I agree with everyone that the realities of Barrett being on the SCOTUS for the foreseeable future is horrific--as are, frankly, the current realities of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, both execrable and hypocritical examples of judicial overreach masquerading as "originalism." But in reality the only way to truly protect Americans' freedoms is through legislation fought over, voted on, and enacted. As someone who benefited from Roe v Wade, I can safely say that women's bodily autonomy is NOT safe and never has been, especially in those states that regard women's bodies as the tools for expressions of toxic masculinity. It took legislation to make marital rape illegal. It took legislation to make spousal abuse illegal. It took legislation from the 1880s to the 1980s to provide women with the legal autonomy to make wills, own land, have credit cards, go to medical and law school, and gain divorce (to name only a few) without "permission" from some man. The SCOTUS did none of these.
We have relied on the integrity of the SCOTUS to fix the drive toward repression and autocracy that has been the backlash against all progressive legislation all over the USA. It is now time to get back to real activism: democracy must be preserved from the bottom-up, not the top-down. We need to support and elect local and state-wide political leaders, governors, and members of Congress and Senate. Without a strong foundation the roof will inevitably topple. And here we are, wringing our hands because not enough people cared about what was happening locally to bother to vote and speak out. I'm not talking about all of you: I suspect we are all more activist than the typical American. But this is the only way to change the drive toward white male supremacist autocracy.
I just read that it is predicted that a record-shattering 65% of the voter-eligible public is going to cast ballots this year. That made me very sad. 65% is pitiful, but it is being proclaimed as a game changer--because less than 65% have voted in elections since 1908. For shame.
Democracy dies due to complacency and/or indifference. If people generally understood more history and civics, in particular the centuries it took to get the vote and its importance, they might be more apt to vote. In addition, It doesn't help that we are so focused on individualism -- why vote, one vote makes no difference -- rather than seeing voting as a civic duty that our culture should recognize and emphasize from the get-go. Of course, the R's don't want that emphasized. The reality of voter suppression is that the fewer people who vote, the more significant the votes of those that do become.
Mr. McConnell's campaign is running a rather ironic ad against his opponent stating that the Democrats "will pack the courts with liberal justices". I find this to be projection at the highest level, ironic, a bit humorous, and a suspicion that Mitch is feeling a bit desperate. Oh, I don't think he is feeling his seat is in danger but that his majority in the Senate is in danger. Plus his heir apparent in Daniel Cameron is proving to be unpopular in the state. (Please, no comments to me about how Kentucky needs to get rid of Mitch. Once again, I have never voted for the man. And I am the only Kentuckian I can speak for). I also just finished Dr. Richardson's book "Wounded Knee". When reading about the Harrison administration, I could substitute names of the current administration in the place of many players in the 1880's and 1890's. However, I did finish the book with a bit of hope. One, the truth will come out, may be slowly but it will come. Two, when the majority of citizens in the country become aware, change does come. We have to be the change makers.
I, too, live in Kentucky and I am also constantly shocked and nauseated by McConnell’s ads. Hypocrisy Incorporated is his media motto. Here in Kentucky, the larger cities, Louisville, Lexington and Northern Kentucky all roll mainly Democratic, but it’s the rural base that McConnell can always count on never voting against Republicans. I know Bevin lost, but he had zero public appeal after his true nature was revealed. You have to be THAT BAD for Kentuckians to reject you, OR you have to hang on enough years that they see you as a “good old boy,” which means you’re in forever. He is caustic and corrosive to true democracy, but to release him from service would add up to change and Kentuckians do not like change, as I’m sure you well know. I think this is a situation, as you pointed out, where, if he loses the majority, he won’t get anything done like usual and THEN Kentuckians will supersede the rule of change with the rule they also live by: work hard, get things done. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the rest of the states help us out on the long game here. The truth will come out. Best of luck, fellow Kentuckian!
While McConnell's loss to a woman Marine would give a certain schadenfreude, as long as the Democrats win control of the Senate, it might be even better if he had to live with Democratic Party control, at least if the Democrats played a bit (or more) nasty. They might do something like cut the number of staff radically, hiring their cut staffers to a new organization, equivalent to the House of Representative's Office of Technology Assessment, that Newt Gingrich abolished as one of the early things he did on gaining the Speakership after the 1994 Republican wave election. He did that so Republicans could pass their lobbyists' dream legislation without having to meet scientific analysis that it would accomplish what was desired or would not be toxic to the people near the projects.
Democrats are not going to be cutthroat. They should be, since they have the reputation of being for the people, but they are constantly hyper aware of image.
We're at the point where, to win ANYTHING right now, we have to go cutthroat. Not illegal stuff, just pushing hard against some old fences. We can still be proud and forceful at the same time. There's a season for everything.
You (and Patrick below) in Kentucky have my sympathies. It's bad in GA too as the political ads here have reached what can only be termed a "fever pitch". Yesterday, on one of the Atlanta stations they were speaking with Chuck Todd of NBC, and he mentioned that now per capita, more has been spent in GA on broadcast ads and more air time spent on them than any other state. As he said, "you guys in Georgia are getting inundated with political ads like nowhere else!" I simply said, "NO SH!T!!" Every pause in programming here is FULL of ads...David Perdue's and Jon Ossoff's are run non-stop...Trump's ads...plus a ton of ads by all their respective PACs, and those are the most damning. At least Biden's ads are running more oftne now. It's maddening. We are SICK TO DEATH of them here!! I'd say Republicans here must be REALLY worried as the pace of their ads seems to have increased exponentially.
I think I have to say the thing that make most distressed about all that political money is the waste. If only it could be used by people who have lost their jobs or health insurance. It is awful how we run elections in this country.
They spend so much money (in Kentucky) on ads that are ineffective to 93% of the voters. 3% are unsure and the rest already know who they are voting for. Think about that. How much it costs per undecided voter. That is what those ads are for. That is what that money is being blown on. 3%. That money could be used for something REAL, not the trifecta of political betting. The other 93% are praying for it to just be over.
(4% are snoozing at the wheel and voting libertarian.)
I understand that HCR has to be more guarded in her words, when she describes the impending court majority as “originalist”. But originalism is meaningless, just a marketing phrase. Here’s what is really going on, “Barrett will allow Trump (McConnell, really) to cement a Republican majority on the Supreme Court“. Republicans like McConnell understand that they’re a minority party, clinging to power through gerrymandering, voter suppression and an anti-democratic electoral college. Ensuring that unpopular Republican (right-wing Christian, white nationalist, white male, capitalist, pro-corporate) ideology rules over American lives for years to come is best done by packing the courts with “originalists”. Originalists are just right-wing Republicans. This is why McConnell has broken tradition and rules to block Obama appointees and cram “originalists” down our throats.
There might actually be a definition for “originalist.” But in the end, it’s still an excuse to turn back the clock and take away rights from the common people.
There is a definition. But as HCR and many others have pointed out, “originalism” id really just a sham, some pompous-sounding wrapping paper to cover up a right-wing Republican agenda. Originalists defend all sorts of things that were never in the original Constitution, like citizenship rights for corporations, and unregulated access to assault weapons. Republican judges use “originalism” to mean whatever they want it to mean, hoping it keeps us from calling them what they really are - partisan bigots.
If Barrett is an originalist regarding the Constitution, perhaps she should also consider washing her clothes down at the creek, commuting to work on a horse, wearing homespun, and insisting her physician bleed her next time she has an ailment.
I would like to suggest that the Biden administration plan for a total refurbishment of the Supreme Court building to make it environmentally sustainable, which could take three to five years or longer, with provisions for the Justice's offices to be moved to places like the flood plain of the Red River in North Dakota during the spring of each year, the fire zone of California during the late summer and fall, and alternately a city with high pollution from coal-fired generation plants or oil refineries, located in a low-income area just downwind, and with no air filtration at all.
No money for any travel at any time once the sessions begin. But they must have their families live with them in inexpensive digs adjoining the location of the Court sessions.
A few years of working in those environments just might bring home the dangers of the modern world that did not exist for the Founding Fathers.
So true! The founders didn't envision women even having the right to vote, much less serve on the Supreme Court! Republican tolerance of this hypocrisy goes way beyond Trump, I so wish we could have more than 2 viable parties here.
I remember the bumper stickers; "Impeach Earl Warren!"
Warren was supposed to be a reliable conservative justice but it didn't turn out that way.
I think it unlikely that Barret will do the same.
The Republican Party, the party of Lincoln and trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt, wants to take the country back to the plantation and the company town; where almost everyone contributes; doing the work, fighting the wars; while a few own the assets, make the decisions, receive most of the benefits, and whatever government there is is their handmaiden. Science, and history, are subject to religious and political approval. It would be close enough to feudalism, or a theocracy, we could call it either one.
As I see it, this future is up for election on Nov. 3.
I have been reading about The Dark Ages (William Manchester's "A World Lit Only by Fire") to assure myself that we are in a far better, safer place. Um....
And none of these people see that a united strong United States will be required to meet the competition from abroad, particularly from China, with allies from all of Europe and the members of what would have been the TPP (now an organization with another name and less power because of structural changes from those of the TPP and no USA as a big enforcer).
The closer we get to 11/3, the less likely I am to read any news other than this letter. Covid is taking hold, and there will be many, many unnecessary deaths over the next year. And I do believe it will be at least a year before we can get hold of this. Then, there's the bad SCOTUS news. That adds to the news blackout for me. ACA, Roe, Obergefell, are at serious risk, and as a gay, married woman who helped friends get back room abortions before Roe, I see my future is sadly going backwards. While they're at it, I wonder how Clarence Thomas and others would feel about reversing the Loving decision allowing for interracial marriage. That's how backwards it's gonna get.
It’s nearly impossible to get an abortion in Texas already. It’s driven healthcare so backwards, maternity deaths are now compared to third world countries. A friend had to go out of state to get the medical help she needed for a late term abortion. A heart wrenching catastrophe made worse by the lack of women’s care and rights. Younger women don’t know the history of abortion and the suffering that got us to Roe v. Wade. The arguments they’ve been taught can’t be undone or reasoned with because their pastor told them so. It’s a shock to women’s rights!
I knew that TX had strict abortion laws, but didn't realize how bad it is. I am sorry (and angry) that women have to again fight for our own bodies! And, Lisa Murkowski, a woman, has again abandoned women and will follow along. Hope Collins can stand strong, but I sincerely doubt it. Murkowski has shown her the way.
A Native American once said to me "Just wait until the American People find out what living on a Reservation is like." We won't have to wait much longer. Vote as if this is the last time you'll be allowed to vote!
Strangely, I am more gutted by today’s letter than possibly any that have gone before. The realization of the full future implications of ACBs confirmation have left me stunned and nearly speechless. We are living in a decades long chess game and the republicans have finally scored the winning move. It will be so unless the democrats use their tactics against them if Biden and other democratic candidates win in the upcoming election. I fear that this won’t happen because democrats always “play nice” while republicans “play to win”. Joe even recently sidestepped the court packing question by saying he would appoint a commission to study the problem. When I read that the other day my heart sank. The only way to preserve the way of life that the majority of Americans knows and wants appears to be through adding justices to balance what the republicans have done. If he is unwilling to aggressively do that then it doesn’t matter who is in the White House, we still lose the chess game.
Karen, I had a similar reaction. After over a century, we are still hung up on voting rights. That there are those who want to take us back in time with no business regulations and no governmental responsibility for the welfare of the American people. That racism is so virulent. That dark money, in addition to buying politicians, now pays for SC candidates. As a society we are headed backwards, not forwards.
Yet when they say they want no business regulations they have done noting but go after the big businesses. Right now they want to take down Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. It seems like hypocrisy to go after them if they want to stop regulations. I don't remember exactly when the country started breaking up the utility and power companies because they didn't want monopolies but feel like it was in the 70's and 80's.
One of the big fights in the early New Deal was over the financial intertwining and monopoly powers of public utilities, leading to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. This empowered the SEC to, over time, restructure that whole economic sector.
But I agree with you about the hypocrisy about suddenly being shocked, shocked to discover that massive predatory monopolies have been amassed in the digital economy. "Changes of heart" like these usually means that someone's own ox has been getting gored for a change.
Sharon, I meant to respond to your note earlier today but I had some commitments that I had to focus on.
I think it IS more hypocrisy on the part of these reactionaries. They have targeted these upstart tech giants because they don’t play the game the way the “big dogs” want it played.
These companies are brand new in the world of mega-industries and they often are more progressive than the old guard. The “big mules”, as they say in AL, don’t was the “new kids on the block” to get any bigger and any more powerful than they already are.
So, the conservatives pull out the old standby anti-monopoly laws to rein in the upstarts. The goal, I believe, is to either throttle them into submission, or to break them up into “manageable” pieces.
Of course the “robber barons” want to stage-manage this assault so that it doesn’t turn and bite them on the butt. It’s a serious skirmish that bears watching.
I have to disagree about Democrats' lack of the killer instinct. I recall Senator Kennedy's questioning Bork during his hearing. It was cutthroat. I didn't mind too much, I didn't want Bork on the Court. To the extent that is missing from D's, I think it's because the these days the party is diffuse and doesn't always unite around goals unless they are defensive.
Stephen Pearlstein had an interesting column this week in the Washington Post. He suggested that legislation, carefully written, could protect more progressive ideas against originalist overrides. And I actually found Biden's proposal regarding a commission hopeful. It may recommend changing the size of the court, or adding states which will shift balance of power over time, or carefully crafted legislation, or.... we need to bring partisan war to an end without giving away our freedom. Rights and responsibilities in balance.
And if Democrats gain a majority in both houses and the presidency, they must get busy writing simple, straightforward bills that don't have any pork hanging on them that they can quickly pass and codify the laws that will protect us. They need to get some very good constitutional lawyers to help with the wording to make them SCOTUS-proof. They will be guaranteed only two years and they have much work to do.
Anne Applebaum talks about two forms of nostalgia in “Twilight of Democracy”, and how they are playing out in America with the Trump presidency and the Senate, and in the UK with Brexit, as well as Orban’s Hungary, etc.
From Svetlana Boym’s “book, “The Future of Nostalgia”, Applebaum describes Boym’s “reflective nostalgia”, that which is felt by those who like to collect old things – old letters, photos, who dream about the past and miss the past, but don’t want to live there. They don’t want to go back there for real.
The ‘restorative nostalgics’, however, DO want to take us back there. These are the people who mythologize the past, who revere monuments; they are the founders of nationalistic movements.
As she puts it, ‘they are not interested in a nuanced past, a world in which great leaders were flawed men, in which famous military victories had lethal consequences.” They don’t see that this past is a fiction.
I think we can guess which category the current Republicans fall into.
I think it would be a good idea to keep the context and circumstances in which Biden made that comment. It was low-key, and needed to be. For now. And there is a huge collaborative movement that is brewing under the surface of America right now whose entire purpose is to hold our government accountable with peaceful but emphatic means. No matter who is President. Choose Democracy
The Democratic Party is going to have to learn to play the long game, even if Biden wins, even if we flip the Senate. The funders, the politicians, the governors, the organizers, need to envision what it will take to win back state legislatures and seats in the Senate in proportion to the actual number of Democrats - fighting the gerrymandering that has been so successful. Lawyers will need to form something akin to the Federalist Society for Democrats. The widespread wings of the party are going to have to endure discipline if we are going to survive. Thanks as always, for these cogent lessons of history and explanation of a possible future. It is in our hands to change the present. It may take a long time, but “the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice.”
“You are not obligated to complete the task, neither are you free to desist from it.” I hope some day to have grandchildren, and I want this for them, even if I may not live to see it.
Of course, and I have supported and performed many tasks in my lifetime. It's just, of course, disappointing that the course of our country is reversing so drastically in the last years of us seniors after all the work we did to get us to advance progressive, pro-people causes.
I believe it is important to want it for future generations. For my kids and my kid’s kids. I think pretty much like the actions of John Lewis and RBG and the countless others who fought for what was right. We can move this forward for what we will never know ourselves. Hopefully!
Absolutely. My point was, though, that we have already won many battles and have been seeing them and likely will be seeing far more overturned. But, yes, for the future we must keep striving for justice and for a country that is for the people and for a planet that will support life as we know it.
Absolutely agree, Mim. It's good to keep a perspective on what has already been done, and not forget what those people grieved and left behind when they passed on. I do what I do for them as well as for their (and our) descendants. I was brought up with the story of 7 generations. We are directly connected to 7 generations and through them to all people. Right now we act, we do what we can. We celebrate even small victories and grieve even small setbacks. We just happened to get handed an armful of big ones with complicated interrelationships. We keep going, anyway.
Mim, I understand what you are expressing. But think of this: 400 years ago millions of people saw the beginning of the dismantling of their way of life, their laws, their communities, after welcoming the newcomers to this continent. Betrayed and abused, often enslaved, they fought to save their lives and their rights, and carried that fight clear across the continent. In spite of being treated as near invisible, they have not given up, and are rebuilding their communities and reclaiming their heritage. Even the generations just now being born won't see the full blossoming of these efforts (though I believe future generations will).
And 400 years ago, people of Africa were torn completely from their communities, carried in the holds of ships to a strange continent, and turned into chattel by men who chose to justify their action by deliberately twisting religious writing to make the claim that this was god's will. Despite active resistance by these African people from the very beginning, and despite a national war to nominally free them, people of African descent still are denied the rights and the freedom they are entitled to.
Who are the elder descendents of the group of entitled people who did these acts to complain because they won't see the results of one small part of this struggle that they participated in?
We are a long way from being finished. My grandchildren will still be involved. My job is to help them understand the dynamics of how we got to this point, and to help them understand that they are one of the many generations who have been part of it.
Annie, what you expressed so well is true. My disappointment lies in the dismantling of the gains we have made. My determination lies in reversing the dismantling however I can as an armchair activist, or at least starting the process. We know history leaps forward and back, but this time seems critical lest we fall into autocracy. I think we'll all be relieved if on November 4th we'll know if the Dems have regained the presidency and the Senate.
What the latest executive order—https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2020/10/new-executive-order-may-reclassify-wide-swaths-of-career-positions-as-political-appointees/— did regarding federal civil servants is very disconcerting insofar as the "president" hoping to dismiss current ones and installing others who toe his line, even if he loses the election, and who will not easily be removed, just like all the new lifetime federal judges McConnell has pushed through these last few years, at the expense of addressing bills that are people oriented, and now, as of Monday, the new Supreme Court justice. People will have their work cut out for them in the struggle to regain the steps we've taken to make this a more perfect union. But work we must.
It is very disheartening to see gains be torn apart! My heart sinks every time I hear about the securities we’ve had in place picked apart. My brother sent me a video of why dumpty has been the best president ever. He bought a swastika and told me we’ve been in trouble since Jimmy Carter wouldn’t let him drive faster. I think that spoiled generation can’t endure they have little resilience. Everything has to be their way. He sees speed limits as an attack on his rights. But I hold out hope that even in Texas Democrats can get ahead and turn off this ticking time bomb .
The liberal theologian Reinhold Neighbor said that he was not fighting for lost causes, but for causes that hadn't been won yet. Ultimately, the largest cause yet to be won is for human rights everywhere. Locally is a good place to begin, but I think it's a good idea to keep that in mind.
The difficulty lies to a great extent in the large and somewhat diffuse nature of the D party. There are already predictions of dissent and fights between progressives and moderates should Biden win and wrest the presidency from dt.
"Originalism," according to Wikipedia, "is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the 'fixation thesis," the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered."
At the time the U.S. Constitution was created in the late 1780s, the founders of that document presided over a country that undoubtedly had some great features.
But the founders also created a country that had the following MAJOR features that most of us living in the U.S. of 2020 would find, and have found, absolutely unacceptable. They include:
1. Slavery
2. Racism
3. Utter scorn and deceit toward the indigenous people who had occupied the territory for ten thousand + years.
4. No suffrage for women
5. Ruthless imperial expansion
Are these the principles to which we wish our Supreme Court Justices to adhere over the next 20 years?
I certainly do not!
For superb explication and expansion on the points I have just made, I refer you to the histories of "the Founders" that have been written by the great Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. historian, Joseph Ellis, over the last forty yeas, and, in particular, to the outstanding 2018 volume, AMERICAN DIALOGUE: THE FOUNDERS & US. It contains an extensive section on the late Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Scalia, and the touting by this Justice of the notion of "Originalism." Ellis dismisses Scalia's notion as utterly absurd and despicable!
As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "I'm glad I am olde." Seriously, most of my life I've believed in the concept of the pendulum swinging too far in one direction, only to swing back the opposite way, eventually. I doubt it will swing far enough back to my comfort zone in my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong.
Regardless of that, I worry for my daughter and all the sons and daughters out there who came of age first in the Great Recession, and now, having just gotten where they could see some way forward, getting hit with the pandemic and the resulting economic fall-out.
Remember that $400 almost half of Americans couldn't come up with for an emergency last year? It's now $250. I see them all around me - losing cars, homes, hope. Some can be chaulked up to personal mismanagement, but surely not all. And yet our legislature believes they should somehow have prepared better (?!)
For every caring, helpful person I see about me now, I see at least two who are mean-spirited, hostile and verdictive.
We seem to have several pendulums going all over the place...each government branch's respective pendulum seems to be changing direction, and with the apparent politicization of the judicial branch, it's pendulum has swung decidedly to the right after 80-90 years. It looks like the legislative branch and executive branches will be swinging to the centre/left. I now see some fights looming in the future like we have never seen.
Since today's newsletter has so aptly described the horrors of an Amy Coney Barrett confirmation, I am reposting something I posted on Wednesday. It is probably a "Hail Mary pass", but may be worth trying to get 4 Republicans to vote no. Have you ever used Resistbot? I have and I just created a letter to be sent to Senators. If you text SIGN PFRJNU tp 50409, they will ask you where you live so they can send the letter to your senators. I am also copying the letter here in case you want to use it another way or modify it to make it your own. Here is the letter.
I implore you to vote against bringing Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. You have indicated that you CAN do so, but now look at this particular individual, and choose not to do so. It is clear from her past writings and other information that she will help to take away so many hard fought gains over the years. Even not counting reproductive rights (which is a big one, but may be more controversial for you), voting rights, affordable health care, marriage equality and so many more are in jeopardy. You do not represent a small segment of your state. As senator, you represent the entire state. So many people feel that this nominee is such an extreme choice that you have a duty to represent everyone’s interests. Please do not view this as a Republican gain at the expense of everyone else. Again, you are a senator for ALL your constituents. This country needs to come together and this nominee will only divide us further. Please vote “no” on Amy Coney Barrett.
Pleading to GOP Senators to do the right thing will not work. The only thing that might is their fear of Supreme Court expansion when the Democrats take over the Senate and the White House. The Democrats don't want to do this but the Republicans may force their hand. (We warned Japan not to continue the war in 1945 or we would unleash a terrible new weapon. This didn't convince them and they forced our hand. Result: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
Read, if you can, Charlie Pierce's message for today and his interview with Sheldon Whitehouse. The denigration of the federal system by the grooming of plaintiffs to bring up specific issues to the SCOTUS should be denounced and ended.
If elected, Biden is going to put together a bi-partisan commission to look at the Supreme Court. My hope is some of the issues Heather identified (i.e. how much longer people live and are able to work now compared to the Founder's days) will be a consideration in revamping the court. There are issues that need review that are not partisan.
That seems like justification for adding 2 more seats. If we add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states will that expand our district courts at all. I know we have one in D.C.
I have used Resistbot, and when I made a donation, I was charged twice for one donation; never have received a refund. Other than that, it is quite efficient.
You don’t need to make a donation to sign a petition. I made one since they turned my letter into a petition and they only charged me once. Good to know, however, so you can keep track of the charge. Thanks.
Morning, Dr. R! Morning, All! Question: If the Supreme Court were to go to term limits, would that affect the sitting justices who already have life appointments?
Lyndon, can I offer a friendly amendment to your question? Professor HCR: Also please describe the conditions for a SC Justice to be impeached. I don’t advocate impeaching someone on the SCOTUS (unless of course there was something unlawful, immoral, unethical, etc.) but simply impeaching out of spite is not a course I support. Rather, I am curious on the process and has it ever happened.
So an investigation into Kavanaugh's shady finances and the odd circumstances of Kennedy's retirement could be useful? How about a dig into Thomas' wife's connections and his sitting on related cases? Nothing scatters the cockroaches like turning on the lights.
What about adding four more SC Justices? Is there a fear that the Dems will only have one term, giving control back to the Conservatives, who could then add more justices as well? Or are the possible negative ramifications bigger than that?
A Constitutional Amendment that required Advise and Consent for all Judiciary appointments to have agreement by, say 50%, of each party in the Senate, or just 90% of the full Senate.
After all, before Bork, when the President selected nominations from a Senate list of acceptable candidates, that was the usual vote. No more Federalist Society lists.
Yes, Jeanne, I thought about that, too, and if there are any negative ramifications. It seems it could get out of hand with each party adding a justice or two in "reply" to the other party. Don't know that there's a limit to the number of justices the SC can have!
That would quickly destroy the legitimacy of the SCOTUS, presuming it has any left after the current shenanigans. CJ Roberts has his work cut out for him if he wants to "preserve the institution" against reforms and expansion.
But the legitimacy is already destroyed. It was destroyed by Mitch McConnell, who I am beginning to believe is an extreme racist, when he wouldn’t hold hearings to confirm Merrick Garland. The conservatives have packed the court and it is the Democrats responsibility to balance it. I feel this so strongly. I haven’t seen Professor Richardson weigh in yet with her thoughts on adding more. I do understand that it could keep going back and forth, but could the Democrats add some and then legislate a cap on the number of justices? To lock it in at 13?
Similarly, if, instead of increasing the size of the Court, reducing it to 7 might not be considered "packing" but would that allow removal of the last two appointments, or would they still "be there" until they died? That would still leave a "conservative majority" but one that a Chief Justice Roberts could temper when the others would want to overreach.
Those last two have real flaws in their appointment process that did not allow a full examination of their lives and attitudes and acceptability for the Supreme Court. One thing that never came up with ACB was her father's work in the fossil fuel extraction industry, from an oil company to the American Petroleum Institute and her record of ruling for business over all other interests.
The bill currently in the house would grandfather sitting SCOTUS justices granting anyone who came after an 18 year tenure on the bench plus the ability to substitute if a sitting justice should be unable to fulfill duties. (If I've interpreted the bill correctly. :\ )
The right-wing Polish government did this and applied it to sitting judges and was accused by the European Union and western governments as destroying the "rule of law" by undermining the independence of judges......it must be said th
......that the effective result was to remove many of the existing judges who "didn't quite agree with them! they were replaced with people like Barrett and they have just declared abortion to be unconstitutional! They are going to be very careful about the way they "deal" with GOP's packing of the court with extremist right-wing judges as they'll have to make sure that the GOP never gets back into power as a precedent will have been set.
I posted this question to an article about the court's abortion vote in Poland: "Let me guess, the court has a male-majority?" Someone in Poland responded: "The court has 15 judges. Currently, 13 of them are older men and 2 are post-menopausal women (one is single with no kids)." In Oct. 2016, 100,000 women walked off their jobs all over Poland and took to the streets all wearing black to protest this anti-abortion legislation. They won that round and stopped the bill. But, here they are again.
As the government couldn't get anti-abortion legislation through the parliament because of opposition from the streets, it used the "tamed" Supreme Court which they had picked to do the job. Poland has a similar problem to the US in that the electoral system favours a conservative, aging, rural population over the dynamic, growing, liberal, urban forces.
"...have to make sure that the GOP never gets back into power as a precedent will have been set." Did not we hear Judge Barrett's explanation something to the effect that precedent only applies for rules/laws that do not get challenged often?Sorry, can't remember her exact words.
I think they have pricipally imposed a "young" retirement age which instantly got rid of the "obstructing" judges. There was talk of term limits too but i'm not sure they were "necessary" to achieve their ends of clearing the court of opposition voices.
I've just checked up on this and currently the government is further threatening a "restructuring". The plan is to cut the number of judges from 97 to 35 retaining only those nominated and controlled by the government!
I cannot help but feel that as this Nation crumbles under the rising death toll of COVID-19, the ramming through of a minority preferred, inexperienced Justice will be the ultimate downfall of Democracy. I am sickened buy the incredible wide brush stroke of destruction this appointee will sow. I don't think it will matter who is in the wheelhouse after this election, this is where the power lays. The reality of trying to dilute Barrett's presence by adding more Judges, may not work or atleast in time to stop what changes they will make.
Read the Constitution, you and others here will find the answers to many of your questions. The depth and breadth of willful ignorance on this site is astonishing. How can all you people justify weighing in on the SCOTUS and by the questions you pose essentially admit you haven’t bothered familiarizing yourself with the Constitution.
I have read the Constitution and I know it better than the current asswipe occupying the White House. However, a lot of the language is DEBATABLE, otherwise we would not have so many stupid, out of shape guys with penis issues carrying military assault rifles in Wal-Mart pretending to be well-regulated.
Besides, what's the point since no one has enforced the Emolument's Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) or the 25th Amendment, when it is clear we have a nutcase in the Oval Office.
I carry a copy of the Constitution with me at all times. So admired Khizr Khan holding up his copy of the Constitution at the 2016 DNC Convention and asking DT if he'd read it. DT obviously hasn't maybe because no one has given him one in comic book format with lots of little pictures.
I will also comment that the United States Senate and in particular the Republican Senators in my opinion are in Contempt of the Constitution when they refused to even hear Judge Garland's nomination by President Obama for ten months. And, now, pushing through a nomination ignoring the excuse they came up with to not hear the Garland nomination have confirmed their hypocrisy and lack of integrity. So now are in Contempt of the American People and their rights -- in my opinion. But then the rules of the Senate which can be ignored for convenience is now more an authoritarian institution than a representative democracy. No one person should have such unilateral power any place in our government! We are an oligarchic kleptocracy not a democratic or constitution republic any more.
The Republicans went a step further when Chair Lindsey Graham gaveled the nomination to the full Senate Floor without the mandatory vote by at least two members of the minority party, a rule of the Senate.
Yes, that was exactly what I was eluding to in the rules can be ignored for convenience. I think the Senate rules need huge revisions -- like assigning chairs of committees in proportion to party rather than a winner-takes-all which always seems to be rather unfair. Of course, I agree with John Adams that the two-party system is the worst evil that can (.. and has) befall the Constitution!
While the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, it does not specify the number of the justices nor their positions -- such as Chief Justice. That was done by 1st Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. And, the composition of the Supreme Court has changed over time with subsequent Judiciary Acts by Congress. While I'm no expert on the Supreme Court or the Constitution a couple of years ago I took two comprehensive courses on the Constitution online. American's Written Constitution and American's Unwritten Constitution with Yale Professor Amar on Coursera are excellent and gave me a much greater appreciation and knowledge. of the Constitution. I highly recommend them. It would be appreciated if you would educate or correct what is said here so we can be better informed. One of my favorite expressions is "All people are ignorant just on different subjects". Thank you.
Thank you, Cathy. All your comments here are well-received, by me at least. One of my favorite expressions is "The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked."
Cathy. It’s so good to have you as a part of this community I call “Heather’s Herd”. Your contributions are among the features I look forward to reading. Please continue adding your questions and research and intelligent energy to this marvelous company of true—real—patriots!
Thank you, Bill, for the kind words! Yes, I feel we are in good company here in Heather's Herd. I, too, look forward to your comments and insights. This group is very much helping me stay sane and relatively calm through this wrenching time. Always curious, I just looked up the word patriot: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. The word detractor rather leaps out at me. Yes, in this time I'm not going backward. And, I'm ready to defend this country -- most especially when our government, our oligarchy kleptocracy is being the chief detractor from democracy moving forward. Thank you again, Bill.
I’m so jealous you can take an online course. My son didn’t go to college but has spent many hours on online courses, teaches me in turn. As a public school teacher I think it’s an amazing turn to get an education as you want it. But for myself teaching is so overwhelming right now! Maybe when I retire.
Thank you for being such a conscientious teacher. I'm actually a Beta tester for new courses on Coursera so each week I get a list of courses that are ready to be reviewed. Some weeks are too busy but most weeks I choose one and enjoy yet another course on a myriad of subjects from MBA courses from a University in Australia, to history like the Age of Cathedrals, to computer science and self-driving vehicles, to healthcare. You have a week to take the course and then fill out a review form. I'm insatiably curious so this is so much fun for me. When you do retire I hope you'll enjoy many of these wonderful courses.
The people here (most, anyway) are seeking to learn and to understand how things work. They ask questions, and I respect them for that.. There have been so many interpretions (some legitimate, some simply wrong, some obfuscatory), in addition to people who deliberately misconstrue the Constitution for their own purposes. Those of us who have some sense of the various ways the Constitution and the branches of government have been used have a responsibility to help enlarge that conversation. Not constrict it by looking down our noses at people who ask questions. Thank god they do. I learn something every time.
It was just announced the Senator Lisa Murkowski is going to vote to confirm Judge Barret although she'll vote no on the procedural vote because she doesn't agree with the process. Feels like such a cop-out. Handmaid's Tale dystopia here we come!
Although Senator Schumer never says the words, it seems as if he is teeing up either the expansion of the court or a serious revamping of the system – or both - should the Democrats win the Trifecta.
The House has already introduced a bill to end life tenure on the SC. The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act was introduced on September 29th by Reps. Ro Khanna, Don Beyer and Joe Kennedy III. The bill that would end life tenure at the high court for future justices in favor of an 18-year term.
Thank you for the link. This bill is either a conversation starter or an effort to head off real court reform. It would move to rotating justices for 18 year terms (good), but it would leave the MConnell court packing in place for a generation (very very bad).
I have never seen any substantive bill at either state or federal level proceed without significant changes. In the case of revising the Supreme Court, I would expect to see multiple bills introduced with widely varying proposals for how the Supreme Court would be selected, how long they would serve, conditions of removal, etc. This particular one may be the first, which often means that it is there to spark additional proposals, one or more of which might catch the eye of enough sponsors to make it viable. Likely that elements of several bills might be combined to make a bill acceptable to the body. In other words, don't get too caught up in the details at this point.
Thanks again for the draft of the Khanna, et.al., bill. Though it would certainly be challenged if it could ever get passed, it is coherent and arguably in line with some (long-)past practices. If you have interest in going further into these weeds, Jack Balkin has been advocating for similar but somewhat different legislation for some time. A recent post on this on his "Balkanization" blog is here:
I do thank you Heather. This one is a doozie. Never have I ever understood the full value of separation of church and state until Amy Coney Barrett came along and was thrust upon us by Mitch McConnell and the disaster slinking along under the label "Republican Party."
I agree with everyone that the realities of Barrett being on the SCOTUS for the foreseeable future is horrific--as are, frankly, the current realities of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, both execrable and hypocritical examples of judicial overreach masquerading as "originalism." But in reality the only way to truly protect Americans' freedoms is through legislation fought over, voted on, and enacted. As someone who benefited from Roe v Wade, I can safely say that women's bodily autonomy is NOT safe and never has been, especially in those states that regard women's bodies as the tools for expressions of toxic masculinity. It took legislation to make marital rape illegal. It took legislation to make spousal abuse illegal. It took legislation from the 1880s to the 1980s to provide women with the legal autonomy to make wills, own land, have credit cards, go to medical and law school, and gain divorce (to name only a few) without "permission" from some man. The SCOTUS did none of these.
We have relied on the integrity of the SCOTUS to fix the drive toward repression and autocracy that has been the backlash against all progressive legislation all over the USA. It is now time to get back to real activism: democracy must be preserved from the bottom-up, not the top-down. We need to support and elect local and state-wide political leaders, governors, and members of Congress and Senate. Without a strong foundation the roof will inevitably topple. And here we are, wringing our hands because not enough people cared about what was happening locally to bother to vote and speak out. I'm not talking about all of you: I suspect we are all more activist than the typical American. But this is the only way to change the drive toward white male supremacist autocracy.
I just read that it is predicted that a record-shattering 65% of the voter-eligible public is going to cast ballots this year. That made me very sad. 65% is pitiful, but it is being proclaimed as a game changer--because less than 65% have voted in elections since 1908. For shame.
This - "democracy must be preserved from the bottom-up, not the top-down" - yes, Linda, as well as the 65%.
Democracy dies due to complacency and/or indifference. If people generally understood more history and civics, in particular the centuries it took to get the vote and its importance, they might be more apt to vote. In addition, It doesn't help that we are so focused on individualism -- why vote, one vote makes no difference -- rather than seeing voting as a civic duty that our culture should recognize and emphasize from the get-go. Of course, the R's don't want that emphasized. The reality of voter suppression is that the fewer people who vote, the more significant the votes of those that do become.
Totally.
This is to me a very helpful and insightful comment. Thank you.
Mr. McConnell's campaign is running a rather ironic ad against his opponent stating that the Democrats "will pack the courts with liberal justices". I find this to be projection at the highest level, ironic, a bit humorous, and a suspicion that Mitch is feeling a bit desperate. Oh, I don't think he is feeling his seat is in danger but that his majority in the Senate is in danger. Plus his heir apparent in Daniel Cameron is proving to be unpopular in the state. (Please, no comments to me about how Kentucky needs to get rid of Mitch. Once again, I have never voted for the man. And I am the only Kentuckian I can speak for). I also just finished Dr. Richardson's book "Wounded Knee". When reading about the Harrison administration, I could substitute names of the current administration in the place of many players in the 1880's and 1890's. However, I did finish the book with a bit of hope. One, the truth will come out, may be slowly but it will come. Two, when the majority of citizens in the country become aware, change does come. We have to be the change makers.
I, too, live in Kentucky and I am also constantly shocked and nauseated by McConnell’s ads. Hypocrisy Incorporated is his media motto. Here in Kentucky, the larger cities, Louisville, Lexington and Northern Kentucky all roll mainly Democratic, but it’s the rural base that McConnell can always count on never voting against Republicans. I know Bevin lost, but he had zero public appeal after his true nature was revealed. You have to be THAT BAD for Kentuckians to reject you, OR you have to hang on enough years that they see you as a “good old boy,” which means you’re in forever. He is caustic and corrosive to true democracy, but to release him from service would add up to change and Kentuckians do not like change, as I’m sure you well know. I think this is a situation, as you pointed out, where, if he loses the majority, he won’t get anything done like usual and THEN Kentuckians will supersede the rule of change with the rule they also live by: work hard, get things done. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the rest of the states help us out on the long game here. The truth will come out. Best of luck, fellow Kentuckian!
While McConnell's loss to a woman Marine would give a certain schadenfreude, as long as the Democrats win control of the Senate, it might be even better if he had to live with Democratic Party control, at least if the Democrats played a bit (or more) nasty. They might do something like cut the number of staff radically, hiring their cut staffers to a new organization, equivalent to the House of Representative's Office of Technology Assessment, that Newt Gingrich abolished as one of the early things he did on gaining the Speakership after the 1994 Republican wave election. He did that so Republicans could pass their lobbyists' dream legislation without having to meet scientific analysis that it would accomplish what was desired or would not be toxic to the people near the projects.
Democrats are not going to be cutthroat. They should be, since they have the reputation of being for the people, but they are constantly hyper aware of image.
I think it's not just image. There's value to 'when they go low, we go high.' Ultimately, I want to be proud of my party, not just win at all costs.
We're at the point where, to win ANYTHING right now, we have to go cutthroat. Not illegal stuff, just pushing hard against some old fences. We can still be proud and forceful at the same time. There's a season for everything.
You (and Patrick below) in Kentucky have my sympathies. It's bad in GA too as the political ads here have reached what can only be termed a "fever pitch". Yesterday, on one of the Atlanta stations they were speaking with Chuck Todd of NBC, and he mentioned that now per capita, more has been spent in GA on broadcast ads and more air time spent on them than any other state. As he said, "you guys in Georgia are getting inundated with political ads like nowhere else!" I simply said, "NO SH!T!!" Every pause in programming here is FULL of ads...David Perdue's and Jon Ossoff's are run non-stop...Trump's ads...plus a ton of ads by all their respective PACs, and those are the most damning. At least Biden's ads are running more oftne now. It's maddening. We are SICK TO DEATH of them here!! I'd say Republicans here must be REALLY worried as the pace of their ads seems to have increased exponentially.
I think I have to say the thing that make most distressed about all that political money is the waste. If only it could be used by people who have lost their jobs or health insurance. It is awful how we run elections in this country.
They spend so much money (in Kentucky) on ads that are ineffective to 93% of the voters. 3% are unsure and the rest already know who they are voting for. Think about that. How much it costs per undecided voter. That is what those ads are for. That is what that money is being blown on. 3%. That money could be used for something REAL, not the trifecta of political betting. The other 93% are praying for it to just be over.
(4% are snoozing at the wheel and voting libertarian.)
I love this hopeful reaction. Thank you, Rebecca.
I understand that HCR has to be more guarded in her words, when she describes the impending court majority as “originalist”. But originalism is meaningless, just a marketing phrase. Here’s what is really going on, “Barrett will allow Trump (McConnell, really) to cement a Republican majority on the Supreme Court“. Republicans like McConnell understand that they’re a minority party, clinging to power through gerrymandering, voter suppression and an anti-democratic electoral college. Ensuring that unpopular Republican (right-wing Christian, white nationalist, white male, capitalist, pro-corporate) ideology rules over American lives for years to come is best done by packing the courts with “originalists”. Originalists are just right-wing Republicans. This is why McConnell has broken tradition and rules to block Obama appointees and cram “originalists” down our throats.
Agreed.
There might actually be a definition for “originalist.” But in the end, it’s still an excuse to turn back the clock and take away rights from the common people.
There is a definition. But as HCR and many others have pointed out, “originalism” id really just a sham, some pompous-sounding wrapping paper to cover up a right-wing Republican agenda. Originalists defend all sorts of things that were never in the original Constitution, like citizenship rights for corporations, and unregulated access to assault weapons. Republican judges use “originalism” to mean whatever they want it to mean, hoping it keeps us from calling them what they really are - partisan bigots.
HCR’s article on the sham of originalism, from The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/originalism-barrett/616844/
Agree.
Absolutely.
If Barrett is an originalist regarding the Constitution, perhaps she should also consider washing her clothes down at the creek, commuting to work on a horse, wearing homespun, and insisting her physician bleed her next time she has an ailment.
Being an originalist, she should take herself out of the running being female and all. She definitely didn’t earn it like RBG!
I would like to suggest that the Biden administration plan for a total refurbishment of the Supreme Court building to make it environmentally sustainable, which could take three to five years or longer, with provisions for the Justice's offices to be moved to places like the flood plain of the Red River in North Dakota during the spring of each year, the fire zone of California during the late summer and fall, and alternately a city with high pollution from coal-fired generation plants or oil refineries, located in a low-income area just downwind, and with no air filtration at all.
No money for any travel at any time once the sessions begin. But they must have their families live with them in inexpensive digs adjoining the location of the Court sessions.
A few years of working in those environments just might bring home the dangers of the modern world that did not exist for the Founding Fathers.
So true! The founders didn't envision women even having the right to vote, much less serve on the Supreme Court! Republican tolerance of this hypocrisy goes way beyond Trump, I so wish we could have more than 2 viable parties here.
I remember the bumper stickers; "Impeach Earl Warren!"
Warren was supposed to be a reliable conservative justice but it didn't turn out that way.
I think it unlikely that Barret will do the same.
The Republican Party, the party of Lincoln and trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt, wants to take the country back to the plantation and the company town; where almost everyone contributes; doing the work, fighting the wars; while a few own the assets, make the decisions, receive most of the benefits, and whatever government there is is their handmaiden. Science, and history, are subject to religious and political approval. It would be close enough to feudalism, or a theocracy, we could call it either one.
As I see it, this future is up for election on Nov. 3.
Some might even see connections to fascism.
Definitely!
I have been reading about The Dark Ages (William Manchester's "A World Lit Only by Fire") to assure myself that we are in a far better, safer place. Um....
And none of these people see that a united strong United States will be required to meet the competition from abroad, particularly from China, with allies from all of Europe and the members of what would have been the TPP (now an organization with another name and less power because of structural changes from those of the TPP and no USA as a big enforcer).
Agreed.
The closer we get to 11/3, the less likely I am to read any news other than this letter. Covid is taking hold, and there will be many, many unnecessary deaths over the next year. And I do believe it will be at least a year before we can get hold of this. Then, there's the bad SCOTUS news. That adds to the news blackout for me. ACA, Roe, Obergefell, are at serious risk, and as a gay, married woman who helped friends get back room abortions before Roe, I see my future is sadly going backwards. While they're at it, I wonder how Clarence Thomas and others would feel about reversing the Loving decision allowing for interracial marriage. That's how backwards it's gonna get.
It’s nearly impossible to get an abortion in Texas already. It’s driven healthcare so backwards, maternity deaths are now compared to third world countries. A friend had to go out of state to get the medical help she needed for a late term abortion. A heart wrenching catastrophe made worse by the lack of women’s care and rights. Younger women don’t know the history of abortion and the suffering that got us to Roe v. Wade. The arguments they’ve been taught can’t be undone or reasoned with because their pastor told them so. It’s a shock to women’s rights!
I knew that TX had strict abortion laws, but didn't realize how bad it is. I am sorry (and angry) that women have to again fight for our own bodies! And, Lisa Murkowski, a woman, has again abandoned women and will follow along. Hope Collins can stand strong, but I sincerely doubt it. Murkowski has shown her the way.
A Native American once said to me "Just wait until the American People find out what living on a Reservation is like." We won't have to wait much longer. Vote as if this is the last time you'll be allowed to vote!
I have been thinking the same thing for years, and have added “just wait until China shows up to claim America because of all the beads they gave us!”
Strangely, I am more gutted by today’s letter than possibly any that have gone before. The realization of the full future implications of ACBs confirmation have left me stunned and nearly speechless. We are living in a decades long chess game and the republicans have finally scored the winning move. It will be so unless the democrats use their tactics against them if Biden and other democratic candidates win in the upcoming election. I fear that this won’t happen because democrats always “play nice” while republicans “play to win”. Joe even recently sidestepped the court packing question by saying he would appoint a commission to study the problem. When I read that the other day my heart sank. The only way to preserve the way of life that the majority of Americans knows and wants appears to be through adding justices to balance what the republicans have done. If he is unwilling to aggressively do that then it doesn’t matter who is in the White House, we still lose the chess game.
Karen, I had a similar reaction. After over a century, we are still hung up on voting rights. That there are those who want to take us back in time with no business regulations and no governmental responsibility for the welfare of the American people. That racism is so virulent. That dark money, in addition to buying politicians, now pays for SC candidates. As a society we are headed backwards, not forwards.
Yet when they say they want no business regulations they have done noting but go after the big businesses. Right now they want to take down Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. It seems like hypocrisy to go after them if they want to stop regulations. I don't remember exactly when the country started breaking up the utility and power companies because they didn't want monopolies but feel like it was in the 70's and 80's.
One of the big fights in the early New Deal was over the financial intertwining and monopoly powers of public utilities, leading to the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. This empowered the SEC to, over time, restructure that whole economic sector.
But I agree with you about the hypocrisy about suddenly being shocked, shocked to discover that massive predatory monopolies have been amassed in the digital economy. "Changes of heart" like these usually means that someone's own ox has been getting gored for a change.
Sharon, I meant to respond to your note earlier today but I had some commitments that I had to focus on.
I think it IS more hypocrisy on the part of these reactionaries. They have targeted these upstart tech giants because they don’t play the game the way the “big dogs” want it played.
These companies are brand new in the world of mega-industries and they often are more progressive than the old guard. The “big mules”, as they say in AL, don’t was the “new kids on the block” to get any bigger and any more powerful than they already are.
So, the conservatives pull out the old standby anti-monopoly laws to rein in the upstarts. The goal, I believe, is to either throttle them into submission, or to break them up into “manageable” pieces.
Of course the “robber barons” want to stage-manage this assault so that it doesn’t turn and bite them on the butt. It’s a serious skirmish that bears watching.
I have to disagree about Democrats' lack of the killer instinct. I recall Senator Kennedy's questioning Bork during his hearing. It was cutthroat. I didn't mind too much, I didn't want Bork on the Court. To the extent that is missing from D's, I think it's because the these days the party is diffuse and doesn't always unite around goals unless they are defensive.
Stephen Pearlstein had an interesting column this week in the Washington Post. He suggested that legislation, carefully written, could protect more progressive ideas against originalist overrides. And I actually found Biden's proposal regarding a commission hopeful. It may recommend changing the size of the court, or adding states which will shift balance of power over time, or carefully crafted legislation, or.... we need to bring partisan war to an end without giving away our freedom. Rights and responsibilities in balance.
And if Democrats gain a majority in both houses and the presidency, they must get busy writing simple, straightforward bills that don't have any pork hanging on them that they can quickly pass and codify the laws that will protect us. They need to get some very good constitutional lawyers to help with the wording to make them SCOTUS-proof. They will be guaranteed only two years and they have much work to do.
Do you have a link to that article?
I do not know if the paywall will block you, but here you go.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/20/biden-court-packing-alternatives/
Thank you, Jan. That was very enlightening. Gives one a bit of hope.
Anne Applebaum talks about two forms of nostalgia in “Twilight of Democracy”, and how they are playing out in America with the Trump presidency and the Senate, and in the UK with Brexit, as well as Orban’s Hungary, etc.
From Svetlana Boym’s “book, “The Future of Nostalgia”, Applebaum describes Boym’s “reflective nostalgia”, that which is felt by those who like to collect old things – old letters, photos, who dream about the past and miss the past, but don’t want to live there. They don’t want to go back there for real.
The ‘restorative nostalgics’, however, DO want to take us back there. These are the people who mythologize the past, who revere monuments; they are the founders of nationalistic movements.
As she puts it, ‘they are not interested in a nuanced past, a world in which great leaders were flawed men, in which famous military victories had lethal consequences.” They don’t see that this past is a fiction.
I think we can guess which category the current Republicans fall into.
I thought the same thing when I finished this letter this morning. Profound sadness bordering on despair....and helplessness.
Yes, the R's have been playing the "long game" and seem to have won...UNLESS we can regain the Senate. If not, game over.
I think it would be a good idea to keep the context and circumstances in which Biden made that comment. It was low-key, and needed to be. For now. And there is a huge collaborative movement that is brewing under the surface of America right now whose entire purpose is to hold our government accountable with peaceful but emphatic means. No matter who is President. Choose Democracy
The Democratic Party is going to have to learn to play the long game, even if Biden wins, even if we flip the Senate. The funders, the politicians, the governors, the organizers, need to envision what it will take to win back state legislatures and seats in the Senate in proportion to the actual number of Democrats - fighting the gerrymandering that has been so successful. Lawyers will need to form something akin to the Federalist Society for Democrats. The widespread wings of the party are going to have to endure discipline if we are going to survive. Thanks as always, for these cogent lessons of history and explanation of a possible future. It is in our hands to change the present. It may take a long time, but “the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice.”
True, but we older folk will not likely see it.
“You are not obligated to complete the task, neither are you free to desist from it.” I hope some day to have grandchildren, and I want this for them, even if I may not live to see it.
Of course, and I have supported and performed many tasks in my lifetime. It's just, of course, disappointing that the course of our country is reversing so drastically in the last years of us seniors after all the work we did to get us to advance progressive, pro-people causes.
I believe it is important to want it for future generations. For my kids and my kid’s kids. I think pretty much like the actions of John Lewis and RBG and the countless others who fought for what was right. We can move this forward for what we will never know ourselves. Hopefully!
Absolutely. My point was, though, that we have already won many battles and have been seeing them and likely will be seeing far more overturned. But, yes, for the future we must keep striving for justice and for a country that is for the people and for a planet that will support life as we know it.
Absolutely agree, Mim. It's good to keep a perspective on what has already been done, and not forget what those people grieved and left behind when they passed on. I do what I do for them as well as for their (and our) descendants. I was brought up with the story of 7 generations. We are directly connected to 7 generations and through them to all people. Right now we act, we do what we can. We celebrate even small victories and grieve even small setbacks. We just happened to get handed an armful of big ones with complicated interrelationships. We keep going, anyway.
Mim, I understand what you are expressing. But think of this: 400 years ago millions of people saw the beginning of the dismantling of their way of life, their laws, their communities, after welcoming the newcomers to this continent. Betrayed and abused, often enslaved, they fought to save their lives and their rights, and carried that fight clear across the continent. In spite of being treated as near invisible, they have not given up, and are rebuilding their communities and reclaiming their heritage. Even the generations just now being born won't see the full blossoming of these efforts (though I believe future generations will).
And 400 years ago, people of Africa were torn completely from their communities, carried in the holds of ships to a strange continent, and turned into chattel by men who chose to justify their action by deliberately twisting religious writing to make the claim that this was god's will. Despite active resistance by these African people from the very beginning, and despite a national war to nominally free them, people of African descent still are denied the rights and the freedom they are entitled to.
Who are the elder descendents of the group of entitled people who did these acts to complain because they won't see the results of one small part of this struggle that they participated in?
We are a long way from being finished. My grandchildren will still be involved. My job is to help them understand the dynamics of how we got to this point, and to help them understand that they are one of the many generations who have been part of it.
Annie, what you expressed so well is true. My disappointment lies in the dismantling of the gains we have made. My determination lies in reversing the dismantling however I can as an armchair activist, or at least starting the process. We know history leaps forward and back, but this time seems critical lest we fall into autocracy. I think we'll all be relieved if on November 4th we'll know if the Dems have regained the presidency and the Senate.
What the latest executive order—https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2020/10/new-executive-order-may-reclassify-wide-swaths-of-career-positions-as-political-appointees/— did regarding federal civil servants is very disconcerting insofar as the "president" hoping to dismiss current ones and installing others who toe his line, even if he loses the election, and who will not easily be removed, just like all the new lifetime federal judges McConnell has pushed through these last few years, at the expense of addressing bills that are people oriented, and now, as of Monday, the new Supreme Court justice. People will have their work cut out for them in the struggle to regain the steps we've taken to make this a more perfect union. But work we must.
It is very disheartening to see gains be torn apart! My heart sinks every time I hear about the securities we’ve had in place picked apart. My brother sent me a video of why dumpty has been the best president ever. He bought a swastika and told me we’ve been in trouble since Jimmy Carter wouldn’t let him drive faster. I think that spoiled generation can’t endure they have little resilience. Everything has to be their way. He sees speed limits as an attack on his rights. But I hold out hope that even in Texas Democrats can get ahead and turn off this ticking time bomb .
Here's another article about the potentially disastrous executive order:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-executive-order-civil-service-biden-election-schedule-f-b1255692.html?fbclid=IwAR1KYVhNvIq1ga1_4BKoFf5L0LTOJOH7rARAbQuuk4PtsJIKPApRMkk3b8k
The liberal theologian Reinhold Neighbor said that he was not fighting for lost causes, but for causes that hadn't been won yet. Ultimately, the largest cause yet to be won is for human rights everywhere. Locally is a good place to begin, but I think it's a good idea to keep that in mind.
The difficulty lies to a great extent in the large and somewhat diffuse nature of the D party. There are already predictions of dissent and fights between progressives and moderates should Biden win and wrest the presidency from dt.
"Originalism," according to Wikipedia, "is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the 'fixation thesis," the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered."
At the time the U.S. Constitution was created in the late 1780s, the founders of that document presided over a country that undoubtedly had some great features.
But the founders also created a country that had the following MAJOR features that most of us living in the U.S. of 2020 would find, and have found, absolutely unacceptable. They include:
1. Slavery
2. Racism
3. Utter scorn and deceit toward the indigenous people who had occupied the territory for ten thousand + years.
4. No suffrage for women
5. Ruthless imperial expansion
Are these the principles to which we wish our Supreme Court Justices to adhere over the next 20 years?
I certainly do not!
For superb explication and expansion on the points I have just made, I refer you to the histories of "the Founders" that have been written by the great Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. historian, Joseph Ellis, over the last forty yeas, and, in particular, to the outstanding 2018 volume, AMERICAN DIALOGUE: THE FOUNDERS & US. It contains an extensive section on the late Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Scalia, and the touting by this Justice of the notion of "Originalism." Ellis dismisses Scalia's notion as utterly absurd and despicable!
Mark McLeod
As a friend of mine is fond of saying, "I'm glad I am olde." Seriously, most of my life I've believed in the concept of the pendulum swinging too far in one direction, only to swing back the opposite way, eventually. I doubt it will swing far enough back to my comfort zone in my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong.
Regardless of that, I worry for my daughter and all the sons and daughters out there who came of age first in the Great Recession, and now, having just gotten where they could see some way forward, getting hit with the pandemic and the resulting economic fall-out.
Remember that $400 almost half of Americans couldn't come up with for an emergency last year? It's now $250. I see them all around me - losing cars, homes, hope. Some can be chaulked up to personal mismanagement, but surely not all. And yet our legislature believes they should somehow have prepared better (?!)
For every caring, helpful person I see about me now, I see at least two who are mean-spirited, hostile and verdictive.
We seem to have several pendulums going all over the place...each government branch's respective pendulum seems to be changing direction, and with the apparent politicization of the judicial branch, it's pendulum has swung decidedly to the right after 80-90 years. It looks like the legislative branch and executive branches will be swinging to the centre/left. I now see some fights looming in the future like we have never seen.
Since today's newsletter has so aptly described the horrors of an Amy Coney Barrett confirmation, I am reposting something I posted on Wednesday. It is probably a "Hail Mary pass", but may be worth trying to get 4 Republicans to vote no. Have you ever used Resistbot? I have and I just created a letter to be sent to Senators. If you text SIGN PFRJNU tp 50409, they will ask you where you live so they can send the letter to your senators. I am also copying the letter here in case you want to use it another way or modify it to make it your own. Here is the letter.
I implore you to vote against bringing Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. You have indicated that you CAN do so, but now look at this particular individual, and choose not to do so. It is clear from her past writings and other information that she will help to take away so many hard fought gains over the years. Even not counting reproductive rights (which is a big one, but may be more controversial for you), voting rights, affordable health care, marriage equality and so many more are in jeopardy. You do not represent a small segment of your state. As senator, you represent the entire state. So many people feel that this nominee is such an extreme choice that you have a duty to represent everyone’s interests. Please do not view this as a Republican gain at the expense of everyone else. Again, you are a senator for ALL your constituents. This country needs to come together and this nominee will only divide us further. Please vote “no” on Amy Coney Barrett.
Pleading to GOP Senators to do the right thing will not work. The only thing that might is their fear of Supreme Court expansion when the Democrats take over the Senate and the White House. The Democrats don't want to do this but the Republicans may force their hand. (We warned Japan not to continue the war in 1945 or we would unleash a terrible new weapon. This didn't convince them and they forced our hand. Result: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
Read, if you can, Charlie Pierce's message for today and his interview with Sheldon Whitehouse. The denigration of the federal system by the grooming of plaintiffs to bring up specific issues to the SCOTUS should be denounced and ended.
If elected, Biden is going to put together a bi-partisan commission to look at the Supreme Court. My hope is some of the issues Heather identified (i.e. how much longer people live and are able to work now compared to the Founder's days) will be a consideration in revamping the court. There are issues that need review that are not partisan.
When the number of nine Justices was established, we had nine appellate circuits. Now, we have thirteen.
That seems like justification for adding 2 more seats. If we add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states will that expand our district courts at all. I know we have one in D.C.
I received an email from my Senator, Mark Warner, Virginia, that he is voting no. I have not heard from Tim Kaine but assume he is voting no as well.
I have used Resistbot, and when I made a donation, I was charged twice for one donation; never have received a refund. Other than that, it is quite efficient.
You don’t need to make a donation to sign a petition. I made one since they turned my letter into a petition and they only charged me once. Good to know, however, so you can keep track of the charge. Thanks.
I know that. I chose to make a donation. They created the letters and sent them to my senators.
Morning, Dr. R! Morning, All! Question: If the Supreme Court were to go to term limits, would that affect the sitting justices who already have life appointments?
Lyndon, can I offer a friendly amendment to your question? Professor HCR: Also please describe the conditions for a SC Justice to be impeached. I don’t advocate impeaching someone on the SCOTUS (unless of course there was something unlawful, immoral, unethical, etc.) but simply impeaching out of spite is not a course I support. Rather, I am curious on the process and has it ever happened.
The Brennan Center has a good article on this topic (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer) that describes the history and standards surrounding impeachment and removal of Federal Judges.
Their misconduct must constitute serious legal or ethical misconduct. Impeachment and removal on purely political grounds has never been successful.
So an investigation into Kavanaugh's shady finances and the odd circumstances of Kennedy's retirement could be useful? How about a dig into Thomas' wife's connections and his sitting on related cases? Nothing scatters the cockroaches like turning on the lights.
Now, that's some visual, Carol!
Just making their Income Tax returns public for the last 10 or more years might give them some pause?
What about adding four more SC Justices? Is there a fear that the Dems will only have one term, giving control back to the Conservatives, who could then add more justices as well? Or are the possible negative ramifications bigger than that?
A Constitutional Amendment that required Advise and Consent for all Judiciary appointments to have agreement by, say 50%, of each party in the Senate, or just 90% of the full Senate.
After all, before Bork, when the President selected nominations from a Senate list of acceptable candidates, that was the usual vote. No more Federalist Society lists.
I like this idea! If there has to be bipartisan support for an appointee, that will take the politics out of it. Brilliant.
Yes, Jeanne, I thought about that, too, and if there are any negative ramifications. It seems it could get out of hand with each party adding a justice or two in "reply" to the other party. Don't know that there's a limit to the number of justices the SC can have!
That would quickly destroy the legitimacy of the SCOTUS, presuming it has any left after the current shenanigans. CJ Roberts has his work cut out for him if he wants to "preserve the institution" against reforms and expansion.
But the legitimacy is already destroyed. It was destroyed by Mitch McConnell, who I am beginning to believe is an extreme racist, when he wouldn’t hold hearings to confirm Merrick Garland. The conservatives have packed the court and it is the Democrats responsibility to balance it. I feel this so strongly. I haven’t seen Professor Richardson weigh in yet with her thoughts on adding more. I do understand that it could keep going back and forth, but could the Democrats add some and then legislate a cap on the number of justices? To lock it in at 13?
He’s a racist and misogynist.
Similarly, if, instead of increasing the size of the Court, reducing it to 7 might not be considered "packing" but would that allow removal of the last two appointments, or would they still "be there" until they died? That would still leave a "conservative majority" but one that a Chief Justice Roberts could temper when the others would want to overreach.
Those last two have real flaws in their appointment process that did not allow a full examination of their lives and attitudes and acceptability for the Supreme Court. One thing that never came up with ACB was her father's work in the fossil fuel extraction industry, from an oil company to the American Petroleum Institute and her record of ruling for business over all other interests.
It might be seen as fairer by more of the public?
I like this idea but I am almost positive no justice can be removed once confirmed unless they are impeached.
The bill currently in the house would grandfather sitting SCOTUS justices granting anyone who came after an 18 year tenure on the bench plus the ability to substitute if a sitting justice should be unable to fulfill duties. (If I've interpreted the bill correctly. :\ )
Thanks, Daria. I did not know about the current bill.
The right-wing Polish government did this and applied it to sitting judges and was accused by the European Union and western governments as destroying the "rule of law" by undermining the independence of judges......it must be said th
......that the effective result was to remove many of the existing judges who "didn't quite agree with them! they were replaced with people like Barrett and they have just declared abortion to be unconstitutional! They are going to be very careful about the way they "deal" with GOP's packing of the court with extremist right-wing judges as they'll have to make sure that the GOP never gets back into power as a precedent will have been set.
I posted this question to an article about the court's abortion vote in Poland: "Let me guess, the court has a male-majority?" Someone in Poland responded: "The court has 15 judges. Currently, 13 of them are older men and 2 are post-menopausal women (one is single with no kids)." In Oct. 2016, 100,000 women walked off their jobs all over Poland and took to the streets all wearing black to protest this anti-abortion legislation. They won that round and stopped the bill. But, here they are again.
As the government couldn't get anti-abortion legislation through the parliament because of opposition from the streets, it used the "tamed" Supreme Court which they had picked to do the job. Poland has a similar problem to the US in that the electoral system favours a conservative, aging, rural population over the dynamic, growing, liberal, urban forces.
"...have to make sure that the GOP never gets back into power as a precedent will have been set." Did not we hear Judge Barrett's explanation something to the effect that precedent only applies for rules/laws that do not get challenged often?Sorry, can't remember her exact words.
And pigs will fly! It all depends on what you mean by often.
More so what SHE means by often!
Do you mean that Poland tried term limits for their federal judges?
I think they have pricipally imposed a "young" retirement age which instantly got rid of the "obstructing" judges. There was talk of term limits too but i'm not sure they were "necessary" to achieve their ends of clearing the court of opposition voices.
I've just checked up on this and currently the government is further threatening a "restructuring". The plan is to cut the number of judges from 97 to 35 retaining only those nominated and controlled by the government!
I cannot help but feel that as this Nation crumbles under the rising death toll of COVID-19, the ramming through of a minority preferred, inexperienced Justice will be the ultimate downfall of Democracy. I am sickened buy the incredible wide brush stroke of destruction this appointee will sow. I don't think it will matter who is in the wheelhouse after this election, this is where the power lays. The reality of trying to dilute Barrett's presence by adding more Judges, may not work or atleast in time to stop what changes they will make.
The hope is that the Constitution gives the Congress the right to define the Supreme Court.
Read the Constitution, you and others here will find the answers to many of your questions. The depth and breadth of willful ignorance on this site is astonishing. How can all you people justify weighing in on the SCOTUS and by the questions you pose essentially admit you haven’t bothered familiarizing yourself with the Constitution.
I have read the Constitution and I know it better than the current asswipe occupying the White House. However, a lot of the language is DEBATABLE, otherwise we would not have so many stupid, out of shape guys with penis issues carrying military assault rifles in Wal-Mart pretending to be well-regulated.
Besides, what's the point since no one has enforced the Emolument's Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) or the 25th Amendment, when it is clear we have a nutcase in the Oval Office.
I carry a copy of the Constitution with me at all times. So admired Khizr Khan holding up his copy of the Constitution at the 2016 DNC Convention and asking DT if he'd read it. DT obviously hasn't maybe because no one has given him one in comic book format with lots of little pictures.
Lol! Dumpty would not only need pictures, his name would have to be mentioned on every page!
I will also comment that the United States Senate and in particular the Republican Senators in my opinion are in Contempt of the Constitution when they refused to even hear Judge Garland's nomination by President Obama for ten months. And, now, pushing through a nomination ignoring the excuse they came up with to not hear the Garland nomination have confirmed their hypocrisy and lack of integrity. So now are in Contempt of the American People and their rights -- in my opinion. But then the rules of the Senate which can be ignored for convenience is now more an authoritarian institution than a representative democracy. No one person should have such unilateral power any place in our government! We are an oligarchic kleptocracy not a democratic or constitution republic any more.
The Republicans went a step further when Chair Lindsey Graham gaveled the nomination to the full Senate Floor without the mandatory vote by at least two members of the minority party, a rule of the Senate.
Yes, that was exactly what I was eluding to in the rules can be ignored for convenience. I think the Senate rules need huge revisions -- like assigning chairs of committees in proportion to party rather than a winner-takes-all which always seems to be rather unfair. Of course, I agree with John Adams that the two-party system is the worst evil that can (.. and has) befall the Constitution!
And huge consequences set in place for ignoring the law.
While the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, it does not specify the number of the justices nor their positions -- such as Chief Justice. That was done by 1st Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. And, the composition of the Supreme Court has changed over time with subsequent Judiciary Acts by Congress. While I'm no expert on the Supreme Court or the Constitution a couple of years ago I took two comprehensive courses on the Constitution online. American's Written Constitution and American's Unwritten Constitution with Yale Professor Amar on Coursera are excellent and gave me a much greater appreciation and knowledge. of the Constitution. I highly recommend them. It would be appreciated if you would educate or correct what is said here so we can be better informed. One of my favorite expressions is "All people are ignorant just on different subjects". Thank you.
Thank you, Cathy. All your comments here are well-received, by me at least. One of my favorite expressions is "The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked."
Thank you, Lynell, for your kind words. I like your expression. It is so nice to have this community to have substantive discussion and sharing.
Cathy. It’s so good to have you as a part of this community I call “Heather’s Herd”. Your contributions are among the features I look forward to reading. Please continue adding your questions and research and intelligent energy to this marvelous company of true—real—patriots!
Thank you, Bill, for the kind words! Yes, I feel we are in good company here in Heather's Herd. I, too, look forward to your comments and insights. This group is very much helping me stay sane and relatively calm through this wrenching time. Always curious, I just looked up the word patriot: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. The word detractor rather leaps out at me. Yes, in this time I'm not going backward. And, I'm ready to defend this country -- most especially when our government, our oligarchy kleptocracy is being the chief detractor from democracy moving forward. Thank you again, Bill.
I’m so jealous you can take an online course. My son didn’t go to college but has spent many hours on online courses, teaches me in turn. As a public school teacher I think it’s an amazing turn to get an education as you want it. But for myself teaching is so overwhelming right now! Maybe when I retire.
Thank you for being such a conscientious teacher. I'm actually a Beta tester for new courses on Coursera so each week I get a list of courses that are ready to be reviewed. Some weeks are too busy but most weeks I choose one and enjoy yet another course on a myriad of subjects from MBA courses from a University in Australia, to history like the Age of Cathedrals, to computer science and self-driving vehicles, to healthcare. You have a week to take the course and then fill out a review form. I'm insatiably curious so this is so much fun for me. When you do retire I hope you'll enjoy many of these wonderful courses.
The people here (most, anyway) are seeking to learn and to understand how things work. They ask questions, and I respect them for that.. There have been so many interpretions (some legitimate, some simply wrong, some obfuscatory), in addition to people who deliberately misconstrue the Constitution for their own purposes. Those of us who have some sense of the various ways the Constitution and the branches of government have been used have a responsibility to help enlarge that conversation. Not constrict it by looking down our noses at people who ask questions. Thank god they do. I learn something every time.
It was just announced the Senator Lisa Murkowski is going to vote to confirm Judge Barret although she'll vote no on the procedural vote because she doesn't agree with the process. Feels like such a cop-out. Handmaid's Tale dystopia here we come!
Although Senator Schumer never says the words, it seems as if he is teeing up either the expansion of the court or a serious revamping of the system – or both - should the Democrats win the Trifecta.
The House has already introduced a bill to end life tenure on the SC. The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act was introduced on September 29th by Reps. Ro Khanna, Don Beyer and Joe Kennedy III. The bill that would end life tenure at the high court for future justices in favor of an 18-year term.
The most senior justice serving at the time of the appointment of a new justice, would be treated as retired from the SC but could serve on a lower court for as long as they wanted or temporarily fill in at SCOTUS in case of an unexpected vacancy. (https://fixthecourt.com/2020/10/thirty-legal-scholars-endorse-house-dems-scotus-term-limits-bill/).
The bill provides that Presidents will appoint two justices - one during the first year and one during the third year of their term(s) as President.
You can find the full bill here: https://khanna.house.gov/sites/khanna.house.gov/files/KHANNA_070_xml.pdf
Thank you for the link. This bill is either a conversation starter or an effort to head off real court reform. It would move to rotating justices for 18 year terms (good), but it would leave the MConnell court packing in place for a generation (very very bad).
I have never seen any substantive bill at either state or federal level proceed without significant changes. In the case of revising the Supreme Court, I would expect to see multiple bills introduced with widely varying proposals for how the Supreme Court would be selected, how long they would serve, conditions of removal, etc. This particular one may be the first, which often means that it is there to spark additional proposals, one or more of which might catch the eye of enough sponsors to make it viable. Likely that elements of several bills might be combined to make a bill acceptable to the body. In other words, don't get too caught up in the details at this point.
This gives me hope!
Thanks for the links.
You're welcome,Tom.
Mr. Dooley--
Thanks again for the draft of the Khanna, et.al., bill. Though it would certainly be challenged if it could ever get passed, it is coherent and arguably in line with some (long-)past practices. If you have interest in going further into these weeds, Jack Balkin has been advocating for similar but somewhat different legislation for some time. A recent post on this on his "Balkanization" blog is here:
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/10/dont-pack-court-regularize-appointments.html
There is also a video of Jack arguing points with Benjamin Wittes on the same subject--inevitably chatty but with some additional ideas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6teeTrEusU&feature=emb_err_woyt
Thanks - I spend a good deal of time in the weeds.
I do thank you Heather. This one is a doozie. Never have I ever understood the full value of separation of church and state until Amy Coney Barrett came along and was thrust upon us by Mitch McConnell and the disaster slinking along under the label "Republican Party."