Nebraska?) does this today. (I should have read a few more comments before replying, it turns out Maine and Nebraska both split the number of electors. Thanks Joy.)
The electoral college, an institution of lower learning from which no one has ever graduated (sort of like the "Hotel California", where you can check in but can never leave), has long been the rotting appendix without our body politic. The longer it remains, the more toxic our politics become.
At the very, very least, as a Constitutional amendment to abolish it is most unlikely, more States should sign on to the Popular Vote Compact wherein the electors would be proportionally distributed, as opposed to winner-take-all.
Currently, only Maine and Nebraska have such a system.
Maybe the nuns who taught me were missing something, but the Jesus of Nazareth I was taught about never brandished AR-15s, nor sought to demean those who were different than the majority of us. I seem to remember a Jesus who healed the sick, hung out with the outcast and downtrodden, constantly told a story about a foreigner who was closer to God than his nativist counterparts, counted a woman with a certain reputation as his best and ultimately most courageous friend, and mentioned something about judging not, lest ye be judged.
I love your recollection of the Jesus we were taught about. To veer for a moment from the current discussion, I just wanted to check if the "woman with the certain reputation" you referred to was Mary Magdalene. If so, I've been fascinated, and somewhat appalled to read that the prostitute aspect of her story was added after the original gospel writings.
For example, I found an article by James Carroll in Smithsonian, 2006, "Who was Mary Magdalene?," which ended, " But what most drove the anti-sexual sexualizing of Mary Magdalene was the male need to dominate women. In the Catholic Church, as elsewhere, that need is still being met." Challenging, eh?
All y'all "real" Christians need to buck up. If these people tell me that their almighty god is telling them how they should tell me to live my life, and they are basing their rules on the Bible, then I am going to call them Christian until my last breath.
You sound just like the people who say "not all cops are bad".
Use these phrases when discussing and writing about deluded, amoral, hypocritical people who call themselves Christian. They are Not. They are the antithesis of Christian
Nope. When they beat me with a Christian version of the Bible, I am calling them a Christian.
Yeah, I get that they are so far from the word of Christ that it's a chasm. But, there are so many flavors of Christianity that they get to be one too.
I agree with the need for demonstrations against the extreme court. I think this should be happening every day outside the building in DC and hopefully spread to other cities.
I am furious too, as any progressive would be who is paying attention. We have here the leg of the tree-legged stool of the federal government that is the most immune from oversite, acting with impunity. It appears to me that public opinion hasn't a shred of influence. The 5-member majority is in effect flipping a big fat middle finger at Americans. McConnell was pretty savvy packing the courts - we now have the tail wagging the dog - the minority ruling the majority. God do I hate that man - what he did to this country we may never heal from. I put him in the same category as Trump WRT harm done. What can we do? I think the framers of the constitution somehow forgot that the Supreme Court can be corrupted too. Their impunity comes from the Constitution. So I feel helpless.
I have made this point before - it is the American people who have allowed this nightmare to happen. A way-too-large portion of the electorate supports this sh_t. The perpetrators keep getting re-elected. The polls continue to be so scary. This is not the country I thought it was when I was growing up.
I fear Jay is right to a significant degree, Bob. As horrifically effective as Machiavellian Mitch has been, he couldn't get there without constantly being re-elected by people who buy what he's selling. The irresponsibility and/or public laziness of way too many people is deeply disturbing. The rise of the Murdochian Ministry of Mendacity, the late and filled with hate Rush Limbaugh, etc., couldn't have occurred without some level of unconscious sympathy on the part of way too many.
Yes, we outnumber them, and we can tax the hell out of them, if we had the guts to do it - we certainly have the right, until the Cowardly Nine rule against even that. The blame for our nightmares always falls on the rich and powerful. But the people indirectly bring on their own failure through disinterest and stupidity. And that plays into the hands of the fascists. The centerpiece of all human disasters was the Great Depression and WW 2. And it took an FDR to wake up the masses, and he did it masterfully. It is a terrible state of affairs. It suggests that things will get a lot worse, because the next FDR hasn't appeared yet. The fascists own, or will own, all three branches of the government. It will get worse.
I do have a thought James, getting the 'buy in' is the trick though. I think if just the folks of good will got together and picked one, just one of the biggest most blatant Gov't influencers - I'd personally pick "Cootch'ie Industries" - *(misspelled intentionally to evade word search algorithms, but you know who I mean). Put some politically friendly business geeks to the task of finding every single tentacle of them that makes a nickel. Once discovered, mount an "all out" , no - buy, bouy-cott till they are in bankruptcy. If my city buys from them - demonstrate, raise hell in every public meeting - Unrelenting, suffocating $ pressure. That would definitely raise blood pressure - and that's putting it mildly. Our 'trolls' will likely see this, and that's just fine, I don't like being targeted, but I have certain skills to amuse them.
James, not just any progressive. Any thinking voter paying attention. I'm nowhere near a progressive, but I'm furious, too. Livid. Pissed off. Angry. Focused. Motivated.
It, the current events leading into and following the overt insurrection and the overt Republican efforts to overturn the U.S. government; it has all boiled down to this. The U.S. voters are all that stands between the future of our country and the end of it. Wonderful. If all Republicans at every level are voted out, that would begin to give us some hope for the future. Who will enforce the outcome if Republicans AGAIN claim elections are no good unless Republicans win? What does our crumbling Constitution have to say? I haven't heard.
I think the Supreme Court watch the video that Fox News put out about the insurrection, not showing any of the damage or the violet violation, or the thread of death to Nancy Pelosi and pence because I know somebody who said oh, it wasn’t an insurrection that they didn’t really do any damage they were just on tour The majority on the Supreme Court are spineless and definitely not for democracy. Only three on the Supreme Court are worth truly being on the Supreme Court the rest will fry in hell. If there was a hell I, TOO, AM DISGUSTED AND ANGRY
I also thought the Constitution was self enforcing so why they decided to punt a question that didn't need to be answered to a Congress that they know is highly partisan and also seems to not be able to function is beyond me. That's before I even get to the fact that Thomas didn't recuse himself. It's embarrassing at this point. Like I knew they weren't going to allow him to get kicked off the ballot, but at the same time, they always provide an off ramp and double standard to those who actually engaged in reckless, insurrection behavior in government. It is galling.
Not a lawyer here so explain it to me like I'm 5: didn't Congress already pass a law in the form of the 14th Amendment? Or do they have to pass a law that specifically says the events on a given date (say, "January 6", for example) was an insurrection?
This ruling gives cover to the insurrectionists in congress, Cruz, Hawley, Brooks, Biggs, Greene, Perry, Loudermilk et al. This seems to me to be in direct contradiction of the reason it was enacted.
Krista, I hadn't seen your post when I made mine. Agreed.
Per my Google search, the House of Representatives submitted the 14th Amendment. SCROTUS (or ECOTUS, as another Reader said, the E being for "extreme") is, in essence, "try again, Congress, while we have our Klown Kar Kawkus in control.
I couldn’t agree with you more my friend. The law of the land that provides no oversight for the third branch our government makes no sense. My wife and I happened to watch the Jan 6th insurrection as it unfolded in real time. I was stunned to see that when the mob got to the Capital building the only visible security provided were a few wooden blockades and the same number of security guards that happened to be on duty at the time. I kept yelling at the tv “where’s the National Guard”. Then later I discovered that the man who planned the whole thing was sitting in the White House seemingly enjoying what was happening and instead of taking action to prevent the crowd from stopping the procedure to complete the electoral process he called for the hanging of his vice president and did nothing. In fact after watching for several hours he made a tv appearance stating that he loved them all and that they should all go home. Then a few months later Congress impeached him twice and then the Republicans acquitted him of both charges. So much for our two party system and government of, for and by the people. I believe Pres Biden to be a man for this time and place and that the Democrats in Congress should go on the offensive as he has. A large part of the reason our country has come to precarious situation in the history of Democracy is because the Democrats have not been adequately representing the needs and wishes of the vast majority of voters who happen to be Democrats. I never here about any of them challenging any of the stupidness that is going on in either the Congress or Senate. In fact I asked both a Ct congressman and Senator if they had had a conconversation with one of their republican cohorts and asking them if they could explain how they and their president were going to Make America Great Again and what they said indicated to me that they had not. Keep the faith, vote and defend what’s right
Yea, stretching this out so Biden will be out of reach of immunity and just in time for when Trump would take office. What I am trying to figure out is their plan to steal the election this time. Surely Pubbies are not actually relying on an honest election for the win.
I feel the same way, but I apportion the blame a little differently.
The US has always been broken by its slave/freedom schizophrenia. The slave states, mostly in the southeastern part of the country, were never in step with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Never. As a result, Congress has never worked properly. Our nation has had not one mind, but two, and our Cain and Abel had their hands around each others' throats from birth.
As a result, our laws have never been about a common vision, but about subterfuge and undermining and petty advantage. We have incomprehensibly shitty laws, glued together from the wreckage of sabotage. The two parties have changed names, but it's always been about hierarchy versus democracy. Cain and Abel.
The "liberal" court that brought us RoeVWade and Womens' Rights, was technically out-of-line with respect to its role. It was "legislating from the bench," and they did this because Congress was broken and never did its job.
The Roberts court seems, in a singularly tone-deaf and prissy way, trying to unilaterally restore its own role as a court, not legislators, and it is leaving us lowly citizens high and dry in the face of the slavers under a madman like Donald Trump. Because Congress is still broken.
I'm sure it was up to the Congress to flesh out the 14th amendment. The amendment itself says so. But Congress, short-sighted and struggling over the issue of what form slavery would take after the Industrial Revolution in the factories, never bothered. So there are no laws to determine what "insurrection" even means. It's fucking obvious what insurrection means, and it is fucking obvious that Donald Trump committed it, but THERE ARE NO LAWS for the courts to cite. And the Roberts court is prepared to let the nation fail, rather than step one toe-nail's length beyond their "proper jurisdiction."
I understand the 14th amendment as meaning that ANY official, who, having pledged to support the constitution, and engages in insurrection, would be automatically barred from running for any public office. It clearly means Trump, who the lower court ruled HAD been involved in insurrection, cannot take office. Such a person should therefore not be allowed to even run for office, because this would cause unnecessary confusion.
It is the individual states that administer the elections, even federal ones, and it should be their prerogative to decide on such a case. Hearings are appropriate, but a state supreme court ruling is not necessary.
The red states cannot disqualify a Joe Biden, because they would have no basis to say he was an an insurrectionist.
It appears that without a very specific, legal DEFINITION of "insurrection," the current Supreme Court will not enforce the 14th amendment insurrection clause at all. I suspect that if someone were to put up a 10-year-old for the office of President, the Supreme Court might require a specific LEGAL definition of age, and frankly, it might not exist with the specificity they demand. There was certainly a lot of furor about Obama's birth certificate and his standing as a "natural-born US citizen."
It's not just that President Biden must be re-elected. We must retain the majority in the Senate and take back the House. Only then can actions like expanding the number of Supreme Court justices be accomplished.
There is a doctrine in the law that says that a court can ignore certain rulings that would otherwise be binding precedent. A court is not bound by "dictum."
From the law.cornell.edu website: dictum. Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase " obiter dictum ." As a legal term, a dictum is any statement or opinion made by a judge that is not required as part of the legal reasoning to make a judgment in a case. Although dictum may be mentioned in legal arguments, it does not have the legal precedent 's binding power.
The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions.
"The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions."
In Bush v Gore, the decision said flat out that it was not intended to set precedent. When of course setting precedent is exactly what Supreme Court decisions do. In this case, the Federalist Supremes flustered Trump's lawyer by arguing points for him which were not in the argument he presented. Partisanship and arrogance are the hallmark of the Roberts Court. This could have prevented in 2016. But those who refused to vote for Clinton cemented in conservative domination of the Supreme Court for decades.
The health, retirement and mortality of the current Justices, who the president is when one or more of them is to be replaced and the makeup of Senate's judiciary committee will be factors in terms of the judicial philosophy of the Chief Justice and the majority on the Supreme Court in the future.
Voting is crucial if you want to live in a democracy or prefer an autocracy, which I call an atrocity. The president appoints judges who are confirmed or not by the senate.
Yes. And we are all more fragile and temporary than most want to admit. Statistically, the odds are real that Trump, Biden, Alito - or me won't be functional
That damage that I believe you are referring to began about 45 year's ago. The Biden administration and many elected representatives reversed a bit of it, and almost everything in terms of democracy in the US depends on the presidential and national elections to take place soon.
This very thing kept me awake in the wee hours. No matter what your particular niche within the Party, or not a member, whether Women's Rights, LGBTQ Rights, Voting Rights, etc. (since Dems are noted for their inclusion of disparate interest groups, who often tussle to be The Main Event). To those voters I say this: If we don't stand together now, NOBODY'S rights are safe.
This is a battle for survival. This Supreme Court decision made that painfully clear. To those voices who have been insisting Trump MUST be beaten at the ballot box are right. We can scream and rend our garments later - now is the time to VOTE "like our lives depend on it, because they do."
I wish I could put more "likes" or exclamation points to this! Hope all those who voted "uncommitted" come back to vote for Biden in the general election, and that NO Dems or "progressives" take important votes away from Biden by voting for a third party or other candidate!
As an American Jew and Zionist I support the Uncommitted primary movement. As long as it is only for the primary and these voters support Biden in the general election. Two problems - 1. voter inertia and 2. reflexively ideological and emotional antisemitism skewing legitimate criticism of the criminal Netanyahu regime's policy, and dismissing Biden administration diplomatic efforts.
Those following Stein, Kennedy, West et al are just MAGAs in sheep's clothing
Bingo. We are an open book. Show outrage on any issue. The Russians don’t need spies to find out what the issue is, our media, polling, social marketing channels inform them of what the new divisive issue is. Does anyone think Wisconsin and Michigan primary voters obstaning to vote for Biden was a coincidence? Russia knows exactly what districts to focus their divisional pys ops. Paul Manafort taught them.
Trump's win was something of a statistical fluke, an electoral college weighting which went against Clinton's popular majority. Another reform that is greatly needed. Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest.
No fluke. The Electoral College is the law. Clinton rejected the Howard Dean 50 state strategy and ignored the Electoral College. In her blinkered arrogance she acted as though she could build bridges in Texas, while ignoring mending fences with Democratic voters in large swing states such as Wisconsin. Especially Black voters alienated by the Clintons' treatment of Obama and progressives alienated by their treatment of Sanders. These voters ought still have voted for Clinton but ...
Swing voters in swing states. This was the polling data Paul Manafort traded with the Russians. It’s not that difficult to target people with a certain profile of grievance in a geographical area. Hillary won the popular vote, but, with Russian help, psychological warfare was deployed against her. TFG’s pathology of a malignant narcissist void of empathy and crudeness won the grievance inspired vote ( we need to stop saying in general “swing” vote. Because it wasn’t. It was a cyber attack by a closed society (Russia) into our open free speech society.
Swing because in both 2016 and 2020 winning margins were thin, as i recall. These states used to be "dependable blue", "the great blue wall" it was called? Here's Wiki on this. So do you figure it's the political force on the ground that mainly makes the difference? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Blue_wall_(U.S._politics)#2016:_Breach_of_the_blue_wall
Whatever Clinton herself was/is she ran one of the worst campaigns I'd volunteered on in decades. My perspective is informed by volunteering for our local Democratic committee from April-Nov 2016. Almost full time towards the end. In hundreds of thousands of phone calls and tens of thousands of door knocks, we made contact and established rapport with a wide range of potential voters, collected significant data, and were ready for GOTV. We could not even get yard/road signs from the Clinton campaign. The last week she airlifted in 3 newbies who were clueless and spent a lot of time talking about what to wear to inauguration events. They ignored our data, antagonized volunteers and voters, and were generally worse than useless. I heard the same from activists in important big electoral states and swing states.
Well, as many 'saw it' , blinkered arrogance is arguably correct, and I must say I agree, but had no means to share that with her. I can also say that many in my circles felt that was so as well Anne. What she ignored, 'looked like' arrogance to very, very many. Optics are extremely important; And those optics outweighed all those very true superlatives you named about her, perhaps more. Gop wonks w/ help from the vast resources of our National adversaries did their 'homework' better than her campaign wonks had any chance to do.
"Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest."
Changing the number of Senators per state to create equal popular representation would not be practical: the imbalance is too great. California has more than 68 times the population of Wyoming. Another solution which would be practical would require a Constitutional Amendment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution mandates not only two Senators per state, but also one vote per Senator. If that were changed by Amendment, lowest population states would establish the base of one vote apiece. More populous states would have more. California, in particular, would have 68. Unfortunately, low population states are unlikely to ratify an Amendment that would destroy their unfair popular over-representation.
You are generous in calling them "The Federalist Supremes." "Sycophant" comes to my mind, as does "Fanatics," or "RNC Staff," or "Acolytes" to their religious leanings. They are neither "Supreme" nor "Just."
Ditto... I am a storm watcher. Long before that - decades, I felt and recognized the 'shifts' in my circles, tried desperately to be heard and found no ear, much less champions.
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. *
'J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former U.S. Court of Appeals judge who co-wrote with Laurence H. Tribe a piece for the Atlantic in August that helped to galvanize interest in the 14th Amendment as a means to disqualify Trump, cited the language of the three liberal justices in their concurring opinion, which critiqued elements of the majority’s decision. The liberals agreed with the conservatives that states should be prohibited from kicking candidates off the presidential ballot under Section 3, while disagreeing with the majority specifying Congress’s role in any disqualification. The standard, Luttig argued, makes it functionally impossible to disqualify insurrectionists from holding federal office.' (WAPO)
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
'The impact of Monday’s decision was immediate, effectively nullifying efforts in states across the country to ban Trump from running. Within hours of the ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows withdrew her earlier determination that Trump should be barred from the ballot in her state. The Maine primary is Tuesday.'
'In comments shortly after the ruling, Trump praised the court’s decision and quickly pivoted to another case “of equal importance” before the court, one reviewing his sweeping claim of immunity from prosecution over actions taken while president. The Supreme Court agreed last week to review Trump’s arguments in that matter, setting oral arguments for late April. The decision was a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to move the federal Jan. 6 case quickly to trial, and cast doubt over whether there will be a verdict before the November election.'
'Trump allies cheered the Monday ruling. “The Supreme Court unanimously showed us today that we cannot silence the voice of the American people and stop democracy,” Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, wrote in a post on X.'
'The court pointedly did not address whether Trump engaged in insurrection. In Colorado, Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) said that while she welcomed the clarity the decision would give millions of Americans preparing to vote, she said she was “disappointed” by the ruling.'
“It means that federal oath-breaking candidates will have a pass to run for office again given the nonfunctioning in Congress,” she said. (WAPO, By Sarah Ellison and Toluse Olorunnipa) See gifted link generously provided by subscriber, Marj.
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
What is Judge Luttig’s rationale for saying this? I have read the SCOTUS decision and, beyond putting the burden on Congress (admittedly, as dysfunctional as Congress us today, an impossible challenge), I cannot connect the the dots to get to Judge Luttig’s conclusion or to that of the assenting opinions.
The only time Congress is mentioned in the 14th Amendment as an actionable body is the RESTORATAION of an Insurrectionist to their ranks, requiring a hefty, damn near insurmountable 3/4 vote. What "action" the Congress needs to make to declare an Insurrectionist isn't described. The SC is saying that the Congress has to first find the Insurrectionists, try him, then disqualify him. Would that have happened in 1865 if the Southern Confederates were still holding their Congressional seats? Because that's what happened here...
Trump was impeached in the house and convicted in the Senate 57 to 43. The Congress as a matter of record has already acted. If elected he cannot serve.
Yes, of course. If only Trump had been removed we would be in a very different place. But still, Congress did address citizen Trump and both the House and Senate voted in majority to convict. The Supreme Court threw the ball to Congress, which for me, has already kicked a field goal. We live in interesting times.
@MjXS, While your reply exquisitely shows the travesty of yesterday’s Court ruling, if I may, I merely would note that a two-thirds vote is required by each House to remove the disqualification.
The era of Trump has revealed cracks in our system of government. The list of cracks is long and varied. The problems with SC is a mini list. Others may have noticed the cracks but Republicans like Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society and others have aggressively sought to exploit those cracks for their own purposes, especially personal power. The SC needs to be expanded.
Emil, I didn’t see @MJXS’s reply until after I had posted mine. While I had thought about deleting my post, I decided to leave it since the 2 posts, though stated differently, made similar points. That clarified, I had stated the following:
Luttig’s concern is rooted in his understanding that our Founders had sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the excesses of any one branch. Having understood that the Congress would have its duties as would the judiciary, today’s crucial court ruling re-assigned a judicial duty to the Congress.
Dave, The one hope I derive from your post is that increasingly more of us will come to understand that any attempt to restore balance to the 3 branches will entail Democrats expanding the Court.
Barbara, in the short term, I believe the members of the Court should reflective of the population in terms of the number of district courts, in the long term, Senate Confirmation of nominees HAS to be based on the previous level of concurrence, not a simple radical majority
This way, a President has to select someone both sides can live with, iow, a fair(er) judicial mind
Lengthy quotation from Judge J Michael Luttig (via the Washington Post) is entirely on point and justified.
Allow me a short quotation.
"118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on ____________________.
RESOLUTION
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.
What should the Democrats in the House do in response to this challenge? Any ideas? Is this an opening that can be exploited?
'If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.'
Bravo, Judge Luttig, and thank you Mr. Schumacher for this particular quote of his.'
'The value of pi is approximately 3.14, or 22/7. To 39 decimal places, pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197. Pi is an irrational number, which means it is not equal to the ratio of any two whole numbers. Its digits do not repeat.'
'Pi occurs in various mathematical problems involving the lengths of arcs or other curves, the areas of ellipses, sectors, and other curved surfaces, and the volumes of many solids. It is also used in various formulas of physics and engineering to describe such periodic phenomena as the motion of pendulums, the vibration of strings, and alternating electric currents.' (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Looks like Clarence Thomas and the last three controversial judges are also insulating themselves. Ironically, they've just given Biden more power and protection, too. Suggest he use it.
The whole Trump v Anderson decision, including the four concurrences, appears to me to reek of fear. Unfortunately, this decision is laying the ground for another crucial hinge point to come immediately after the November election, if not on 6 January 2025, when the two chambers of Congress will be convened to accept (or reject) the electoral college votes. I predict a significant number of senators and representatives will be ready to take out their frustration by objecting to votes for the candidate of the opposing party.
Then what? It will be the Supreme Court to the rescue yet again. Hold onto your hats, folks! There may be a fortune to be made by investing in the manufacturers of razor wire, concrete traffic barriers, and teargas grenades.
I think you're saying a Dem priority has to be SCOTUS overhaul. A SC only works when it works to align with clearly wrong or criminal and otherwise lean towards neutrality on otherwise political/culture extremism. That is NOT this court.
Not only did they do the wrong thing, but the majority did it badly. In footnote 2 to the majority opinion, they cite the case of Mr. Tift, of Georgia, who in 1868 needed a so-called private bill to relieve him of disqualification. Then they go on to cite a law passed in 1870 to prove that Sec. 3, the disqualification clause, does nothing without congressional action. But if the 14th Amendment by itself disqualified Tift, why doesn’t it operate the same way now? How could a 1870 law amend the Amendment? Was Sec. 3 self-executing in 1868, but not in 2024? How can that be? I’ll go along with Joyce Vance, and suggest that the majority was impelled by fear of civil disturbance rather than partisanship, but it’s still bad lawyering. (I should note that the four concurring justices did not propose to decide whether Trump is barred as what the three “liberals” described as an “oath-breaking insurrectionist,” which would have to led to an immense crisis if he should prevail in November.)
** "This" Jon. I herded my squirrel brain like a champ and found it as i'm wearing down. Does this in your opinion 'fly' as a valid observation ?
"
D4N
D4N’s Substack
3 hrs ago
·edited 1 hr ago
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. * "
Hi Jon. I've religiously followed the brilliant Joyce V. on as much as her boundary 'firewalls' will permit a freeloader to do - no judgement there mind you. That said, I'm 2 weeks behind in my reading, including our good Professor's letter this evening (long story) ! However, basing this opinion of mine on your takeaway from Joyce, I both agree, yet differ. I agree the 'fear' dynamic is there - but it's both ; Fear of civil disturbance via partisanship. They have 'no fear' of liberal civil disturbance... - We are all passive pacifists, right ? Why fear this negligible group of sissies ? *edit > Seeing your advertised profession, I've got a question for you, as soon as I can look back to it; please remind me should I wear out before then. (thx)
From the "Daily Kos" article linked above on hypocrisy vis à vis original intent:
"2. SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.
"The three liberals toss Chief Justice John Roberts’ words back in his face. Using the case that overturned Roe was a nice touch . . .
"'If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.' Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic.
"In plain English, they told the Court’s conservatives — 'Where’s your respect for originalism and tradition now?' In a different setting, they could have written — 'Our colleagues are hypocrites.'
"They elaborate: 'Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.'"
" unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case,"
We should not let this one drop with the news cycle. The SCOTUS insurrectionists need to feel the heat from the democracy they so arrogantly betray.
I'm so pissed at the court I don't know whether to spit or shine my shoes.
I'm furious.
Their decision on the 14th section 3, “the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.”. Telling us it's unenforceable unless congress passes a law is an affront to all thoughtful people.
Once again they have proven their fealty to trump.
I'm disgusted.
Do they think I'm so stupid as to not see the subterfuge?
I don't believe the members of the court are afraid of trump, I think they're high on their own supply. They truly believe they're above the law themselves.
They should be ashamed.
Now, more than ever, we need restraints on the court. They have run rampant over women's rights, indeed all of our rights. They refuse to hold themselves accountable ethically.
This is something out of a sci-fi dystopian future movie. Are we completely shakled by the court from this point forward? They have shown their stripes. They are partisan hacks, only there to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from the laws of this great nation.
I believe their actions are treasonous.
They have set the stage for the 2024 election and have given trump a green light.
I expect they will issue a weak tea opinion about trump's immunity that leaves us all speechless. Setting the stage for unrest. God help us.
We need to vote in such overwhelming numbers that there can be no doubt about the outcome.
Yes.Of course you are correct.We absolutely do need to vote in mammoth numbers because we know that Trump will never abide by the voters tally if he loses.We are once again going down the Groundhog Day scenario of witch hunt and voter fraud.I know there is no way around this now but it still sickens me that we have this unsavory thing before us.The SCOTUS is a right wing operative just as surely as is the Putin wing of our Peoples House.Such a shame for We The People but we will carry on and prevail we must.
And Mitch McConnell was the man who pulled the trigger.
Some time ago, after reading such books as These Truths, Democracy in Chains, Strange Justice I began keeping a list of Enemies of Democracy. Featured members of the list include Samuel Alito, Robert Bork, Aileen Cannon, Ginny and Clarence Thomas, TFG, and the not-soon-enough-to-be retired Mitch McConnell. This list is ever growing. It is so tragic that so many people in high places are actively trying to tear down the democratic precesses that made this country great.
We will prevail?? Really? How?
republicans say thoughts and prayers work. riiiiight
Take the S away from this court, and you get: put us to rest. (Cot us)
Bob, I think that we all share your frustration, but permitting Red states to remove Democratic candidates' names from ballots on fake charges would have created chaos and if the Supreme Court had ruled in Colorado's favor, that is what would have happened right away, just like the trumped-up impeachment charges against Pres. Biden.
I agree with the court in their decision not to let a state decide who is a federal candidate. It's the rest of their judgment I have a problem with.
It doesn't bode well for the immunity case.
Yes, the real critical decision will be how long they delay the absurd, limitless, immunity claim. Are they trying to thread a needle so Biden can't claim it, but Trump would have a chance to claim it again as long as he is in office?
Having been a toddler with occupation forces during the Nuremberg Trials, I've had a bit more interest in the rise of Hitler and the Germans who thought he couldn't actually be that bad (before he got to about 30%, enough to grab the rest of the power eventually).
I've been sickened in the last few days to find out a few old friends who at some time supported Trump, unintentionally let him get enough power to do so much damage during his term in office. I look at them as sort of technocrats like I thought Herbert Hoover was, who assumed most powerful people were what I liked to call egalitarian capitalists (to me Ben Franklin, Herbert Hoover, Robert Galvin (Motorola), and the TVA administrators, who had higher ethical standards and to varying degrees, imagined most other industry leaders and financiers did, too. I was particularly shattered to find Herbert Hoover may have visited Hitler and been too impressed by Hitlers early boosting the German economy.
I have a lot more questions about the reports of the Hoover, Hitler meeting and how he might have compared FDR's actions to Hitler's during the Great Depression. One of my mother's comments always haunts me, she said Hitler was more popular in Germany than Roosevelt was in America.
People seem to want strong leaders, but what a horrendous difference in the longer term, and the sacrificial victims in the process.
Trump has made it clear he’s not adverse to sacrificial victims; one has only to note what T’s pal, Putin did to Alexi Navalny.
It’s as if we now have TWO Presidents, one on the Oval Office, legally elected by the majority of voters, but with his hands tied by a Congress in stalemate, and one ILLEGALLY sitting in a pseudo Oval Office in Miralago, most likely speaking daily with global autocrats, oligarchs, CEO’s, billionaire backers, Congressional leaders and minions, GOP Governors, and SCOTUS and their minions, while corrupting “Free Speech” on his social media, without any policing.
FYI…Charles Koch’s Libre Initative Action, an affiliate of his political network, is moving across the nation registering Latinos as Republicans. They are now endorsing Republicans candidates in key congressional races.
Thank you for this information.
Like the Trump-Orban meeting this weekend?
Bob, but I believe that an individual state needs to be able to decide whether someone can run for a statewide office such as US senator or US representative, just not a nationwide office.
I presume you mean state senator or state representative.
I mean the representative or senator that goes to Washington DC to represent the voters in their state. While I see the problem of having one or three states removing the candidates for President/VP. However, they should be able to remove candidates that a jury has found guilty of insurrection since it would not influence voting in another state.
But those are not state elections. They are Federal elections for federal offices.
Tom, exactly! However, they are elections that involve voters in only one state, so that state’s Supreme Court logically has jurisdiction.
This court could decide that Trump has presidential immunity. But that would completely undermine its authority. If they said Trump has immunity then all presidents going forward would have immunity. Their logic and interpretation of the law would be a contorted mess. They would be saying that laws are unenforceable. By that logic, we wouldn't have to abide by that ruling either.
I agree, but nothing seems to be too despicable for them.
so assassinations would be legit?
I agree with you on the reasoning that charges need to be verified by a trusted venue such as a soberly managed courtroom. While I hate the idea that Trump is still a viable candidate, dividual states shouldn't individually disqualify a federal candidate.
It's really disgusting that the DoJ took so long to indict Trump. It's also unfortunate because a conviction would have added nationally - recognized proof that he's not qualified for office. That would have preempted the SCOTUS majority that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
I'd like to point out that the impeachment attempt against Biden has fallen apart, because there is NO EVIDENCE. I would agree that if there was no evidence that Trump acted as an insurrectionist, he should not be removed from any ballot. There is plenty of evidence.
So this is pointing in two directions.
First, it is making clear that the SC does not trust the states. This is reasonable, given that the states have been tacitly permitted by the SC to gerrymander themselves into fifty banana republics. That's on the SC.
Second, it is saying that charges of insurrection have no way of being established, and is completely invalidating the insurrection clause. That's also on the SC.
Themon, that the Republicans have no verifiable proof of anything doesn't stop them from claiming that there is and taking action on it, removing the candidate from the ballot. It's the Civil War all over again. I think that the three Liberal justices voted as they did for the point that I made - the Red states would find a way to keep a Democratic candidate off the ballot. Bedlam would ensue.
What the Supreme Court did, in part, was to "legislate from the bench." That there are tens of millions who will vote for TFFG is a huge blotch on America. Republican Conservatives support Nikki Haley; the racists and Christian Nationalists support the TFFG.
I love it when people point out that it was the republicans who were against slavery and wanted citizenship for blacks. Back then (Lincoln's time), that was true BUT what happened is that the southern "Democrats" turned republicans wanted slavery and seized power. Now they managed to make segregation legal. South=red=republican. They are not so nice to blacks. I realize this is even less than a monarch guide about political parties and blacks.
Well, if the Congress would stop playing with themselves, maybe construing a definition of insurrection and what would be considered participating or being an accessory would be a good project.
Good point....a perspective I had not considered.
Richard. Yes it would have been total chaos.
Yeah, we’re kind of seeing this very mess play out with women’s rights to all kinds of healthcare issues that only women have in common with each other, in red-controlled states until it’s all nationalized, that is. SCROTUS can’t seem to make up its compromised mind on states rights or implementing a strong federal response concerning how a(biblical)society can treat women and girls in the future.
France just enshrined abortion rights in their constitution. There is picture of the Statue of Liberty with the words "mon corp mon choix" projected on it. How appropriate.
We need to do more. Just voting and complaining won’t protect us from this court taking more of our rights and freedoms away. Birth control, gay rights, unions, minorities, are in danger. We also will be subjected to more Christian interpretations of the law. We need to find ways to hold demonstrations to show that this court is destroying democracy and not protecting it. Thomas and others are obviously corrupt. They have lost the trust needed for us to respect their decisions. We need to force resignations now!!
Abolish the elctoral college.
2020 was actually a close election. Biden's victory wasn't indisputable. 44,000 votes in 3 swing states, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin would have tied the electoral college.
We need to abolish the electoral college, as it gives red states an advantage. The popular vote wasn't that close.
Bob, as a pragmatic first step to reducing the effects of the electoral college, we can have the electoral votes apportioned by votes per state, instead of the current winner-take-all. This wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment, just a law. For example, a theoretical state would have 20 votes. If person A got 60% of the vote in the general election, they would get 12 electoral votes instead of all 20. It would encourage candidates that are centrists.
Sounds like a very reasonable first step, but since the “legislative” government isn’t doing much law making, and the SCOTUS is trying to, how do we get such a law at the federal level, AND make one not subject to SCOTUS’ rethinking?
Win both the Senate and the House and then propose it. 2nd step is to make voting on Federal positions (House, Senate and President) ranked choice (with open primaries).
Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes in proportion to the votes. So it's a state by state thing.
We need to make it national.
At least one state (Nebraska?) does this today. (I should have read a few more comments before replying, it turns out Maine and Nebraska both split the number of electors. Thanks Joy.)
Absolutely right, Bob.
The electoral college, an institution of lower learning from which no one has ever graduated (sort of like the "Hotel California", where you can check in but can never leave), has long been the rotting appendix without our body politic. The longer it remains, the more toxic our politics become.
At the very, very least, as a Constitutional amendment to abolish it is most unlikely, more States should sign on to the Popular Vote Compact wherein the electors would be proportionally distributed, as opposed to winner-take-all.
Currently, only Maine and Nebraska have such a system.
Agreed! How do we abolish the electoral college and get rank choice voting at the national level?
Please put Christian in quotes. The brand you are writing about has little or nothing to do with Christianity— and is often its opposite.
Absolutely right, Diedra!
Maybe the nuns who taught me were missing something, but the Jesus of Nazareth I was taught about never brandished AR-15s, nor sought to demean those who were different than the majority of us. I seem to remember a Jesus who healed the sick, hung out with the outcast and downtrodden, constantly told a story about a foreigner who was closer to God than his nativist counterparts, counted a woman with a certain reputation as his best and ultimately most courageous friend, and mentioned something about judging not, lest ye be judged.
Daniel Streeter- same things I was taught by nuns in my Catholic school, 60 years ago. Still with me.
I love your recollection of the Jesus we were taught about. To veer for a moment from the current discussion, I just wanted to check if the "woman with the certain reputation" you referred to was Mary Magdalene. If so, I've been fascinated, and somewhat appalled to read that the prostitute aspect of her story was added after the original gospel writings.
For example, I found an article by James Carroll in Smithsonian, 2006, "Who was Mary Magdalene?," which ended, " But what most drove the anti-sexual sexualizing of Mary Magdalene was the male need to dominate women. In the Catholic Church, as elsewhere, that need is still being met." Challenging, eh?
Hi Chaplain Terry!
I was indeed referring to the wonderful and mysterious Mary of Magdalene. James Carroll is quite interesting as well, is he not?
She was most likely a disciple.
Yes. There is no good Samaritan, no Sermon on the Mount in evidence. Only evil.
All y'all "real" Christians need to buck up. If these people tell me that their almighty god is telling them how they should tell me to live my life, and they are basing their rules on the Bible, then I am going to call them Christian until my last breath.
You sound just like the people who say "not all cops are bad".
Faux Christian
Fake Christian
CINO
(Christian in name only)
Use these phrases when discussing and writing about deluded, amoral, hypocritical people who call themselves Christian. They are Not. They are the antithesis of Christian
Nope. When they beat me with a Christian version of the Bible, I am calling them a Christian.
Yeah, I get that they are so far from the word of Christ that it's a chasm. But, there are so many flavors of Christianity that they get to be one too.
Ally is on the money here, in my opinion.
I agree with the need for demonstrations against the extreme court. I think this should be happening every day outside the building in DC and hopefully spread to other cities.
Count me 'all in' Sheila. I've advocated for that since Roberts hit the court.
lIt's also weakening regulations that protect our health, safety and the environment.
Money rules this court. It’s been profits over people since Bush vs Gore. Some of them take direct payments.
I forget who said it...but I read it here...best quote, sums it up efficiently: "Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy! "
I am furious too, as any progressive would be who is paying attention. We have here the leg of the tree-legged stool of the federal government that is the most immune from oversite, acting with impunity. It appears to me that public opinion hasn't a shred of influence. The 5-member majority is in effect flipping a big fat middle finger at Americans. McConnell was pretty savvy packing the courts - we now have the tail wagging the dog - the minority ruling the majority. God do I hate that man - what he did to this country we may never heal from. I put him in the same category as Trump WRT harm done. What can we do? I think the framers of the constitution somehow forgot that the Supreme Court can be corrupted too. Their impunity comes from the Constitution. So I feel helpless.
I have made this point before - it is the American people who have allowed this nightmare to happen. A way-too-large portion of the electorate supports this sh_t. The perpetrators keep getting re-elected. The polls continue to be so scary. This is not the country I thought it was when I was growing up.
I don't believe the American people at large are responsible for this nightmare. This has been decades in the making.
With policies from the federalist society and the complicity of a few powerful elected officials ( McConnell et al) and their rich donors.
We outnumber them.
We need to exercise that power and take back control of our government and this great country.
I fear Jay is right to a significant degree, Bob. As horrifically effective as Machiavellian Mitch has been, he couldn't get there without constantly being re-elected by people who buy what he's selling. The irresponsibility and/or public laziness of way too many people is deeply disturbing. The rise of the Murdochian Ministry of Mendacity, the late and filled with hate Rush Limbaugh, etc., couldn't have occurred without some level of unconscious sympathy on the part of way too many.
It wasn't unconscious.
Yes, we outnumber them, and we can tax the hell out of them, if we had the guts to do it - we certainly have the right, until the Cowardly Nine rule against even that. The blame for our nightmares always falls on the rich and powerful. But the people indirectly bring on their own failure through disinterest and stupidity. And that plays into the hands of the fascists. The centerpiece of all human disasters was the Great Depression and WW 2. And it took an FDR to wake up the masses, and he did it masterfully. It is a terrible state of affairs. It suggests that things will get a lot worse, because the next FDR hasn't appeared yet. The fascists own, or will own, all three branches of the government. It will get worse.
I do have a thought James, getting the 'buy in' is the trick though. I think if just the folks of good will got together and picked one, just one of the biggest most blatant Gov't influencers - I'd personally pick "Cootch'ie Industries" - *(misspelled intentionally to evade word search algorithms, but you know who I mean). Put some politically friendly business geeks to the task of finding every single tentacle of them that makes a nickel. Once discovered, mount an "all out" , no - buy, bouy-cott till they are in bankruptcy. If my city buys from them - demonstrate, raise hell in every public meeting - Unrelenting, suffocating $ pressure. That would definitely raise blood pressure - and that's putting it mildly. Our 'trolls' will likely see this, and that's just fine, I don't like being targeted, but I have certain skills to amuse them.
Oh yes; you've got that right Bob - it's been in the works for a very, very long time.
James, not just any progressive. Any thinking voter paying attention. I'm nowhere near a progressive, but I'm furious, too. Livid. Pissed off. Angry. Focused. Motivated.
All thoughtful voters should put party aside and vote for the country and the constitution.
The insurrectionists in congress must be purged.
It, the current events leading into and following the overt insurrection and the overt Republican efforts to overturn the U.S. government; it has all boiled down to this. The U.S. voters are all that stands between the future of our country and the end of it. Wonderful. If all Republicans at every level are voted out, that would begin to give us some hope for the future. Who will enforce the outcome if Republicans AGAIN claim elections are no good unless Republicans win? What does our crumbling Constitution have to say? I haven't heard.
"..... the American people who have allowed this nightmare to happen." That includes ME.
I think the Supreme Court watch the video that Fox News put out about the insurrection, not showing any of the damage or the violet violation, or the thread of death to Nancy Pelosi and pence because I know somebody who said oh, it wasn’t an insurrection that they didn’t really do any damage they were just on tour The majority on the Supreme Court are spineless and definitely not for democracy. Only three on the Supreme Court are worth truly being on the Supreme Court the rest will fry in hell. If there was a hell I, TOO, AM DISGUSTED AND ANGRY
Remember when Republicans accused the Dems of installing "activist" judges? Projection, much?
Nailed it Michelle; It's the well worn story of the faithless lover, who's always accusing the committed partner, of cheating.
Yup
I also thought the Constitution was self enforcing so why they decided to punt a question that didn't need to be answered to a Congress that they know is highly partisan and also seems to not be able to function is beyond me. That's before I even get to the fact that Thomas didn't recuse himself. It's embarrassing at this point. Like I knew they weren't going to allow him to get kicked off the ballot, but at the same time, they always provide an off ramp and double standard to those who actually engaged in reckless, insurrection behavior in government. It is galling.
Not a lawyer here so explain it to me like I'm 5: didn't Congress already pass a law in the form of the 14th Amendment? Or do they have to pass a law that specifically says the events on a given date (say, "January 6", for example) was an insurrection?
This ruling gives cover to the insurrectionists in congress, Cruz, Hawley, Brooks, Biggs, Greene, Perry, Loudermilk et al. This seems to me to be in direct contradiction of the reason it was enacted.
Krista, I hadn't seen your post when I made mine. Agreed.
Per my Google search, the House of Representatives submitted the 14th Amendment. SCROTUS (or ECOTUS, as another Reader said, the E being for "extreme") is, in essence, "try again, Congress, while we have our Klown Kar Kawkus in control.
addendum:
This ruling gives cover to the insurrectionists in congress, Cruz, Hawley, Brooks, Biggs, Greene, Perry, Loudermilk, et al.
They have the power to keep themselves from being removed from congress under the 14th sec 3, in direct contradiction to the reason it was enacted.
You forgot number one Bob; the creep in tights - Jordan.
Yeah, and Ron Johnson and a bunch of others I'm certain.
I thought that the text of the 14th Amendment came from Congress originally...
Apparently not the congress "they" recognize.
Thank you.
I couldn’t agree with you more my friend. The law of the land that provides no oversight for the third branch our government makes no sense. My wife and I happened to watch the Jan 6th insurrection as it unfolded in real time. I was stunned to see that when the mob got to the Capital building the only visible security provided were a few wooden blockades and the same number of security guards that happened to be on duty at the time. I kept yelling at the tv “where’s the National Guard”. Then later I discovered that the man who planned the whole thing was sitting in the White House seemingly enjoying what was happening and instead of taking action to prevent the crowd from stopping the procedure to complete the electoral process he called for the hanging of his vice president and did nothing. In fact after watching for several hours he made a tv appearance stating that he loved them all and that they should all go home. Then a few months later Congress impeached him twice and then the Republicans acquitted him of both charges. So much for our two party system and government of, for and by the people. I believe Pres Biden to be a man for this time and place and that the Democrats in Congress should go on the offensive as he has. A large part of the reason our country has come to precarious situation in the history of Democracy is because the Democrats have not been adequately representing the needs and wishes of the vast majority of voters who happen to be Democrats. I never here about any of them challenging any of the stupidness that is going on in either the Congress or Senate. In fact I asked both a Ct congressman and Senator if they had had a conconversation with one of their republican cohorts and asking them if they could explain how they and their president were going to Make America Great Again and what they said indicated to me that they had not. Keep the faith, vote and defend what’s right
Robert 🙏😳
Yea, stretching this out so Biden will be out of reach of immunity and just in time for when Trump would take office. What I am trying to figure out is their plan to steal the election this time. Surely Pubbies are not actually relying on an honest election for the win.
I feel the same way, but I apportion the blame a little differently.
The US has always been broken by its slave/freedom schizophrenia. The slave states, mostly in the southeastern part of the country, were never in step with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Never. As a result, Congress has never worked properly. Our nation has had not one mind, but two, and our Cain and Abel had their hands around each others' throats from birth.
As a result, our laws have never been about a common vision, but about subterfuge and undermining and petty advantage. We have incomprehensibly shitty laws, glued together from the wreckage of sabotage. The two parties have changed names, but it's always been about hierarchy versus democracy. Cain and Abel.
The "liberal" court that brought us RoeVWade and Womens' Rights, was technically out-of-line with respect to its role. It was "legislating from the bench," and they did this because Congress was broken and never did its job.
The Roberts court seems, in a singularly tone-deaf and prissy way, trying to unilaterally restore its own role as a court, not legislators, and it is leaving us lowly citizens high and dry in the face of the slavers under a madman like Donald Trump. Because Congress is still broken.
I'm sure it was up to the Congress to flesh out the 14th amendment. The amendment itself says so. But Congress, short-sighted and struggling over the issue of what form slavery would take after the Industrial Revolution in the factories, never bothered. So there are no laws to determine what "insurrection" even means. It's fucking obvious what insurrection means, and it is fucking obvious that Donald Trump committed it, but THERE ARE NO LAWS for the courts to cite. And the Roberts court is prepared to let the nation fail, rather than step one toe-nail's length beyond their "proper jurisdiction."
I understand the 14th amendment as meaning that ANY official, who, having pledged to support the constitution, and engages in insurrection, would be automatically barred from running for any public office. It clearly means Trump, who the lower court ruled HAD been involved in insurrection, cannot take office. Such a person should therefore not be allowed to even run for office, because this would cause unnecessary confusion.
It is the individual states that administer the elections, even federal ones, and it should be their prerogative to decide on such a case. Hearings are appropriate, but a state supreme court ruling is not necessary.
The red states cannot disqualify a Joe Biden, because they would have no basis to say he was an an insurrectionist.
It appears that without a very specific, legal DEFINITION of "insurrection," the current Supreme Court will not enforce the 14th amendment insurrection clause at all. I suspect that if someone were to put up a 10-year-old for the office of President, the Supreme Court might require a specific LEGAL definition of age, and frankly, it might not exist with the specificity they demand. There was certainly a lot of furor about Obama's birth certificate and his standing as a "natural-born US citizen."
Yeah, Trump questioned Obama's citizenship for his not being born in America...After all, he wasn't....He was born in Hawaii.
It's not just that President Biden must be re-elected. We must retain the majority in the Senate and take back the House. Only then can actions like expanding the number of Supreme Court justices be accomplished.
There is a doctrine in the law that says that a court can ignore certain rulings that would otherwise be binding precedent. A court is not bound by "dictum."
From the law.cornell.edu website: dictum. Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase " obiter dictum ." As a legal term, a dictum is any statement or opinion made by a judge that is not required as part of the legal reasoning to make a judgment in a case. Although dictum may be mentioned in legal arguments, it does not have the legal precedent 's binding power.
The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions.
"The "reasoning" in Trump v Anderson, to the extent that it is not needed to reach the ultimate decision and indeed was not argued, may properly be disregarded in future actions."
In Bush v Gore, the decision said flat out that it was not intended to set precedent. When of course setting precedent is exactly what Supreme Court decisions do. In this case, the Federalist Supremes flustered Trump's lawyer by arguing points for him which were not in the argument he presented. Partisanship and arrogance are the hallmark of the Roberts Court. This could have prevented in 2016. But those who refused to vote for Clinton cemented in conservative domination of the Supreme Court for decades.
The health, retirement and mortality of the current Justices, who the president is when one or more of them is to be replaced and the makeup of Senate's judiciary committee will be factors in terms of the judicial philosophy of the Chief Justice and the majority on the Supreme Court in the future.
Voting is crucial if you want to live in a democracy or prefer an autocracy, which I call an atrocity. The president appoints judges who are confirmed or not by the senate.
Yes. And we are all more fragile and temporary than most want to admit. Statistically, the odds are real that Trump, Biden, Alito - or me won't be functional
on November 5th. There is a surprise every day.
Oh, so true.
Fern, So much damage is being done now, that will take generations to unwind.
That damage that I believe you are referring to began about 45 year's ago. The Biden administration and many elected representatives reversed a bit of it, and almost everything in terms of democracy in the US depends on the presidential and national elections to take place soon.
Nicely wordsmithed, Fern. It is indeed an atrocity.
"The atrocity of an autocracy" Damn Fern... I like the 'ring' of that work. Who knew you had such poetic skills. More reveals please !
Yes! Yes! The same thing is happening again with Democrats and Independents who don’t want to vote for Biden!
This very thing kept me awake in the wee hours. No matter what your particular niche within the Party, or not a member, whether Women's Rights, LGBTQ Rights, Voting Rights, etc. (since Dems are noted for their inclusion of disparate interest groups, who often tussle to be The Main Event). To those voters I say this: If we don't stand together now, NOBODY'S rights are safe.
This is a battle for survival. This Supreme Court decision made that painfully clear. To those voices who have been insisting Trump MUST be beaten at the ballot box are right. We can scream and rend our garments later - now is the time to VOTE "like our lives depend on it, because they do."
I wish I could put more "likes" or exclamation points to this! Hope all those who voted "uncommitted" come back to vote for Biden in the general election, and that NO Dems or "progressives" take important votes away from Biden by voting for a third party or other candidate!
As an American Jew and Zionist I support the Uncommitted primary movement. As long as it is only for the primary and these voters support Biden in the general election. Two problems - 1. voter inertia and 2. reflexively ideological and emotional antisemitism skewing legitimate criticism of the criminal Netanyahu regime's policy, and dismissing Biden administration diplomatic efforts.
Those following Stein, Kennedy, West et al are just MAGAs in sheep's clothing
Agreed, lin.
Lin, I've just got to admit right here and now, that I adore the logical workings of your grey matter..
We are so immature, the gravity of our national security is at peril.
Thank you.
Bingo. We are an open book. Show outrage on any issue. The Russians don’t need spies to find out what the issue is, our media, polling, social marketing channels inform them of what the new divisive issue is. Does anyone think Wisconsin and Michigan primary voters obstaning to vote for Biden was a coincidence? Russia knows exactly what districts to focus their divisional pys ops. Paul Manafort taught them.
Yep
Trump's win was something of a statistical fluke, an electoral college weighting which went against Clinton's popular majority. Another reform that is greatly needed. Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest.
No fluke. The Electoral College is the law. Clinton rejected the Howard Dean 50 state strategy and ignored the Electoral College. In her blinkered arrogance she acted as though she could build bridges in Texas, while ignoring mending fences with Democratic voters in large swing states such as Wisconsin. Especially Black voters alienated by the Clintons' treatment of Obama and progressives alienated by their treatment of Sanders. These voters ought still have voted for Clinton but ...
Swing voters in swing states. This was the polling data Paul Manafort traded with the Russians. It’s not that difficult to target people with a certain profile of grievance in a geographical area. Hillary won the popular vote, but, with Russian help, psychological warfare was deployed against her. TFG’s pathology of a malignant narcissist void of empathy and crudeness won the grievance inspired vote ( we need to stop saying in general “swing” vote. Because it wasn’t. It was a cyber attack by a closed society (Russia) into our open free speech society.
My goodness... everyone's a winner at bingo today, er yesterday.. I'm still in 'catch up ' mode.
Swing because in both 2016 and 2020 winning margins were thin, as i recall. These states used to be "dependable blue", "the great blue wall" it was called? Here's Wiki on this. So do you figure it's the political force on the ground that mainly makes the difference? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Blue_wall_(U.S._politics)#2016:_Breach_of_the_blue_wall
"Blinkered arrogance". Depends which glasses you're wearing. I saw her as prepared, confident, politically experienced, riding the wave. A leader.
Whatever Clinton herself was/is she ran one of the worst campaigns I'd volunteered on in decades. My perspective is informed by volunteering for our local Democratic committee from April-Nov 2016. Almost full time towards the end. In hundreds of thousands of phone calls and tens of thousands of door knocks, we made contact and established rapport with a wide range of potential voters, collected significant data, and were ready for GOTV. We could not even get yard/road signs from the Clinton campaign. The last week she airlifted in 3 newbies who were clueless and spent a lot of time talking about what to wear to inauguration events. They ignored our data, antagonized volunteers and voters, and were generally worse than useless. I heard the same from activists in important big electoral states and swing states.
Well, as many 'saw it' , blinkered arrogance is arguably correct, and I must say I agree, but had no means to share that with her. I can also say that many in my circles felt that was so as well Anne. What she ignored, 'looked like' arrogance to very, very many. Optics are extremely important; And those optics outweighed all those very true superlatives you named about her, perhaps more. Gop wonks w/ help from the vast resources of our National adversaries did their 'homework' better than her campaign wonks had any chance to do.
....and let's not forget Jill (Putin) Stein....
And she's baack.
Bingo Lin !
i believe Biden won back by similar margins that Trump won in 2016. Those are narrow margins indeed.
"Wonder if something could be done about the Senate with its now irrelevant bias about every state however small having as much clout as the largest."
Changing the number of Senators per state to create equal popular representation would not be practical: the imbalance is too great. California has more than 68 times the population of Wyoming. Another solution which would be practical would require a Constitutional Amendment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution mandates not only two Senators per state, but also one vote per Senator. If that were changed by Amendment, lowest population states would establish the base of one vote apiece. More populous states would have more. California, in particular, would have 68. Unfortunately, low population states are unlikely to ratify an Amendment that would destroy their unfair popular over-representation.
You are generous in calling them "The Federalist Supremes." "Sycophant" comes to my mind, as does "Fanatics," or "RNC Staff," or "Acolytes" to their religious leanings. They are neither "Supreme" nor "Just."
lin, that was my argument going into the 2016 election. Not as much about POTUS as it was SCOTUS. I hate that I was right.
Ditto... I am a storm watcher. Long before that - decades, I felt and recognized the 'shifts' in my circles, tried desperately to be heard and found no ear, much less champions.
"This could have prevented in 2016"
If ancient history is your hill to die on, better git back to the original text with a big fat marker and strike that 'electoral college' crap.
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. *
Good to know. Thanks.
Hoping this won’t be seen as precedent and ruled as if!
'J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former U.S. Court of Appeals judge who co-wrote with Laurence H. Tribe a piece for the Atlantic in August that helped to galvanize interest in the 14th Amendment as a means to disqualify Trump, cited the language of the three liberal justices in their concurring opinion, which critiqued elements of the majority’s decision. The liberals agreed with the conservatives that states should be prohibited from kicking candidates off the presidential ballot under Section 3, while disagreeing with the majority specifying Congress’s role in any disqualification. The standard, Luttig argued, makes it functionally impossible to disqualify insurrectionists from holding federal office.' (WAPO)
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
'The impact of Monday’s decision was immediate, effectively nullifying efforts in states across the country to ban Trump from running. Within hours of the ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows withdrew her earlier determination that Trump should be barred from the ballot in her state. The Maine primary is Tuesday.'
'In comments shortly after the ruling, Trump praised the court’s decision and quickly pivoted to another case “of equal importance” before the court, one reviewing his sweeping claim of immunity from prosecution over actions taken while president. The Supreme Court agreed last week to review Trump’s arguments in that matter, setting oral arguments for late April. The decision was a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to move the federal Jan. 6 case quickly to trial, and cast doubt over whether there will be a verdict before the November election.'
'Trump allies cheered the Monday ruling. “The Supreme Court unanimously showed us today that we cannot silence the voice of the American people and stop democracy,” Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, wrote in a post on X.'
'The court pointedly did not address whether Trump engaged in insurrection. In Colorado, Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) said that while she welcomed the clarity the decision would give millions of Americans preparing to vote, she said she was “disappointed” by the ruling.'
“It means that federal oath-breaking candidates will have a pass to run for office again given the nonfunctioning in Congress,” she said. (WAPO, By Sarah Ellison and Toluse Olorunnipa) See gifted link generously provided by subscriber, Marj.
https://wapo.st/3IqwteB
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/04/trump-supreme-court-ballot-voters/
“The court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment regardless of whether he or she has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” Luttig said. “The decision is stunning in its overreach.”
What is Judge Luttig’s rationale for saying this? I have read the SCOTUS decision and, beyond putting the burden on Congress (admittedly, as dysfunctional as Congress us today, an impossible challenge), I cannot connect the the dots to get to Judge Luttig’s conclusion or to that of the assenting opinions.
The only time Congress is mentioned in the 14th Amendment as an actionable body is the RESTORATAION of an Insurrectionist to their ranks, requiring a hefty, damn near insurmountable 3/4 vote. What "action" the Congress needs to make to declare an Insurrectionist isn't described. The SC is saying that the Congress has to first find the Insurrectionists, try him, then disqualify him. Would that have happened in 1865 if the Southern Confederates were still holding their Congressional seats? Because that's what happened here...
Yeah, but they leave that part out as it would torpedo their position.
Ricky, the Roberts Court is clear “ we now make law , there’s NOTHING you can do to stop us, and we take our orders from our benefactor, Mr Leo”
As I continue to remind people, CONservatives today make accusations which are really confessions.
"their ranks"?? That leaves out tfg, who was impeached, but not convicted (because of McConnell).
Trump was impeached in the house and convicted in the Senate 57 to 43. The Congress as a matter of record has already acted. If elected he cannot serve.
He was acquitted 57-43
Yes, of course. If only Trump had been removed we would be in a very different place. But still, Congress did address citizen Trump and both the House and Senate voted in majority to convict. The Supreme Court threw the ball to Congress, which for me, has already kicked a field goal. We live in interesting times.
@MjXS, While your reply exquisitely shows the travesty of yesterday’s Court ruling, if I may, I merely would note that a two-thirds vote is required by each House to remove the disqualification.
Yes, in my pre-coffee rage I got that wrong. Though I'd like to see this Congress get two-thirds agreement that the sky is blue.
@MJXS, Certainly not unless someday we succeed in rescuing a country that has become so polarized that we nearly are paralyzed.
The era of Trump has revealed cracks in our system of government. The list of cracks is long and varied. The problems with SC is a mini list. Others may have noticed the cracks but Republicans like Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society and others have aggressively sought to exploit those cracks for their own purposes, especially personal power. The SC needs to be expanded.
Emil, I didn’t see @MJXS’s reply until after I had posted mine. While I had thought about deleting my post, I decided to leave it since the 2 posts, though stated differently, made similar points. That clarified, I had stated the following:
Luttig’s concern is rooted in his understanding that our Founders had sought to establish structures of government and to balance their powers in a way that would protect the country from the excesses of any one branch. Having understood that the Congress would have its duties as would the judiciary, today’s crucial court ruling re-assigned a judicial duty to the Congress.
Barbara, see my post
Dave, The one hope I derive from your post is that increasingly more of us will come to understand that any attempt to restore balance to the 3 branches will entail Democrats expanding the Court.
Barbara, in the short term, I believe the members of the Court should reflective of the population in terms of the number of district courts, in the long term, Senate Confirmation of nominees HAS to be based on the previous level of concurrence, not a simple radical majority
This way, a President has to select someone both sides can live with, iow, a fair(er) judicial mind
Then read it again
New day, news to sadden and disappoint.💔
...and another crucial impetus to vote in the presidential, national and local elections.
I lightly lectured (smiling and joking) a young student professional today. Can only hope I 'got' to one or more.
Charmed the innocent to go for democracy, did you!
Logic and passion... with a smile.
Thank you Fern.
Try this for a gift link.
https://wapo.st/3IqwteB
Marj, thank you. I hope that you would not object that I copy the gift link you generously provided within my comment giving you credit for it.
Fern, keep me in your hip pocket towards the end of the month for gift links...
As much as you are a wiz, Ally, I will try to uphold my role in this deal you have generously arranged. Thank you!
😇
Pls spread wide and far, no credit necessary.
Thank you for your generosity on behalf of us all, Marj.
Lengthy quotation from Judge J Michael Luttig (via the Washington Post) is entirely on point and justified.
Allow me a short quotation.
"118TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. ll
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. GAETZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on ____________________.
RESOLUTION
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.
What should the Democrats in the House do in response to this challenge? Any ideas? Is this an opening that can be exploited?
'If that is the true "sense of the House of Representatives," then the House might as well agree that white is black and the value of pi is exactly 3.0.'
Bravo, Judge Luttig, and thank you Mr. Schumacher for this particular quote of his.'
'The value of pi is approximately 3.14, or 22/7. To 39 decimal places, pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197. Pi is an irrational number, which means it is not equal to the ratio of any two whole numbers. Its digits do not repeat.'
'Pi occurs in various mathematical problems involving the lengths of arcs or other curves, the areas of ellipses, sectors, and other curved surfaces, and the volumes of many solids. It is also used in various formulas of physics and engineering to describe such periodic phenomena as the motion of pendulums, the vibration of strings, and alternating electric currents.' (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica)
Again, scary actions!!
They have heat shields comparable to anything that NASA conjured up…
nice
Looks like Clarence Thomas and the last three controversial judges are also insulating themselves. Ironically, they've just given Biden more power and protection, too. Suggest he use it.
Yes, and they've shown they do feel the heat somewhat from the public criticism. Let's crank up the temperature
At one point yesterday, I heard that SCOTUS justices show they are afraid of citizen trump and his base.
That isn't just idle speculation.
The whole Trump v Anderson decision, including the four concurrences, appears to me to reek of fear. Unfortunately, this decision is laying the ground for another crucial hinge point to come immediately after the November election, if not on 6 January 2025, when the two chambers of Congress will be convened to accept (or reject) the electoral college votes. I predict a significant number of senators and representatives will be ready to take out their frustration by objecting to votes for the candidate of the opposing party.
Then what? It will be the Supreme Court to the rescue yet again. Hold onto your hats, folks! There may be a fortune to be made by investing in the manufacturers of razor wire, concrete traffic barriers, and teargas grenades.
I think you're saying a Dem priority has to be SCOTUS overhaul. A SC only works when it works to align with clearly wrong or criminal and otherwise lean towards neutrality on otherwise political/culture extremism. That is NOT this court.
This is the news that brought me to my knees last night. I felt nauseous.
This is not the time to go high when they go low.
Not only did they do the wrong thing, but the majority did it badly. In footnote 2 to the majority opinion, they cite the case of Mr. Tift, of Georgia, who in 1868 needed a so-called private bill to relieve him of disqualification. Then they go on to cite a law passed in 1870 to prove that Sec. 3, the disqualification clause, does nothing without congressional action. But if the 14th Amendment by itself disqualified Tift, why doesn’t it operate the same way now? How could a 1870 law amend the Amendment? Was Sec. 3 self-executing in 1868, but not in 2024? How can that be? I’ll go along with Joyce Vance, and suggest that the majority was impelled by fear of civil disturbance rather than partisanship, but it’s still bad lawyering. (I should note that the four concurring justices did not propose to decide whether Trump is barred as what the three “liberals” described as an “oath-breaking insurrectionist,” which would have to led to an immense crisis if he should prevail in November.)
** "This" Jon. I herded my squirrel brain like a champ and found it as i'm wearing down. Does this in your opinion 'fly' as a valid observation ?
"
D4N
D4N’s Substack
3 hrs ago
·edited 1 hr ago
As I quipped to our JL, we increasingly find ourselves, past, current, and future victims of selective refraction under law, as opposed to clarity. **Edit in > Would someone with a hot line to the brilliant Joyce Vance, bounce my comment here off her ? I'm no lawyer and wonder about if my 'wording' / intended meaning, passes the language of American English "Legalese" as valid. * "
Hi Jon. I've religiously followed the brilliant Joyce V. on as much as her boundary 'firewalls' will permit a freeloader to do - no judgement there mind you. That said, I'm 2 weeks behind in my reading, including our good Professor's letter this evening (long story) ! However, basing this opinion of mine on your takeaway from Joyce, I both agree, yet differ. I agree the 'fear' dynamic is there - but it's both ; Fear of civil disturbance via partisanship. They have 'no fear' of liberal civil disturbance... - We are all passive pacifists, right ? Why fear this negligible group of sissies ? *edit > Seeing your advertised profession, I've got a question for you, as soon as I can look back to it; please remind me should I wear out before then. (thx)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/4/2227484/-A-unanimous-decision-to-keep-Trump-on-the-ballot-reveals-bitter-divisions-in-SCOTUS
Originalism is what -- ¿decision by ouija board or séance? 😉 No, no no: originalism is an ideological cover story. 🤫
https://nedmcdletters.blogspot.com/2019/05/letter-157-why-originalism-is.html
Jotted down four and a half years ago: why originalism is dangerously original. 🤥
From the "Daily Kos" article linked above on hypocrisy vis à vis original intent:
"2. SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.
"The three liberals toss Chief Justice John Roberts’ words back in his face. Using the case that overturned Roe was a nice touch . . .
"'If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.' Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practically as old as our Republic.
"In plain English, they told the Court’s conservatives — 'Where’s your respect for originalism and tradition now?' In a different setting, they could have written — 'Our colleagues are hypocrites.'
"They elaborate: 'Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.'"
Yep
Turn up the heat! I voted today here in Texas! Wanted to put a match to the ballots! 😑
Oh... so well and briefly stated observation Tom.