I am thankful for your commentary and explanation.
I am wondering why the Right is so intent on destroying the country given their concern for the unborn baby.
It feels like the checks and balances I learned about in school are nonexistent now. The SCOTUS is a political-hack-joke now with the latest new judges.
I am glad we have a break from SCOTUS. Gorsuch has been on mission to kill the EPA (His mother tore the agency to bits when she wa the head under Reagan)
I remember him recoiling when Trump tried lto shake his hand after appointment.
I am also tired about these conservatives all lying about law that have decades off precedence.
Keep those chickie videos coming. Brings back good memories.
We all must pay attention to these right wing nuts and VOTE BLUE.
Thanks for this information. I thought I was an optimist—now not so much! I wish Biden er al would bite the bullet and add justices to the court. Republicans rallied and have overtaken local and state offices. I see no other way around this destruction.
I realllly loved this particular post. I am an optimist by nature (though optimism is definitely getting harder to maintain) and I will hold out some hope that the GOP’s desired outcome in Harper v Moore is a bridge too far for even this SCOTUS, but will work to help prevent the worst just in case. I hope each of your readers and Twitter followers has a plan to do something, even one thing, beyond voting in every election themself, to help forestall the end of democracy. It’s Tikkun Olam, right? We all need to do our part to heal the world.
Adding justices may be a remedy for the current state of the SCOTUS but think that one through. Can you imagine what those confirmation hearings would be like, especially after the spectacle of the KBJ hearing? And would there be resistance (of course there will be) to even get those hearings underway? I remain hopeful (but barely) that after the midterms things will be better.
I have lost any adjectives that would aptly describe how I feel about the entire mess.
I am troubled over SCOTUS judges not being subject to the same ethics rules that all judges and all lawyers are subject to - as if ethics issues disappear when one attains the privilege position of a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me when you are the last stop for the resolution of a dispute, the protection against unethical behavior should increase - is should follow that the greater the risk (for deprivation of liberty/rights, the more protection is required in the form of due process).
Dobbs v. Jackson was a law review note pulled out of J. Alito's cabinet - discussion of the law under review only begins on on page 78. Contrast that with both J. Sotomayor's and former (sniff) J. Breyer's opinions where your eyes cross because it hyper technical analysis of what? The law under review. They claim to be textualists, but they are neo-originalists (or cultural originalism). Sniff around life in the 18th century long enough and life for women was miserable:no legal identity separate from their husbands, no right to vote, no right to have a profession, no right to higher education, no right to sue or be sued if married, no right to divorce, and no right to custody of the many, many children they were forced to bear 7-10 or more before their bodies gave out and they died, their live expectancy low. Why do you think trousers were for men and women wore dresses? The age of consent was 12. It was a time when old men were fornicating with 12-year-old little girls. Women could not practice law, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman could not practice law and, in his concurrence, Justice Bradley stated,
It certainly cannot be affirmed, as an historical fact, that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband.
Our current Court relies on laws written at a time when women had two jobs. Serve our husbands and birth children. Then, we died. It was legal to rape your wife, even if she was 12 years old. No wonder abortion was unlawful. Don’t get me going on science and what was understood at the time.
We've accepted and allowed the privileged status where the court is permitted to let things sit for months, until October, when we now have a modern convention, air conditioning and they aren't likely to be harvesting crops anywhere. I don't understand how that serves the Country. They should be taking every case that comes their way, provided it meets the jurisdictional requirements. This whole picky-choosey as to who has access to our courts goes against a fundamental concept (I think it is still fundamental) to be heard. Will that increase work? Yes. And, it will reduce the time they spent on writing 233 page long missives.
I wish that our laws were written better - the Judiciary Act of 1869 established 9, "one for each circuit". But, we have 13 circuit courts, when you include DC and Federal. What controls, 9 or "one for each circuit" because it seems that if the "one for each circuit" controls then President Biden should get crackin' appointing justices. Maybe there is an explanation for this that is law that I'm not aware of, and I am happy to be learn something new.
For me, when I became a lawyer, and joined the benign cult of the legal profession, the Supreme Court was this shiny thing that was the epitome of what one could achieve. Now, it is a rogue group of people wreaking havoc on the American people. They are using history at a time when anyone who wasn't a white, male landowner wasn't living their best life, and for the purpose of executing an agenda that I still don't understand. It is not enough to say power and control when it comes to someone deciding what I should do and how I should live my life. These are the same people who wouldn't wear a mask to "protect actual life". They don't care whether you will survive, given the decision about the EPA. And, the careful system crafted by the framers presumed good faith -- hence the breakdown in our ability to address problems. For sure, I wish Madison had won out on the amendment that prevent the state from limiting rights, as well.
Apologies for being very the end is nigh. I do appreciate your chickens, especially when they break up the bleak instagram posts as I scroll. 😏
Can’t speak for anyone else , but your commentary only brings sadness today. Not much to celebrate this holiday weekend as we gaze upon what we’ve become.
The cert grant in Moore v. Harper should alarm everyone because the Court will decide whether state legislatures can overrule their electorates in federal elections without any avenue for judicial review. The cert grant ipso facto portends the result. In other words, the Court will likely rule that if a Republican presidential candidate wins the popular vote in California in 2024, California’s Democratic legislature could overrule the voters and declare the Democratic presidential candidate the winner, and California’s courts would be powerless to intervene. Of course, the reverse of that is more likely because 30 states have Republican-controlled legislatures. The Republican legislature in, say, Pennsylvania might reverse the Democratic presidential candidate’s win, as Trump’s folks argued in 2020. The present mood in Republican power circles is that with white control at stake, any measure to preserve it is Kosher regardless of the constitution. (After all, the white slave-owners who wrote it could not possibly have intended extending voting rights to their slaves’ descendants, could they?)
Just joined your Civil-Discourse community yesterday, Joyce. You're giving me what I'm here to get from you; and, I must say that I'm feeling a bit "desperate", as you put it. Looks like I need to re-budget some of my current community-service AND at-home time ASAP in order to focus on our Idaho-legislature races. I'll start with contacting the Dem HQ in Boise (I'm outside of the city limits) in order to come up with a plan of action. Then, I'll see how many of my like-minded friends & neighbors (and wife!) I can get to join in. I'm also open to considering any additional ideas from you and our Civil-Discourse community. -Irv.
I am thankful for your commentary and explanation.
I am wondering why the Right is so intent on destroying the country given their concern for the unborn baby.
It feels like the checks and balances I learned about in school are nonexistent now. The SCOTUS is a political-hack-joke now with the latest new judges.
I feel our country dying.
I am glad we have a break from SCOTUS. Gorsuch has been on mission to kill the EPA (His mother tore the agency to bits when she wa the head under Reagan)
I remember him recoiling when Trump tried lto shake his hand after appointment.
I am also tired about these conservatives all lying about law that have decades off precedence.
Keep those chickie videos coming. Brings back good memories.
We all must pay attention to these right wing nuts and VOTE BLUE.
Watch what they do—not what they say.
Thanks for this information. I thought I was an optimist—now not so much! I wish Biden er al would bite the bullet and add justices to the court. Republicans rallied and have overtaken local and state offices. I see no other way around this destruction.
I realllly loved this particular post. I am an optimist by nature (though optimism is definitely getting harder to maintain) and I will hold out some hope that the GOP’s desired outcome in Harper v Moore is a bridge too far for even this SCOTUS, but will work to help prevent the worst just in case. I hope each of your readers and Twitter followers has a plan to do something, even one thing, beyond voting in every election themself, to help forestall the end of democracy. It’s Tikkun Olam, right? We all need to do our part to heal the world.
The title of this post is perfect in word and font. Thanks, Joyce.
That chick belongs on a pedestal. Thanks for all you do, Joyce.
Adding justices may be a remedy for the current state of the SCOTUS but think that one through. Can you imagine what those confirmation hearings would be like, especially after the spectacle of the KBJ hearing? And would there be resistance (of course there will be) to even get those hearings underway? I remain hopeful (but barely) that after the midterms things will be better.
I have lost any adjectives that would aptly describe how I feel about the entire mess.
I am troubled over SCOTUS judges not being subject to the same ethics rules that all judges and all lawyers are subject to - as if ethics issues disappear when one attains the privilege position of a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me when you are the last stop for the resolution of a dispute, the protection against unethical behavior should increase - is should follow that the greater the risk (for deprivation of liberty/rights, the more protection is required in the form of due process).
Dobbs v. Jackson was a law review note pulled out of J. Alito's cabinet - discussion of the law under review only begins on on page 78. Contrast that with both J. Sotomayor's and former (sniff) J. Breyer's opinions where your eyes cross because it hyper technical analysis of what? The law under review. They claim to be textualists, but they are neo-originalists (or cultural originalism). Sniff around life in the 18th century long enough and life for women was miserable:no legal identity separate from their husbands, no right to vote, no right to have a profession, no right to higher education, no right to sue or be sued if married, no right to divorce, and no right to custody of the many, many children they were forced to bear 7-10 or more before their bodies gave out and they died, their live expectancy low. Why do you think trousers were for men and women wore dresses? The age of consent was 12. It was a time when old men were fornicating with 12-year-old little girls. Women could not practice law, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman could not practice law and, in his concurrence, Justice Bradley stated,
It certainly cannot be affirmed, as an historical fact, that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband.
Our current Court relies on laws written at a time when women had two jobs. Serve our husbands and birth children. Then, we died. It was legal to rape your wife, even if she was 12 years old. No wonder abortion was unlawful. Don’t get me going on science and what was understood at the time.
We've accepted and allowed the privileged status where the court is permitted to let things sit for months, until October, when we now have a modern convention, air conditioning and they aren't likely to be harvesting crops anywhere. I don't understand how that serves the Country. They should be taking every case that comes their way, provided it meets the jurisdictional requirements. This whole picky-choosey as to who has access to our courts goes against a fundamental concept (I think it is still fundamental) to be heard. Will that increase work? Yes. And, it will reduce the time they spent on writing 233 page long missives.
I wish that our laws were written better - the Judiciary Act of 1869 established 9, "one for each circuit". But, we have 13 circuit courts, when you include DC and Federal. What controls, 9 or "one for each circuit" because it seems that if the "one for each circuit" controls then President Biden should get crackin' appointing justices. Maybe there is an explanation for this that is law that I'm not aware of, and I am happy to be learn something new.
For me, when I became a lawyer, and joined the benign cult of the legal profession, the Supreme Court was this shiny thing that was the epitome of what one could achieve. Now, it is a rogue group of people wreaking havoc on the American people. They are using history at a time when anyone who wasn't a white, male landowner wasn't living their best life, and for the purpose of executing an agenda that I still don't understand. It is not enough to say power and control when it comes to someone deciding what I should do and how I should live my life. These are the same people who wouldn't wear a mask to "protect actual life". They don't care whether you will survive, given the decision about the EPA. And, the careful system crafted by the framers presumed good faith -- hence the breakdown in our ability to address problems. For sure, I wish Madison had won out on the amendment that prevent the state from limiting rights, as well.
Apologies for being very the end is nigh. I do appreciate your chickens, especially when they break up the bleak instagram posts as I scroll. 😏
Can’t speak for anyone else , but your commentary only brings sadness today. Not much to celebrate this holiday weekend as we gaze upon what we’ve become.
The cert grant in Moore v. Harper should alarm everyone because the Court will decide whether state legislatures can overrule their electorates in federal elections without any avenue for judicial review. The cert grant ipso facto portends the result. In other words, the Court will likely rule that if a Republican presidential candidate wins the popular vote in California in 2024, California’s Democratic legislature could overrule the voters and declare the Democratic presidential candidate the winner, and California’s courts would be powerless to intervene. Of course, the reverse of that is more likely because 30 states have Republican-controlled legislatures. The Republican legislature in, say, Pennsylvania might reverse the Democratic presidential candidate’s win, as Trump’s folks argued in 2020. The present mood in Republican power circles is that with white control at stake, any measure to preserve it is Kosher regardless of the constitution. (After all, the white slave-owners who wrote it could not possibly have intended extending voting rights to their slaves’ descendants, could they?)
The State of The Supreme Court is Illegitimate.
Just joined your Civil-Discourse community yesterday, Joyce. You're giving me what I'm here to get from you; and, I must say that I'm feeling a bit "desperate", as you put it. Looks like I need to re-budget some of my current community-service AND at-home time ASAP in order to focus on our Idaho-legislature races. I'll start with contacting the Dem HQ in Boise (I'm outside of the city limits) in order to come up with a plan of action. Then, I'll see how many of my like-minded friends & neighbors (and wife!) I can get to join in. I'm also open to considering any additional ideas from you and our Civil-Discourse community. -Irv.
I’m wondering if Justice Kagan will get to a point where they drop the “respectively” when they disagree.
I’m really worried about what they have planned for election laws.