417 Comments

I wish there were a stronger sentiment expressed in the buttons! "Like" is too tepid. This is superb. "It was all quite an elegant system of paths and tripwires, really." Just perfect. Thank you for this one tonight!

Expand full comment

One of those “trip wires” to which Prof. Cox Richardson does not mention is Congress’s authority to oversee the Executive and Judicial branches and to impeach an remove those who abuse their office of Trust granted to them by the People. When Congress fails to abide by the Constitutional power granted them, the rule of law is no more.

Republicans have now desecrated a Constitution they claim to revere Constitution. They failed twice to remove a corrupt and incorrigible president. They refused to abide by the Constitutional requirement to “advise and consent” to the appointment of a well qualified Supreme Court Justice and instead appointed justices to whom the law is to be abused for their religious piety. And they encouraged and supported the lies and attempted overthrow of our government in support of that same corrupt president.

Simply put, Benjamin Franklin and our other founding fathers foresaw the dangers of tribalism and reaffirmed their promise to a more democratic republic in the Constitution.

We too must do the same. We must do our part to assure every Republican is defeated at the ballot box this November and thereafter to the first step to Constitutional balance: Reform the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices to 13 and add term limits.

Expand full comment

Andrew, While your statement overall is mighty thoughtful, I wish to comment on your remedies. Whereas in 1869 the number of justices was set at nine—one justice assigned to one of the nine circuit courts—and whereas today there are 13 circuit courts, I agree that Senate Dems should set aside the filibuster and join the House majority to add four justices to the High Court. However, because enlisting term limits would require amending the Constitution, which would require ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures, I would set that recommendation aside.

Instead, I would point out that it is past time for the country to expand the lower courts. We merely need consider that the last time the federal circuit and district courts were meaningfully expanded was in 1990 and that the country’s population since then has increased by one-third.

Thus, I view our job as pressing our voters to prioritize judicial expansion as a crucial electoral issue.

Expand full comment

No disagreement, Barbara Jo, with the exception that if the Supreme Court is not reformed, the lower court judges will continue to issue unprecedented orders like Judge Cannon's order in DOJ v. Trump. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Rule of Law. When it goes off the rails, so too does the Rule of Law.

Expand full comment

Andrew, If you reread my comment, you will note that it calls for adding 4 justices to the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

Got it. My apologies . . . I focused on your equally valid point of expanding the lower courts. Best . . ., ASB

Expand full comment

I would add that selecting only QUALIFIED people as judges would help immensely. Judge Loose Cannon, like others from the tfg era, have been rated “not qualified”by the ABA. Given the Repubs’ disdain for “experts,” I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Expand full comment

MLMinET - "Judge Loose Cannon, like others from the tfg era, have been rated 'not qualified' by the ABA."

The American Bar Association rated Cannon qualified by a substantial majority and well qualified by a minority for the position.

https://ballotpedia.org/Aileen_Cannon

Expand full comment

I find it interesting, funny, SOMETHING that this judge who is giving Trump all he wants is one of those immigrants he hates so much. According to the resume she was born in Cali, Columbia.

Expand full comment

Wasn't it established by Nixon when his nominee Carswell was called 'mediocre' that the country is full of mediocre people who also deserve representation on SCOTUS?

Expand full comment

I thought that was Ford who made the comment that mediocre people needed to be represented.

Expand full comment

Again - Ron Boyd is correct. To MLMinET and those who loved the comment, let's at least get our facts straight. It's bad enough that the other side doesn't. ABA rated her qualified.

Expand full comment

maybe the definition of 'qualified' needs to include good judgement and perhaps some evidence of integrity and ethics? academic and/or legal qualifications don't seem to be adequate.

Expand full comment

Thanks for correcting that, Sue, before I parroted to anyone else. Very important to get our talking points and facts straight.

Expand full comment

You are correct. Sorry. I was curious as to how those appointed were actually rated. Here is is: During his four years in office, the ABA rated 264 of President Trump’s nominees; 187 were rated “well-qualified,” 67 were rated “qualified,” and 10 were rated “not qualified.”

https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration

Expand full comment

Thank you for this. Very interesting. My law professor son joined the Federalist Society when in law school. He even asked me at the time if he should. I said I trusted him to know if it was a good thing mostly because I didn’t know what it was at the time. We don’t talk politics. He has only a handful of people with whom he talks politics. So, anything I can learn on my own is helpful to my understanding what’s going on.

Expand full comment

@MLMinET, Though your point clearly is valid, because the Constitution simply reads that the President shall nominate and the Senate shall confirm, I imagine any changes, including an ABA “not qualified” rating, would entail amending the Constitution.

Expand full comment

Barbara Jo, I appreciate your well thought-out comment, and Andrew’s also. As to the expansion of the Supreme Court Justices, and the expanding (in light of population increase) the federal, and district courts, I wonder how popular that would be. Will it deliver more “Justice”? Currently, we have not so much a “Judicial System” , as simply a “System”. For us little people, once you pay your lawyer, it becomes a game of winner/loser, not finding the truth, and restoring the harmony to society. So many people are caught in this “system” and are crippled or crushed. Add to this the fact that very little white crime is effectively dealt with, and rich people get to buy their way out of practically everything. So to me, an average person, the idea of “more” Supremes only matters if they are elevated by a better method than the Federalist Society List. And that is only guaranteed if we can keep the House and Senate and Presidency in Dem hands while this gets undertaken. (Which considering the nomination shenanigans of Merrill Garland for SCOTUS, does not inspire confidence). And expanding federal, and circuit courts? Again only if the quality of “Justice” is actually for justice and not “winning”.

Expand full comment

Michele, If memory serves, until 2013 of the Obama Administration, Republicans were filibustering many of Obama’s lower court nominations. After Senate Leader Harry Reid, in 2013, eliminated the filibuster for lower court nominees, the Senate was able to confirm a decent number of judges. Regrettably, in 2014, when the Republicans retook the Senate, virtually no lower court nominees were confirmed, and, of course, we all recall, in 2016, that Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court wasn’t even granted a hearing.

Starting in 2017, Trump not only appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices; he also filled all the lower court positions left vacated after Obama left office. It is my understanding that virtually all the discussions among Democrats relative to expanding the courts are driven by a very real need to rebalance them.

Expand full comment

Attempted like

Expand full comment

Term limits always sound appealing when it is your ox that is being gored. I believe term limits are like a broad spectrum insecticide that kill the good bugs along with the bad. While we are saddled with very onerous justices presently, instituting term limits now won’t solve that. In the future, they may, though, cause a well-qualified, temperate jurist to have to retire prematurely. Let’s not cut off our noses to spite our faces!

The Supreme Court has not been packed with three appointments by a single president in one term who had a clearly stated agenda. This, we all can hope and pray, is an isolated incident that won’t happen again. An alignment of stars, an unhappy coincidence, call it what you will, but I doubt it could happen the same way again.

Term limits are an unwanted gift that keeps on giving. In any legislative body I know of, not including, of course, individual elected office holders such as governors, where term limits were instituted - voted in by referendum - legislative catastrophe followed! There was no one in office who knew how to make laws, how to run committees efficiently, who was able to reach across the aisle to make bipartisan decisions. This is not hyperbole! I’ve seen it more than once. Term limits legislations were repealed.

It comes under the heading of be careful what you wish for!

Expand full comment

We need some kind of entity/council that oversees the Supreme Court to insure each Justice is adhering to the principles of their jobs and oaths to The People and our Constitution. Partisan hacks, If they lean too far out, should be able to be reprimanded and brought back in, or impeached by a wise council. Same with all other appointments that stray too far from their posts with very clear job descriptions that should be evaluated. NO one should ever be above our rule of law. Period. Including the "un-presidented." Make no mistake, what we have right now is a coup d'etat against our Constitution and governance by a rogue party of corporate sponsored terrorists bent on authoritarian rule.

Expand full comment

In 1968 I applied for a patrolman position on the New Orleans Police Dept. I was a 24-year-old military veteran, so my application was accepted, but before going to the Police Academy, I had to pass a written test, get a physical, and pass a psychological, psychiatric and polygraph test. That was the most extensive intake testing I ever encountered. (Even getting a Top Secret clearance for NSA just did a background check).

It is a shame that the highest offices in the running of the United States allows absolute demagogues with no qualifications and with obvious psych problems to be elected by an ignorant cult following.

There should be some kind of intake process to apply for elective office otherwise the office could be filled with a dangerous, destructive, pathological narcissist with no interest outside of his own aggrandizement and accumulating wealth by any means possible. (NOTE: THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL)

Expand full comment

The brilliance of the founding fathers was that the Congress was to be a check on the power of the "dangerous, destructive, pathological narcissist with no interest outside of his own aggrandizement and accumulating wealth by any means possible."

And the Court was to be a check on the Congress and malevolent executive.

However, democracies can die when tribal factionalism corrupts all three branches of government. (See How Democracies Die by Daniel Ziblatt and Steve Levitsky)

Expand full comment

Pensa_VT, what concerns me is we cannot add oversight boards ad infinitum or where will it end? There was a time not long ago I thought highly of the neutrality and erudition of SCOTUS, but no more unfortunately.

Expand full comment

I too disagree with term limits. If term limits forced office-holders out, then the only ones with long service and deep knowledge of how things work would be lobbyists.

Expand full comment

Bob, Though in my original comment I advised against term limits because said measure would entail amending the Constitution, which would require ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures, conceptually, I support an 18-year term limit, after which justices would rotate out of the High Court, presumably, back to the Appellate Court. At the same time, every President would be granted the opportunity to appoint 2 justices in his or her first term. In my view, said system is far more equitable than Carter, for example, in his first term, issuing no appointments while Trump issued 3.

Expand full comment

The most damaging demagogue with the most power to screw our future, long planned for and executed by the machinations of power and greed. NOT an unhappy coincidence

Expand full comment

Jeri, While I throughly agree with your portrayal, limiting the number of High Court appointments any hypothetical far-right MAGA extremist could grant would be a start.

Expand full comment

The justices of the high court are not office holders. They are appointed for life. In this day and time no one should be appointed to anything for life. Lifespans were shorter in 1787.

Term limits would make the court more equitable. Justice Ginsburg, bless her heart, was a constitutional scholar who waited too long to retire. Then there is Clarence Thomas, poster child for why there should be term limits.

Hopes and prayers are obviously not enough to keep corrupt lawless men, and yes at this juncture I do mean men, from trying to seize power for themselves. The founders thought that the people in the three branches of government would be people of good character, but they did not enshrine those illusory qualifications into the Constitution. They also thought the Constitution would likely be reworked in the future. I don’t think they envisioned a Mitch McConnell who would refuse to even hold hearings on judicial nominees of President Obama.

Expand full comment

@JennSH, I presume you understood that my foregoing comment stands in support of term limits. That said, contrary to expanding the Court, that requires only a majority vote in the U.S. House and Senate, presuming the filibuster is set aside, enlisting term limits, as stated, would require amending the Constitution which would require ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Considering the modest number of state houses where Dems control both chambers, achieving term limits at this time would be virtually impossible.

Expand full comment

Also, stop the revolving door from MOC to Lobbying Firms, and Media Commentator.

Expand full comment

Another good idea that I favor.

Expand full comment

Bob, this is a valid point.

Expand full comment

Too true!

Expand full comment

Interesting subject. And just like Ben, I have changed my thinking when presented with new information. It could happen again.

I am no fan of term limits in general. I think they can remove experience and expertise where such could be essential to a better outcome. Accordingly, I would not like to see term limits in our legislatures. But we do have it in the executive branch and within some states for their governors.

I do think a ten or twelve year term limit on supreme court justices is logical. It could help to limit the partisan nightmare we are in now. And, I don't think getting that job should be a "life sentence". How many have served beyond the point where their acuity is in question? And shouldn't a justice be able to look forward to "retirement"? The decision as to when to resign is unduly burdensome - it will always be an political decision. That puts a justice in an uncomfortable position. And he or she may serve longer than is personally desired or appropriate.

That being said, it would require an amendment - which could take a very long time and could actually be nigh impossible to get through the required number of states as so many are now headed in the direction of totalitarianism.

The focus should clearly be the expansion to 13 justices. The poison must be diluted ASAP.

Expand full comment

Love the “broad spectrum insecticide” analogy. Ever since I attended a meeting with a lobbyist regarding an issue of interest to me, I have been opposed to term limits with the exception of POTUS

Expand full comment

I am not a term limit believer. I rather like institutional memory, and knowledge of how things ethically work. We need dark money out of political. And Rank-Choice Voting.

Expand full comment

Yes! Elections should be publicly funded. And donations limited to individuals and limited in size. Dark money is running a parallel shadow government.

And RCV is a must if we are to encourage voter participation and foster new political thought.

Expand full comment

Attempted like

Expand full comment

Be careful what you wish for is advice for MAGAts as well. Most have not the remotest clue, having their collective heads up Rupert’s arse for decades…

Expand full comment

"The Supreme Court has not been packed with three appointments by a single president in one term who had a clearly stated agenda. This, we all can hope and pray, is an isolated incident that won’t happen again. An alignment of stars, an unhappy coincidence, call it what you will, but I doubt it could happen the same way again."

This was no alignment of the stars. This was an unprecedented attack on the balance of power. If Mitch McConnell had not tampered with SCOTUS, that court would now be more balanced with a 5 to 4 ideological spread. Obama would have appointed one judge, Trump a second, and Biden a third. This was not an unhappy coincidence. This was a power grab.

Expand full comment

I’ve heard that argument for decades. And I no longer accept it. I think 18 years too short a term limit for a scotus judge, but 27 is not. I think 5 terms in the Senate are sufficient; just as 15 in the House are. And just as the Constitution has a minimum age for someone to be President, there needs to be a maximum age.

The world outside the Washington bubble changes quite a bit in 30 years. And our nation needs the eyes of a new generation to retain a forward perspective. Both oxes get gored. Many State have term limits, and thrive.

Expand full comment

The framers clearly did not envision the perfect storm of a “corrupt and incorrigible president”, parties only interested in the attainment of power and a judiciary blinded by their own personal beliefs. The three branches of government under such simultaneous rottenness is truly a house of cards.

Expand full comment

Heartily agree. The "elegant system of paths and tripwires" very much stood out. It also reminded me that the framers could never have anticipated that some elected representatives would if lacking the majority refuse to hammer out compromises and obstruct everything. In other words, refuse to govern. Shameful and undemocratic. And now embrace minority authoritarian rule.

Expand full comment

Susan B. Anthony letter read at a meeting at Cooper Union addressing Black disenfranchisement:

To refuse to qualified women and colored men the right of suffrage and still count them in the basis of representation is to add insult to injury as it is unreasonable. The trouble, however, is farther back and deeper than the disenfranchisement of the negro. When men deliberately refused to include women in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the National Constitution that left the way open for all forms of injustice to their and weaker men and peoples. Men who fail to be just to their mothers cannot be expected to be just to each other. The whole evil comes from the failure to apply equal justice to all mankind, men and women alike. Therefore I am glad to join those who are like sufferers with my sex in a protest against counting the basis of representation in the Congress of the United States, or in the Legislatures of the States, those of any class to sex who are disenfranchised.

Harper, Ida Husted, The Life & Work of SBA Volume III, (Ayer Company Publishers, Inc, Reprint 1988) 1286-1287.

Expand full comment

Thank you for that. I can detect some of that deep reasoning affected Judge Ginsberg.

I think putting Government analysis on a human footing of filial relationships brings home the effects of sloppy governance on human relations not ideology.

This also reminds us of the price of exclusion that left the talents and understanding of people like Susan Anthony and Frederick Douglass as commenters rather than movers.

Expand full comment

Art, this is a good point....that so many bright and talented people were left out of the building of America by making them second class citizens.

Expand full comment

And keeping, or trying to, keep them second class citizens

Expand full comment

Brilliant Comment, Art. The lens the Framers used constantly was of “Property Rights”. The flaw of that singular lens to try to affect a “more perfect Union” has played out in our history -and today- devastatingly.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Art, for your keen interpretation of Susan B. Anthony's words. Withal, I believe that she, Frederick Douglass and many others who were kept outside have contributed a great deal to this country and continue to do so.

Expand full comment

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Expand full comment

Great reference.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Fern, and goodness, what a solid, clear statement.

Expand full comment

"Men who fail to be just to their mothers cannot be expected to be just to each other."

Fern, again thank you for this. I've just read it for a second time and am struck by the primal nature of this deep-rooted rejection, not just of 'women" but of "woman"--a rejection of everything associated with the feminine. A culture that tries to define itself by only one half of its reality can't survive. I think we've been barely hanging on for quite a while, but I hear hope in this sentence you brought to our attention. Those voices, like SBA's, continue to rumble up, always reminding us that there's a foundation of whole truth that just relentlessly stays put. I don't know if we'll get there, but it's people like you and so many others here that make it at least a possibility.

Expand full comment

Dean, I felt your spirit while reading your words. We grow as human beings as we come together.

Expand full comment

Dear Fern, I have so much to say in response that there's nowhere to even begin.

I think all there is, really, is Thank You, and Yes.

Expand full comment

Thank You Fern!

Expand full comment

MaryPat, Good Sunday morning, friend 🦋

Expand full comment

Good Sunday morning to you, too Fern! 💞

Expand full comment

There you go again, Fern, knocking our socks off!

Expand full comment

Hi Hope. It is what Susan B. Anthony did and wrote that touches us.

'She collected anti-slavery petitions at the age of 17. In 1856, she became the New York state agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society.'

'In 1851, she met Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who became her lifelong friend and co-worker in social reform activities, primarily in the field of women's rights. In 1852, they founded the New York Women's State Temperance Society after Anthony was prevented from speaking at a temperance conference because she was female.'

'In 1863, they founded the Women's Loyal National League, which conducted the largest petition drive in United States history up to that time, collecting nearly 400,000 signatures in support of the abolition of slavery. In 1866, they initiated the American Equal Rights Association, which campaigned for equal rights for both women and African Americans. In 1868, they began publishing a women's rights newspaper called The Revolution. In 1869, they founded the National Woman Suffrage Association as part of a split in the women's movement. In 1890, the split was formally healed when their organization merged with the rival American Woman Suffrage Association to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association, with Anthony as its key force. In 1876, Anthony and Stanton began working with Matilda Joslyn Gage on what eventually grew into the six-volume History of Woman Suffrage.' (Wikipedia)

Susan B, Anthony fuels our principles, our work and common spirit on behalf of equality and democracy for all.

Expand full comment

Thanks Again, Fern!

Expand full comment

Awesome! Fern, do you know why the Republicans use SBA as an anti-abortion icon?

Expand full comment

'Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (formerly Susan B. Anthony List) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit[3] organization that seeks to reduce and ultimately end abortion in the U.S.[4] by supporting anti-abortion politicians, primarily women,[5] through its SBA List Candidate Fund political action committee.[6][7]'

'Founded in 1993 by sociologist and psychologist Rachel MacNair, the SBA List was a response to the success of the abortion rights group EMILY's List, which was partly responsible for bringing about the 1992 "Year of the Woman", in which a significant number of women who favored abortion rights were elected to Congress. MacNair wished to help anti-abortion women gain high public office. She recruited Marjorie Dannenfelser and Jane Abraham as the first experienced leaders of SBA List. Dannenfelser is now president of the organization and Abraham is chairwoman of the board. Named for suffragist Susan B. Anthony, SBA List identifies itself with Anthony and several 19th-century women's rights activists. SBA List argues that Anthony and other early feminists were opposed to abortion, a view that has been challenged by scholars and abortion-rights activists.'

'The portrayal of Susan B. Anthony as a passionate opponent of abortion has been subject to a modern-day dispute. The National Susan B. Anthony Museum and House said, "The List's assertions about Susan B. Anthony's position on abortion are historically inaccurate."[26]

'Anthony scholar Ann D. Gordon and Anthony biographer Lynn Sherr said that "Anthony spent no time on the politics of abortion. It was of no interest to her."[8] According to Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the SBA List, Anthony "referred to abortion as 'the horrible crime of child murder'".[27][28] Gordon and Sherr said the "child-murder" quote attributed to Anthony actually appeared in an article written anonymously by someone else and that other quotes attributed to Anthony have been misattributed or taken out of context.[29] Gordon said that Anthony "never voiced an opinion about the sanctity of fetal life ... and she never voiced an opinion about using the power of the state to require that pregnancies be brought to term".[29] The Anthony Museum and House provided evidence for the idea that the author of the "child-murder" article was a man.[30]' (Wikipedia) See link below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_Pro-Life_America

Expand full comment

Attempted like.

Expand full comment

Good one, Fern.

Expand full comment

Thank you and good morning Fern !

Expand full comment

Good morning to you, Linda.

Expand full comment

👋 👋 👋 👋 👋 👋 👋

Expand full comment

Thank you, Jeff, for your appreciation of Susan B. Anthony.

Expand full comment

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Expand full comment

Minority authoritarian rule... by bandits.

And their lawyers and bespoke judges.

Expand full comment

And thank you, Nancy, this morning, and everyone else who saw and appreciated HCR's lovely words, "It was all quite an elegant system of paths and tripwires, really." Old English teacher that I am, my hope is as lifted by the love of language as by the reminder of our more perfect union.

Expand full comment

OE and Middle English were part of my doctoral comps.

Expand full comment

How lovely. Wallowing in the music of language is not how most people spend their days

Expand full comment

Love it, even Franklin’s doubts are priceless. Oh for such a statesman in these trying days. God forbid that he had been put out to pasture at 70. There must be a better way to rid the leadership of those who overstayed their usefulness, because it is clear that some turn to gold as they grow old.

Expand full comment

👋 👋 👋

Expand full comment

Here! Here!!

Expand full comment

I read this newsletter right after watching a terrific talk by David McCullough on YouTube about 1776, the people (favored with good luck and good weather) who persisted to start our country, and the urgent need for Americans to know our history. Perfect timing, and a wonderful newsletter today. 235 years - and we're still working on making our Constitution and country better.

Expand full comment

Yes, we always have to keep up with the changing times, adapt to new concepts and carefully guard those that serve us well, just like a marriage changes as we grow older. Signing the marriage interact, or having citizenship doesn't guarantee continued success. Dialogue is necessary. The RepubliCONS have opted out, so a new partner in dialogue is needed in the stage of debate. Enter Environment.

Expand full comment

Morning Laurie. I read the Letter after getting caught up with Leigh McGowan, Politics Girl. She has had some fascinating podcasts this past month. She is starting chats with candidates who she favors getting support from all of us nationwide. I’ll post link to that conversation.

https://youtu.be/Lili4WXDO_A

Also, she had an interesting conversation about unions. I find the diversity of opinions on that topic fascinating.

https://youtu.be/Sqg7Pvmnlus

I so support your comment about making our country better.

Unita! 🗽

Expand full comment

Heather makes her usual presentation on the elegant and very aspirational foundings of our republic. Built as it was on a theory of checks and balances. We are now living through an Age of Corruption where those checks and balances are being tested to their limits. At this point, I think Merrick Garland holds the constitutional key. Both the legislative and executive branches appear enfeebled. It’s up to the attorney general to lead the damage control team and to begin to restore constitutional stability. This in an environment where the lower courts and, for God’s sake, the U.S Supreme Court itself, have been infested with ideologues. No easy task. Godspeed Mr. Garland.

Expand full comment

How does the executive branch appear enfeebled? The Justice Department is part of it, and the White House and its agencies have accomplished much on many fronts — despite significant obstacles.

Expand full comment

I should clarify. Executive branch minus the Justice Department has made some progress but is in no particular position to correct the problems that we have in widespread corruption of our institutions, including our voting rights - absent vigorous support from the legislative branch - which we won’t get for the foreseeable future. The judicial branch at highest level is moribund with regard to doing anything other than undermining the republic while ignoring stari decisis. That leaves us with Merrick Garland and the justice department. At least that’s what I was trying to communicate and had no intention of discounting the positive changes that the Biden administration made on other fronts. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

Expand full comment

Chump not only enfeebled, he made the JD his personal weapon. He made the executive branch the enemy of the people. Franklin spinning in his grave. Biden and Garland digging out from under a Everest-high pile of Schitt.

Expand full comment

I agree with Prime Minister Gladstone that the Constitution was the finest working political document ever crafted. It came when the new American government was sinking under the unworkable Articles of Confederation that required unanimity from all 13 states.

Some of the compromises required to obtain this constitution were humongous. However, the result was a government and country constructed on checks and balances between the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary.

For nearly 250 years it had served our country well, with amendments that rendered an 18th document more in concert with changes both in our country and core values of greater equality.

The purported ‘originalists,’ including a current majority on the Stench Court, violate both the spirit and the substance of this ‘living Constitution.’

In my lifetime, the greatest damage to the Constitution has occurred in recent years, especially in the past few years. The actions of ex-president Trump and his sycophants violate the Federalist Papers, which are our best insight into the inner meaning of the Constitution. The Federalist Society, which has worked relentlessly to undermine the non political nature of the Constitution envisaged by the Founders, has been a prime catalyst for our current constitutional crisis.

I wholeheartedly support Heather’s call that we restore our constitutional government. When a former president incites a Capitol Hill insurrection in an effort to prevent the constitutional election of his successor, when many in Congress violate their oath to honor the Constitution, when men seek to control a woman’s body, when the right to vote increasingly is becoming a Republican sanctioned privilege, it is time for American citizens to band together to restore a functioning constitutional government.

WE MUST ALL BE A BAND OF SISTERS AND BROTHERS IN THIS VITAL ENDEAVOR. PRESIDENT BIDEN SHARES OUR VIEWS AGAINST AMERICAN FASCISTS.

THE NOVEMBER ELECTION IS VITAL TO REDEEMING OUR CONSTITUTION.

Expand full comment

The Stench Court... like that. I have also called it the Extreme Court and the Robbers Court (rather than Roberts Court).

Expand full comment

Cathy Stench is Justice Sotomayor’s phrase. Robbers has an aura of accuracy. Perhaps we might also consider Rogue Court, since the majority certainly are rogues and their rulings, like rogue waves, have no basis in continuity, either oceanic or judicial.

Expand full comment

Thanks for reminding me. Yes, those were Justice Sotomayor's words. When you say rogue court, I think of the rogue states and the Guarantee Clause in the Constitution which states must have a republican form of government meaning by the People not a minority who have captured the legislatures. Who makes that guarantee happen when you have a Rogue Court?

We, the People, all of us this time!

Expand full comment

“when the right to vote increasingly is becoming a Republican sanctioned privilege…”

I was thinking today that with such an agenda, the Republican party is defiling its own name AND our Constitution which, as Heather refers in this letter, was drafted to assure “a more perfect union” of the citizens of our Republic. The etymology of the term comes from the Latin: literally res publica, the PUBLIC interest is the concern of the state, not the interests of a privileged ever-shrinking minority!

Expand full comment

"THE NOVEMBER ELECTION IS VITAL TO OUR REDEEMING OUR

CONSTITUTION!"

Expand full comment

So well said and TRUE, thank you Keith.

Expand full comment

Have we finally reached the point where the flaws of the Constitution, whatever Benjamin Franklin thought they might be are now being exploited by a reactionary political party and its reactionary Supreme Court? How would one repair what has been lost -- Pass the John Lewis and Voting Rights Act, increase the Supreme Court to 13 Justices, eliminate the Shadow Docket, make sure nominations for Justice are done in a non-partisan manner, go to the popular vote for the offices of President and Vice President eliminating the Electoral College, have term limits for Senators and Representatives, have a new function of the executive to assure fair maps for Congressional Districts, institute humane immigration reform, have a path to citizenship for Dreamers, reform our justice system to be truly equitable with no one above the law, make education a right not a debtor's prison, have Congress make Roe the law of the land, reform the two party system through ranked choice voting so no party can become a super majority with absolute power over a state or nation, make it clear who guarantees a true representative democratic republic and how, preserve and protect our natural resources, make sure there is liberty (as in unalienable rights determined by the People directly) and justice for all, measure our republic and its government by a Well - Being Index where all legislation must show how it improves the well-being of ALL citizens. We, the People, all of us this time for a more perfect union.

Expand full comment

And don't forget getting rid of "Citizens United" (how do they come up with these names??)

Expand full comment

Frank Luntz, made Schitt smell like roses

Expand full comment

I almost put that first but thought the passage of the Voting Rights and John Lewis Acts overturns Citizens United by making better campaign finance laws.

Expand full comment

...from misreading 1984 as an instruction book on naming.

Expand full comment

Bingo! What I was looking for, Hugh❣️

Expand full comment

Yes to everything except Term Limits for elected representatives (yes to term limits for the Supreme Court and such), the second-dumbest political idea ever stated (would you like it if Pelosi had only had three terms? She'd have been gone by 1992) after the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Expand full comment

Everything has its balance point. It actually is an idea that is something that most voters of all parties tend to agree on so becomes a good talking point to start a political conversation with a bit of common ground. I have a button that says "Re-elect No One". It is time to pass the baton to the younger generations who are not being well represented in the Congress. And, if the obstructionist games continue than I say if members of Congress can't play well with others than they do not belong in the Congress or if they only vote with their donors rather than their constituents than they are not being true representatives of the people. Basically, I'm rather excited to see what Gen Z and Millennials would do to create a more perfect union. They certainly won't be stuck in the mud and clueless like a lot of the current members of Congress -- not all but too many of them. As I like to say, someone like Speaker Pelosi can't be replaced but she can have successors. We, the People, all of us this time including all generations.

Expand full comment

depends on how many of them were taught any real American history and civics

Expand full comment

Do you believe there was not one elected official other than Nancy Pelosi who would have been able to do the Speakers job. Had she died in 1990 would we not have gone on?

Expand full comment

Much work to be accomplished but we must first defeat the trumpian party and its dangerous trump wannabes like DeSantis.

Expand full comment

Defeating Trumpster's and wannabees this November is THE top priority to move forward with these needed reforms.

Expand full comment

All Republicans. Only then will the message be sent—and heard

Expand full comment

Say it, Cathy! Say it LOUD!

Expand full comment

As wise, Cathy, as Oh, Benjamin Franklin!

Expand full comment

Cathy I applaud your fulsome wish list of what is necessary to ‘rebalance’ our political system. In theory, it would be possible to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices (historically this has fluctuated between 5 and 10). However FDR, with a robust congressional majority, had his court-packing initiative soundly defeated after his overwhelming re-election in 1936.

As for eliminating the Electoral College and have popular vote elections of the president and Vice President, this would require a constitutional amendment to which many of the smaller states would never agree. At best, we must work along the edges on such matters as voting rights.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Cathy! Says it all and needs to be repeated.

Expand full comment

...and reform the prison systems....

Expand full comment

Make sure you don't let the openly-fascist rowdies hear you say this, Cathy... you will find they don't go easy on ideas for good governance.

Expand full comment

A lift Up again with this letter!

Keep Hope Alive ! This is what our graduate school of social work lead Professor declared, and often invited our whole class to say in unison and with “vigor” or “commitment” to our vision for our beleaguered clients and their families.

I’m tired but hopeful tonite. I’m praying everyone votes…and I’m urging everyone to TALK w friends & neighbors & coworkers, etc to ENCOURAGE them to vote. Let’s DO this …

Expand full comment

And, may I add, “We CAN do this!”

Expand full comment

We the people...may it never be destroyed from those within the republic who seek power and wealth. 🙏🙏🙏. Thx, Professor! Your elegant crafting of our history never ceases to inspire.

Expand full comment

Thank you for so perfectly summarizing what our "perfectly imperfect" Founding Fathers created. Their attempt to prevent a tyrant from ever ruling America was well thought out, especially since it allowed for Amendments (demonstrating their belief in "life-long learning and improvement"). But I doubt they could have ever imagines a well-financed element within America would wage a many decades long effort (starting with Barry Goldwater's loss) to take control of America without caring who won the popular vote.

Expand full comment

The one mistake they made was to assume only good and honest men (and women now) would participate in government.

And as we have learned every day since June 15, 2015, "assume" really does make an "ass' of "u" and "me."

Expand full comment

Yes, TC, and when politicians who are neither good nor honest manage to take power by appealing to many Americans' baser instincts -- the only visible talent of the MAGA GOP -- our Constitution's weaknesses are revealed. Nevertheless, we have one last chance to shore up our Constitution and save our nation from Hungarian style autocracy -- or worse -- on November 8th. There has never been a more important election in my lifetime.

Expand full comment

We do need something to corral outright lies and bully propaganda that are wholly untrue and dangerous to mind control of persons based on data-mining and corruption. Freedom of Speech must come with responsibility for the Good of the Whole.

Expand full comment

The Founders May never have anticipated some citizens would willingly lap up utter stupidity and misinformation.

Expand full comment

So true!

Expand full comment

...oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way across the floor...

Watch "My Fair Lady "You Did It" Music Video" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/QS0pNPw958M

Expand full comment

I agree that unchallenged assumptions tend to derail wisdom. That said, I think there was a fair measure of awareness of the seductions and abuses of power that would threaten their utopian (from their point of view anyway) handiwork. The the elaborate system of paths and tripwires, and prohibitions against such things as insurrection and bribery, as well as other unspecified crimes of sufficient magnitude, is evidence of that awareness What I doubt they had enough time and experience for spotting all the security flaws in their system (just as are found in elaborate computer code) that could be exhaustively searched for by unscrupulous lawyers and politicians, to turn the law against the disciplines and missions the framers had laid out, in addition to the weight and extended interactive implications of the abiding legacy from conquest and slavery.

Expand full comment

Was it note designed, originally, to replicate the caste system to keep white-privileged males in power and all others under their knee? Thus, I would imagine is the loophole for current 'originalists??" Just asking for a friend...

Expand full comment

The founding reeks of caste system, especially with respect to the empowerment of women and racial minorities, and the influence of plutocrats is always excessive, but the Constitution embodied generally egalitarian principles, which when used as directed have overall served the cause of social justice. The document calls on the better angels of our nature, but is powerless if we collectively close our ears, or paper it over with lies.

Expand full comment

They knew men were neither good and honest. They feared monarchs and masses. They thought they had inserted sufficient filters or that the not good/honest men would constitute half of Congress and many on SCOTUS. They anticipated Trump—not McConnell and McCarthy united

Expand full comment

"They anticipated Trump—not McConnell and McCarthy united"

Rule as organized crime.

Expand full comment

And probably underestimated the power of vast sums of money to influence media and policy, nor supposed, when crafting the Bill of Rights, that future courts would conflate de facto bribery with "free speech".

Expand full comment

I think the main mistake was to leave out a system for continually updating the relevance of our laws to the evolution of the society... perhaps every 10 years... a fourth arm of government whose job was to survey the near-future, estimate the problems, and propose innovations to a national referendum.

Unfortunately, at this point, a Constitutional Convention would be hijacked by the states that the openly-fascist brigade has taken control of, and their agenda for a corporatocracy.

Expand full comment

oh yes... this makes so much sense, Jeff. they did not claim or intend that it was cast in bronze... never to be evolved, changed or updated as needed. they did their best and gave us a great version to work with and evolve.

Expand full comment

TC..."assume" really does make an "ass' of "u" and "me." LOVE this. Thank you for making my day.

Expand full comment

Ever so true

Expand full comment

Just a heads up, in case you didn't know already about Victor Orban's organized system of corruption, just what Tucker and the Murdoch's envision as "good government"--

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — After his headline performance at Hungary’s Sziget Festival last month, pop star Justin Bieber held a grandiose party for his staff in a luxurious countryside setting — a 19th century castle owned by the son-in-law of the country’s prime minister.

The castle, to the critics of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, is emblematic of the corruption, nepotism and largesse of which the populist leader and his government have been accused for years — the kinds of behavior which now threaten to cost Hungary billions in European Union funding.

Standing beside the iron gates of Schossberger Castle this week, an independent Hungarian lawmaker who has made a name for himself as an anti-corruption crusader snapped pictures of the structure and its expansive manicured grounds.

A former member of Orban’s ruling Fidesz party, Akos Hadhazy left the nationalist-populist party in 2013 after becoming aware of what he describes as a clientelistic system of unchecked corruption taking shape in the Central European nation.

“When Fidesz came to power, I saw more and more that a very serious organization was beginning to develop throughout the country, whose main task was to steal as much of the European Union’s money as possible,” Hadhazy told The Associated Press.

Expand full comment

Can Hungary keep Bieber?

Expand full comment

I like that idea, TC!

Expand full comment

Thank you for this letter which provides an excellent analysis of how our Constitution came to be. I do hope that we vote for those who honor their oaths.

Expand full comment

About a month ago I went to a baseball game. I love baseball and I hadn’t seen a live game in several years.

I am a Boomer. As many Boomers did in the 60s, I protested the war in Viet Nam and saw my patriotism waver as I confronted my feelings about what my government was doing in my name. I have had pride in my country and shame in acts my government and individuals who purported to speak on behalf of the people of my country have committed. Over the years, just as Benjamin Franklin (of whom I have always had a great affinity for, he and I both hailing from Philadelphia) had recognized the wisdom in changing his mind with more and better information, not to mention with the benefit of years, I, too have done the same. Embarrassed by my bad attitudes toward men and women in the armed forces, I have tried to support, as best as I can, veteran’s associations to help those who have given their best to our country and ended up the less for their service. I’ve tried in many other ways to “keep my faith” with my country, by exercising my franchise at every opportunity, by participating in local and regional governmental activities that help improve our local and state citizens and environment specifically and in general.

So, last month, as happens at the beginning of all baseball games, we all were asked to stand, salute the flags and sing our national Anthem. Since I was a child I have always thought America the Beautiful was a much more appropriate song than The Star Spangled Banner. But, when I sang, “Oh, say, does that Star Spangled Banner still wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” I got choked up and cried a bit - just as I am while writing this now.

I am a Democrat. I am proud to say I am a progressive who loves my country and my progressive values are because I want the best for my fellow countrymen. I welcome immigrants to our country because they are the lifeblood - the transfusion of fresh blood - in the veins of our country’s vital system that keeps the heart and soul of our marvelous American Experiment moving forward!

I get tired and discouraged by the assault on our Constitution by authoritarian anti-constitutionalists who believe theirs is the only way because they get to make the rules, and what the rest of us want be damned, until I am reminded about the many long and fraught attempts to finally write and sign the original Constitution which was meant to be amended because the Framers knew they had not thought of everything and that circumstances would change and so the Constitution must change, too.

Heather Cox Richardson, our fearless mentor who says what needs to be said, who reminds ME that there have been days darker than today is such an important voice added to our national discourse. She is the beacon, that shining light that directs us to the path we need to follow if we are going to keep our “Land of the free and home of the brave” just that!

Expand full comment

I happen to agree that”America the Beautiful” is a far better National Anthem. Whenever I play it (which is frequently) I sing the words of the third verse that I have: “O beautiful for Patriot dreams that sees beyond the years; thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears. America America, God mend thine every flaw; confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law”. (SSB turns on the waterworks too, depending on the venue...)

Expand full comment

Oh my! I couldn’t recite the third verse of America the Beautiful verbatim the way you did. But reading the words just now has made my cry. “O beautiful for Patriot dreams that sees beyond the years” is such a magnificent idea! I agree! That is a reason, the reason, America the Beautiful should be our National Anthem. As I said before, I’ve thought so since I was a child. Thank you for the third verse.

Expand full comment

My favorite: confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

Expand full comment

Totally agree that "America the Beautiful" should be our national anthem. Instead of visions of battle, it expresses the beauty and grandeur and vision of freedom that our founders foresaw. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Please run for office. I will vote for you.

Expand full comment

Thank you thank you. So elegant, and so encouraging. I pray we are worthy of this history.

Expand full comment

“Congress would …provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Thought no Originalist, ever.

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.” Said no Originalist, ever.

“I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility—and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.” Did no Originalist, ever.

Expand full comment

Nicely put, John. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Well said, sir.

Expand full comment

In school (many years ago for me) they made the founding of this nation sound so simple but as I keep finding out, everything is complicated.

Also, the description of the way the country was going, under the Articles of Confederation, sounds like what some people currently wish for. I don't think they have considered the results of rolling back the federal government, kind of like what happened with Brexit.

Expand full comment

👍🏼

Excellent comparisons.

Expand full comment

My Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather, on my mother's side, Daniel Carroll, was a minor Founding Father who was, also, at Constitutional Convention and Second Continental Congress and signed the Articles and the Constitution as a delegate from Maryland.

I wrote minor because I really can't find much written about him. Madison mentions he was there and cites nothings that he said or did. His cousin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, is much more noted. He was in the First Congress, he owned most of the land the became Washington, D.C. The Capitol is built on the site of his mansion. He was a friend of George Washington, but didn't sign the Declaration because he was out of town raising money for his army.

He was one of the three Commissioner of the Federal City in charge of designing Washington, D.C. but died before much of the city was built.

Expand full comment

So interesting! Thanks for sharing.

Expand full comment

I enjoy how sometimes the Letter of the day sparks people to share related experiences or family history. Thanks for the fascinating family history you shared, Jim! I'll echo Lynell's 'very cool'! 😊

Expand full comment

Thanks, Jim. This is so cool!

Expand full comment