The lower federal courts are pretty consistently standing up for the law. The same - tragically - cannot be said for Trump's hand-picked reactionary Supreme Court. They are causing terrible damage to our country ruling after ruling, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The worst court since Roger Taney's in the 1850s, which gave us the infamous "Dread Scott decision" that led directly to the American Civil War.
Actually, the justices like Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and perhaps Kavanaugh, could be impeached and removed for corruption. Impeaching those justices is a very heavy lift, due to lack of political will. This country does not have a history of holding high public officials or traitors accountable. No wonder the orange felon thought election to public office was a get out of jail free card.
I think this court is worse than the Taney court. Taney stands out for one awful decision that certainly impacted the future negatively. This court has almost uncountable decisions that have totally thrown the check and balance system of the Constitution totally out of whack!
David, that is why we need serious, huge Supreme Court reforms: increased number on the court, term limits, a strong code of ethics with consequences like suspensions for breaking the rules, that the SC can't overrule or warp laws that Congress has hunanimously or nearly unanimously approved and the president has signed (you know, like the Voting Rights Act). Then we need a format for nominating judges to the SC: approval by at least 3 non-partisan legal organizations in this nation, experience on a lower federal court, a record of fair judgments in important cases. These changes could make a positive difference and help to keep us from a Supreme Court that caters to a president and his oligarchic friends at the expense of the rest of us!
As I said here before, the Imperial Court loves to engage in legal sleight of hand and I expect we will see more of that in many of the final major decisions next week or the week after. This Court loves it some strong executive discretion, weak administrative oversight, narrow judicial review, skepticism of federal civil‑rights enforcement and strict textual constraints on modern governance. When historical evidence conflicts with that vision, the Gang of Six conveniently engages in "law office history" (just enough history to support an argument), narrows the statute, or takes it upon itself to reinterpret congressional intent. Also loves to engage in convenient semantic redefinition. To a historian, the question is: What did Congress intend? To Alito & Co., the question is: What meaning can the statutory words bear today, using ordinary semantics? This lets the Court say:“appointed” can mean “completed,” “held” can mean “finished,” and “chosen” can mean “finalized,” even though those meanings were not the historical ones or what Congress, in particular, actually intended, for example, in the Election Day statutes --- the very provisions the RNC relies on in Watson v. RNC. From inside textualism, this is not considered dishonesty --- it’s semantic inference. For most of the rest of us, it’s dishonest semantic redefinition.
Dale, you are so right! I, along with most of America see all of this SC wordsmithing as dishonest and a way to let their oligarchic friends with their help, take over our government while the Roberts 6 reap the "largess" of those oligarchs since there is no ethics code they have to follow. What a mess this bunch of fools, moving toward treason are!
Thanks for the succinct summary of the remaining SC cases. We can hope for the best, tho this court gives little reason to expect it. It's hard not to imagine that one day most of their egregious decisions will be tossed out as major mistakes, and relics of this tragic era in history.
We have to remember it took two Constitutional amendments, the 13th and 14th to rid ourselves of one awful Taney decision. Now, what reforms/amendments will be necessary for our democratic republic to be rescued?
I sentence the right wing majority of SCOTUS to mandatory attendance of all Trump official meetings as silent observers, including his faux cabinet meetings, for the next six months, and to read every “Truth” he posts/dictates for his “social media” account within 24 hours of its posting.
The duration of this sentence will be increased by six months with each anti democracy ruling they render in the remainder of this term.
Your sentence is so clever, and yet I think they'd happily put up with it. I fear the reactionary majority is satisfied with their progress as they shape the law to create a country governed by extremist white Catholic/Christian theology. They probably feel lucky they have such a fool as Trump to fulfill their agenda.
Have you considered that the justices might opt to sleep through those meetings, ala trump? I think they might also be required to listen to the truth social posts - I don't trust them with simple reading, given how they "read" precedent and the laws and constitution…
Teresa, I would love to see that as an appropriate consequence of their appalling anti-Amerian anti-constitutional behavior! None of the 6 should ever have been approved for the SC, but unfortunately, Republicans can't seem to nominate decent people for the SC or anything else, except in rare occasions, and even those decent ones do things that let us know for sure, yep, they are Republicans and have little to no allegiance to this nation if it doesn't suit their loyalty to party (O'Connor, Kennedy for example).
Joyce, thanks for leading with the good stuff, that is the positive stuff because the rest is leading into a real ugly pre- July 4. But we do our own personal celebrations with our Town activities, our family activities and our chickens!
Thank you Joyce — the Roberts 6 will go down in history as faux justice. I’m appalled by the lack of candor and respect for the people who suffer their self serving decisions. I disrespect them profoundly for what a monster they empowered.
Thank you Professor Vance for leading with the good news. While it doesn’t totally ease us into this week it reminds us that the lower courts are holding the line of law in such contrast to the highest court in the land. It will be very interesting to hear the upcoming “birth right decision”. While not a lawyer it seems pretty gosh darn clear, but find there are the few who interpret the written laws of our years past with their touch of a warped sense of reality and show their prejudice and bigotry so very clearly. Here’s to another week of bumpy ride from the black robes…
On that flu shot thing with Hegseth and the military... I do a lot of the genealogical work for my extended family. When I did my Italian family's side we learned that the youngest child, who enlisted to fight in WWI for the US, the country where the family all lived now, he died. Not of battle wounds but from the Influenza outbreak that took so many lives of all ages. He died in his 20s, an otherwise healthy young man, who died away from his family after serving for years away. He would have loved a vaccination and so would so many in that era.
As for the Fourth, we are trying to gather despite the heat wave. It may need to be moved indoors. We will mark the occasion by being together as much as possible. And I am making my once a year hamburgers. With a little garlic butter. Undetermined sides. Game night. Outside under the string lights if it's not unbearably hot.
The lower federal courts are pretty consistently standing up for the law. The same - tragically - cannot be said for Trump's hand-picked reactionary Supreme Court. They are causing terrible damage to our country ruling after ruling, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The worst court since Roger Taney's in the 1850s, which gave us the infamous "Dread Scott decision" that led directly to the American Civil War.
Actually, the justices like Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and perhaps Kavanaugh, could be impeached and removed for corruption. Impeaching those justices is a very heavy lift, due to lack of political will. This country does not have a history of holding high public officials or traitors accountable. No wonder the orange felon thought election to public office was a get out of jail free card.
I think this court is worse than the Taney court. Taney stands out for one awful decision that certainly impacted the future negatively. This court has almost uncountable decisions that have totally thrown the check and balance system of the Constitution totally out of whack!
Time will tell, as the arc of history bends toward justice.
David, that is why we need serious, huge Supreme Court reforms: increased number on the court, term limits, a strong code of ethics with consequences like suspensions for breaking the rules, that the SC can't overrule or warp laws that Congress has hunanimously or nearly unanimously approved and the president has signed (you know, like the Voting Rights Act). Then we need a format for nominating judges to the SC: approval by at least 3 non-partisan legal organizations in this nation, experience on a lower federal court, a record of fair judgments in important cases. These changes could make a positive difference and help to keep us from a Supreme Court that caters to a president and his oligarchic friends at the expense of the rest of us!
As I said here before, the Imperial Court loves to engage in legal sleight of hand and I expect we will see more of that in many of the final major decisions next week or the week after. This Court loves it some strong executive discretion, weak administrative oversight, narrow judicial review, skepticism of federal civil‑rights enforcement and strict textual constraints on modern governance. When historical evidence conflicts with that vision, the Gang of Six conveniently engages in "law office history" (just enough history to support an argument), narrows the statute, or takes it upon itself to reinterpret congressional intent. Also loves to engage in convenient semantic redefinition. To a historian, the question is: What did Congress intend? To Alito & Co., the question is: What meaning can the statutory words bear today, using ordinary semantics? This lets the Court say:“appointed” can mean “completed,” “held” can mean “finished,” and “chosen” can mean “finalized,” even though those meanings were not the historical ones or what Congress, in particular, actually intended, for example, in the Election Day statutes --- the very provisions the RNC relies on in Watson v. RNC. From inside textualism, this is not considered dishonesty --- it’s semantic inference. For most of the rest of us, it’s dishonest semantic redefinition.
Dale, you are so right! I, along with most of America see all of this SC wordsmithing as dishonest and a way to let their oligarchic friends with their help, take over our government while the Roberts 6 reap the "largess" of those oligarchs since there is no ethics code they have to follow. What a mess this bunch of fools, moving toward treason are!
Thanks for the succinct summary of the remaining SC cases. We can hope for the best, tho this court gives little reason to expect it. It's hard not to imagine that one day most of their egregious decisions will be tossed out as major mistakes, and relics of this tragic era in history.
We have to remember it took two Constitutional amendments, the 13th and 14th to rid ourselves of one awful Taney decision. Now, what reforms/amendments will be necessary for our democratic republic to be rescued?
I sentence the right wing majority of SCOTUS to mandatory attendance of all Trump official meetings as silent observers, including his faux cabinet meetings, for the next six months, and to read every “Truth” he posts/dictates for his “social media” account within 24 hours of its posting.
The duration of this sentence will be increased by six months with each anti democracy ruling they render in the remainder of this term.
Your sentence is so clever, and yet I think they'd happily put up with it. I fear the reactionary majority is satisfied with their progress as they shape the law to create a country governed by extremist white Catholic/Christian theology. They probably feel lucky they have such a fool as Trump to fulfill their agenda.
They might, they might not. Presumably the more they like it, the longer the sentences.
Sounds like a plan!
Have you considered that the justices might opt to sleep through those meetings, ala trump? I think they might also be required to listen to the truth social posts - I don't trust them with simple reading, given how they "read" precedent and the laws and constitution…
Teresa, I would love to see that as an appropriate consequence of their appalling anti-Amerian anti-constitutional behavior! None of the 6 should ever have been approved for the SC, but unfortunately, Republicans can't seem to nominate decent people for the SC or anything else, except in rare occasions, and even those decent ones do things that let us know for sure, yep, they are Republicans and have little to no allegiance to this nation if it doesn't suit their loyalty to party (O'Connor, Kennedy for example).
Joyce, thanks for leading with the good stuff, that is the positive stuff because the rest is leading into a real ugly pre- July 4. But we do our own personal celebrations with our Town activities, our family activities and our chickens!
Thank you Joyce — the Roberts 6 will go down in history as faux justice. I’m appalled by the lack of candor and respect for the people who suffer their self serving decisions. I disrespect them profoundly for what a monster they empowered.
Buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
No, hog's breath! What “weakens our wartime capabilities” is when the troops are sicker than hell with the flu!
Hes trying to slaughter person named slaughter?
❤️
Enjoy - and all of us pray to our God for guidance and strength...
The fascist justices on the supreme court are not conservatives.
Thank you Professor Vance for leading with the good news. While it doesn’t totally ease us into this week it reminds us that the lower courts are holding the line of law in such contrast to the highest court in the land. It will be very interesting to hear the upcoming “birth right decision”. While not a lawyer it seems pretty gosh darn clear, but find there are the few who interpret the written laws of our years past with their touch of a warped sense of reality and show their prejudice and bigotry so very clearly. Here’s to another week of bumpy ride from the black robes…
“wildly unconstitutional ” Now that is a laugher.
On that flu shot thing with Hegseth and the military... I do a lot of the genealogical work for my extended family. When I did my Italian family's side we learned that the youngest child, who enlisted to fight in WWI for the US, the country where the family all lived now, he died. Not of battle wounds but from the Influenza outbreak that took so many lives of all ages. He died in his 20s, an otherwise healthy young man, who died away from his family after serving for years away. He would have loved a vaccination and so would so many in that era.
As for the Fourth, we are trying to gather despite the heat wave. It may need to be moved indoors. We will mark the occasion by being together as much as possible. And I am making my once a year hamburgers. With a little garlic butter. Undetermined sides. Game night. Outside under the string lights if it's not unbearably hot.
Happy 4th of July Joyce! I am holding onto optimism because of your clear-eyed posts, even when it starts with gloom and doom!