I feel that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is making a difference on this court. It is harder to ignore the Black population when you have someone sitting on the court who can make a case for Black representation, something that Justice Thomas does not do, in fact bends over backwards not to do. For this exceptionalism he has been financially well rewarded, and pitted against the very people his presence on the court is supposed to represent. Of course he is supposed to represent everyone, but he is supposed to understand the experiences of being Black in this country, which he does not seem to choose to use in making legal decisions. I am grateful to Justice Brown Jackson for the humanity she is apparently bringing to the highest court of our land. It has too many justices who are not just and lack the world experiences to fully understand the cases before them.
I see willful ignorance rather than a lack of “the world experiences to fully understand the cases before them”. In my view, those you seek to describe are doing what they want to do, justice be damned, and no amount of worldly experiences will replace a lack of moral fibre or backbone to do the right thing. The very justices you allude to are doing exactly what they were chosen to do and what they planned to do, all the while promising not to do those very things during hearings prior to votes on their selection. Honor and justice are lacking in every fiber of their souls and being in my view. They choose willful ignorance to bolster their cowardice, ignorance, moral & financial corruption, and their greed, as well as their perversity.
With Clarence Thomas it is willful ignorance of some issues, but perhaps not of others. If they have not experienced anything but very narrow communities that share the values they are practicing on the courts, the ignorance is more than willful, other than that they don't recognize that they do not have the experience in the world to truly understand the cases before them and they do not seek out enlightenment. How about living in a Black community? How about living in a gay community? How about living amongst the poor in any community? How about living without money and seeing what that is like for raising children? How about living in the foster care system? How about living in an atheist community? How about living in a Jewish community? How about living in a community of single mothers with no resources? How about living in a community that has no access to clean water, and clean air? How about living in a community that is in a food desert? How about living in a community that does not espouse the suppression of women? How about learning about other religions more closely and spending time with people who practice these religions? How about Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? etc?
You go, Linda! Terrific note. I've become an advocate of Thom Hartmann who reminds us that Europe has successfully provided housing, medical care, and higher education to its citizens. All of the above would go so far in solving this country's ills. The conservative justices are among a cabal of Republicans who will do everything they can to protect the very wealthy from taxation and full citizenship for all the communities you mention.
In other words, get some life experience before chasing after whatever it is you think you must have? Open your eyes to the world and not just the little hole you plan to plant yourself into for the rest of your life.
I support selective service of 2 years to include Peace Corps or other public service jobs. Seeing other communities and doing something to help opens many eyes.
I wish it could be compulsorily for 18-25 range.
Joining the Military and going overseas sure opened my eyes to other culture and religions - AND - seeing they’re just different, NOT wrong.
All well and good, in theory. But even if they (or he) were fully exposed to all the communities of which you speak he would see it all and experience it all through the filter of his personal mindset. That is a prejudiced mindset. Nothing can be learned from that viewpoint. And to me willful ignorance is nothing more than pretending you don’t know something when everyone knows you do.
I would not have been a teacher for so long if I did not believe that experiences change people. That is exactly my point about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's presence on the Supreme Court. It changes the dynamic. So do lived experiences. I am a teacher who is a disciple of John Dewey who believed in learning through having sets of experiences that deepen your understanding of the world in which you live.
So, while we all experience life through the filters we have, we grow as we experience new things. I feel that the court is naive and inexperienced in the diversity of the ways of the world, just the things that the Republican Party is trying to prevent children and people in their states from being exposed to in the new "anti-Woke", just another name for anti-PC, mandates. Exposure is broadening. These people have insular lives. They need to get out there and broaden their horizons. We all do. I think one can do it through books and films as well.
I reread your first comment again. What would happen if we elected people who had had the experiences you mention and lived in the neighborhoods you mention, and knew and liked or at least understood the people from those places. Those are the leaders I am looking for and the ones I would vote for.
Yes. I’m with you. But they have to want to. They have to be curious enough to find a way to grow their wisdom. There are too many people in high places whose agenda trumps their curiosity
I agree and often people get complacent as they get older. We want life to be smoother and are less interested in doing the exciting things that we did when we were younger. At the same time I believe change can happen even when people don't want to, or try to, just because we are living life and unexpected things happen. Look at people who leave cults, or change their religion. They may not have been seeking, but they found through some experience.
No judge, from a village court all the way to the Supreme Court, should ever, ever rule on a case based on public opinion. Their job is to interpret and apply the laws, not rule based on what the citizenry wants.
Thomas and the others on the SC are not ignorant of the law or public opinion, nor do they have an obligation to rule based on people's "values," but on the rule of law. If they do otherwise, they don't deserve to be on the bench.
I agree that they should rule on the law, but interpretation is based on experience. They are not just deciding whether or not someone stole a pie from their neighbor, but bigger issues that effect our entire nation. How to interpret what are wetlands. This is great if you are a wetland scientist, like one of my best friends is, but what if you are not, as these justices are not. How do you decide then? And frankly they do serve the people of this country. Every case that comes before them is something that people want, and are disagreeing on. Their rulings have impacts far and wide and they should think about them, and clearly do. Subjective objectivity, or objective subjectivity. This is what is in play when interpreting the law in the cases that come before them. A big question is should one apply the law as if one lived in the year it was made, or interpret it based on contemporary circumstances? Is the law living or dead?
First they must educate themselves on wetlands. Then they must apply their decision on the circumstances that are occurring now and into a probable future.
Exactly. He is just an awful human being which as Ann said above, we knew from Anita Hill. I remember watching those hearings and being appalled at the way the men dismissed what she was saying. There have been absolutely NO surprises from UnJustice Thomas.
on Clarence Thomas....he seems like a vengefull, spitfull, and pety person. This documentary informs us who he is and why he is the way he is. So much unresolved child to young adult emotional trauma that he will never evolve or gain any larger awareness to help society. He's tenure is a waist of a career and life. He went to seed a long long time ago.
Yes, and please read strange justice, which is referenced a lot in the documentary on Clarence and Genni Thomas. And his Senate hearing, and how he gained access to the highest court in the land is a sickening story. Anita Hill can join the “I told you so” club along with Hillary Clinton. 🥲😡
I think he just feels exceptional and the people around him, like Crow probably praise him for his "exceptionality" in seeing the world through the eyes of a White racist, as in you get it! You get that Black people or any people who do things that interfere with our "wealthy, White male" domination of the world are a problem.
If some on the court actually do realize they are pushing some very unfavorable decisions and the outcome is what happened in Alabama, I will take it. This court proves all the time they are political in nature and shady at the least. I worry about it as our rights are threatened, thankful for your in-depth explanation of it all.
The Alabama gerrymandering decision was a cookie crumb Roberts & Kavanauh gave to not only blacks In Alabama but to Americans who are ready to throw out the justices. Roberts decision is nothing more than trying to save “ his “Supreme Court.
I am sure Justice Jackson applies her own sort of heat. I assume she argues her side well from everything I have heard. There are those who will not listen to a well reasoned argument and those who will. And this was that moment.
How will the former President be addressed or referred to in court? To my mind (since we are all equal before the law) it should be “Mr. Trump”. Referring to him before the jury as President or some variant would seem to be highly prejudicial.
Might this be the subject of an in limine motion? That would be late in the proceedings. Could it be addressed early?
Roberts seems to be a much weaker leader than had initially been anticipated when appointed by GW Bush in 2005. An impartial observer might conclude that he's the beard for Alito.
Despite the spotlight now on trump’s indictment/s, I do hope the media keeps focus on SCOTUS since their actions affect our democracy as surely as corrupt politicians’ actions do. Thanks for keeping it top of mind. I have zero confidence that without public pressure, this court will do the right thing on important issues of equality, voting rights and respect for precedent.
Thanks to Joyce and to all of you. The Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the worst, if not. the worst, Supreme Court. Sadly, it is the puppet of right wing ideologues who have no interest in democracy. Their only interest is their political agenda. One of our most serious problems is that we do not have a usable constitutional way to fix a badly broken Supreme Court. Here’s a Court that is fine with taking away the most basic voting rights and women’s rights to run their own lives. This the the triumph of right wing oligarchs. They run this country. We only live here.
Chief Justice Roberts seemed an excellent choice at the time of his confirmation. Think back on earlier decisions, if you will, and try to verify that his court has been unjust all these years. A great topic to research as I think the turn to the right wing, the politicalization of the court, has happened in more recent years. As great justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and left spaces for right wing nominees.
Since the other branches of government exert little influence over the Supreme Court, other than perhaps adding members to it, what means of influence do any other parties have on the court? Upon ruling on Roe vs. Wade, a huge crowd occupied the grounds of the Court, but this was relatively short lived. I have heard no reporting on persistent nonviolent protest regarding ethical lapses on the court. What could be considered an effective strategy for keeping pressure on the Court to reform itself?
The Allen decision was a surprise, but I suspect that it is only a temporary reprieve for what's left of the Voting Rights Act. As it is, it barely survived (5-4 vote). Once the heat dies down a bit, I would imagine that the Supreme Court will go back to restoring the America of the Fifties (the 1850s, that is)...................
Joyce, thanks for this and for confirming my own cynicism. I thought the exact same thing! While I love the ruling, a big part of me doesn’t believe it is genuine. I also watched the PBS Frontline episode on the Thomases. Fascinating.
Oh yes! I watched that also. I have always believed Anita Hill. Even though Thomas and his wife did suffer through a very unpleasant upbringing and young adult lives. Sad, they’re in the same league as Trump when it comes to family and social dysfunction. Making either one incapable of leading anything so much as a peanut. Yet, like Trump I have no sympathy.
When any human has no one to answer to for their actions, that is poison to the spirit. 6 of these 9 people regularly (but not always) have axes to grind. Even if it’s solely for personal reasons.
They’ve targeted the women of this country and proclaimed them second class. Because they can. Giving this kind of power over the rest of the country belongs in the most revered, trustworthy hands. There must be ethical standards to which they’re held. No one is above the law.
I appreciate your turning to SCOTUS. I have heard little, though, on what this decision might mean for the Moore case in NC. They seem so connected, but there is not much mention of the NC case in all the reporting of the Alabama case.
Also, I have found myself thinking about your interview with Mary Trump. As I retired psychologist, I am always interested in some of her insights. She spoke about PTSD, and the need to have time without the trauma in order to recover from it. We watch MSNBC a lot, and I get so upset at the amount of air they give to Trump. (Yes, it's important news, but can they ever talk about the positive things the Biden administration is doing? Heather Cox Richardson is the best model of this.) Or is their only job to talk about Trump?) I get especially upset at the repeated showings of videos and images of Trump. I realized after your interview with Mary that my reactions to seeing all the images are my own little PTSD. I'm sure I'm not the only one who experiences a deep sickening feeling just upon seeing his face or hearing his voice. I've sent all kinds of messages to MSNBC executives and anchors over the past several years with the same message, but unfortunately it feels like they are sometimes just as guilty as Fox when it comes to showing the pieces that get us angry. Isn't there a more intelligent way to cover the Trump stories?
I say this to you only because I know I'm not alone, and because I try to reach people who might actually be able to have a voice, to be heard, by producers and anchors. I turn it off or change the channel when I need to, but then we miss out on hearing the voices that we look forward to, like yours, Andrew's, Barb's, Claire's, and others. Thank you for spreading this message if you are able.
And we were at the NYC #sistersinlaw show - What a great evening. A highlight.
MSNBC favorites post their programs as podcasts. It’s a relief to hear the news, not watch the news! The “Sisters in Law” podcast is a great way to follow threads of legal logic without losing your mind. Thank you Joyce Vance, Barb Mc Quade, Jill Wine-Banks, and Kimberly Atkins!
Yes, even on CNN with their new format with the big screens behind them they are constantly showing photos and videos of Trump. I’m thinking, what is this? Is this a campaign ad for Trump or is this the news? And as you say, it is extremely traumatizing to see constant images and videos of him with six American flags behind him. Sickening. 
Conservative justices seems to rule more in favor of the corporate citizen over the rights of the individual. This is my sense. That is with Roe and developing wetlands. The one exception that I know is eminent domain portion of the 5th amendment. This right has been abused for decades. IT’s existence should protect the individual over private interests such as companies who want to take land to develop and expand. But Courts have rules that when expansion through taking of land serves the community, then it’s allowed. Using this reasoning, any land seizure can be acceptable. But it shouldn’t.
I know this well because my original family lost our land to redevelopment when a Underwood typewriter company wanted land to expand in Hartford and local redevelopment condemned our whole neighborhood even after the company stated they were moving. My father lost in Superior court and lost later on appeal. In a public forum in another state case, Kelo verses New London, in which Pfizer wanted and received land, the discussion again centered around the rights of the individual over the rights of private company interests. I spoke up at this forum and afterward, a rep from the federalist society approached me and asked me if I would like to join and become a member. I always thought where my liberal justice allies went defending my individual land rights. The only ones around were the conservatives. Why? I still ask myself to this day.
I have a feeling the rulings are made not based of originalism as Scalia noted but that any issues can be made into logical arguments to satisfy either side. Guns for example which is a perfect one. The 2nd amendment never gave rights to everyone to bear arms. We gave this right to states who were threatened by federal government and at the time of the founding, the threat came from Britain and subsequently from our federal government. But this 2nd amendment, was primarily written to protect states with a 2nd reason to protect slave owning plantations. But the gun industry has redefined this 2nd in modern times to signify arms for everyone and it plainly isn’t so. Gold profits are the norm today. This all means that humans in general, will devolve into a world in which the interests of the mighty are sacrosanct over the interests of the individual. And we will twist all logic to conform to this age old tradition. Suffice to say I don’t have faith in the human species and the quicker we self destruct, the better it will be for the world of nature to thrive once again. (That was at least partially said in jest.)
Tiny disclaimer at the end after a fine comment. Covering all your bases? I know, most are uncomfortable coming off too cynically or too harshly. But there is no getting around the fact that people pretend they don’t know the devastation that will follow because of their greed for short term gain.
I’m accustomed to twisted logic. My daddy was proud to have one Black friend in the 1960s and frequently invited him over for lunch. Later I wondered why he never invited Art’s whole family over for dinner. Maybe I could have played with their kids. But later towards the end of his life, my Black girlfriend wanted to meet papa and when I brought up the issue, I got a final understanding of who he really was and I didn’t like what I found. I Lear Ed to approach everyone with much caution. My animal friends don’t behave like the human ones I encounter. I know when an animal will bite but I can never predict when a human one will do the same.
I reread my little thing and there are adjustments I could make but I will leave it alone. It’s called fast online writing.
The fact that you had a black girlfriend means your upbringing was not closed or coerced. So even though he may not have been completely comfortable with his relations with Blacks, he must have endeavored not to pass the uncomfortable part on to you. He sounds like he wanted to be a good man and knew the difference.
Thank you for the good thoughts but my father was not even considered a father. There wa nothing between us and it was his destiny to have it that way. Don’t miss what I never had so don’t feel sympathy.
I understand about there being nothing between a child and a parent. Later in the child’s life the human being, rather than the daddy can reveal itself and more can be understood. Too bad he missed out though. But it was his destiny you could say.
Thank you again for your time and efforts to inform and explain the supreme court's actions. I am continually amazed at the arrogance of some of the justices. How can they expect other people to obey the rule of law if they don't follow it themselves?
He inflicted the worst when he recognized corporations as private citizens and opened the door to unlimited campaign influence. Anyone could predict the result and in fact, that may be the tipping point to the ultimate destruction of this government. Now we have candidates being elected not because of the wishes of popular opinion but because of massive amounts of influence that courses the individual to believe who they are voting for is the better candidate. (Example primo: Donald Trump.) Something about Plato’s admonishment that Tyranny followes Democracy is very relevant today. Which tells me we can’t keep pushing to the left while negating the center because often times it’s the autocratic right that wins. So snap out of it and stop inventing new crazy issues to support and you know what I am speaking of. I won’t spell it out this time least I am accused again of being a hater.
Do you have any idea who would replace him as Chief Justice? Alito seems the most likely, followed by Thomas. Definitely not one of the newer women judges. Be careful what you wish for.
I feel that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is making a difference on this court. It is harder to ignore the Black population when you have someone sitting on the court who can make a case for Black representation, something that Justice Thomas does not do, in fact bends over backwards not to do. For this exceptionalism he has been financially well rewarded, and pitted against the very people his presence on the court is supposed to represent. Of course he is supposed to represent everyone, but he is supposed to understand the experiences of being Black in this country, which he does not seem to choose to use in making legal decisions. I am grateful to Justice Brown Jackson for the humanity she is apparently bringing to the highest court of our land. It has too many justices who are not just and lack the world experiences to fully understand the cases before them.
I see willful ignorance rather than a lack of “the world experiences to fully understand the cases before them”. In my view, those you seek to describe are doing what they want to do, justice be damned, and no amount of worldly experiences will replace a lack of moral fibre or backbone to do the right thing. The very justices you allude to are doing exactly what they were chosen to do and what they planned to do, all the while promising not to do those very things during hearings prior to votes on their selection. Honor and justice are lacking in every fiber of their souls and being in my view. They choose willful ignorance to bolster their cowardice, ignorance, moral & financial corruption, and their greed, as well as their perversity.
With Clarence Thomas it is willful ignorance of some issues, but perhaps not of others. If they have not experienced anything but very narrow communities that share the values they are practicing on the courts, the ignorance is more than willful, other than that they don't recognize that they do not have the experience in the world to truly understand the cases before them and they do not seek out enlightenment. How about living in a Black community? How about living in a gay community? How about living amongst the poor in any community? How about living without money and seeing what that is like for raising children? How about living in the foster care system? How about living in an atheist community? How about living in a Jewish community? How about living in a community of single mothers with no resources? How about living in a community that has no access to clean water, and clean air? How about living in a community that is in a food desert? How about living in a community that does not espouse the suppression of women? How about learning about other religions more closely and spending time with people who practice these religions? How about Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? etc?
You go, Linda! Terrific note. I've become an advocate of Thom Hartmann who reminds us that Europe has successfully provided housing, medical care, and higher education to its citizens. All of the above would go so far in solving this country's ills. The conservative justices are among a cabal of Republicans who will do everything they can to protect the very wealthy from taxation and full citizenship for all the communities you mention.
How about empathy?
In other words, get some life experience before chasing after whatever it is you think you must have? Open your eyes to the world and not just the little hole you plan to plant yourself into for the rest of your life.
I support selective service of 2 years to include Peace Corps or other public service jobs. Seeing other communities and doing something to help opens many eyes.
I wish it could be compulsorily for 18-25 range.
Joining the Military and going overseas sure opened my eyes to other culture and religions - AND - seeing they’re just different, NOT wrong.
All well and good, in theory. But even if they (or he) were fully exposed to all the communities of which you speak he would see it all and experience it all through the filter of his personal mindset. That is a prejudiced mindset. Nothing can be learned from that viewpoint. And to me willful ignorance is nothing more than pretending you don’t know something when everyone knows you do.
I would not have been a teacher for so long if I did not believe that experiences change people. That is exactly my point about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's presence on the Supreme Court. It changes the dynamic. So do lived experiences. I am a teacher who is a disciple of John Dewey who believed in learning through having sets of experiences that deepen your understanding of the world in which you live.
https://www.neh.gov/article/john-dewey-portrait-progressive-thinker#:~:text=In%201899%2C%20Dewey%20published%20the,should%20be%20active%2C%20not%20passive.
So, while we all experience life through the filters we have, we grow as we experience new things. I feel that the court is naive and inexperienced in the diversity of the ways of the world, just the things that the Republican Party is trying to prevent children and people in their states from being exposed to in the new "anti-Woke", just another name for anti-PC, mandates. Exposure is broadening. These people have insular lives. They need to get out there and broaden their horizons. We all do. I think one can do it through books and films as well.
I reread your first comment again. What would happen if we elected people who had had the experiences you mention and lived in the neighborhoods you mention, and knew and liked or at least understood the people from those places. Those are the leaders I am looking for and the ones I would vote for.
But I would also like them to have had the experience of wealth and/or prosperity.
Yes. I’m with you. But they have to want to. They have to be curious enough to find a way to grow their wisdom. There are too many people in high places whose agenda trumps their curiosity
I agree and often people get complacent as they get older. We want life to be smoother and are less interested in doing the exciting things that we did when we were younger. At the same time I believe change can happen even when people don't want to, or try to, just because we are living life and unexpected things happen. Look at people who leave cults, or change their religion. They may not have been seeking, but they found through some experience.
No judge, from a village court all the way to the Supreme Court, should ever, ever rule on a case based on public opinion. Their job is to interpret and apply the laws, not rule based on what the citizenry wants.
Thomas and the others on the SC are not ignorant of the law or public opinion, nor do they have an obligation to rule based on people's "values," but on the rule of law. If they do otherwise, they don't deserve to be on the bench.
I agree that they should rule on the law, but interpretation is based on experience. They are not just deciding whether or not someone stole a pie from their neighbor, but bigger issues that effect our entire nation. How to interpret what are wetlands. This is great if you are a wetland scientist, like one of my best friends is, but what if you are not, as these justices are not. How do you decide then? And frankly they do serve the people of this country. Every case that comes before them is something that people want, and are disagreeing on. Their rulings have impacts far and wide and they should think about them, and clearly do. Subjective objectivity, or objective subjectivity. This is what is in play when interpreting the law in the cases that come before them. A big question is should one apply the law as if one lived in the year it was made, or interpret it based on contemporary circumstances? Is the law living or dead?
First they must educate themselves on wetlands. Then they must apply their decision on the circumstances that are occurring now and into a probable future.
Bravo! Well said!
Thomas was willing to take the benefits of cthe civil rights gains, then pull the ladder up behind him. Hard to be “special” among others
Exactly. He is just an awful human being which as Ann said above, we knew from Anita Hill. I remember watching those hearings and being appalled at the way the men dismissed what she was saying. There have been absolutely NO surprises from UnJustice Thomas.
on Clarence Thomas....he seems like a vengefull, spitfull, and pety person. This documentary informs us who he is and why he is the way he is. So much unresolved child to young adult emotional trauma that he will never evolve or gain any larger awareness to help society. He's tenure is a waist of a career and life. He went to seed a long long time ago.
https://www.pbs.org/video/clarence-and-ginni-thomas-hxtlm2/
Yes, and please read strange justice, which is referenced a lot in the documentary on Clarence and Genni Thomas. And his Senate hearing, and how he gained access to the highest court in the land is a sickening story. Anita Hill can join the “I told you so” club along with Hillary Clinton. 🥲😡
I see the documentary. Thomas seems damaged emotionally as well as his wife for that matter.
Exactly. Two peas in a pod. They are both lost.
Part of the problem is that Thomas doesn't think he's Black.
He knows but prefers to pit his anger in joining the ranks of the elitist mob to help himself. Such irony as this knows no bounds.
Uncle Clarence is fully invested in the Master of his house...
I think he just feels exceptional and the people around him, like Crow probably praise him for his "exceptionality" in seeing the world through the eyes of a White racist, as in you get it! You get that Black people or any people who do things that interfere with our "wealthy, White male" domination of the world are a problem.
If some on the court actually do realize they are pushing some very unfavorable decisions and the outcome is what happened in Alabama, I will take it. This court proves all the time they are political in nature and shady at the least. I worry about it as our rights are threatened, thankful for your in-depth explanation of it all.
The Alabama gerrymandering decision was a cookie crumb Roberts & Kavanauh gave to not only blacks In Alabama but to Americans who are ready to throw out the justices. Roberts decision is nothing more than trying to save “ his “Supreme Court.
I’m just hoping they will continue to feel the heat and rule in a more nonpartisan way.
I am sure Justice Jackson applies her own sort of heat. I assume she argues her side well from everything I have heard. There are those who will not listen to a well reasoned argument and those who will. And this was that moment.
How will the former President be addressed or referred to in court? To my mind (since we are all equal before the law) it should be “Mr. Trump”. Referring to him before the jury as President or some variant would seem to be highly prejudicial.
Might this be the subject of an in limine motion? That would be late in the proceedings. Could it be addressed early?
He has disgraced us immeasurably and the courts especially know this. What is the rule here?
Good point.
How did Judge Cannon address him in the evidence hearing? How was he referred to in the E Jean Carroll libel case?
Roberts seems to be a much weaker leader than had initially been anticipated when appointed by GW Bush in 2005. An impartial observer might conclude that he's the beard for Alito.
Despite the spotlight now on trump’s indictment/s, I do hope the media keeps focus on SCOTUS since their actions affect our democracy as surely as corrupt politicians’ actions do. Thanks for keeping it top of mind. I have zero confidence that without public pressure, this court will do the right thing on important issues of equality, voting rights and respect for precedent.
Thanks to Joyce and to all of you. The Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the worst, if not. the worst, Supreme Court. Sadly, it is the puppet of right wing ideologues who have no interest in democracy. Their only interest is their political agenda. One of our most serious problems is that we do not have a usable constitutional way to fix a badly broken Supreme Court. Here’s a Court that is fine with taking away the most basic voting rights and women’s rights to run their own lives. This the the triumph of right wing oligarchs. They run this country. We only live here.
We mustn’t accept it nevertheless and keep voting to gain both houses in the next elections.
Chief Justice Roberts seemed an excellent choice at the time of his confirmation. Think back on earlier decisions, if you will, and try to verify that his court has been unjust all these years. A great topic to research as I think the turn to the right wing, the politicalization of the court, has happened in more recent years. As great justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and left spaces for right wing nominees.
Yea!!
Thank you for helping those of us who are not scholarly-lawyers to make sense of this.
Since the other branches of government exert little influence over the Supreme Court, other than perhaps adding members to it, what means of influence do any other parties have on the court? Upon ruling on Roe vs. Wade, a huge crowd occupied the grounds of the Court, but this was relatively short lived. I have heard no reporting on persistent nonviolent protest regarding ethical lapses on the court. What could be considered an effective strategy for keeping pressure on the Court to reform itself?
Mass demonstrations by Martin Luther King made a difference. A hard push for action on our democrat leaders would seem appropriate.
Heat from all of us.
The Allen decision was a surprise, but I suspect that it is only a temporary reprieve for what's left of the Voting Rights Act. As it is, it barely survived (5-4 vote). Once the heat dies down a bit, I would imagine that the Supreme Court will go back to restoring the America of the Fifties (the 1850s, that is)...................
And when do you think the heat will die down. The majority on the court will remain for a good while.
No time soon, unfortunately, if ever.
Joyce, thanks for this and for confirming my own cynicism. I thought the exact same thing! While I love the ruling, a big part of me doesn’t believe it is genuine. I also watched the PBS Frontline episode on the Thomases. Fascinating.
Oh yes! I watched that also. I have always believed Anita Hill. Even though Thomas and his wife did suffer through a very unpleasant upbringing and young adult lives. Sad, they’re in the same league as Trump when it comes to family and social dysfunction. Making either one incapable of leading anything so much as a peanut. Yet, like Trump I have no sympathy.
When any human has no one to answer to for their actions, that is poison to the spirit. 6 of these 9 people regularly (but not always) have axes to grind. Even if it’s solely for personal reasons.
They’ve targeted the women of this country and proclaimed them second class. Because they can. Giving this kind of power over the rest of the country belongs in the most revered, trustworthy hands. There must be ethical standards to which they’re held. No one is above the law.
Well, so far Clarence Thomas seems immune from bribery and corruption and graft charges that apply to every other government employee.
On the Roberts court there would always seem to be a hidden agenda with his majority.
I appreciate your turning to SCOTUS. I have heard little, though, on what this decision might mean for the Moore case in NC. They seem so connected, but there is not much mention of the NC case in all the reporting of the Alabama case.
Also, I have found myself thinking about your interview with Mary Trump. As I retired psychologist, I am always interested in some of her insights. She spoke about PTSD, and the need to have time without the trauma in order to recover from it. We watch MSNBC a lot, and I get so upset at the amount of air they give to Trump. (Yes, it's important news, but can they ever talk about the positive things the Biden administration is doing? Heather Cox Richardson is the best model of this.) Or is their only job to talk about Trump?) I get especially upset at the repeated showings of videos and images of Trump. I realized after your interview with Mary that my reactions to seeing all the images are my own little PTSD. I'm sure I'm not the only one who experiences a deep sickening feeling just upon seeing his face or hearing his voice. I've sent all kinds of messages to MSNBC executives and anchors over the past several years with the same message, but unfortunately it feels like they are sometimes just as guilty as Fox when it comes to showing the pieces that get us angry. Isn't there a more intelligent way to cover the Trump stories?
I say this to you only because I know I'm not alone, and because I try to reach people who might actually be able to have a voice, to be heard, by producers and anchors. I turn it off or change the channel when I need to, but then we miss out on hearing the voices that we look forward to, like yours, Andrew's, Barb's, Claire's, and others. Thank you for spreading this message if you are able.
And we were at the NYC #sistersinlaw show - What a great evening. A highlight.
THANK YOU for all you do.
Susan
MSNBC favorites post their programs as podcasts. It’s a relief to hear the news, not watch the news! The “Sisters in Law” podcast is a great way to follow threads of legal logic without losing your mind. Thank you Joyce Vance, Barb Mc Quade, Jill Wine-Banks, and Kimberly Atkins!
Yes, even on CNN with their new format with the big screens behind them they are constantly showing photos and videos of Trump. I’m thinking, what is this? Is this a campaign ad for Trump or is this the news? And as you say, it is extremely traumatizing to see constant images and videos of him with six American flags behind him. Sickening. 
Conservative justices seems to rule more in favor of the corporate citizen over the rights of the individual. This is my sense. That is with Roe and developing wetlands. The one exception that I know is eminent domain portion of the 5th amendment. This right has been abused for decades. IT’s existence should protect the individual over private interests such as companies who want to take land to develop and expand. But Courts have rules that when expansion through taking of land serves the community, then it’s allowed. Using this reasoning, any land seizure can be acceptable. But it shouldn’t.
I know this well because my original family lost our land to redevelopment when a Underwood typewriter company wanted land to expand in Hartford and local redevelopment condemned our whole neighborhood even after the company stated they were moving. My father lost in Superior court and lost later on appeal. In a public forum in another state case, Kelo verses New London, in which Pfizer wanted and received land, the discussion again centered around the rights of the individual over the rights of private company interests. I spoke up at this forum and afterward, a rep from the federalist society approached me and asked me if I would like to join and become a member. I always thought where my liberal justice allies went defending my individual land rights. The only ones around were the conservatives. Why? I still ask myself to this day.
I have a feeling the rulings are made not based of originalism as Scalia noted but that any issues can be made into logical arguments to satisfy either side. Guns for example which is a perfect one. The 2nd amendment never gave rights to everyone to bear arms. We gave this right to states who were threatened by federal government and at the time of the founding, the threat came from Britain and subsequently from our federal government. But this 2nd amendment, was primarily written to protect states with a 2nd reason to protect slave owning plantations. But the gun industry has redefined this 2nd in modern times to signify arms for everyone and it plainly isn’t so. Gold profits are the norm today. This all means that humans in general, will devolve into a world in which the interests of the mighty are sacrosanct over the interests of the individual. And we will twist all logic to conform to this age old tradition. Suffice to say I don’t have faith in the human species and the quicker we self destruct, the better it will be for the world of nature to thrive once again. (That was at least partially said in jest.)
2024 elections will eventually bring government for the people vs for corporations.
Capitalism is wonderful if strongly regulated.
Which it never can be.
Tiny disclaimer at the end after a fine comment. Covering all your bases? I know, most are uncomfortable coming off too cynically or too harshly. But there is no getting around the fact that people pretend they don’t know the devastation that will follow because of their greed for short term gain.
I’m accustomed to twisted logic. My daddy was proud to have one Black friend in the 1960s and frequently invited him over for lunch. Later I wondered why he never invited Art’s whole family over for dinner. Maybe I could have played with their kids. But later towards the end of his life, my Black girlfriend wanted to meet papa and when I brought up the issue, I got a final understanding of who he really was and I didn’t like what I found. I Lear Ed to approach everyone with much caution. My animal friends don’t behave like the human ones I encounter. I know when an animal will bite but I can never predict when a human one will do the same.
I reread my little thing and there are adjustments I could make but I will leave it alone. It’s called fast online writing.
The fact that you had a black girlfriend means your upbringing was not closed or coerced. So even though he may not have been completely comfortable with his relations with Blacks, he must have endeavored not to pass the uncomfortable part on to you. He sounds like he wanted to be a good man and knew the difference.
Thank you for the good thoughts but my father was not even considered a father. There wa nothing between us and it was his destiny to have it that way. Don’t miss what I never had so don’t feel sympathy.
I understand about there being nothing between a child and a parent. Later in the child’s life the human being, rather than the daddy can reveal itself and more can be understood. Too bad he missed out though. But it was his destiny you could say.
…you DID say !
And my lord, AI is coming. It’s here.
Look up “Land snatching”
It seems that the SCOTUS is most interested in protecting their ability to do whatever the radicals on the Court want to do.
Not all of them.
Thank you again for your time and efforts to inform and explain the supreme court's actions. I am continually amazed at the arrogance of some of the justices. How can they expect other people to obey the rule of law if they don't follow it themselves?
They are rogue actors in the current political environment sadly.
I still think Roberts should resign.
He inflicted the worst when he recognized corporations as private citizens and opened the door to unlimited campaign influence. Anyone could predict the result and in fact, that may be the tipping point to the ultimate destruction of this government. Now we have candidates being elected not because of the wishes of popular opinion but because of massive amounts of influence that courses the individual to believe who they are voting for is the better candidate. (Example primo: Donald Trump.) Something about Plato’s admonishment that Tyranny followes Democracy is very relevant today. Which tells me we can’t keep pushing to the left while negating the center because often times it’s the autocratic right that wins. So snap out of it and stop inventing new crazy issues to support and you know what I am speaking of. I won’t spell it out this time least I am accused again of being a hater.
 Along with Thomas!
Wouldn’t he have to be impeached?
Heat, picketing, bumper stickers, protest.
Heat, picketing. Number stickers.
Do you have any idea who would replace him as Chief Justice? Alito seems the most likely, followed by Thomas. Definitely not one of the newer women judges. Be careful what you wish for.
Unless it elevates another oatmeal guy or worse into his position.