The big story today is big indeed: how and when the seat on the Supreme Court, now open because of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, will be filled.
One final note from me, while I'm on a roll: It is all right for the Mango Moron to announce publicly that his choice for SCOTUS would be a woman, but was it really necessary for him to add the crass comment "I've always preferred women to men"? Especially when he has been accused of so many sexual harrassment and prostitution activities. Is there no depth which he cannot plumb?
How people can respect a man like this is totally bewildering to me.
Agreed. Thanks for mentioning that. It’s disgusting. It’s a way of reducing her to her gender in a demeaning way, and trying to remind us or himself that when it comes to women, he does the choosing. Meanwhile he is being sued for defamation right now by E. Jean Carroll for saying he didn’t rape her because he never met her and she’s “not his type” (didn’t choose her.) So he was court-ordered to produce his DNA last month to see whether he was lying or not, which incidentally would have proved him innocent of rape if the DNA didn’t match. Yet he is so desperate not to produce his DNA that he got his corrupt attorney general to get the DOJ to attempt to intervene to defend him in this civil defamation case. THAT is the man who offers his opinion about his preference for women in the context of a Supreme Court nomination. Disgraceful.
I don't know if any of you caught Barr's address at Hillsdale College last week. If you didn't, you might want at least to check the transcript: (https://www.lawfareblog.com/transcript-attorney-generals-remarks-delivered-and-qa-hillsdale-college). In his speech, he not only tossed aside the Bill of Rights quite casually, but he began to lay the groundwork for: a) trying protesting Americans for sedition; b) denying federal prosecutors any freedom in what they prosecute; and c) giving Donald Trump blanket immunity for any and all criminal acts he has or will commit as POTUS. It's a pretty revealing (and revolting) speech to have heard not too many hours before I heard about the great RBG's death.
Oh of course, the corrupt attorney general who shall remain nameless. Jk, but he, like the alleged rapist, is so utterly repulsive to me I can hardly look at him or listen to him at this point. My revulsion for those men really goes deep.
And did you see his gesture when he said it. Even Michael Cohen during his interview on Politics Nation on Sunday noticed it. He used both hands to “shape” a woman’s figure when he made his announcement. Go back and google it if you can.
He often plays the accordion while speaking, squeezing his hands back and forth. The harder he lies, the faster he squeezes the accordion, so it could be that...or it could be just as disgusting as you suggest. Most likely, it's both.
He’s as deplorable as any being can be, however he’s also trying to become a dictator and need votes from all the women he’s lost. His base will eat it up.
Nobody respects him, though. He is merely an ignorant tool to advance an agenda. His ego makes him think he is running the show, but he has been a puppet all along.
Hi niece, Mary Trump, certainly paints him that way. I am not quoting verbatim, but I've heard her say several times in interviews that Donald was groomed to be the tool of smarter and more powerful men.
Unfortunately many people, even or especially women, think this type of talk is cute or funny. I remember being a young girl and my mother, who had gone to college for two years and owned her own business, told me to let the boys win, to just laugh them off when they offended me. Most women have not grown past that or fear that if they do, all hell will break loose and they will lose their standing with them god forbid. Perhaps this is why I still live alone.🤷♀️
It’s still true that some men just can’t can’t stand to have a woman win at anything, even the most trivial games. A great way to weed them out is to keep winning.
Yep! The way many of us have learned to bend and sway just to not offend powerful male authority figures (or even weak jerk-off assholes - oh, wait, they are often the same person) is tragic. Sometimes, it's even difficult to know how to take the "right tone" with men who are mostly aware and who actually prefer strong women - as long as they aren't being told what to do by one.
Corona Don, our Comrade 45, has always been utterly disgusting on every possible level. That statement is disgusting on several levels: (1) he's a sexual predator (2) he's utterly and completely bigoted and this falls into the category of "some of my best friends are __fill-in-the-blank__, so I couldn't possibly be bigoted (3) given his comments about his own daughter and the "quality time" he spent with Jeffrey Epstein, he may very well have serious issues with failing to say on the right side of the age of consent when it comes to predating on girls / women.
A thought keeps nagging at me as we approach the election and the real possibility that Democrats could take back control of the government, and this feeling is only intensified by the passing of Justice Ginsburg and the rush to replace her: They broke our government now we’ll break it better.
What Trump’s presidency has shown us is just how broken the system is – it has exposed the flaws, the shortcomings, the laziness and complacency of Congress, and the inability of government to respond to a genuine crisis in a manner designed to benefit the nation as a whole. It has also brought into sharp relief, the toxic nature of our politics and how tribal partisanship trumps all else.
What concerns me is that when we Democrats regain control, we will further divide the nation and enhance the growing sense of illegitimacy, by exacting revenge, passing legislation, issuing executive orders, and legislative quick-fixes in the short term that will have unexpected and disastrous implications. In 2013, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s use of the “Nuclear Option” to eliminate the 60-vote rule for judicial nominations, is an example – one that has come back with an awful bite.
In a perfect world, we would take the opportunity that majority affords us to recognize the failings of the system (reining in the unchecked Executive power embedded in legislation that should have been monitored, allowed to expire or never granted in the first place; reforming campaign financing by instituting public financing to remove the influence of dark money; repairing or replacing the electoral college system; strengthening the Inspector General position to prevent the mass firings we have witnessed in this administration; seriously considering term limits for Congress and the list goes on. These are all areas that demand review and reform - reforms inure to the benefit of the people generally and not simply the party in power.
Packing the Supreme Court is not such a move. Changing the number of Justices to reflect the politics of the party currently in power brings us closer to constitutional anarchy, similar to that of unchecked Executive authority.
Presidents have the right to expect their nominees to be considered by the Senate – President Obama was not afforded that right. There is no “rule” on whether nominees put forward in the waning months of an election year will or must receive consideration. It has much to do with which party is in power at the time, but tradition (if that matters) holds that nominations made near the end of a President’s term are not considered.
In the present case, tradition (but not any rule) would be for the Senate to postpone consideration, but that is not likely to happen. Once Democrats regain control of the Senate, it would be wise to clarify a time specific after which that body will not consider nominations: Such a “rule” is long overdue.
The re-establishment and codification of norms, the vulnerability of which were exposed during this Administration, could be a move toward reconciliation, healing even. IMO, governing through Executive Orders or legislative fiat would have the opposite effect.
I think we need to clarify what revenge is. There is a difference between consequences and revenge and it has everything to do with intent. Progressives are the party of “change”. We can make changes not born of revenge but of what is best to achieve our country’s goals of equal justice and human rights. This false equivalency is part of the sickness of our country. Because Trump is a psychopath and everything he does is for revenge, doesn’t mean equal and opposite reactions are done in the same spirit.
I couldn't agree more and as I have said before here on these pages, consequences are in order - I used the word revenge advisedly and I hope (and frankly, expect) we will avoid even the appearance of it.
Many people, especially Trumpsters, internalize others action. We will not progress when we worry about how others will internalize our actions (seeing revenge when it doesn’t exist). We must focus on deep reflection into our own motivations. No need for bullying just a calm confidence in knowing that you have done the soul searching in concert with others seeking truth to move humanity further towards grace.
All of this and more....but first win the election by a very wide margin of on-site votes as well as after counting the mail-in votes and defeated all the insurrection rubbish and the stupid legal challenges paid for by Koch's GOP stooges....otherwise the goose is cooked!
Then as you say considerable changes have to be made to the way the people are represented and decisions are made. If we merely change the number of judges to suit the current circumstances then we are no better than Trump/McConnell and will encourage them to name even more should they ever again have the chance.
A larger SCOTUS is doubtless sensible but it must be part of a package which sweeps away voting restrictions imposed to bias results to either the GOP or the Dems in the States they respectively controll after the gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It must also change our constitutional priorites from "the protection of property" to the defense of, and service to, the people as a whole.
The implications of this are legion and must start by changing the relative powers of the Congress and the Senate. If you maintain the current 2 Senators for each State arrangement then their power must be significantly reduced in favour of the Congress which is more representative of the people. Never again should a President be able to conspire with the Senate in the sole interest of these "Protectors of Property" nor should these same "Protectors of Property" be allowed to totally block the actions of a popularly elected Congress and President or impose their wishes unilaterally on the Justice system. The second chambers of most Western democracies have consultative functions and powers to delay changes....but not to stop them completely. Only Italy suffers from the aberration of having 2 equally powerfull chambers with, in consequence, constant political impass. Thereafter special rules are necessary for constitutional change which protects the constitutional change process from passing passions of the moment and the often impractical and ambiguous "political correctness" but allows it to "Flex" with the changes in society.
The package must also contain a new electoral process for electing the President. The indirect process which does not necessarily reflect the popular vote must go and be replaced by a direct vote of every citizen for or against those who are candidates for the job. Conditions other than just being born in the US might be added to ensure that we no longer get candidates who are known to be corrupt, illiterat, or psychologically "challenged" on the list. How you do this might be complicated...but we can't afford another Trump.
The election of members of Congress must also be addressed or at least the equalization of districts by population and the removal of limits on their number. We may have to build a physical extension to the "House" but at least everybody would be able to feel "represented. It's powers need to be properly delimited and it's oversight and, ultimately, controll of Executive action codified. Executive powers of the President too must of course be clearly marked out as a result and... any exceptions structured.... in relation to this clarification of each's role, rights, responsibilities and obligations.
But first the people have to impose their choices and be there on November 3rd both to vote and to defend the vote once it has been made. They have to be there to protect the postal system too from now till then and the counting process thereafter. Think of the actions of the the groups of women defending protesters in Portland against Trump's DHS Brown Shirts and ways can be found to confound the moneyed fascists and their baboons whether it be Florida, Minnesota or elsewhere! Only thus will we be sure that we can go on making choices and imposing them on those elected to serve us in the future
Yes - first we have to win this most important election!
There is, as you say, much work to be done, but I think it is crucial that we restore trust and accountability because without that, all our aspirations are for naught.
Too true ....but what better way than to make sure the people are truly and equally represented, constantly, clearly and completely informed and regularly and frequently consulted
I agree with you, but know that I will not see "equal representation" in my lifetime. It has taken years to get here, so it will take years to move the needle towards equality.
Precisely the greatest problem of all Western Democracies...getting the machine to move in a timely fashion. Currently the pace dictated by all the cumbersome, ultra-complex adiministrative processes gives real controll to the unelected and not the representatives of the people.
Stuart, excellent points — though when you say “Congress” I think you mean the House of Representatives, which is the lower legislative body of Congress; the Senate being the upper one.
I was scratching my head early this morning trying to remember the right title...and of course i didn't look any further. You are quite right..Congress = House of Reps...and indeed this was the full sense of what i'm suggesting as a future constitutional arrangement...the Senate becomes a very much the junior partner
I really appreciate your comments. To seek revenge would place us as no better defenders of democracy than those who currently are placing politics over real governing. There is so much good that can be done with a “fresh start” and a healing attitude! Perhaps the only good to come out of this present administration is that it has made so clear the many cracks in our democratic system of governing-cracks that self-serving politicians can use to profit themselves rather than the lives of the people they serve, or the betterment of the country they promised to serve. Light comes through such cracks; we need courage to fix and not further break the democracy we all hold dear.
TREATING THIS AS A "LEARNING EXPERIENCE" IS TANTAMOUNT TO SURRENDER. And those most affected, the jobless, the Covid19 afflicted, those Americans for whom the Civil War never provided equality, the family trying to pay the rent or the mortgage payment and put food on the table, those in need of affordable health care and those trying to see that their kids get an education, those whose savings have been exhausted .... will not be willing to surrender. Whatever happened to the "City on a Hill"?
In a perfect world, you would have outlined all your positive proposals first and then added the cautions about the "bad" ones. Instead, you stated that we would rise to do the bad ones without thinking first. Overall, I choose to read your good ideas first. Thank you. I agree. And those other possible actions? I also agree that we should avoid them.
I'm still learning how to keep communication open with people who doubt my viewpoint or where I'm coming from. Glad you took my input in the vein it was intended.
If they do this, and the way Trump is quoted about Medieval Catholic Theocrat Judge Amy Coney Barrett - "I'm saving her for when I get to replace Ginsburg" - shows that he sees this as a "thumb in the eye" of the majority of this country. So if they do this, GAME ON.
It won't be "court packing," which is what the Republicans have done at every opportunity for the past 40 years. It will be "judicial expansion." There are any number of studies that have shown, just on the basis of population growth since the last time the number of federal judges and courts was expanded, that the federal bench should be double its present size. So anything up to 100% expansion can be justified on the principle "justice delayed is justice denied." And a 15 or 17 member Supreme Court gives us the chance to have a court that actually "represents America as a whole," rather than the conservative Catholics of America.
And two can play "thumb in the eye." We just have to get the left morons who think it doesn't matter who's in office to understand that the system that lets them be the left idiots out shouting on street corners rather than hanging on prison walls in chains, is in the hands of those elected who nominate and approve the judges.
Here's another way to play "thumb in the eye:" Nowhere does it say that judicial appointments must be for life. I'd suggest a limited term on any particular federal bench with forced rotation as terms expire and forced retirement at 65 - if we can't trust an airplane pilot to fly after 65, how in the world can we trust a judge to make a relevant decision after 65?
I'm not sure that 65 is the magic number but I wholeheartedly agree with term limits on any particular federal bench. Age limiting may not be the way to go because of the discrimination issues attached to it. But a set term length of 12 or 15 years? Or set the limit based on length of term or age met, whichever comes first.
And honestly, if we were to set mandatory age limits for federal judiciary, the same should apply for the House, Senate, Cabinet level appointees and president.
I'm very committed to the idea of term limits. There are too many in Congress, both chambers, who have become entrenched and are impeding forward momentum
I agree that judicial appointments should not be for life. I'm also strongly in support of term limits for members of the House and Senate. Senators and Representatives are guaranteed their salary for life - why? Because they voted themselves this benefit. Serving in the House or Senate should be service, not getting rich at taxpayer's expense. The founding fathers talked about a citizen legislature and would be rolling over in their graves if they knew how our current Senators and Representatives use their office to serve indefinitely (incumbent advantage) and to continue to enrich themselves after they leave office. They should also participate in Social Security like the average American rather than the cushy retirement plan they have voted in for themselves.
You're right. I did not check my source. They earn a pension based on years of service and their age when they retire. It is very generous, but not fully salary. I'm not worried about lack of experience. The system of committees would have to be set up so that only a certain number of people are replaced at every election. It the limit was 12 years (2 terms for a Senator and 6 for a Representative, then that's certainly enough time for people to gain experience and provide continuity.
Who do you think is currently running the show? It's lobbyists and big business influencers. I'd rather see restrictions on who can lobby and how long after leaving office than can begin to lobby than have a raft of entitled frauds seated in the House and Senate for years on end.
Even if a hypothetical President Biden really did double the size of the Court for truly wholesome "justice delayed is justice denied" reasons, the timing and political circumstances of late mean that it would never appear to be that wholesome. Not to neutral observers, and absolutely not to the ~45% of the nation that identifies as conservative or Republican. Lesser actions than this could probably flip this from a cold to a hot civil war, so I can't imagine the fury this would unleash.
If the court is not expanded, it will throw out every progressive change. It has to be done, as part of expanding voting rights and health care. Rural Republican voters deserve to have their votes count as much as anyone’s - but not 5 times as much as city voters. The oligarchs deserve one vote per voter, not one vote per dollar.
I agree with your goals, but I question the method. It's hard for me to see this not ending in bloodshed if it's done this way. Most liberals I know are not well enough trained in combat to defend themselves, let alone the Progressive Cause, if it comes down to that.
if Biden wins there will be bloodshed regardless. Here in rural Michigan, local county "militias" are forming (as tRump has incited them to do), some with sheriff support. Biden knows this, and undoubtedly is already working closely with Governors and the 5 military Chiefs of Staff to create a cohesive response plan. That threat cannot deter good legislators from doing what must be done to save our democracy. Stay Safe Everyone. And, again, just because I am paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get me.
Sometimes paranoia is a life-saving mechanism, as is the case with how especially the most medically vulnerable among us but really all who know its dangers protect ourselves from COVID-19.
Indeed, I am from a family of veterans. But to truly defend the freedom and peace, one must actually win the battles one fights. I wish I had more confidence in my liberal peers' ability to do that en masse, but I just can't see the "Moms Demand Action" type groups picking up the weapons our ancestors knew how to use, and learning to use them again. (Some maybe, far from all.) In short, getting mowed down by conservative militias and 2A fanboys defends no freedom, no honor.
I’m still curious about what would prevent this Administration from enlarging the Court and pacing it, as well. Why do we only talk about the prospect of a Democratic expansion — can’t McConnell and Trump sponsor such a move right now?
Right — but if the Republican aim is to control the temper of the Supreme Court, a pre-emotive expansion of its bench would lengthen and deepen even further their control. Thinking of the very long term, and considering how cynical and power-focused McConnell and Barr are, it wouldn’t surprise me to see them push for an expansion now.
On another note, Secretary of State Mike Pompous has warned all the major allies who have said they would ignore America's illegal actions of reinstating sanctions on Iran would be facing "serious consequences". So...now Trump and Friends are about to censure our allies Germany, France, and the UK in order to pursue their nefarious plots. Look at the status of the US in the opinion of the world. It just gets worse and worse.
Thank you for the summation. I find this "in plain site" power grab from the Republicans to be the most egregious yet, in that it would evoke taking away women's reproductive rights with overturning Rowe v Wade and the availablity for insurance via ACA for the most vulnerable in one fell swoop. Though I am beyond my childbearing years, I care deeply about this issue. I am, however not immune from what the defeat of the ACA means. I have cancer and without the ability to have insurance will literally be my demise. No, I am not just thinking of myself, I am thinking of all of the people I sit with in the waiting room at the Oncologist every 3 months. Do you know what I find most disgusting about this insidious power play? It would happen on Justice Ginsburgs' dime.
And college students and others under age 26 will no longer be able to stay on their parent’s health plan. With so many young folks unemployed that, too, is a big deal. Hopefully this will motivate young voters to turn out.
The political power play to rush with a replacement for Justice Ginsberg is an outrageous sign of disrespect. Even in their glee to appoint a replacement who is RBG's polar opposite, the Republicans could show some humanity and humility! They don't seem to respect her memory but she touched MANY and this is becoming quite apparent with the accolades and public displays of grief! If the Republicans had any class, they would honor a period of mourning before proceeding with accomplishing a 'win' for President Trump.
Unfortunately that's a matter of opinion. That opinion has replaced fact is another creation of the social media era Is a reality that we most certainly change if we are to regenerate trust in our government and indeed the society it serves.
I'm not judging at all, not even playing devil's advocate. Unfortunately their own opinion is the one and only one that they deem to consider. As someone quoted the little Bush "we are creating our own world" ...facts and others' opinions are irrelevant. I totally share your concer for Roe v Wade and indeed Affordable Care and much else that has been achieved since the Civil War! There is indeed a considerable cause for concern.
While I don't think he actually cares about the process, I believe he is very attached to the bragging rights of having named so many people to the Supreme Court.
He hasn't as yet named a Chief Justice...so i think Eisenhower and even Reagan beat him...but these are just facts and he doesn't care a sh.. As was rightly said by Marci
I stand by what I say and it is backed up by the recordings of comments Trump made to Woodward. Obviously, Trump hasn't broken the record yet but he is salivating at the possibility! See
HCR summed up this whole nasty business right here:
"All but two of the many Republicans senators who insisted in 2016 that the Senate absolutely should not confirm a nominee in an election year have suddenly changed their minds and say they will proceed with Trump’s nomination.
"This abrupt about-face reveals a naked power grab to cement minority rule."
This all 100% about power. Nothing else. EVERY thing Republicans do now is to gain and hold on to power. They have been licking their chops and drooling about the prospect of having control of the SCOTUS for an entire generation or more. It has been their ultimate "wet dream". Packing the lower courts is one thing, but now the REALLY big prize, the highest court in the land, is a goal well within their reach. OF COURSE they didn't wait for Ginsburg's body to get cold. They're positively giddy at the chance to have a solid 6-3 majority, so anything that smacks of propriety is thrown out the window. Not even an ounce of respect for someone who has just died. This is about politics now, power, so to hell with what is proper. We are seeing just how totally bereft of any ethics or morals the Republican party has become and it is sad. In these toxic, bitterly partisan, power-mad times, one could say that Democrats might have done something similar were they in such a position. I'm not inclined to think so, but who knows? Power does weird things to people, including forgetting propriety.
R Dooley below/above (wherever it is) does make some very astute points about "exacting revenge" that I totally agree with. We have to be careful here. Two wrongs never have and never will make a right. We MUST ask ourselves, IMO, "HOW did we get to this point?" "What are the 'kinks' in our system that need to be addressed?" HCR asked as much in her question from yesterday. How can we possibly ensure we don't come to this again? Is it even fixable? I really don't know. I think there are imperfections in our system that have become apparent now that the founders could have never envisioned. If, BIG IF, we are put back into power, maybe rather than engaging in short-sighted retributions it might be wiser to set about trying to reform things? We need to try to consolidate our aims, which in itself may be next to impossible, and try to offer the American people a clear vision of trying to put his country back together again.
But, first and foremost, we need to vote. Vote in numbers never seen before in the history of this republic. My belief is that we have gotten to the mess we're in primarily because people won't get off their asses and VOTE. (Young people, I'm talking to you!) We are seeing what happens when a population doesn't vote. It WILL come back and bite you eventually. Your rights WILL be taken away. Maybe people are realising that now. If you want change to happen, you HAVE to vote.
Okay...I'm off to withdraw and try to find some solace, quite simply, because I find all this a bit overwhelming. Peace, y'all...
A good reminder that in our nightmare of politics here, all bad things start with Reagan. The stench and slime of a small group of greedy white men is the only thing that has ever trickled down from Reagan's economy.
But the most terrifying immediate impact of this assault on the Supreme Court is the potential loss of the ACA. I see others have commented already, but I thought I would add a list of some of the critical things the ACA does for us, which I use to try and educate people. This is by no means a complete list. The ACA is an enormous law, covers myriad health care issues and as our inglorious "leader" said a few years ago, "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated". My list does not focus on the health insurance exchange, which currently covers 8.3 million people, but how it impacts the coverage we all get from our health insurance plans. Educating people about what the ACA really does is very important to me.
The ACA provides these benefits and rights to all Americans who have health insurance and these benefits were NOT available to all Americans prior to the ACA.
1. Requires health insurers to cover people with pre-existing health conditions, and cover them without charging more.
2. Requires health insurers to provide free preventative care for everyone.
3. Allows most children to stay on their parent's job-based plan until the age of 26.
4. The ACA ended lifetime and annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits. Health insurers cannot drop you because you have become too expensive.
5. Health insurers must go through a review process before raising your rates more than 15%.
6. Health insurers cannot cancel your insurance just because you got sick.
7. The ACA protects your choice of doctors.
8. Health insurers must provide 10 categories of essential health benefits: doctor services, inpatient and outpatient hospital care, prescription drug coverage, pregnancy and childbirth services, mental health services, emergency services, laboratory services, rehabilitative services, pediatric services, including dental and vision for children, and preventative and wellness services.
Take another look at that list. Prior to implementation of the ACA many many Americans did not receive all of these rights and services listed above. We have got to keep the House Blue, turn the Senate Blue and turn the White House Blazing Neon Blue, because we may need to pass a new ACA bill immediately.
Linda...One fundamental action that needs to be taken is to convince the news media to stop referring to the ACA as “Obamacare”! IMHO, this constitutes dereliction of duty on the part of any journal or outlet that lays claim to accuracy, impartiality and, you know...professionalism!
Connecting any former or current President’s name to any act of Congress in a news story—as opposed to an opinion piece—constitutes biased reporting in almost all cases. It simply provides an “echo chamber” to one faction’s propaganda.
Inform the public of the facts, not one side’s distortion of the facts!
I agree. I cringe every time I hear Biden say "Obamacare matters to me" on an ad he has running. I led the implementation of the ACA for IT Development in Arizona and I would not let my staff refer to it as Obamacare. And the fact that it is an insult from the GOP, but now the Democrats "own it" doesn't make it okay to me.
It's not just an increasingly conservative Supreme court, it's an increasingly Republican Supreme court. The feedback loop between Republican politicians and the Republican majority on the Supreme court helps to ensure that Republicans' retain their control of government. If elections are free and fair, then Republicans would win far fewer. Neither Trump nor Bush (dubyah) would have become president. Stacey Abrams would be governor of Georgia. Republicans wouldn't have held majorities in the House in years like 2012, when Democrats won 59 million votes and Republicans won 58 million, but Republicans took 33 MORE seats.
The foundation of our democracy is "one man (person), one vote" - every vote counts equally. This is anathema to Republicans who suppress Democratic voting in many states by closing polling places, purging voter rolls, make voter registration onerous and restricting mail-in voting. Republicans gerrymander districts in such a way that they can win only 45% of the vote in some states but win 65% of the congressional seats. All of this is clearly wrong, clearly unconstitutional. Yet the Roberts court has refused to rule on cases challenging illegal voting rights restrictions and gerrymandering - all to help their Republican party continue to hold power. In return, Republican politicians, with the help of the Republican Federalist Society, appoint more and more Republican judges.
As HCR points out, Republicans are a minority party, yet they control the White House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. And they continue to distort the democratic process in ways that will render elections meaningless, and make their hold on power permanent.
One of the best entries, with suspense and drama, that I’ve read in a long time (and I love them all), followed by such excellent commentary. I love this and admire your skill at condensing the historical context so much.
I have hope that with Collins having recruited Massachusetts’ moderate Gov Charlie Baker to stump for her in Maine, she will be forced to act like the moderate she has always pretended to be. Gideon is leading her and is thought to win. And Kelly seems headed for a win in AZ as well. If this happens, with Romney and what’s his name the independent in the Senate also against Trump ideology, McConnell’s dream will die. I donated to Gideon’s and Harrison’s campaigns last night.
Do not underestimate the number of Republicans fed up with this bullshizz. I have met many in my work in a major hospital. Yes, there are still the deluded cult members who get their 250k/year medications for free under Medicare and yet still wail about socialism, but thankfully for my mental health they are far outnumbered by the ex military who are spitting mad at this president.
Here is the comment I posted on my blog over the weekend on this subject. Nevertheless, I am not optimistic.
"And now some thoughts brought on by the day's events. I would not bother including them at this point, but it looks like the President's gracelessness demands that I do.
Our fool of a President, Putin’s “useful idiot, didn’t have brains enough to wait at least until after Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s funeral to announce that he would be naming a replacement Supreme Court Justice soon and hoped it would shortly be voted on by the Senate. This is a man raised in a household where love was absent and it is reflected in his every action. Necessary to such an action would be Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, who very well may be a defeated lame-duck Senator by the time the nomination comes before the Senate for a vote.
I fully expect Trump to make his nomination. Whether his stooges in the Senate will go along with him in sufficient numbers is another question, considering that many fought against even having a vote on Obama’s Merrill Garland nomination because a presidential election was coming up within the year, and fairness demanded they follow the dictates of that election. This was the position of Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham among others in 2016. The shoe is now on the other foot, requiring them to become hypocrites out of loyalty to Trump. Will they? Particularly if they are running for re-election. It works both ways. And how about the female Senators, who would not even be there were it not for Justice Ginsberg’s lifetime of work? And there are those that to whom a quick nomination and vote, as Trump desires, is morally repugnant. It was Justice Ginsberg who had, in anticipation of her passing, wanted a replacement named only after the presidential election. Some may want to respect those wishes. No, confirmation in the Senate of his nominee is not a sure thing.
But Trump wants it badly, and done quickly, since it is likely that the results of the presidential election will result in litigation which will end up before the Supreme Court where another conservative Justice on the bench would suit his aims just fine.
If this happens, and that is where we end up … a Supreme Court infused with new conservative blood handing the presidency to Trump for another four years … because of an unclear election result, made possible only because of Trump’s baseless attacks on entirely legal “vote by mail” balloting and his sabotaging of the Postal Service, the efficient operation of which is essential to voting by mail, it’s time for a new issue to be raised for Americans And that is Emigration. No, that is not a misspelling. It might be time for Americans still devoted to the democracy which has flourished in our country for 231 years to consider picking up stakes and moving elsewhere. I hope that doesn’t become necessary.
Meanwhile, it is likely that Joe Biden will get more popular votes than Trump, and if the Electoral College votes fall into place for him, and he survives post-election Trump litigation, Joe ultimately will become President and have a Democratic House and Senate to support him.
But possibly, he still will have to deal with an ultra-conservative Supreme Court, as described above. I see no alternative other than his going back to FDR’s failed effort to expand the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, perfectly legal if the House and the Senate go along with it. The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Justices on the Supreme Court and a President Biden should not hesitate to nominate four or five additional Justices. Nine is not some kind of magic number and there has not always been that number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
The answer to your question is that almost every one of those GOP Senators will absolutely definitely become hypocrites out of loyalty to maintaining their zombie grasp on power (not to Corona Don, but to power) long after they have been voted out of office and otherwise consigned to the dustbin of history. If we can win the election, then we can fix the mess they created by eliminating the filibuster, expanding the court to 13 justices, admitting Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, as states thereby gaining four Senate seats, overturning Citizens United, Overturning SCOTUS' destruction of the Voting Rights Act, passing laws that hold police and other members of the executive branch accountable for the deaths of black and brown citizens whom they have apprehended under whatever pretense, "re-funding" the police by shifting funds around to seize and destroy their military hardware and to pay for all the services our government has been asking them to perform for which they have never been trained or effective, passing laws that transfer powers that belong to Congress back to Congress and away from the President, passing laws that hold the President accountable for violations of law while still in office (e.g. overturning the idiotic DOJ memo that says this cannot be done), and many more.
Oh, and one of the most important things: Corporations are NOT people. Never have been, never will be. They are companies, subject to the rule of law, with absolutely none of the rights granted to individuals by our constitution. Not people. Not.
Sounds good to me ... but have you ever had to deal with the gullible and ignorant people, in love with the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, who made Donald Trump's presidency possible? Even given enormous Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, and with Biden in the White House, will they peacefully let that happen?
If they protest peacefully, no problem. If they become violent, they should be held accountable, exactly as Joe Biden says in his speeches. Speaking of which, that misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment must be dealt with as soon as possible.
For the first time in twelve years, this weekend my husband and I spoke seriously about what it would take to move to England where he is from. It is suddenly not a far-fetched idea at all.
How blithely, it seems now, we have taken for granted the most critical cornerstones of democracy--an evolving thirst for equality and justice, and (most chillingly) the expectation of voluntary compliance by those in power with the values and traditions that engendered citizens' trust that they would use that power for the benefit of all. That naiveté has been ripped away like a purse-snatcher's grabbing a tourist's handbag, as the Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting votes (What? Stop counting votes...in a democracy?), as they have decided that a corporation is a person, and as they decided that voting rights no longer needed protection. Next up on the chopping block: ACA, Roe, Brown, and other less celebrated bulwarks of what has made America's painful evolution toward fairness something we have come to count on. And many other decisions are being made by thirty-something twerps now on the federal bench for a lifetime--long enough to toxify the lives of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren in due course.
"Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind." I fear that the intensity of rage felt by otherwise normally composed citizens like myself will inflame unfortunate reactions like court-packing and, in the most extreme case, violence (read: assassinations) in an impassioned quest for some semblance of "justice" that realigns behavior with ideals. I believe we are at risk of equally unthinkable calamities if Trump manages to steal the election by some combination of manipulating the countable votes and the all-too-likely blessing of the Supreme Court.
All the more reason that in the days between now and January 21, we citizens who still cling to a shred of restraint and hope must work and donate like never before...like NEVER BEFORE...to the organizations that are fighting behind the scenes to preserve the rule of law--both in letter and in spirit. Go on line and make a breathtakingly large contribution to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/) or the Brennan Center (https://www.brennancenter.org/) or some other defender of democracy. A thousand dollars would be a good starting place. Do it now, before you read the next "Comment". Or do you seriously have a better use for the money...?
My concern is that among "the Second Amendment people" of whom DJT speaks there are actually some liberal patriots who remember that the point of arming citizens was to protect against arbitrary and thoughtless rulers like King George (and Emperor Donald?) Some of those 360,000,000 American-citizen-owned guns may be in the hands fo people pushed to the breaking point by the Trumpians' torching of our democratic compact...😱
TikTok. Although Heather didn't cover this given the gravity of the Supreme Court politics, I have been disturbed by the TikTok deal on two counts. First, this is pure petty revenge from DT because TikTok was the app used to inflate the attendees for the Tulsa Rally that was such an embarrassment for DT. He was infuriated and is now getting his revenge. Second, that part of the deal is to fund the "real" history of our nation. Read propaganda machine! All the students will be wearing Brown Shirts soon. Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
I have a sticker on my fridge "Ditch Mitch" which has been there for 2 years. Like you, I despise the man, but his latest maneuver has pushed the hatred deep. I am surprised at the depth of my hatred for this man. It hurts to know I can have such a negative reaction to another human being.
"We hold this truth to be self evident" example du jour.
A word about Malevolent Medusa Mitch. It's essential to rid this nation of his presence in our Senate. Period.
That said, the Republican Senate is like Medusa's snakes. There is likely a slithery queue of deplorable, wannabe successors. The only way to have any chance whatsoever of moving our nation beyond this deadly administration's strangle hold, irrespective of the POTUS outcome, is to flip the Senate. We're not aiming high enough if we're only concentrating on three or four turnover possibilities. We absolutely must up our goal to five or six. Let's flood all of those candidates with money and volunteer time. Finally, we all need to work until the last possible minute to Get Out the Vote. We're about halfway through hand-writing our 300 GOTV postcards. Game on, everyone! (With semi-sincere apologies for multiple tortured metaphors.)
The Republican agenda--and the packing of the judiciary that has been a gleeful and malignly political move--has been clear since the 1960s. Dems have been incredibly dumb when it has come to addressing it, continuing to think that the minority party (even when in control of the legislature they are still the minority) will "honor" their legislative responsibilities to their constituents. They won't. Instead, they will gerrymander, cheat, and steal their way to dominance over a population that is increasingly focused on social justice, equity, and inclusivity. They are, in a word, corrupt. Corrupt to the core.
i am a student and one-time teacher of American history, but I have learned a tremendous amount from reading HCR's daily "lectures". The Elephants have been far more clever than the Donkeys in their gerrymandering, manipulation of laws and voting registers since SCOTUS took the guts out of the Voting Rights Act. As she has pointed out, in several states, which could determine the electoral college, the Dems have a decided disadvantage because of this.
One final note from me, while I'm on a roll: It is all right for the Mango Moron to announce publicly that his choice for SCOTUS would be a woman, but was it really necessary for him to add the crass comment "I've always preferred women to men"? Especially when he has been accused of so many sexual harrassment and prostitution activities. Is there no depth which he cannot plumb?
How people can respect a man like this is totally bewildering to me.
Agreed. Thanks for mentioning that. It’s disgusting. It’s a way of reducing her to her gender in a demeaning way, and trying to remind us or himself that when it comes to women, he does the choosing. Meanwhile he is being sued for defamation right now by E. Jean Carroll for saying he didn’t rape her because he never met her and she’s “not his type” (didn’t choose her.) So he was court-ordered to produce his DNA last month to see whether he was lying or not, which incidentally would have proved him innocent of rape if the DNA didn’t match. Yet he is so desperate not to produce his DNA that he got his corrupt attorney general to get the DOJ to attempt to intervene to defend him in this civil defamation case. THAT is the man who offers his opinion about his preference for women in the context of a Supreme Court nomination. Disgraceful.
You are, of course, referring to the Dishonorable William No-holds Barred.
I don't know if any of you caught Barr's address at Hillsdale College last week. If you didn't, you might want at least to check the transcript: (https://www.lawfareblog.com/transcript-attorney-generals-remarks-delivered-and-qa-hillsdale-college). In his speech, he not only tossed aside the Bill of Rights quite casually, but he began to lay the groundwork for: a) trying protesting Americans for sedition; b) denying federal prosecutors any freedom in what they prosecute; and c) giving Donald Trump blanket immunity for any and all criminal acts he has or will commit as POTUS. It's a pretty revealing (and revolting) speech to have heard not too many hours before I heard about the great RBG's death.
Oh of course, the corrupt attorney general who shall remain nameless. Jk, but he, like the alleged rapist, is so utterly repulsive to me I can hardly look at him or listen to him at this point. My revulsion for those men really goes deep.
Methinks he doth protest too much. But really, he just has stuff to hide, just like in his financial dealings. As good as guilty, me(also)thinks.
And did you see his gesture when he said it. Even Michael Cohen during his interview on Politics Nation on Sunday noticed it. He used both hands to “shape” a woman’s figure when he made his announcement. Go back and google it if you can.
He’s a sick human.
I like "disgusting pig" better. Sorry, it's been a long day and my inside words are a lot closer to the surface.
He often plays the accordion while speaking, squeezing his hands back and forth. The harder he lies, the faster he squeezes the accordion, so it could be that...or it could be just as disgusting as you suggest. Most likely, it's both.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uses-curve-gesture-while-saying-hell-nominate-woman-supreme-court-1533141
Yup, confirmed. That poor excuse for a man is a disgusting pig. Not surprised.
Totally agree. He is a pathetic excuse for a human being. Just hate to compare him to a pig...it's so unfair to pigs.
This helps. Watch it all the way through, maybe search for others. It really helps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOsGt4bEUyU
I sure noticed!!!!
I love the "Mango Moron" nickname.
I prefer "Hateful Toad."
My current favorite of these sobriquets is "Droolius Seizure".
I need the "laugh" emoji.
ROFLMAO! Excellent! As is Steven Henry's! So glad I decided to check in here before I pushed away from the computer for the night.
He’s as deplorable as any being can be, however he’s also trying to become a dictator and need votes from all the women he’s lost. His base will eat it up.
His base does not like "uppity women," so I am surprised that he's even considering a woman for this position.
She’s not uppity. She a sycophant like all the other women in trump’s administration.
Nobody respects him, though. He is merely an ignorant tool to advance an agenda. His ego makes him think he is running the show, but he has been a puppet all along.
Hi niece, Mary Trump, certainly paints him that way. I am not quoting verbatim, but I've heard her say several times in interviews that Donald was groomed to be the tool of smarter and more powerful men.
Unfortunately many people, even or especially women, think this type of talk is cute or funny. I remember being a young girl and my mother, who had gone to college for two years and owned her own business, told me to let the boys win, to just laugh them off when they offended me. Most women have not grown past that or fear that if they do, all hell will break loose and they will lose their standing with them god forbid. Perhaps this is why I still live alone.🤷♀️
Not the women I know!
I hope this is not still true. I raised two incredibly strong women.
It’s still true that some men just can’t can’t stand to have a woman win at anything, even the most trivial games. A great way to weed them out is to keep winning.
Yep! The way many of us have learned to bend and sway just to not offend powerful male authority figures (or even weak jerk-off assholes - oh, wait, they are often the same person) is tragic. Sometimes, it's even difficult to know how to take the "right tone" with men who are mostly aware and who actually prefer strong women - as long as they aren't being told what to do by one.
Corona Don, our Comrade 45, has always been utterly disgusting on every possible level. That statement is disgusting on several levels: (1) he's a sexual predator (2) he's utterly and completely bigoted and this falls into the category of "some of my best friends are __fill-in-the-blank__, so I couldn't possibly be bigoted (3) given his comments about his own daughter and the "quality time" he spent with Jeffrey Epstein, he may very well have serious issues with failing to say on the right side of the age of consent when it comes to predating on girls / women.
I agree with just about everything except the last sentence - I don't believe there is an "age of consent" for predation.
A thought keeps nagging at me as we approach the election and the real possibility that Democrats could take back control of the government, and this feeling is only intensified by the passing of Justice Ginsburg and the rush to replace her: They broke our government now we’ll break it better.
What Trump’s presidency has shown us is just how broken the system is – it has exposed the flaws, the shortcomings, the laziness and complacency of Congress, and the inability of government to respond to a genuine crisis in a manner designed to benefit the nation as a whole. It has also brought into sharp relief, the toxic nature of our politics and how tribal partisanship trumps all else.
What concerns me is that when we Democrats regain control, we will further divide the nation and enhance the growing sense of illegitimacy, by exacting revenge, passing legislation, issuing executive orders, and legislative quick-fixes in the short term that will have unexpected and disastrous implications. In 2013, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s use of the “Nuclear Option” to eliminate the 60-vote rule for judicial nominations, is an example – one that has come back with an awful bite.
In a perfect world, we would take the opportunity that majority affords us to recognize the failings of the system (reining in the unchecked Executive power embedded in legislation that should have been monitored, allowed to expire or never granted in the first place; reforming campaign financing by instituting public financing to remove the influence of dark money; repairing or replacing the electoral college system; strengthening the Inspector General position to prevent the mass firings we have witnessed in this administration; seriously considering term limits for Congress and the list goes on. These are all areas that demand review and reform - reforms inure to the benefit of the people generally and not simply the party in power.
Packing the Supreme Court is not such a move. Changing the number of Justices to reflect the politics of the party currently in power brings us closer to constitutional anarchy, similar to that of unchecked Executive authority.
Presidents have the right to expect their nominees to be considered by the Senate – President Obama was not afforded that right. There is no “rule” on whether nominees put forward in the waning months of an election year will or must receive consideration. It has much to do with which party is in power at the time, but tradition (if that matters) holds that nominations made near the end of a President’s term are not considered.
In the present case, tradition (but not any rule) would be for the Senate to postpone consideration, but that is not likely to happen. Once Democrats regain control of the Senate, it would be wise to clarify a time specific after which that body will not consider nominations: Such a “rule” is long overdue.
The re-establishment and codification of norms, the vulnerability of which were exposed during this Administration, could be a move toward reconciliation, healing even. IMO, governing through Executive Orders or legislative fiat would have the opposite effect.
I think we need to clarify what revenge is. There is a difference between consequences and revenge and it has everything to do with intent. Progressives are the party of “change”. We can make changes not born of revenge but of what is best to achieve our country’s goals of equal justice and human rights. This false equivalency is part of the sickness of our country. Because Trump is a psychopath and everything he does is for revenge, doesn’t mean equal and opposite reactions are done in the same spirit.
I couldn't agree more and as I have said before here on these pages, consequences are in order - I used the word revenge advisedly and I hope (and frankly, expect) we will avoid even the appearance of it.
Many people, especially Trumpsters, internalize others action. We will not progress when we worry about how others will internalize our actions (seeing revenge when it doesn’t exist). We must focus on deep reflection into our own motivations. No need for bullying just a calm confidence in knowing that you have done the soul searching in concert with others seeking truth to move humanity further towards grace.
All of this and more....but first win the election by a very wide margin of on-site votes as well as after counting the mail-in votes and defeated all the insurrection rubbish and the stupid legal challenges paid for by Koch's GOP stooges....otherwise the goose is cooked!
Then as you say considerable changes have to be made to the way the people are represented and decisions are made. If we merely change the number of judges to suit the current circumstances then we are no better than Trump/McConnell and will encourage them to name even more should they ever again have the chance.
A larger SCOTUS is doubtless sensible but it must be part of a package which sweeps away voting restrictions imposed to bias results to either the GOP or the Dems in the States they respectively controll after the gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It must also change our constitutional priorites from "the protection of property" to the defense of, and service to, the people as a whole.
The implications of this are legion and must start by changing the relative powers of the Congress and the Senate. If you maintain the current 2 Senators for each State arrangement then their power must be significantly reduced in favour of the Congress which is more representative of the people. Never again should a President be able to conspire with the Senate in the sole interest of these "Protectors of Property" nor should these same "Protectors of Property" be allowed to totally block the actions of a popularly elected Congress and President or impose their wishes unilaterally on the Justice system. The second chambers of most Western democracies have consultative functions and powers to delay changes....but not to stop them completely. Only Italy suffers from the aberration of having 2 equally powerfull chambers with, in consequence, constant political impass. Thereafter special rules are necessary for constitutional change which protects the constitutional change process from passing passions of the moment and the often impractical and ambiguous "political correctness" but allows it to "Flex" with the changes in society.
The package must also contain a new electoral process for electing the President. The indirect process which does not necessarily reflect the popular vote must go and be replaced by a direct vote of every citizen for or against those who are candidates for the job. Conditions other than just being born in the US might be added to ensure that we no longer get candidates who are known to be corrupt, illiterat, or psychologically "challenged" on the list. How you do this might be complicated...but we can't afford another Trump.
The election of members of Congress must also be addressed or at least the equalization of districts by population and the removal of limits on their number. We may have to build a physical extension to the "House" but at least everybody would be able to feel "represented. It's powers need to be properly delimited and it's oversight and, ultimately, controll of Executive action codified. Executive powers of the President too must of course be clearly marked out as a result and... any exceptions structured.... in relation to this clarification of each's role, rights, responsibilities and obligations.
But first the people have to impose their choices and be there on November 3rd both to vote and to defend the vote once it has been made. They have to be there to protect the postal system too from now till then and the counting process thereafter. Think of the actions of the the groups of women defending protesters in Portland against Trump's DHS Brown Shirts and ways can be found to confound the moneyed fascists and their baboons whether it be Florida, Minnesota or elsewhere! Only thus will we be sure that we can go on making choices and imposing them on those elected to serve us in the future
Yes - first we have to win this most important election!
There is, as you say, much work to be done, but I think it is crucial that we restore trust and accountability because without that, all our aspirations are for naught.
Too true ....but what better way than to make sure the people are truly and equally represented, constantly, clearly and completely informed and regularly and frequently consulted
I agree with you, but know that I will not see "equal representation" in my lifetime. It has taken years to get here, so it will take years to move the needle towards equality.
Precisely the greatest problem of all Western Democracies...getting the machine to move in a timely fashion. Currently the pace dictated by all the cumbersome, ultra-complex adiministrative processes gives real controll to the unelected and not the representatives of the people.
Stuart, excellent points — though when you say “Congress” I think you mean the House of Representatives, which is the lower legislative body of Congress; the Senate being the upper one.
I was scratching my head early this morning trying to remember the right title...and of course i didn't look any further. You are quite right..Congress = House of Reps...and indeed this was the full sense of what i'm suggesting as a future constitutional arrangement...the Senate becomes a very much the junior partner
Out with gerrymandering and Citizens United ~
I really appreciate your comments. To seek revenge would place us as no better defenders of democracy than those who currently are placing politics over real governing. There is so much good that can be done with a “fresh start” and a healing attitude! Perhaps the only good to come out of this present administration is that it has made so clear the many cracks in our democratic system of governing-cracks that self-serving politicians can use to profit themselves rather than the lives of the people they serve, or the betterment of the country they promised to serve. Light comes through such cracks; we need courage to fix and not further break the democracy we all hold dear.
Thank you. I share your views on this and hope some good will come from what we have learned.
TREATING THIS AS A "LEARNING EXPERIENCE" IS TANTAMOUNT TO SURRENDER. And those most affected, the jobless, the Covid19 afflicted, those Americans for whom the Civil War never provided equality, the family trying to pay the rent or the mortgage payment and put food on the table, those in need of affordable health care and those trying to see that their kids get an education, those whose savings have been exhausted .... will not be willing to surrender. Whatever happened to the "City on a Hill"?
We need to stop calling it “packing the Court”. It’s more properly called “unpacking the Court”. Moscow Mitch and the GOP packed it, not us.
If you have a platform for your intelligent ideas please let me know. I’d like to join. 🙂
Thank you very much.
In a perfect world, you would have outlined all your positive proposals first and then added the cautions about the "bad" ones. Instead, you stated that we would rise to do the bad ones without thinking first. Overall, I choose to read your good ideas first. Thank you. I agree. And those other possible actions? I also agree that we should avoid them.
Thank you for that constructive criticism.
I wrote this in one sitting and didn’t consider structure - that’s why the Great Spirit created editors.
I'm still learning how to keep communication open with people who doubt my viewpoint or where I'm coming from. Glad you took my input in the vein it was intended.
If they do this, and the way Trump is quoted about Medieval Catholic Theocrat Judge Amy Coney Barrett - "I'm saving her for when I get to replace Ginsburg" - shows that he sees this as a "thumb in the eye" of the majority of this country. So if they do this, GAME ON.
It won't be "court packing," which is what the Republicans have done at every opportunity for the past 40 years. It will be "judicial expansion." There are any number of studies that have shown, just on the basis of population growth since the last time the number of federal judges and courts was expanded, that the federal bench should be double its present size. So anything up to 100% expansion can be justified on the principle "justice delayed is justice denied." And a 15 or 17 member Supreme Court gives us the chance to have a court that actually "represents America as a whole," rather than the conservative Catholics of America.
And two can play "thumb in the eye." We just have to get the left morons who think it doesn't matter who's in office to understand that the system that lets them be the left idiots out shouting on street corners rather than hanging on prison walls in chains, is in the hands of those elected who nominate and approve the judges.
Here's another way to play "thumb in the eye:" Nowhere does it say that judicial appointments must be for life. I'd suggest a limited term on any particular federal bench with forced rotation as terms expire and forced retirement at 65 - if we can't trust an airplane pilot to fly after 65, how in the world can we trust a judge to make a relevant decision after 65?
I'm not sure that 65 is the magic number but I wholeheartedly agree with term limits on any particular federal bench. Age limiting may not be the way to go because of the discrimination issues attached to it. But a set term length of 12 or 15 years? Or set the limit based on length of term or age met, whichever comes first.
And honestly, if we were to set mandatory age limits for federal judiciary, the same should apply for the House, Senate, Cabinet level appointees and president.
I'm very committed to the idea of term limits. There are too many in Congress, both chambers, who have become entrenched and are impeding forward momentum
I agree that judicial appointments should not be for life. I'm also strongly in support of term limits for members of the House and Senate. Senators and Representatives are guaranteed their salary for life - why? Because they voted themselves this benefit. Serving in the House or Senate should be service, not getting rich at taxpayer's expense. The founding fathers talked about a citizen legislature and would be rolling over in their graves if they knew how our current Senators and Representatives use their office to serve indefinitely (incumbent advantage) and to continue to enrich themselves after they leave office. They should also participate in Social Security like the average American rather than the cushy retirement plan they have voted in for themselves.
Crystal what is your source for salary for life?
The last time I checked reps & sen were part of a pension system based on number of years served and their salary.
I worry about the unintended consequences of term limits: Lack of experience, & making lobbyists the source of how to get things done.
You're right. I did not check my source. They earn a pension based on years of service and their age when they retire. It is very generous, but not fully salary. I'm not worried about lack of experience. The system of committees would have to be set up so that only a certain number of people are replaced at every election. It the limit was 12 years (2 terms for a Senator and 6 for a Representative, then that's certainly enough time for people to gain experience and provide continuity.
Betsy, here's a quick guide in re pensions.
Who do you think is currently running the show? It's lobbyists and big business influencers. I'd rather see restrictions on who can lobby and how long after leaving office than can begin to lobby than have a raft of entitled frauds seated in the House and Senate for years on end.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension
Salary for life is absurd. It is truly a glaring example of welfare fraud.
It was intended to make the justices immune to graft, which is still a valid concern.
Even if a hypothetical President Biden really did double the size of the Court for truly wholesome "justice delayed is justice denied" reasons, the timing and political circumstances of late mean that it would never appear to be that wholesome. Not to neutral observers, and absolutely not to the ~45% of the nation that identifies as conservative or Republican. Lesser actions than this could probably flip this from a cold to a hot civil war, so I can't imagine the fury this would unleash.
If the court is not expanded, it will throw out every progressive change. It has to be done, as part of expanding voting rights and health care. Rural Republican voters deserve to have their votes count as much as anyone’s - but not 5 times as much as city voters. The oligarchs deserve one vote per voter, not one vote per dollar.
I agree with your goals, but I question the method. It's hard for me to see this not ending in bloodshed if it's done this way. Most liberals I know are not well enough trained in combat to defend themselves, let alone the Progressive Cause, if it comes down to that.
if Biden wins there will be bloodshed regardless. Here in rural Michigan, local county "militias" are forming (as tRump has incited them to do), some with sheriff support. Biden knows this, and undoubtedly is already working closely with Governors and the 5 military Chiefs of Staff to create a cohesive response plan. That threat cannot deter good legislators from doing what must be done to save our democracy. Stay Safe Everyone. And, again, just because I am paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get me.
"Here in rural Michigan, local county "militias" are forming (as tRump has incited them to do), some with sheriff support. "
This is horrifying.
Sometimes paranoia is a life-saving mechanism, as is the case with how especially the most medically vulnerable among us but really all who know its dangers protect ourselves from COVID-19.
Ernest Hemingway would agree with your last statement.
Yes, we are hearing this also from members of Sacramento sheriff Dept 😢
There are times when one has to defend one's freedom regardless of the cost. Our parents did it and allowed us to live in peace...untill now!
Indeed, I am from a family of veterans. But to truly defend the freedom and peace, one must actually win the battles one fights. I wish I had more confidence in my liberal peers' ability to do that en masse, but I just can't see the "Moms Demand Action" type groups picking up the weapons our ancestors knew how to use, and learning to use them again. (Some maybe, far from all.) In short, getting mowed down by conservative militias and 2A fanboys defends no freedom, no honor.
See Pete Butogieg's more modest plan
Buttigieg
I’m still curious about what would prevent this Administration from enlarging the Court and pacing it, as well. Why do we only talk about the prospect of a Democratic expansion — can’t McConnell and Trump sponsor such a move right now?
Yes, it with a 6-3 majority they won’t need to pack it.
Right — but if the Republican aim is to control the temper of the Supreme Court, a pre-emotive expansion of its bench would lengthen and deepen even further their control. Thinking of the very long term, and considering how cynical and power-focused McConnell and Barr are, it wouldn’t surprise me to see them push for an expansion now.
Terrifying
Won't happen. The necessary bill would never pass the House.
On another note, Secretary of State Mike Pompous has warned all the major allies who have said they would ignore America's illegal actions of reinstating sanctions on Iran would be facing "serious consequences". So...now Trump and Friends are about to censure our allies Germany, France, and the UK in order to pursue their nefarious plots. Look at the status of the US in the opinion of the world. It just gets worse and worse.
Trump's chat buddy Vlad must have suggested that one.
Thank you for the summation. I find this "in plain site" power grab from the Republicans to be the most egregious yet, in that it would evoke taking away women's reproductive rights with overturning Rowe v Wade and the availablity for insurance via ACA for the most vulnerable in one fell swoop. Though I am beyond my childbearing years, I care deeply about this issue. I am, however not immune from what the defeat of the ACA means. I have cancer and without the ability to have insurance will literally be my demise. No, I am not just thinking of myself, I am thinking of all of the people I sit with in the waiting room at the Oncologist every 3 months. Do you know what I find most disgusting about this insidious power play? It would happen on Justice Ginsburgs' dime.
And college students and others under age 26 will no longer be able to stay on their parent’s health plan. With so many young folks unemployed that, too, is a big deal. Hopefully this will motivate young voters to turn out.
Annette, you are absolutely correct. This is very far reaching.
The political power play to rush with a replacement for Justice Ginsberg is an outrageous sign of disrespect. Even in their glee to appoint a replacement who is RBG's polar opposite, the Republicans could show some humanity and humility! They don't seem to respect her memory but she touched MANY and this is becoming quite apparent with the accolades and public displays of grief! If the Republicans had any class, they would honor a period of mourning before proceeding with accomplishing a 'win' for President Trump.
His choices are a little scary and not worthy of replacing RBG
Unfortunately that's a matter of opinion. That opinion has replaced fact is another creation of the social media era Is a reality that we most certainly change if we are to regenerate trust in our government and indeed the society it serves.
Stuart Attewell, yes it is an opinion. However, their views on Roe v Wade cause me concern. So don't judge if I am a little concerned.
I'm not judging at all, not even playing devil's advocate. Unfortunately their own opinion is the one and only one that they deem to consider. As someone quoted the little Bush "we are creating our own world" ...facts and others' opinions are irrelevant. I totally share your concer for Roe v Wade and indeed Affordable Care and much else that has been achieved since the Civil War! There is indeed a considerable cause for concern.
Thanks, Stuart😊
A LITTLE scary? Sharon, that is a gross understatement!
No, it’s a win for McConnell. Trump doesn’t give a s—t.
While I don't think he actually cares about the process, I believe he is very attached to the bragging rights of having named so many people to the Supreme Court.
He hasn't as yet named a Chief Justice...so i think Eisenhower and even Reagan beat him...but these are just facts and he doesn't care a sh.. As was rightly said by Marci
I stand by what I say and it is backed up by the recordings of comments Trump made to Woodward. Obviously, Trump hasn't broken the record yet but he is salivating at the possibility! See
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-woodward-judges/2020/09/20/86839d54-fae5-11ea-a510-f57d8ce76e11_story.html
Absolutely frothing at the mouth...with dogs its a symptome of rabies!
Rest assured. Even if he doesn't actually accomplish a goal he will brag and say he did.
HCR summed up this whole nasty business right here:
"All but two of the many Republicans senators who insisted in 2016 that the Senate absolutely should not confirm a nominee in an election year have suddenly changed their minds and say they will proceed with Trump’s nomination.
"This abrupt about-face reveals a naked power grab to cement minority rule."
This all 100% about power. Nothing else. EVERY thing Republicans do now is to gain and hold on to power. They have been licking their chops and drooling about the prospect of having control of the SCOTUS for an entire generation or more. It has been their ultimate "wet dream". Packing the lower courts is one thing, but now the REALLY big prize, the highest court in the land, is a goal well within their reach. OF COURSE they didn't wait for Ginsburg's body to get cold. They're positively giddy at the chance to have a solid 6-3 majority, so anything that smacks of propriety is thrown out the window. Not even an ounce of respect for someone who has just died. This is about politics now, power, so to hell with what is proper. We are seeing just how totally bereft of any ethics or morals the Republican party has become and it is sad. In these toxic, bitterly partisan, power-mad times, one could say that Democrats might have done something similar were they in such a position. I'm not inclined to think so, but who knows? Power does weird things to people, including forgetting propriety.
R Dooley below/above (wherever it is) does make some very astute points about "exacting revenge" that I totally agree with. We have to be careful here. Two wrongs never have and never will make a right. We MUST ask ourselves, IMO, "HOW did we get to this point?" "What are the 'kinks' in our system that need to be addressed?" HCR asked as much in her question from yesterday. How can we possibly ensure we don't come to this again? Is it even fixable? I really don't know. I think there are imperfections in our system that have become apparent now that the founders could have never envisioned. If, BIG IF, we are put back into power, maybe rather than engaging in short-sighted retributions it might be wiser to set about trying to reform things? We need to try to consolidate our aims, which in itself may be next to impossible, and try to offer the American people a clear vision of trying to put his country back together again.
But, first and foremost, we need to vote. Vote in numbers never seen before in the history of this republic. My belief is that we have gotten to the mess we're in primarily because people won't get off their asses and VOTE. (Young people, I'm talking to you!) We are seeing what happens when a population doesn't vote. It WILL come back and bite you eventually. Your rights WILL be taken away. Maybe people are realising that now. If you want change to happen, you HAVE to vote.
Okay...I'm off to withdraw and try to find some solace, quite simply, because I find all this a bit overwhelming. Peace, y'all...
"...below/above (wherever it is)..." YES! That!!
A good reminder that in our nightmare of politics here, all bad things start with Reagan. The stench and slime of a small group of greedy white men is the only thing that has ever trickled down from Reagan's economy.
But the most terrifying immediate impact of this assault on the Supreme Court is the potential loss of the ACA. I see others have commented already, but I thought I would add a list of some of the critical things the ACA does for us, which I use to try and educate people. This is by no means a complete list. The ACA is an enormous law, covers myriad health care issues and as our inglorious "leader" said a few years ago, "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated". My list does not focus on the health insurance exchange, which currently covers 8.3 million people, but how it impacts the coverage we all get from our health insurance plans. Educating people about what the ACA really does is very important to me.
The ACA provides these benefits and rights to all Americans who have health insurance and these benefits were NOT available to all Americans prior to the ACA.
1. Requires health insurers to cover people with pre-existing health conditions, and cover them without charging more.
2. Requires health insurers to provide free preventative care for everyone.
3. Allows most children to stay on their parent's job-based plan until the age of 26.
4. The ACA ended lifetime and annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits. Health insurers cannot drop you because you have become too expensive.
5. Health insurers must go through a review process before raising your rates more than 15%.
6. Health insurers cannot cancel your insurance just because you got sick.
7. The ACA protects your choice of doctors.
8. Health insurers must provide 10 categories of essential health benefits: doctor services, inpatient and outpatient hospital care, prescription drug coverage, pregnancy and childbirth services, mental health services, emergency services, laboratory services, rehabilitative services, pediatric services, including dental and vision for children, and preventative and wellness services.
Take another look at that list. Prior to implementation of the ACA many many Americans did not receive all of these rights and services listed above. We have got to keep the House Blue, turn the Senate Blue and turn the White House Blazing Neon Blue, because we may need to pass a new ACA bill immediately.
Linda...One fundamental action that needs to be taken is to convince the news media to stop referring to the ACA as “Obamacare”! IMHO, this constitutes dereliction of duty on the part of any journal or outlet that lays claim to accuracy, impartiality and, you know...professionalism!
Connecting any former or current President’s name to any act of Congress in a news story—as opposed to an opinion piece—constitutes biased reporting in almost all cases. It simply provides an “echo chamber” to one faction’s propaganda.
Inform the public of the facts, not one side’s distortion of the facts!
I agree. I cringe every time I hear Biden say "Obamacare matters to me" on an ad he has running. I led the implementation of the ACA for IT Development in Arizona and I would not let my staff refer to it as Obamacare. And the fact that it is an insult from the GOP, but now the Democrats "own it" doesn't make it okay to me.
It's not just an increasingly conservative Supreme court, it's an increasingly Republican Supreme court. The feedback loop between Republican politicians and the Republican majority on the Supreme court helps to ensure that Republicans' retain their control of government. If elections are free and fair, then Republicans would win far fewer. Neither Trump nor Bush (dubyah) would have become president. Stacey Abrams would be governor of Georgia. Republicans wouldn't have held majorities in the House in years like 2012, when Democrats won 59 million votes and Republicans won 58 million, but Republicans took 33 MORE seats.
The foundation of our democracy is "one man (person), one vote" - every vote counts equally. This is anathema to Republicans who suppress Democratic voting in many states by closing polling places, purging voter rolls, make voter registration onerous and restricting mail-in voting. Republicans gerrymander districts in such a way that they can win only 45% of the vote in some states but win 65% of the congressional seats. All of this is clearly wrong, clearly unconstitutional. Yet the Roberts court has refused to rule on cases challenging illegal voting rights restrictions and gerrymandering - all to help their Republican party continue to hold power. In return, Republican politicians, with the help of the Republican Federalist Society, appoint more and more Republican judges.
As HCR points out, Republicans are a minority party, yet they control the White House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. And they continue to distort the democratic process in ways that will render elections meaningless, and make their hold on power permanent.
One of the best entries, with suspense and drama, that I’ve read in a long time (and I love them all), followed by such excellent commentary. I love this and admire your skill at condensing the historical context so much.
I have hope that with Collins having recruited Massachusetts’ moderate Gov Charlie Baker to stump for her in Maine, she will be forced to act like the moderate she has always pretended to be. Gideon is leading her and is thought to win. And Kelly seems headed for a win in AZ as well. If this happens, with Romney and what’s his name the independent in the Senate also against Trump ideology, McConnell’s dream will die. I donated to Gideon’s and Harrison’s campaigns last night.
Do not underestimate the number of Republicans fed up with this bullshizz. I have met many in my work in a major hospital. Yes, there are still the deluded cult members who get their 250k/year medications for free under Medicare and yet still wail about socialism, but thankfully for my mental health they are far outnumbered by the ex military who are spitting mad at this president.
Here is the comment I posted on my blog over the weekend on this subject. Nevertheless, I am not optimistic.
"And now some thoughts brought on by the day's events. I would not bother including them at this point, but it looks like the President's gracelessness demands that I do.
Our fool of a President, Putin’s “useful idiot, didn’t have brains enough to wait at least until after Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s funeral to announce that he would be naming a replacement Supreme Court Justice soon and hoped it would shortly be voted on by the Senate. This is a man raised in a household where love was absent and it is reflected in his every action. Necessary to such an action would be Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, who very well may be a defeated lame-duck Senator by the time the nomination comes before the Senate for a vote.
I fully expect Trump to make his nomination. Whether his stooges in the Senate will go along with him in sufficient numbers is another question, considering that many fought against even having a vote on Obama’s Merrill Garland nomination because a presidential election was coming up within the year, and fairness demanded they follow the dictates of that election. This was the position of Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham among others in 2016. The shoe is now on the other foot, requiring them to become hypocrites out of loyalty to Trump. Will they? Particularly if they are running for re-election. It works both ways. And how about the female Senators, who would not even be there were it not for Justice Ginsberg’s lifetime of work? And there are those that to whom a quick nomination and vote, as Trump desires, is morally repugnant. It was Justice Ginsberg who had, in anticipation of her passing, wanted a replacement named only after the presidential election. Some may want to respect those wishes. No, confirmation in the Senate of his nominee is not a sure thing.
But Trump wants it badly, and done quickly, since it is likely that the results of the presidential election will result in litigation which will end up before the Supreme Court where another conservative Justice on the bench would suit his aims just fine.
If this happens, and that is where we end up … a Supreme Court infused with new conservative blood handing the presidency to Trump for another four years … because of an unclear election result, made possible only because of Trump’s baseless attacks on entirely legal “vote by mail” balloting and his sabotaging of the Postal Service, the efficient operation of which is essential to voting by mail, it’s time for a new issue to be raised for Americans And that is Emigration. No, that is not a misspelling. It might be time for Americans still devoted to the democracy which has flourished in our country for 231 years to consider picking up stakes and moving elsewhere. I hope that doesn’t become necessary.
Meanwhile, it is likely that Joe Biden will get more popular votes than Trump, and if the Electoral College votes fall into place for him, and he survives post-election Trump litigation, Joe ultimately will become President and have a Democratic House and Senate to support him.
But possibly, he still will have to deal with an ultra-conservative Supreme Court, as described above. I see no alternative other than his going back to FDR’s failed effort to expand the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, perfectly legal if the House and the Senate go along with it. The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Justices on the Supreme Court and a President Biden should not hesitate to nominate four or five additional Justices. Nine is not some kind of magic number and there has not always been that number of Justices on the Supreme Court.
The answer to your question is that almost every one of those GOP Senators will absolutely definitely become hypocrites out of loyalty to maintaining their zombie grasp on power (not to Corona Don, but to power) long after they have been voted out of office and otherwise consigned to the dustbin of history. If we can win the election, then we can fix the mess they created by eliminating the filibuster, expanding the court to 13 justices, admitting Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, as states thereby gaining four Senate seats, overturning Citizens United, Overturning SCOTUS' destruction of the Voting Rights Act, passing laws that hold police and other members of the executive branch accountable for the deaths of black and brown citizens whom they have apprehended under whatever pretense, "re-funding" the police by shifting funds around to seize and destroy their military hardware and to pay for all the services our government has been asking them to perform for which they have never been trained or effective, passing laws that transfer powers that belong to Congress back to Congress and away from the President, passing laws that hold the President accountable for violations of law while still in office (e.g. overturning the idiotic DOJ memo that says this cannot be done), and many more.
Oh, and one of the most important things: Corporations are NOT people. Never have been, never will be. They are companies, subject to the rule of law, with absolutely none of the rights granted to individuals by our constitution. Not people. Not.
Sounds good to me ... but have you ever had to deal with the gullible and ignorant people, in love with the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, who made Donald Trump's presidency possible? Even given enormous Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, and with Biden in the White House, will they peacefully let that happen?
If they protest peacefully, no problem. If they become violent, they should be held accountable, exactly as Joe Biden says in his speeches. Speaking of which, that misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment must be dealt with as soon as possible.
For the first time in twelve years, this weekend my husband and I spoke seriously about what it would take to move to England where he is from. It is suddenly not a far-fetched idea at all.
At least you have a choice.
If you go as expats, it would save you a lot in taxes.
How blithely, it seems now, we have taken for granted the most critical cornerstones of democracy--an evolving thirst for equality and justice, and (most chillingly) the expectation of voluntary compliance by those in power with the values and traditions that engendered citizens' trust that they would use that power for the benefit of all. That naiveté has been ripped away like a purse-snatcher's grabbing a tourist's handbag, as the Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting votes (What? Stop counting votes...in a democracy?), as they have decided that a corporation is a person, and as they decided that voting rights no longer needed protection. Next up on the chopping block: ACA, Roe, Brown, and other less celebrated bulwarks of what has made America's painful evolution toward fairness something we have come to count on. And many other decisions are being made by thirty-something twerps now on the federal bench for a lifetime--long enough to toxify the lives of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren in due course.
"Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind." I fear that the intensity of rage felt by otherwise normally composed citizens like myself will inflame unfortunate reactions like court-packing and, in the most extreme case, violence (read: assassinations) in an impassioned quest for some semblance of "justice" that realigns behavior with ideals. I believe we are at risk of equally unthinkable calamities if Trump manages to steal the election by some combination of manipulating the countable votes and the all-too-likely blessing of the Supreme Court.
All the more reason that in the days between now and January 21, we citizens who still cling to a shred of restraint and hope must work and donate like never before...like NEVER BEFORE...to the organizations that are fighting behind the scenes to preserve the rule of law--both in letter and in spirit. Go on line and make a breathtakingly large contribution to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/) or the Brennan Center (https://www.brennancenter.org/) or some other defender of democracy. A thousand dollars would be a good starting place. Do it now, before you read the next "Comment". Or do you seriously have a better use for the money...?
Oh, I don't think the Trump cult would assassinate a President Biden - the result would be Kamala Harris becoming President.
My concern is that among "the Second Amendment people" of whom DJT speaks there are actually some liberal patriots who remember that the point of arming citizens was to protect against arbitrary and thoughtless rulers like King George (and Emperor Donald?) Some of those 360,000,000 American-citizen-owned guns may be in the hands fo people pushed to the breaking point by the Trumpians' torching of our democratic compact...😱
Well said, Eliot.
TikTok. Although Heather didn't cover this given the gravity of the Supreme Court politics, I have been disturbed by the TikTok deal on two counts. First, this is pure petty revenge from DT because TikTok was the app used to inflate the attendees for the Tulsa Rally that was such an embarrassment for DT. He was infuriated and is now getting his revenge. Second, that part of the deal is to fund the "real" history of our nation. Read propaganda machine! All the students will be wearing Brown Shirts soon. Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
And don’t forget Sarah Cooper’s fabulous lip-syncing to his own words, again on TikTok.
Yes, Sarah Cooper is so good. Makes you almost believe you understand what he's saying. LOL!
I despised McConnell before and now his naked hypocrisy puts me over the edge.
I have a sticker on my fridge "Ditch Mitch" which has been there for 2 years. Like you, I despise the man, but his latest maneuver has pushed the hatred deep. I am surprised at the depth of my hatred for this man. It hurts to know I can have such a negative reaction to another human being.
"naked hypocrisy" gaaaaaaaa!!!
"We hold this truth to be self evident" example du jour.
A word about Malevolent Medusa Mitch. It's essential to rid this nation of his presence in our Senate. Period.
That said, the Republican Senate is like Medusa's snakes. There is likely a slithery queue of deplorable, wannabe successors. The only way to have any chance whatsoever of moving our nation beyond this deadly administration's strangle hold, irrespective of the POTUS outcome, is to flip the Senate. We're not aiming high enough if we're only concentrating on three or four turnover possibilities. We absolutely must up our goal to five or six. Let's flood all of those candidates with money and volunteer time. Finally, we all need to work until the last possible minute to Get Out the Vote. We're about halfway through hand-writing our 300 GOTV postcards. Game on, everyone! (With semi-sincere apologies for multiple tortured metaphors.)
The Republican agenda--and the packing of the judiciary that has been a gleeful and malignly political move--has been clear since the 1960s. Dems have been incredibly dumb when it has come to addressing it, continuing to think that the minority party (even when in control of the legislature they are still the minority) will "honor" their legislative responsibilities to their constituents. They won't. Instead, they will gerrymander, cheat, and steal their way to dominance over a population that is increasingly focused on social justice, equity, and inclusivity. They are, in a word, corrupt. Corrupt to the core.
i am a student and one-time teacher of American history, but I have learned a tremendous amount from reading HCR's daily "lectures". The Elephants have been far more clever than the Donkeys in their gerrymandering, manipulation of laws and voting registers since SCOTUS took the guts out of the Voting Rights Act. As she has pointed out, in several states, which could determine the electoral college, the Dems have a decided disadvantage because of this.