Exactly right! Biden needs to get on board with this the way Obama got on board with gay marriage. Nine isn't a magic number handed down by the imaginary sky guy.
Thx Celeste. I am hoping the reliable JEN PSAKI will deal with the DRAFT legislation later this Sunday morning 7/2.
Celeste, ss you may know, Jen focused on the lineup cases coming to SCOTUS that MAY roll back Constitutional rights on other issues.
No worries, Both NEAL KATYAL & LAWRENCE TRIBE have responded with focused recommendations. I have asked the Colorado AG to file a Motion for Re-hearings at SCOTUS asap.
Biden recently stated he didn’t think an increased number of Supreme Court justices was the right way to go. I’m really not clear on his reasoning and I do believe your idea is one to consider.
I am only speculating. But here goes. If Biden is to win next year and if we are to achieve victory in the way of significant majorities in the House and Senate, we need to choose our campaign subjects carefully. The only thing that matters - for democracy and the Planet itself, is defeating the fascists on election day.
That means that every statement by every politician is a campaign ad. Like it or not. Biden knows this better than anyone. He is a superior strategist.
I also believe in changing the Supreme Court. Term limits. Code of Conduct. Impeachment. And yes, a larger court. But there are 10 or 12 other items to be running on that are more apt to swing independent and youthful voters.
I speculate that Biden could shift his public pronouncements about the court in January 2025 after he takes the oath of office again.
Your comment is good political science not speculation. Perhaps one of these LFAA days, HCR will illuminate the post Civil War time when we had ten (10) Justices in this Country. First, Lincoln & Grant had to defeat the Seditionist Robert E Lee.
From your keyboard to God's eyes. The MAGA era has revealed the cracks in our country's underpinnings. There need to be additional qualifications specified for the office of President, senators, House representatives. Time to stop letting a small minority terrorize the rest of us. No more filibuster, equalize representation in the Senate. Wyoming should not have 2 senators for 500,000 plus people and D.C. have none. I do realize updating our governance will take years.
Jenn, ever since tfg ran and won* the presidency, I have thought that we need stricter rules (laws) about these things. For starters, if a person wants to run for president, they must pass a standard background check and qualify for a security clearance. It still makes me nauseous to think that tfg _and his family who did not qualify for security clearances_ had access to top secret information for 4 years, and beyond, since he stole our nations secret documents.
I think we've all been shocked by how many things we thought were laws & rules turned out to be only norms & guidelines. Who knew we needed an actual law for half the things TFG did? That's why "no precedence for xyz" has been so over-used... we never knew we needed to have laws to stop this behavior.
I am in disagreement with Biden on this issue. My hope is that when 2024 rolls around and he wins the nomination again, that he goes back on his word and starts the judicial process.
He has to win the general election first, and he needs enough Democrats in both houses to accomplish any changes to the Supreme Court. I don't believe this is something he can accomplish by executive order. If there aren't enough Dems to do it, he'd have to get buy-in from a few Republicans. But he can't begin that fight until after the election.
That statement tells me quite clearly he lives in some idealized world in his head, not the stark, ugly reality the rest of us live in. He can’t or won’t face reality (in multiple areas) and we, not him, live with the damage.
I am going to disagree. The strategy is to reinforce belief in the democracy for those who are rocked by the Trump agenda. To show what a reasonable president looks like who follows the rules as they are set in our democracy. Changing the rules smacks of dictatorship, which is what he does not want to appear by. I suspect there are a lot of Americans that will be swayed by the play by the rules attitude. Biden is still pitting himself as a contrast to what Trump has to offer, which is to not play by the rules, and to bend every governmental body to his every whim. It has worked thus far for him, so to suddenly become unreliable Joe, who goes after the wrongs by changing the rules might not work for him. He has Merrick Garland to do that. I am not saying he is perfect in everything he does, but as much as I wish to see him add to the courts, I can see how he is trying to appear fair and honorable, and that might call that into question, and give the right something to go after. In the short term we are going to be living with a lot of shitty, rulings, which the courts do not have the means to enforce if the President goes against them, but he will not. We have to be in this for the long game. That is get the Republicans out in 2024. The Supreme Court did help with this, because there is some time for Red states to get better districting, and get rid of some of the laws that make voting more difficult. That is the fight to take on right now. The Supreme Courts gave us an opening. We need to take that.
"*Reinforce* belief in democracy"? I've been skeptical about democracy since I realized there were few checks and balances on economic power. This was almost 10 years before Reagan was elected. The last 40+ years have proven me more right than I ever wanted to be.
On the whole I think President Biden is doing the best job anyone could do in the current situation, with such a narrow margin in the Senate, the GOP having gone to hell in a clown car, infrastructure crumbling from decades of neglect, and white supremacists out of the closet and armed to the teeth -- oh yeah, and climate change. If we manage to ride the current rapids and emerge reasonably intact on the other side, we as a country are going to have to come up with ways to rein in concentrated economic power so that it never again comes this close to undermining our progress toward real democracy.
I disagree with you. Time will tell which of us was closer to the mark.
In the meantime, there are quite a lot of people whose lives are now much worse because of those “shitty, rulings (sic)”. That’s hardly fair to them.
Relying on Garland to seek actual justice is akin to Biden seeing what’s happening with absolute clarity instead of the mindset that allows him to think the Court isn’t politicized yet, that McConnell is an honorable man and McCarthy is a good man (all things he has said publicly). Garland took exactly zero steps to holding trump accountable for the Jan 6th insurrection until forced to do so by the overwhelming evidence made public by the Committee hearings. He also gave trump months - months! - to return classified documents.
The danger is that this is not "short term." Unless those 6 conservative justices decide to resign, or they die (and none of them is in precarious health, as RBG was), they will be on the bench for decades. Decades. They'll be sitting on the court long after Biden dies.
Biden is doing the "turn the other cheek" thing, when he could be doing what is within his powers as president to do. He voices disappointment but leaves deeply harmful court rulings to continue the rot the GOP is feeding every day.
You sure don't know our President. Look at his track record. We have a very wise man and politician in the WH and one with integrity and a REAL patriot.
The right will scream "he's politicizing the court!!!!" no matter what he does, so he might as well do it. I do understand showing he's reasonable and normal, but not doing something because the right will complain is no way to govern. They're going to say whatever they need to, no matter how false or hypocritical, so we might as well actually get done what we can and show that our side is for progress and their side wants to repeal the 20th century.
Of course if, say, Thomas resigned and Biden proposed anyone to the left of him, even a hair, the GOP would scream he is "politicizing" the court. Witness the nomination of Merrick Garland. For the right, "politicizing" is the all-purpose cry for ANYTHING they don't like, right behind "but Hunter Biden's Laptop."
He cannot do it by executive order. He needs approval from Congress, and he cannot get it with the Republican majority in the House. He must be re-elected and have a Congress which will support it, but not this year.
These SCOTUS decisions in 303 Creative and in the student loan case crushed constitutional requirements for standing, bulldozed them and overrode the court's lack of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has created legal fiction at the level of The Big Lie, a hallmark of fascism. As we have been dealing with The Big Lie of election deniers, we are finally seeing recourse through our judicial system. My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. Here, however, the 303 Creative case in particular was advanced on facts not in evidence--a "gay" man who turned out to be heterosexual--a huge procedural issue, not to mention the hypothetical issue, but there is no court of appeal after SCOTUS.
As Joyce Vance writes tonight , we're looking at legal conduct that adds up to fraud and perjury for which attorneys are normally sanctioned. And the reactionary rogue majority on SCOTUS has created a slippery slope. Justice Sotomayor dissented that SCOTUS has now established the constitutional right for a business to refuse service to members of a federally protected class. LGBTQ+ with 303 Creative, and dark moneyed Federalist Society infrastructure putting cases in the pipeline for people of color, women, senior citizens, people of different religions, etc. next.
The magnitude of this threat to democracy of a legally sanctioned Big Lie that is now blindsiding us from the judicial branch of our government has my hair on fire. Like others have been saying, expand the court! Support the Judiciary Act of 2023, "legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-Justice bench."
I am with you. What little hair I had is now ashes on the floor. How can this be happening in the 21st century? How can we have a court taking us back to a time when white supremacy was a given? When diversity was a dirty word? Am I awake or in a nightmare? A daymare...?
But it is a waste of precious time and energy to try to expand the court now. It is an impossibility. While I completely support the idea, we should take a pro tip from Nancy Pelosi. Count your votes before you waste your time. The House would laugh it off. The Senate is crippled by two faux Democrats.
Every effort, every breath we take, every comment, every phone call, every post card, every call to our reps, every shout from the roof tops is precious now. Why not use those efforts for the ousting of the fascists on November 5, 2024? We win and then we attack the court with impeachments, codes of conduct, term limits and expansion. When we have the votes.
I and many, many others understand constitutional politics is complex, 3 dimensional chess on a clock, if you will. Constitutional victory can be accomplished. Buckle Up.
You think an election will magically fix anything? Seriously?
Throughout history, Congress has taken votes (and impeached a certain president twice), knowing that they wouldn't win, but they did it to create a full historical record of the crimes and misdemeanors committed, and how the GOP thwarted justice.
No magic. Just an effective majority that could accomplish what we both want. NOTHING of the nature you describe will get out of a committee run by Republicons.
You are right. We should push our agenda of justice. But attempting anything meaningful in a House of Reps owned by MAGA maniacs is like bringing a tennis racket to a hockey game.
Well summarized Ellie. Justice Sotomayor read her dissent out loud from the Bench.
Public sniping from Chief Justice Roberts over the last 36 hours has brought a direct public response from Justice Sotomayor. If a Community member has it, please post it in this Thread. Gracias.
Bingo Ellie! I have already lodged my official complaint at the Colorado Attorney General's Website v suggested Rule 44, Motion for Re-Hearing within the mandatory 25 days.
I als recommended that Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle the Motion ... that would be Neals' 51st appearance at SCOTUS if they do hire the top appellate attorney in the Land
Thank you Ellie! T Greg's first sentence is extremely important in terms of the EXACT admissible evidence about the numerous "stipulations" agreed to by the State of Colorado, cited in the Majority Opinion. The Opinion relies on those "stipulations" to reach their desired 6-3 result.
Put aside the buden of proof (B/P) standard for Rule 60 for the moment because I do not believe that B/P will be "outcome determinative" in the next 20 or so calendar days.
As I stated a day ago & formally filed a complaint with AG Weiss, the state of Colorado MUST hire top counsel to take over the this Federal asap.
Mr Weiss has an Oath of office & a fiduciary duty to his Client, the state of Colorado and its citizens to let NEAL KATYAL or LAWRENCE TRIBE (given the 1st Amendment sophistry) take over now. Such attorneys can have the frank attorney client protected and "work product" discussions needed to bust this fraud on the Court..
“The facts in the 303 case were stipulated, meaning both sides agreed to them and the Court is required to take them as true for purposes of making its decision”
“ You can have a judgment set aside under Rule 60(b)(2) for "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered"
But – as the media coverage shows – that evidence *could* have been discovered with reasonable diligence”
“There's no fraud when the State of Colorado agreed to it
Even if were, the deadline for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to set aside for fraud would have been 1 year after the trial court's ruling -- so that deadline already passed back in 2018”
Regarding bad due diligence:
“This assumes the State cared. They may have assumed a case of this sort was inevitable eventually anyway, and may as well get an appellate ruling on it sooner than later”
“I don't know enough about Colorado politics or law to know if that had any influence on why things went how they did, but her 4-year tenure did overlap with the major case points: initially filed in 2016, trial court decisions in 2017 and 2018, 10th Circ appeal in 2019”
Regarding Neal Katyal said CO AG should get rehearing:
“Let's assume that procedurally all of this is 100% possible (it's not, btw): which 2 of the 6 SCOTUS justices would change their minds based on this?”
Doucette advised reading the lower courts’ opinions available on SCOTUS blog:
Also in the meantime is this article by Dale Carpenter arguing that the ruling is very narrow regarding free speech (so don’t worry about protected classes getting unprotected in subsequent cases?).
"My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. "
Yes. an appellate court is a court of review. If there is new evidence in a case under appeal, the case will be referred back to the original court.
There is one thing that hasn't been done - that the Civil Rights Act should be amended to include LGBTQ persons. And the obvious thing here is that the Supreme Court should not have heard this case. They seem to relish, as a bunch of right wing religious ideologues, ruling against people who instead should be protected. Look what they did to women, and this country's shameful lack of gun safety laws. Ruling that people have the right to carry guns inside churches does nothing other than kiss the ass of the NRA. President Biden also had the power to forgive student loans, but the court ruled incorrectly and there is no recourse for that.
Here's the cool thing about this nutty fact pattern: The facts adduced by the reporter about the non-existent injury to the non-existent plaintiff in the non-existent case reveals a lack of jurisdiction, i.e., no case and controversy, a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, the power of the court to even hear the case.
And subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised at any time, even after the judgment is final. The parties to a case may not agree to confer juristion where it does not exist.
"Stewart" is a Web Designer in San Francisco, a very competitive digital trade. In interview talks with 1 particular reporter, "Stewart" stated he did become aware of the case through normal digital industry chatter.
FYI, the Colorado AG's Office has an excellent homepage tech design. I was able to easily file a complaint yesterday with the CO AG, Phil providing my trial experience & ABA membership as background but, the URL is available to the Public.
I recommended that Phil's Office file a Rule 44 Motion for Re-hearing at SCOTUS. I even went further recommending that the State of Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle or advise on the Motion for Re-Hearing. I also alerted my Colorado contacts of my complaint.
I agree. Neal would be great. I just doubt SCOTUS would do anything despite their repeated pronouncements that they do not address hypothetical cases. (I though Stewart was in Washington state, but not important.) I'm just shocked the CO AG didn't figure this out. I would've researched the hell out of this person and been in contact for his "side" of what happened (and would have, as a result, learned that his "request" was bogus.)
Trump was installed to complete a task that has been in the works for decades; the delegitimization of our most basic institutions and the degradation of democratic government. We the People have allowed this to happen through ignorance, greed, indifference, denial. Question is: can we fix our problems peacefully at the ballot box?
I understand and agree with you on T***p, but he had a lot of help. Between Congress and the appointed judges lieing under oath during their confirmations!!! T***p was a very large part, but there is still a lot of "house cleaning" that needs to be done. We can't let the Retrumplicans and this Supreme Court move us back to the 1930s or before!! Vote Blue for governing, not just obstruction and hate.
And afterwards, nobody ever investigated it. Just as nobody ever interviewed the 5 witnesses who could testify as to Kavanaugh's actions over several years as serial sex offender.
The possibility is there within an ongoing list of fires needing to be put out all over this country but don’t forget 2020 and the raging pandemic with all odds against us yet we won.
The odds may have been in our favor and 45’s presidency may have been a disaster but there was a lot of fear that not enough people would be able to get to the poles or want to because of the pandemic and intimidation in red states. Fear was an important factor and there was a lot of noise and denial of the results by 45. Fear will play a big part the next time around as well but I feel we will win in ‘24. Seems pretty clear to me.
How is it that a ‘hypothetical’ case is even introduced or considered by the Not So Supreme Court? Where is the separation of Church & State? Just frightening!
Helpful, but please stop calling the Court majority “conservative”. Nothing about the decisions this week is conservative. I like to use “right-wing” when describing the Roberts majority and its surreal decisions.
Barry, I don't like right wing and left wing, because of the implication that the right wing is "right" while the left wing is either out in left field or has left the game. We need to come up with a more descriptive name (the vile wing perhaps)
Theocratic FACISM by Leonard Leo the Federalist Society and Billionaires DARK Money a plot for over 50 years to Destroy Democracy and Religious Freedom
How about "radical reactionary bigoted elitist uber religious activist puppets of the fascist oligarchs"? Or a Supreme Court majority "resurrected from the graves of their dead predecessors of 200 years ago"? Zombies from 1823?!
What if she had created a website and said "I will create wedding websites for marriages for anyone except interracial couples because I have a strong religious belief that interracial marriage is immoral and my minister agrees with me and I believe that's what the Bible says?" Is that "speech" protected by the First Amendment, Justice Thomas?
I have asked that hypothetical myself. Also, what about , “I have a strongly held religious belief that Jews control the world and all the world’s money and therefore don’t deserve individualally prepared web sites. “
Or "I have a strongly held personal belief that fundamentalists are scum and therefore I will not have anything to do with them." (Actually, that's what I do believe and what I do)
A Dangerous Theocratic FACISM that leads to war in my opinion. Why have we not stopped this Corruption? Global in scope and fuelled by Autocrats and Religious Extremists by the Billions of Dollars to create a HANDMAIDS Tale for America
No. Its "conduct" - not speech. Justice Sotomayor made that distinction. Nobody stopped this "web designer" from expressing herself. But refusing service to a protected class of people is an act - a form of conduct - not a statement of opinion protected by the First Amendment.
This decision is not only bogus for lack of standing. It is literally un-Constitutional. It undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as long as these 6 corrupt activist fascists are on the bench.
In my opinion: This was a setup. There was no evidence beyond the allegation. There was no consideration of case law. There was no injury. There was no standing. The six people who signed the decision in favor are imposters just like Trump. They had a price and someone met it. Conservative is redefined as I can own you without penalty. The for sale lineup will continue to grow. I am so fucking sad.
I hate to say it, but I agree. The fact that this was a made-up case is sad & pathetic. Justice Robert's shouldn't have allowed it to make it to the Supreme Court.
Agreed, and what appalls me the most is there's no recourse for us. I hate the Court almost as much as I hate trump, because their power is totally unchecked.
I still want to see somebody say, "I'm ignoring your fascist ruling."
Apparently there is recourse in the particular case of the website designer. My understanding is that the claim of inaccuracy/fraud can be brought by the state of Colorado. When new information surfaces (there was no gay man who asked for a wedding website). But will that happen?
Let your sorrow guide you back to Joyce Vance and all who serve in trust of our country’s ideals. It is here that possibilities abound and it links us in that direction.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a radical right wing group focused on attacking civil liberties was involved in this case. We will never know where their money comes from, but I won’t be surprised if money passed under the table for Smith to even get this case to the top court. That the court even heard this case is the big crime. Shame on the compromised “judges” who voted for this debacle.
I agree with you 100% Now the email seems to be a lie that was presented as factual? This is a DARK Money Religious Extremist Operative again!! @POTUS must expand this court and @ DOJCivil and @DOJCriminal need to open an investigation of the Gift taking Corruption of Alito Thomas Coney Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh Immediately!
I really think it is time, and past time for some Democrats in the House of Representatives to screw up their courage and file papers of impeachment against Alito and Thomas at least, on the grounds of Article III Section 1, stating that they serve during good behavior. Accepting gifts exceeding the value of $10 (that is all teachers and County workers were allowed to receive as gifts) amounts to a bribe Further neither Alito nor Thomas recused themselves in hearing cases brought to the Supreme Court by entities in which their benefactors were involved. Actually I think all six ignoble justices should face trials of impeachment for failure to uphold the Constitution as written. The mere fact of being raised to the highest Court in the land does not give them the right to interpret the written words of the Constitution to align with their personal prejudices or religious biases. The main reason the United States of America has succeeded in this Great Experiment of Democracy for 236 years is the vast majority of us respect the law. This Supreme Court is causing us to question that respect.
Emotionally, I agree. Practically speaking it is whistling in the wind. We don't have the votes. Such an effort meets MY criteria for justice. Alito and Thomas are crooks. Roberts and Gorsuch are compromised by their associations (wife and mother).
But count the votes. Then come back in January 2025 after we have our Blue Trifecta and introduce a slew of bills. Impeachment, code of conduct, term limits, expand the court.
Right now? Ask the DOJ if they are appointing special prosecutors for the financial "errors" of these clowns.
Yes, I agree with you Bill. I just think it wouldn't hurt to get some bills of impeachment written. No, nothing will happen before 2025, and then only if we retake the House of Representatives and get a firmer hold on the Senate (enough that we don't need to rely on Manchin and Sinema) I like your idea of requesting the DOJ to look into the "financial errors"; although that is what the IRS should be doing as they cheated on their taxes. That's not likely to happen while the 'do nothings' aka GOP, control the House of Representatives.
It has occurred to me that the whole reporting of bennies issue could be solved by changing the law to forbid TAKING the bennies, not just reporting them. (Problems of small gifts could be handled with a minimum value threshold as could the idea of personal hospitality when it's just going out to dinner.)
The law should explicitly state that violation of that statute is a "high crime or misdemeanor". That's to prevent the reaction to impeachment of so many GOP Senators in the first impeachment--"well, I agree they proved that he did try to suborn a foreign leader for political gain, but I just don't think that's an impeachable offense."
Given the current state of the Congress, just how far do you think trying to impeach a Supreme Court justice will get? Indignation never has worked very well as a tactic and will just further stir up the resistance to rationality. We need to play the long game, no matter how it feels right now. The most important goal right now is to keep the government as functional as we can. The place to be focusing our efforts is at the state and local level, because that is where the payoff in 2014 will be. And if we do our jobs, we can win. Instead of wringing our hands about the SC decisions, get the word out about what impact they could have on people in your community. And don't forget: these two decisions are particularly weak ones.
Now let's get busy putting our energy where it will do some good- getting out the vote in 2024, and supporting state and local candidates who understand what the Constitution for what it was meant to be.
The Supremacist Court of the US: We must take this as a five-alarm fire for human rights and democracy. Expand the court! JustMajority.org is leading the charge.
Start today @POTUS we are being governed by a Captured Court of Compromised Justices who have been representing Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society who has bought them via Funnelling dark money of FACIST Billionaires! The Very Best HANDMAIDS Tale scenario that money can buy
Belief in a god of any sort has no more place in judicial proceedings than the tooth fairy.
Until there is an actual separation of church from state, religious belief is and will remain the single most unchallenged impediment to equal justice. It appears acceptance of the supernatural is, as it always has been, used to excuse the inexcusable.
He is no more a believer than you or me, but he is the voice of those who you correctly see as holding the strings and using belief as their tool of control. It is impossible for me to accept believers as being more than people who will not accept the reality of death as final. The financial success of megachurches attest to the fear and resultant denial of death. The acceptance of reality is more than most people who are schooled in religious beliefs will accept. Gets them through the night
John Philpot Curran's statement, "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." Or Thomas Jefferson's version, "eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty." Well, the Federalist Society has been vigilant and plotting to get us where we are today. Entitled rich men who think they have the Right.
The Supreme Court's six pawns, by the rules, are only allowed to move one space toward winning power for their king. Or diagonally if capturing... I feel captured and removed from the board and sitting in an enemy's confinement. We have played this game before... when Roosevelt got rid of the last robber barons. Let get jumping!
You better get 'woke' conservatives you don't seem to know the game you are playing.
‘...it’s often mean-spirited, ignoring the impact the conservative agenda has on the lives of real people who have looked to the law for decades to protect them and their civil rights.'
___Joyce Vance
‘YOUR LADDER’S UNNECESSAY’ said Justice Alito to the Black man.
As someone who works in the wedding industry I can’t help but wonder WHO is going to PAY her to make them a wedding website? There are so many template website companies that will let you use their templates for free. There is no reason to pay someone to do what you can get for free. The whole case smells funny.
I wonder if the 303 case was dreamed up as sort of an advertisement for religious folks. It's possible no one would know this person existed without the case publicity. There was no injury and hence no standing as far as I can see. It was a fake case as we now know it was based on the wrong fellow. Very sneaky and creepy. The court has gone way down the rabbit hole.
To me, ultimately it goes back to Reagan era where the GOP decided to pushback against the New Deal and Great Society and to fight any campaign finance reform.
After McCain-Feingold, the GOP's stance was to open the floodgates, abetted by enough Democrats who loved the perks as well.
We went from "one person, one vote"
to eventually paid speech trumping free speech. Not to mention alternate facts and wallowing in cultural issues based on self-pity.
The joke was quid pro quo that technically did not give the strict appearance. By the 90s most statesmen had disappeared and been replaced by complicit hacks. Cheating for power was all that mattered from gerrymandering to disenfranchisement to hypocrisy as to who picks Justices.
So now the hacks can push widely supported consensus off the menu like shared agreement on abortion and gun reform.
We should be angry. Good and angry.
And yet anger is not enough. Because 40% of registered voters are too lazy, too dumb or too selfishly alienated to get off their duffs and vote.
As bad as the GOP is, they rely on the 40% too dumb to understand the stakes and who see corruption and foolishly believe staying home will magically get officials to beg them to vote.
Just the opposite: the GOP just loves your ignorance. If our democracy dies it will be from neglect.
But lots of people are turned off by all the noise, a bit confused and just feel there’s no point. I would think fear of going further down the road our country is headed would be fear enough to get out there and vote. That is where making that very clear to potential new voters is a must.
And, ironically, that is why gobs of people voted for Trump......he professed to wanting to tear the whole thing down, to the delight of all those who don't really understand any of this, and don't want to start now. It's a doom loop.
As soon as people get to "what's the point" they cede power and become enablers.
We live in a country that is supposed to be ours. Instead we are either divided or turned off. And while we can say we understand, look what tolerance for the status quo has created.
To me, one has to understand that partisanship and division have cleared the way for corruption. When you consider a key tenet of MAGAism is the loss of economic status, it is boggling that supporters have fallen for the ruse that it is LGBT, immigrants and minorities as the cause. It is the complete lack of economic common sense that fails to question who has the destructive power.
The culture wars suit both parties who have ceded power to donor money. But the Democrats are about applying band-aids like student debt reduction, privatized healthcare with more heart and fairer taxation. But there is no stomach to change the basic power structure. They work with corruption for limited reform. And so the culture wars and "our donors are better than yours".
Thank you for expressing your anger so articulately. You found the perfect words to express my rage. Something has to be done about this court. There is good reason why most Americans, including me, a retired attorney , have no confidence in this Supreme Court!
SCOTUS is facing a reckoning and seismic shift. Somehow we are going to achieve what seems to be the unachievable. If Joyce hasn’t given up, how can we?
Then: During confirmation of the Trump appointees to the court - they said they couldn't comment on "hypotheticals."
Now: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis based on a "phony controversy"
A pure hypothetical.
Not even an "actual controversy" required for "standing". We need 13 Justices, 1 for each Federal Circuit and several 7-6 opinions.
I filed a complaint to the Colorado Attorney General, PHIL WEISER, to file a Rule 44 Motion for a Rehearing at SCOTUS to vacate this abomination.
Exactly right! Biden needs to get on board with this the way Obama got on board with gay marriage. Nine isn't a magic number handed down by the imaginary sky guy.
Write to the President and tell him.
Thx Celeste. I am hoping the reliable JEN PSAKI will deal with the DRAFT legislation later this Sunday morning 7/2.
Celeste, ss you may know, Jen focused on the lineup cases coming to SCOTUS that MAY roll back Constitutional rights on other issues.
No worries, Both NEAL KATYAL & LAWRENCE TRIBE have responded with focused recommendations. I have asked the Colorado AG to file a Motion for Re-hearings at SCOTUS asap.
I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
You're right.
Biden recently stated he didn’t think an increased number of Supreme Court justices was the right way to go. I’m really not clear on his reasoning and I do believe your idea is one to consider.
I am only speculating. But here goes. If Biden is to win next year and if we are to achieve victory in the way of significant majorities in the House and Senate, we need to choose our campaign subjects carefully. The only thing that matters - for democracy and the Planet itself, is defeating the fascists on election day.
That means that every statement by every politician is a campaign ad. Like it or not. Biden knows this better than anyone. He is a superior strategist.
I also believe in changing the Supreme Court. Term limits. Code of Conduct. Impeachment. And yes, a larger court. But there are 10 or 12 other items to be running on that are more apt to swing independent and youthful voters.
I speculate that Biden could shift his public pronouncements about the court in January 2025 after he takes the oath of office again.
Your comment is good political science not speculation. Perhaps one of these LFAA days, HCR will illuminate the post Civil War time when we had ten (10) Justices in this Country. First, Lincoln & Grant had to defeat the Seditionist Robert E Lee.
agree.
Well said.
If, by January 2025, Democrats have enough votes to expand the court, Biden will change his mind.
From your keyboard to God's eyes. The MAGA era has revealed the cracks in our country's underpinnings. There need to be additional qualifications specified for the office of President, senators, House representatives. Time to stop letting a small minority terrorize the rest of us. No more filibuster, equalize representation in the Senate. Wyoming should not have 2 senators for 500,000 plus people and D.C. have none. I do realize updating our governance will take years.
Jenn, ever since tfg ran and won* the presidency, I have thought that we need stricter rules (laws) about these things. For starters, if a person wants to run for president, they must pass a standard background check and qualify for a security clearance. It still makes me nauseous to think that tfg _and his family who did not qualify for security clearances_ had access to top secret information for 4 years, and beyond, since he stole our nations secret documents.
I think we've all been shocked by how many things we thought were laws & rules turned out to be only norms & guidelines. Who knew we needed an actual law for half the things TFG did? That's why "no precedence for xyz" has been so over-used... we never knew we needed to have laws to stop this behavior.
If we don't wind up with a republican President.
Not a chance. Come on.
I am in disagreement with Biden on this issue. My hope is that when 2024 rolls around and he wins the nomination again, that he goes back on his word and starts the judicial process.
He has to win the general election first, and he needs enough Democrats in both houses to accomplish any changes to the Supreme Court. I don't believe this is something he can accomplish by executive order. If there aren't enough Dems to do it, he'd have to get buy-in from a few Republicans. But he can't begin that fight until after the election.
He said doing so might politicize the court.
That statement tells me quite clearly he lives in some idealized world in his head, not the stark, ugly reality the rest of us live in. He can’t or won’t face reality (in multiple areas) and we, not him, live with the damage.
I am going to disagree. The strategy is to reinforce belief in the democracy for those who are rocked by the Trump agenda. To show what a reasonable president looks like who follows the rules as they are set in our democracy. Changing the rules smacks of dictatorship, which is what he does not want to appear by. I suspect there are a lot of Americans that will be swayed by the play by the rules attitude. Biden is still pitting himself as a contrast to what Trump has to offer, which is to not play by the rules, and to bend every governmental body to his every whim. It has worked thus far for him, so to suddenly become unreliable Joe, who goes after the wrongs by changing the rules might not work for him. He has Merrick Garland to do that. I am not saying he is perfect in everything he does, but as much as I wish to see him add to the courts, I can see how he is trying to appear fair and honorable, and that might call that into question, and give the right something to go after. In the short term we are going to be living with a lot of shitty, rulings, which the courts do not have the means to enforce if the President goes against them, but he will not. We have to be in this for the long game. That is get the Republicans out in 2024. The Supreme Court did help with this, because there is some time for Red states to get better districting, and get rid of some of the laws that make voting more difficult. That is the fight to take on right now. The Supreme Courts gave us an opening. We need to take that.
"*Reinforce* belief in democracy"? I've been skeptical about democracy since I realized there were few checks and balances on economic power. This was almost 10 years before Reagan was elected. The last 40+ years have proven me more right than I ever wanted to be.
On the whole I think President Biden is doing the best job anyone could do in the current situation, with such a narrow margin in the Senate, the GOP having gone to hell in a clown car, infrastructure crumbling from decades of neglect, and white supremacists out of the closet and armed to the teeth -- oh yeah, and climate change. If we manage to ride the current rapids and emerge reasonably intact on the other side, we as a country are going to have to come up with ways to rein in concentrated economic power so that it never again comes this close to undermining our progress toward real democracy.
I disagree with you. Time will tell which of us was closer to the mark.
In the meantime, there are quite a lot of people whose lives are now much worse because of those “shitty, rulings (sic)”. That’s hardly fair to them.
Relying on Garland to seek actual justice is akin to Biden seeing what’s happening with absolute clarity instead of the mindset that allows him to think the Court isn’t politicized yet, that McConnell is an honorable man and McCarthy is a good man (all things he has said publicly). Garland took exactly zero steps to holding trump accountable for the Jan 6th insurrection until forced to do so by the overwhelming evidence made public by the Committee hearings. He also gave trump months - months! - to return classified documents.
Neither one gives me “belief in the democracy”.
The danger is that this is not "short term." Unless those 6 conservative justices decide to resign, or they die (and none of them is in precarious health, as RBG was), they will be on the bench for decades. Decades. They'll be sitting on the court long after Biden dies.
Biden is doing the "turn the other cheek" thing, when he could be doing what is within his powers as president to do. He voices disappointment but leaves deeply harmful court rulings to continue the rot the GOP is feeding every day.
You sure don't know our President. Look at his track record. We have a very wise man and politician in the WH and one with integrity and a REAL patriot.
The right will scream "he's politicizing the court!!!!" no matter what he does, so he might as well do it. I do understand showing he's reasonable and normal, but not doing something because the right will complain is no way to govern. They're going to say whatever they need to, no matter how false or hypocritical, so we might as well actually get done what we can and show that our side is for progress and their side wants to repeal the 20th century.
Of course if, say, Thomas resigned and Biden proposed anyone to the left of him, even a hair, the GOP would scream he is "politicizing" the court. Witness the nomination of Merrick Garland. For the right, "politicizing" is the all-purpose cry for ANYTHING they don't like, right behind "but Hunter Biden's Laptop."
Exactly!
He cannot do it by executive order. He needs approval from Congress, and he cannot get it with the Republican majority in the House. He must be re-elected and have a Congress which will support it, but not this year.
After he’s elected in 2024…….
The court has always been politicized. This is nothing new.
Write to the President and tell him.
From some pure "hypocritical"s
These SCOTUS decisions in 303 Creative and in the student loan case crushed constitutional requirements for standing, bulldozed them and overrode the court's lack of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has created legal fiction at the level of The Big Lie, a hallmark of fascism. As we have been dealing with The Big Lie of election deniers, we are finally seeing recourse through our judicial system. My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. Here, however, the 303 Creative case in particular was advanced on facts not in evidence--a "gay" man who turned out to be heterosexual--a huge procedural issue, not to mention the hypothetical issue, but there is no court of appeal after SCOTUS.
As Joyce Vance writes tonight , we're looking at legal conduct that adds up to fraud and perjury for which attorneys are normally sanctioned. And the reactionary rogue majority on SCOTUS has created a slippery slope. Justice Sotomayor dissented that SCOTUS has now established the constitutional right for a business to refuse service to members of a federally protected class. LGBTQ+ with 303 Creative, and dark moneyed Federalist Society infrastructure putting cases in the pipeline for people of color, women, senior citizens, people of different religions, etc. next.
The magnitude of this threat to democracy of a legally sanctioned Big Lie that is now blindsiding us from the judicial branch of our government has my hair on fire. Like others have been saying, expand the court! Support the Judiciary Act of 2023, "legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-Justice bench."
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff
And per fellow reader Eric Doub herein:
JustMajority.org is leading the charge.
I am with you. What little hair I had is now ashes on the floor. How can this be happening in the 21st century? How can we have a court taking us back to a time when white supremacy was a given? When diversity was a dirty word? Am I awake or in a nightmare? A daymare...?
But it is a waste of precious time and energy to try to expand the court now. It is an impossibility. While I completely support the idea, we should take a pro tip from Nancy Pelosi. Count your votes before you waste your time. The House would laugh it off. The Senate is crippled by two faux Democrats.
Every effort, every breath we take, every comment, every phone call, every post card, every call to our reps, every shout from the roof tops is precious now. Why not use those efforts for the ousting of the fascists on November 5, 2024? We win and then we attack the court with impeachments, codes of conduct, term limits and expansion. When we have the votes.
I and many, many others understand constitutional politics is complex, 3 dimensional chess on a clock, if you will. Constitutional victory can be accomplished. Buckle Up.
You think an election will magically fix anything? Seriously?
Throughout history, Congress has taken votes (and impeached a certain president twice), knowing that they wouldn't win, but they did it to create a full historical record of the crimes and misdemeanors committed, and how the GOP thwarted justice.
No magic. Just an effective majority that could accomplish what we both want. NOTHING of the nature you describe will get out of a committee run by Republicons.
You are right. We should push our agenda of justice. But attempting anything meaningful in a House of Reps owned by MAGA maniacs is like bringing a tennis racket to a hockey game.
Well summarized Ellie. Justice Sotomayor read her dissent out loud from the Bench.
Public sniping from Chief Justice Roberts over the last 36 hours has brought a direct public response from Justice Sotomayor. If a Community member has it, please post it in this Thread. Gracias.
Neal Katyal says Colorado AG should ask SCOTUS for rehearing on 303 Creative:
https://twitter.com/VelshiMSNBC/status/1675565558962552833?s=20
We can contact CO AG Phil Weiser:
https://complaints.coag.gov/s/contact-us
Bingo Ellie! I have already lodged my official complaint at the Colorado Attorney General's Website v suggested Rule 44, Motion for Re-Hearing within the mandatory 25 days.
I als recommended that Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle the Motion ... that would be Neals' 51st appearance at SCOTUS if they do hire the top appellate attorney in the Land
Neal Katyal is the absolute best at presenting to the Supreme Court.
Rule 44, Neal Katyal—brilliant! Thank you!
Neal is brlliant. The top appellate attorney I have heard argue before SCOTUS.
Legal minds’ review, please, of this thread by Greg Doucette:
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1675646942498390017?s=46&t=G1vnalQqxYifVbjonWfCIA
Noon Pacific, Oh, T. Greg Doucette, the lawyer. The "T" in T. GREG DOUCETTE is Important ....
Thank you Ellie! T Greg's first sentence is extremely important in terms of the EXACT admissible evidence about the numerous "stipulations" agreed to by the State of Colorado, cited in the Majority Opinion. The Opinion relies on those "stipulations" to reach their desired 6-3 result.
Put aside the buden of proof (B/P) standard for Rule 60 for the moment because I do not believe that B/P will be "outcome determinative" in the next 20 or so calendar days.
As I stated a day ago & formally filed a complaint with AG Weiss, the state of Colorado MUST hire top counsel to take over the this Federal asap.
Mr Weiss has an Oath of office & a fiduciary duty to his Client, the state of Colorado and its citizens to let NEAL KATYAL or LAWRENCE TRIBE (given the 1st Amendment sophistry) take over now. Such attorneys can have the frank attorney client protected and "work product" discussions needed to bust this fraud on the Court..
Sorry. T. Greg Doucette excerpts:
“The facts in the 303 case were stipulated, meaning both sides agreed to them and the Court is required to take them as true for purposes of making its decision”
“ You can have a judgment set aside under Rule 60(b)(2) for "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered"
But – as the media coverage shows – that evidence *could* have been discovered with reasonable diligence”
“There's no fraud when the State of Colorado agreed to it
Even if were, the deadline for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to set aside for fraud would have been 1 year after the trial court's ruling -- so that deadline already passed back in 2018”
Regarding bad due diligence:
“This assumes the State cared. They may have assumed a case of this sort was inevitable eventually anyway, and may as well get an appellate ruling on it sooner than later”
Regarding Republican CO AG when case was filed:
https://coloradosun.com/2019/01/08/cynthia-coffman-colorado-ag-exit-interview/
“I don't know enough about Colorado politics or law to know if that had any influence on why things went how they did, but her 4-year tenure did overlap with the major case points: initially filed in 2016, trial court decisions in 2017 and 2018, 10th Circ appeal in 2019”
Regarding Neal Katyal said CO AG should get rehearing:
“Let's assume that procedurally all of this is 100% possible (it's not, btw): which 2 of the 6 SCOTUS justices would change their minds based on this?”
Doucette advised reading the lower courts’ opinions available on SCOTUS blog:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/
Also in the meantime is this article by Dale Carpenter arguing that the ruling is very narrow regarding free speech (so don’t worry about protected classes getting unprotected in subsequent cases?).
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/03/how-to-read-303-creative-v-elenis/
Well, Greg Doucette’s Twitter thread is long with lots of replies from others, so I’m working on a workaround. In the meantime is the article:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sham-customer-likely-didnt-affect-supreme-court-ruling-sex-weddings-ex-rcna92366
"My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. "
Yes. an appellate court is a court of review. If there is new evidence in a case under appeal, the case will be referred back to the original court.
There is one thing that hasn't been done - that the Civil Rights Act should be amended to include LGBTQ persons. And the obvious thing here is that the Supreme Court should not have heard this case. They seem to relish, as a bunch of right wing religious ideologues, ruling against people who instead should be protected. Look what they did to women, and this country's shameful lack of gun safety laws. Ruling that people have the right to carry guns inside churches does nothing other than kiss the ass of the NRA. President Biden also had the power to forgive student loans, but the court ruled incorrectly and there is no recourse for that.
Here's the cool thing about this nutty fact pattern: The facts adduced by the reporter about the non-existent injury to the non-existent plaintiff in the non-existent case reveals a lack of jurisdiction, i.e., no case and controversy, a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, the power of the court to even hear the case.
And subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised at any time, even after the judgment is final. The parties to a case may not agree to confer juristion where it does not exist.
The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Just annoyed that the State of Colorado didn't figure that out a long time ago.
There was some feeble activity by Colorado but, it was very late in the briefing schedule. Hence the need for a Rule 44 Motion.
I'm just astonished that Stewart wasn't even aware until a few days ago. It means that CO AG's office never reached out to him.
"Stewart" is a Web Designer in San Francisco, a very competitive digital trade. In interview talks with 1 particular reporter, "Stewart" stated he did become aware of the case through normal digital industry chatter.
FYI, the Colorado AG's Office has an excellent homepage tech design. I was able to easily file a complaint yesterday with the CO AG, Phil providing my trial experience & ABA membership as background but, the URL is available to the Public.
I recommended that Phil's Office file a Rule 44 Motion for Re-hearing at SCOTUS. I even went further recommending that the State of Colorado hire NEAL KATYAL to handle or advise on the Motion for Re-Hearing. I also alerted my Colorado contacts of my complaint.
Have Compter No Need to Travel ... bsm
I agree. Neal would be great. I just doubt SCOTUS would do anything despite their repeated pronouncements that they do not address hypothetical cases. (I though Stewart was in Washington state, but not important.) I'm just shocked the CO AG didn't figure this out. I would've researched the hell out of this person and been in contact for his "side" of what happened (and would have, as a result, learned that his "request" was bogus.)
Josh Hawley’s wife litigated this fraud?
That's what I saw! Well, birds of a feather and all that...
Thanks Joyce , no comments can say more than your writing. The nausea created by this court is unbelievable.
And it is unjust.
I agree with you completely! Thank you Joyce.
Trump was installed to complete a task that has been in the works for decades; the delegitimization of our most basic institutions and the degradation of democratic government. We the People have allowed this to happen through ignorance, greed, indifference, denial. Question is: can we fix our problems peacefully at the ballot box?
I understand and agree with you on T***p, but he had a lot of help. Between Congress and the appointed judges lieing under oath during their confirmations!!! T***p was a very large part, but there is still a lot of "house cleaning" that needs to be done. We can't let the Retrumplicans and this Supreme Court move us back to the 1930s or before!! Vote Blue for governing, not just obstruction and hate.
They are all married to Leonard Leo and his dark money groups. Who else would’ve paid off Kavanaugh’s debts?
And Russian Influence and Election Interference
And afterwards, nobody ever investigated it. Just as nobody ever interviewed the 5 witnesses who could testify as to Kavanaugh's actions over several years as serial sex offender.
Our task at hand is to show them who is boss. That’s us! Can you dig it?
The possibility is there within an ongoing list of fires needing to be put out all over this country but don’t forget 2020 and the raging pandemic with all odds against us yet we won.
Actually, the odds were in our favor. Trump's presidency was a disaster in every way possible. Biden won by almost 8 million votes.
The odds may have been in our favor and 45’s presidency may have been a disaster but there was a lot of fear that not enough people would be able to get to the poles or want to because of the pandemic and intimidation in red states. Fear was an important factor and there was a lot of noise and denial of the results by 45. Fear will play a big part the next time around as well but I feel we will win in ‘24. Seems pretty clear to me.
Evangelicals "made a deal with the Devil" to get Roe v Wade overturned.
https://www.rawstory.com/robert-schenck-testimony-video/
How is it that a ‘hypothetical’ case is even introduced or considered by the Not So Supreme Court? Where is the separation of Church & State? Just frightening!
Helpful, but please stop calling the Court majority “conservative”. Nothing about the decisions this week is conservative. I like to use “right-wing” when describing the Roberts majority and its surreal decisions.
There's a big difference between "conservative" and "reactionary."
Barry, I don't like right wing and left wing, because of the implication that the right wing is "right" while the left wing is either out in left field or has left the game. We need to come up with a more descriptive name (the vile wing perhaps)
How abut "fascist scum"?
Good one (:-)
Partisan actors
I agree Barry and would go even further to say, please stop calling Republicans "conservatives ".
Theocratic FACISM by Leonard Leo the Federalist Society and Billionaires DARK Money a plot for over 50 years to Destroy Democracy and Religious Freedom
Reactionary was the term I was taught in school
How about "radical reactionary bigoted elitist uber religious activist puppets of the fascist oligarchs"? Or a Supreme Court majority "resurrected from the graves of their dead predecessors of 200 years ago"? Zombies from 1823?!
It’s neither “right wing” or “conservative”, it’s “Christian Fascism” through and through! Call it what it is!
How about “far out right with privileges.”
I call the right wingers radical right wing. There is nothing conservative about them, or the group behind this fake case.
What if she had created a website and said "I will create wedding websites for marriages for anyone except interracial couples because I have a strong religious belief that interracial marriage is immoral and my minister agrees with me and I believe that's what the Bible says?" Is that "speech" protected by the First Amendment, Justice Thomas?
I have asked that hypothetical myself. Also, what about , “I have a strongly held religious belief that Jews control the world and all the world’s money and therefore don’t deserve individualally prepared web sites. “
Or "I have a strongly held personal belief that fundamentalists are scum and therefore I will not have anything to do with them." (Actually, that's what I do believe and what I do)
A Dangerous Theocratic FACISM that leads to war in my opinion. Why have we not stopped this Corruption? Global in scope and fuelled by Autocrats and Religious Extremists by the Billions of Dollars to create a HANDMAIDS Tale for America
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Great point.
No. Its "conduct" - not speech. Justice Sotomayor made that distinction. Nobody stopped this "web designer" from expressing herself. But refusing service to a protected class of people is an act - a form of conduct - not a statement of opinion protected by the First Amendment.
This decision is not only bogus for lack of standing. It is literally un-Constitutional. It undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as long as these 6 corrupt activist fascists are on the bench.
Whoa snap!
In my opinion: This was a setup. There was no evidence beyond the allegation. There was no consideration of case law. There was no injury. There was no standing. The six people who signed the decision in favor are imposters just like Trump. They had a price and someone met it. Conservative is redefined as I can own you without penalty. The for sale lineup will continue to grow. I am so fucking sad.
I hate to say it, but I agree. The fact that this was a made-up case is sad & pathetic. Justice Robert's shouldn't have allowed it to make it to the Supreme Court.
Justice Roberts is one of them...maybe worse. He’s upset now because people are beginning to see through his veneer. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Agreed, and what appalls me the most is there's no recourse for us. I hate the Court almost as much as I hate trump, because their power is totally unchecked.
I still want to see somebody say, "I'm ignoring your fascist ruling."
The recourse begins on November 5, 2024. Eject the fascists who gave us this court from Opus Dei.
Apparently there is recourse in the particular case of the website designer. My understanding is that the claim of inaccuracy/fraud can be brought by the state of Colorado. When new information surfaces (there was no gay man who asked for a wedding website). But will that happen?
Let your sorrow guide you back to Joyce Vance and all who serve in trust of our country’s ideals. It is here that possibilities abound and it links us in that direction.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a radical right wing group focused on attacking civil liberties was involved in this case. We will never know where their money comes from, but I won’t be surprised if money passed under the table for Smith to even get this case to the top court. That the court even heard this case is the big crime. Shame on the compromised “judges” who voted for this debacle.
They are a terrorist group.
I agree with you 100% Now the email seems to be a lie that was presented as factual? This is a DARK Money Religious Extremist Operative again!! @POTUS must expand this court and @ DOJCivil and @DOJCriminal need to open an investigation of the Gift taking Corruption of Alito Thomas Coney Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh Immediately!
I really think it is time, and past time for some Democrats in the House of Representatives to screw up their courage and file papers of impeachment against Alito and Thomas at least, on the grounds of Article III Section 1, stating that they serve during good behavior. Accepting gifts exceeding the value of $10 (that is all teachers and County workers were allowed to receive as gifts) amounts to a bribe Further neither Alito nor Thomas recused themselves in hearing cases brought to the Supreme Court by entities in which their benefactors were involved. Actually I think all six ignoble justices should face trials of impeachment for failure to uphold the Constitution as written. The mere fact of being raised to the highest Court in the land does not give them the right to interpret the written words of the Constitution to align with their personal prejudices or religious biases. The main reason the United States of America has succeeded in this Great Experiment of Democracy for 236 years is the vast majority of us respect the law. This Supreme Court is causing us to question that respect.
Emotionally, I agree. Practically speaking it is whistling in the wind. We don't have the votes. Such an effort meets MY criteria for justice. Alito and Thomas are crooks. Roberts and Gorsuch are compromised by their associations (wife and mother).
But count the votes. Then come back in January 2025 after we have our Blue Trifecta and introduce a slew of bills. Impeachment, code of conduct, term limits, expand the court.
Right now? Ask the DOJ if they are appointing special prosecutors for the financial "errors" of these clowns.
Yes, I agree with you Bill. I just think it wouldn't hurt to get some bills of impeachment written. No, nothing will happen before 2025, and then only if we retake the House of Representatives and get a firmer hold on the Senate (enough that we don't need to rely on Manchin and Sinema) I like your idea of requesting the DOJ to look into the "financial errors"; although that is what the IRS should be doing as they cheated on their taxes. That's not likely to happen while the 'do nothings' aka GOP, control the House of Representatives.
It has occurred to me that the whole reporting of bennies issue could be solved by changing the law to forbid TAKING the bennies, not just reporting them. (Problems of small gifts could be handled with a minimum value threshold as could the idea of personal hospitality when it's just going out to dinner.)
The law should explicitly state that violation of that statute is a "high crime or misdemeanor". That's to prevent the reaction to impeachment of so many GOP Senators in the first impeachment--"well, I agree they proved that he did try to suborn a foreign leader for political gain, but I just don't think that's an impeachable offense."
Or Leonard Leo at center of money laundering RICO case.
Yes!!!
We don’t question that respect. They do.
"screw up their courage" -- Dems are so bad at that! Handwringing isn't going to help!
They need a plan of action. A legal one though, as opposed to the Republicans.
Given the current state of the Congress, just how far do you think trying to impeach a Supreme Court justice will get? Indignation never has worked very well as a tactic and will just further stir up the resistance to rationality. We need to play the long game, no matter how it feels right now. The most important goal right now is to keep the government as functional as we can. The place to be focusing our efforts is at the state and local level, because that is where the payoff in 2014 will be. And if we do our jobs, we can win. Instead of wringing our hands about the SC decisions, get the word out about what impact they could have on people in your community. And don't forget: these two decisions are particularly weak ones.
Now let's get busy putting our energy where it will do some good- getting out the vote in 2024, and supporting state and local candidates who understand what the Constitution for what it was meant to be.
The Supremacist Court of the US: We must take this as a five-alarm fire for human rights and democracy. Expand the court! JustMajority.org is leading the charge.
Start today @POTUS we are being governed by a Captured Court of Compromised Justices who have been representing Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society who has bought them via Funnelling dark money of FACIST Billionaires! The Very Best HANDMAIDS Tale scenario that money can buy
Belief in a god of any sort has no more place in judicial proceedings than the tooth fairy.
Until there is an actual separation of church from state, religious belief is and will remain the single most unchallenged impediment to equal justice. It appears acceptance of the supernatural is, as it always has been, used to excuse the inexcusable.
Oil and water mix better
I'm not sure God has anything to do with decisions at the court but "deeply held beliefs" sure do. Must be some kind of code.
My status as a vocal atheist had never concerned me until tRump and his puppet masters assumed control.
He is no more a believer than you or me, but he is the voice of those who you correctly see as holding the strings and using belief as their tool of control. It is impossible for me to accept believers as being more than people who will not accept the reality of death as final. The financial success of megachurches attest to the fear and resultant denial of death. The acceptance of reality is more than most people who are schooled in religious beliefs will accept. Gets them through the night
John Philpot Curran's statement, "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." Or Thomas Jefferson's version, "eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty." Well, the Federalist Society has been vigilant and plotting to get us where we are today. Entitled rich men who think they have the Right.
The Supreme Court's six pawns, by the rules, are only allowed to move one space toward winning power for their king. Or diagonally if capturing... I feel captured and removed from the board and sitting in an enemy's confinement. We have played this game before... when Roosevelt got rid of the last robber barons. Let get jumping!
You better get 'woke' conservatives you don't seem to know the game you are playing.
‘...it’s often mean-spirited, ignoring the impact the conservative agenda has on the lives of real people who have looked to the law for decades to protect them and their civil rights.'
___Joyce Vance
‘YOUR LADDER’S UNNECESSAY’ said Justice Alito to the Black man.
____Mike Luckovich
Wow!
As someone who works in the wedding industry I can’t help but wonder WHO is going to PAY her to make them a wedding website? There are so many template website companies that will let you use their templates for free. There is no reason to pay someone to do what you can get for free. The whole case smells funny.
I wonder if the 303 case was dreamed up as sort of an advertisement for religious folks. It's possible no one would know this person existed without the case publicity. There was no injury and hence no standing as far as I can see. It was a fake case as we now know it was based on the wrong fellow. Very sneaky and creepy. The court has gone way down the rabbit hole.
They obviously think they don't have religious freedom unless they can impose their beliefs on others/make all other beliefs disappear.
To me, ultimately it goes back to Reagan era where the GOP decided to pushback against the New Deal and Great Society and to fight any campaign finance reform.
After McCain-Feingold, the GOP's stance was to open the floodgates, abetted by enough Democrats who loved the perks as well.
We went from "one person, one vote"
to eventually paid speech trumping free speech. Not to mention alternate facts and wallowing in cultural issues based on self-pity.
The joke was quid pro quo that technically did not give the strict appearance. By the 90s most statesmen had disappeared and been replaced by complicit hacks. Cheating for power was all that mattered from gerrymandering to disenfranchisement to hypocrisy as to who picks Justices.
So now the hacks can push widely supported consensus off the menu like shared agreement on abortion and gun reform.
We should be angry. Good and angry.
And yet anger is not enough. Because 40% of registered voters are too lazy, too dumb or too selfishly alienated to get off their duffs and vote.
As bad as the GOP is, they rely on the 40% too dumb to understand the stakes and who see corruption and foolishly believe staying home will magically get officials to beg them to vote.
Just the opposite: the GOP just loves your ignorance. If our democracy dies it will be from neglect.
But lots of people are turned off by all the noise, a bit confused and just feel there’s no point. I would think fear of going further down the road our country is headed would be fear enough to get out there and vote. That is where making that very clear to potential new voters is a must.
And, ironically, that is why gobs of people voted for Trump......he professed to wanting to tear the whole thing down, to the delight of all those who don't really understand any of this, and don't want to start now. It's a doom loop.
As soon as people get to "what's the point" they cede power and become enablers.
We live in a country that is supposed to be ours. Instead we are either divided or turned off. And while we can say we understand, look what tolerance for the status quo has created.
To me, one has to understand that partisanship and division have cleared the way for corruption. When you consider a key tenet of MAGAism is the loss of economic status, it is boggling that supporters have fallen for the ruse that it is LGBT, immigrants and minorities as the cause. It is the complete lack of economic common sense that fails to question who has the destructive power.
The culture wars suit both parties who have ceded power to donor money. But the Democrats are about applying band-aids like student debt reduction, privatized healthcare with more heart and fairer taxation. But there is no stomach to change the basic power structure. They work with corruption for limited reform. And so the culture wars and "our donors are better than yours".
Thank you for expressing your anger so articulately. You found the perfect words to express my rage. Something has to be done about this court. There is good reason why most Americans, including me, a retired attorney , have no confidence in this Supreme Court!
SCOTUS is facing a reckoning and seismic shift. Somehow we are going to achieve what seems to be the unachievable. If Joyce hasn’t given up, how can we?
I am with you. I have not given up hope that facts will return to their proper role in government.