Elizabeth, I, too, was stunned by their signing, and, though I could be wrong, I read their action as indicating that fealty to the Court as an institution supersedes personal proclivities.
I pretty much agree, though I'm guessing that they realized what their *not* signing would have looked like to the Court-watching public: it would very likely have become an issue in itself., and maybe even created sympathy for CJ Roberts. They are three. The majority is six -- five, if you don't count the chief justice waffling somewhere in the middle. And that is part of the point: the chief justice seems to have lost control of the Court, and it's not because of the three liberal justices. It's his own conservative cohorts who are dragging the Court's reputation down. By signing the letter Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are saying, in effect, "We have the Court's reputation in mind (unlike some others we choose not to name)."
Lynell, I'm with you. I feel the same. In fact I appreciate the honest and respectful responses on this. Clearly the three liberal justices have to be very thoughtful about how they navigate on this court. I understand better now. Thanks to all you smart folks!
recusal should also mean they can sit on cases where they made up their minds prior to hearing a case. Alito I know wrote a pamphlet about overturning Roe, if you can find it on internet, it's pretty much the same as what he wrote. When testifying at his nomination he claimed it was a "discussion paper'. I think Thomas, who had done the same called his article "a theoretical exercise." I accept that judges have opinions, both moral and theoretical, but when they have announced opinions before being promoted to the court, that should require a recusal as well. I have heard some senators talking about some type of judiciary oversight committee. I don't know much about it, I wonder if Ms. Vance might explain what they are talking about sometime.
Certainly though they should be punished and prosecuted as any one else would be, and federal judges in the past have been impeached for such conflicts---it is technically a crime, and requires a rehearing when judges have been shown to have had conflicts of interest---while the supreme court assumes responsibility for policing itself, I have found no law exempting them from criminality and judicial malpractice by hearing cases they have an interest in. Because there is no law exempting them, (maybe there is and I haven't found it) but there wasn't when the only scotus impeachment trial ever occurred in 1804.
Annals of Congress
Call Number: KF35
Published/Created: 1789-1824
Some actions concerning the investigation are published in volume 13, including the debate on and approval of the resolution, which appears on pages 1171-77. The actual impeachment and trial are published in volume 14; the debate on the articles appears on pages 726-62, with approval of the committee report on page 762 (available at A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation).
And in that report congress certainly was under no delusion that the judges were allowed to hear cases they even had an INTEREST in.
Do you know what isn't a dirty little secret? It's America. No department of sanitation could clean up this place. The accusation of rape against the former president is a drop of salt water in oceans of lies, dishonesty, abuse, cruelty, corruption, transfer of the people's wealth, the loss of rights... 'The Week Ahead' trumpets our story.
I agree. Elisabeth! Yes, Fern absolutely has a way with words. We need to look at criminal behavior squarely at the Truth. TFG was elected after bragging that he sexually assaults women. Past, present, future. For all the world to hear. No wonder he expects to continue his attacks without accountability. He was still elected. Either slip under the radar or get out daddy’s wallet. Or pay his own lawyer to pay off his girl. I do wonder if the time span is too long to convict this time. I hope Justice prevails. In the Courts, the House and the Presidency. Ethics. Can TFG and the Justices spell it?
In regard to timespan: the defamation claim in this case is for comments made recently enough, because he repeated them on twitter after leaving office. The sexual battery claim for rape is made under a NY law allowing such claims for one year regardless of how long ago the assault happened.
Thank you, Elizabeth. There is such a combination of strong feelings in response to how punishing this country has become. I didn't want to write those lines. Although far from the myths the US has been selling, the country has not been like this in my long lifetime. To be next to such evil as there is now, we must work harder against it.
Which is why it is so important to talk to everyone you know or meet and get them to vote out those who condone the criminality. It is really the only way we have of setting this country back on a civilized course. To VOTE. And to do so before we lose the right altogether.
Fern, the last time I remember our country was in a similar hole was during the 60s decade. Civil Rights movement & Vietnam. I was the classic hippie in San Francisco: protesting for and against in that order.
Most of our classic hippies have come back to activism in our small reddish town. Just learned that the GOP group that smeared a blue candidate last election is coming out to counter protest a blue issue protest next week. Last time, (George Floyd) they brought guns. Since unlike many Sheriffs in Eastern Oregon, ours is moderately ethical, I called him for safety patrols. Our folks won't be armed. Theirs will.
If they arrive armed in say, a public park, muni, county, state & federal laws may be at play preventing firearms there and a good case for mass arrests. Whatever happens, keep your heads low and try to become invisible. Keep us posted please.
Karen, I agree that the 1960s saw the country very divided from 'sex, drugs and rock'n'roll' to the Vietnam War, but I see no comparison between then and now when considering the survival of democracy in the USA. What about the Republican Party, do you see no differences between then and now? What about the transfer of wealth from the people to the Ultrarich? Do you score hatred within families, in neighborhoods and states to be similar then and now? What about gun violence and deaths; did school children fear shootings in their schools in the 1960s as they do now? 'African American mass demonstrations, televised racial violence, and the federally enforced desegregation of higher education institutions, as well as the black passive resistance movement of the early 1960s led to adoption of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.'
'Support for a federal Civil Rights Act was one of the goals of the 1963 March on Washington. President John F. Kennedy had introduced the bill before his assassination. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed it into law on July 2, 1964. It achieved many of the aims of a Reconstruction-era law, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was passed but soon overturned.'
'The landmark 1964 act barred discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in public facilities — such as restaurants, theaters, or hotels. Discrimination in hiring practices was also outlawed, and the act established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to help enforce the law. Although the law attempted to legislate fair election practices, not all the ways used to deny blacks a vote could be covered; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be required to address this issue comprehensively.' (PBS, American Experience)
It was bad in the 1960s and much worse in the 2020s, in my estimation, Karen.
Fern, I only meant that was the last American upheaval in my lifetime. Not that they were similar. What is unbelievable in this instance is that an entire political party is practicing fascism, an ideology not seen in the US since the attempted overthrow of the government in the 1930s. I'm referencing Rachael Maddows blog, "Ultra." Find it online. It's mesmerizing. The answer to that crisis was found in the accidental death of a US senator. When the bubble bursts with today's crisis, I believe many people will be killed because there is still a majority body of people out there who refuse to turn their backs on democracy. Once the Right's violence starts with the neo-nazis, numerous, so-called patriot groups and whacko QaNon followers out there who see you-know-who as the messiah reincarnated, the Left should be ready to organize and stop them in their tracks. Fat mouthed MGT may have something with her prediction of civil war.
Actually, they are similar and manipulative, still using death threats and KKK tactics from the 40s today. And that's in the white towns. Worse where there are minorities.
Trump, Weinberg, Cuomo...power to these weak and insecure men makes their inferiority-bully complex almost them to need to abuse others because they seek power to override their own feelings of self-despise. If people don't submit to their every whim they are afraid. So forcing others to submit to their abuse is the only way they are capable of sustaining their authority.
Actually the real rape is the rape of this country, little by little. That evil (let's call it, maybe residual from the Civil War even, passed on) was fought against in the 60's burst of awakening that pushed us a bit ahead, but that subsequently subsided. As guard was let down the forces of dishonesty, criminality etc- your above- continued on perfecting its goals on every front... even now to the Supreme Court for which we had high regard. We have been weakening the structures that the founders created to keep us standing. I think we are down to the streets mattering again. Young people need to be more engaged. For that they need education, higher education. For that they need access. Education is key..if you believe democracy, liberal democracy can work. We still are an experiment. This won't work by itself.
Hello, Potter. Good to see you. I don't get around as I used to, by that I mean around the country. What I do know about young people now is that they are generally more democratic than most others in the past regarding civil rights, sexual orientation, gun reform legislation, addressing Climate Change...of course, the more the better. Civics, face to face communication with each other, educating their parents, other family members, friends, neighbors and VOTING are crucial! Cheers, Potter; we're doing harmony!
Thanks Fern..I grew up in NYC- public school system all the way through college. NYC is not now what it was then either. We grow old and wear the bottoms of our pants rolled to paraphrase Auden. I don't get to NYC lately ---as I would like to.
But I am here to say I forgot in my comment to register my anxiety about losing the VOTE as well .. the meaning of a vote, the corruption aiming more and more to skew it, repress it, dilute it etc. This is very real. The forces against democracy are on every front. And I fear talking so much about how awful things, leads to feeling that it's useless, the evil is winning. This may make voters withdraw even more. I consider myself a fighter and I understand this is a battle we are in. I will fight with rolled pants bottoms. But to your point, everything is out in the open now, what was hushed/repressed. Trump was pushing for that, our worst angels out of hiding. Climate issues that we knew about many years ago have gotten more urgent. We have less face to face (especially since covid) but we have this here, information and a wider world virtually. We still have neighbors if we want to get to know them. We seek like minded people.
Potter, I like our directness - a NYC kind of getting to know you. I think this city is still great. We suffered and died for more than a year of the pandemic, and we hung, too; clapped, banged pots and sang to the hospital workers, doctors, nurses, therapists...I love this place; it's my country! We'll meet again; I know it, Potter!
Seems that all the R appointed justices are every bit as venal, dishonest, and arrogantly out of touch as today's entirely fascist republican party.
We're watching the highest court in the land celebrate their private orgy of perjury, greed, and misogyny as they work to dismantle our society and system of government.
They are all Disgraces, and should be aptly referred to as the Injustices of the scotus.
Injustice Thomas, Injustice Barrett, Injustice Alito, Injustice Kavanaugh, Injustice Gorsuch, and Chief Injustice Roberts. They, and a couple of their wives are never to be trusted again. Never.
I respectfully disagree in so far as, in my opinion, justices on the United States Supreme Court should be barred from outside employment. They have enough of a bully pulpit as it is.
Well, if they are not overthrowing the government, they should be allowed to work. If they are subverting our democracy, however, they should definitely be prosecuted asap!
I saw tonight, CJ Roberts' wife, Jane, averages $1.2M/yr in commissions matching hot attorneys with high powered law firms, some of which have appeared before the Court. Her cut is 20% of lawyer's first year. Two or three placements each year adds up. The relational aspect of this work is too close for comfort.
Except they believe they are above the law. That disgusting letter told us as much. And we have nothing in place to correct the situation. Until we do, they will continue to behave with impunity and bloated egos. Destroying lives and Democracy. They are basically, monsters.
I agree. But it's tricky and would have to apply across the board for all elected officials and be applied to spouses not "wives". I think we will have to accept that would be political dynamite and we have to trust judges, even if they are stay-at-home spouses, or prosecutors, or those with access to sensitive information to not divulge or discuss the issues with their partners. It certainly happens, but it's like a jury being told not to discuss the case or read about it during the trial. Probably sometimes they break the rule---but people do have outside lives, and unless we can clearly show they were influenced by a spouse I think we have to tread lightly. Like I said, I tend to agree, but I think, the best we can do is probably what we do if we found a juror had violated his oath.
But then first wives put their outside career on hold, and Kamala Harris' spouse did the same. But especially in the case of Thomas, there seems to be a direct link.
I'd be interested in other opinions on this. I think your point Ms. Spence is well taken. I wouldn't know how it could be commonly accepted, or if it has ever been done for any but pres. whose wife has a lot of ceremonial duties and responsibilities, since our pres. is executive and head of state.
Ken, I say both. Elected officials are in the business of showing favors to their constituencies. That's a given. But members of the high court are appointed by the Prez and senate confirmed. Anything to do with the USSC should never be mistaken for making an appearance of impropriety. Ginny T made $600k last year working on far right wing causes. Trump appointed Thomas as a member of the trust fund board of the Library of Congress. She is a member of the conservative Council for National Policy, and in 2019, she became part of its board. That's a lot of dough for serving on boards of directors and hobnobbing with the DC set...
well I am working on an article for my substack column on the current court and how they are priming this country for disaster. I should be able to publish it Thurs. I think that there are some judges that simply must be removed or we won't survive. If you have good honest justices, maybe the wife's role wouldn't be an issue. I think it is something to check into---the past history of justice's spouses. But until recently I never heard of conflicts. Certainly it is another reason to maneuver them out of the court. But you may right, maybe to be appointed their spouses should need to give up being involved to avoid conflict.
I don't know if you noticed, but today Justice Brown-Jackson is recusing herself from a case in which she had a prior interest.
Thank you, Joyce, for your good writing, brilliant thinking and knowledge and a focus on what matters. I really hope you can address the whole issue of our fallen Supreme Court. I can’t imagine being Kagan, Brown Jackson or Sotomayor in that toxic climate. Can you?
A cousin of mine worked at a Seattle company that is over 100 years old, a major employer in the area, and a company that when it sneezes, Seattle always gets at least a cold So, this cousin was an Ethics Director, one of few in the company that now nationwide. He engaged in unethical personal behavior, garden variety not necessary to name. I asked him about it once it became known. How could he be an Ethics Director and not recognize how far across the line of decency he had gone. His family and our extended family was torn apart His response, personal ethics are different than business ethics. In that moment, I got everything I needed to see the world in all of its complexity, rot, and squalor. There is nothing unique about my cousin. He did something wrong. If he had owned his behavior, apologized, and made amends, things could be very different now. My cousin I believe is above average smart, educated, well traveled. Most people thought of him as a fun interesting person to hang out with. Knowing what we know, it's foolish to believe that the SCT is going to be any different than other groups of individuals, highly educated or not. There will be lapses. Having a code of ethics allows for an investigation . We should investigate when there is enough credible evidence to call for action. We cannot let Thomas try to wash the issue of ethics aways based on the fact that we've never had ethical standards before. Clearly, we need them now. The SCT is filled with scandal, and if it were smoke, we'd see it coming out of their chamber. I pity the decent Justices who are serving in good faith. While I'm at it. I think it was stupid to make Senator Al Franken resign without a proper investigation. Long-winded.
Ernest Hemingway wrote in Death in the Afternoon “So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.”
As Thomas, Alito, and their ilk show, ethics and morals are very subjective. Probably haven’t read Hemingway. Machiavelli more likely.
Yes, Joyce, it says something about the man and the country when the President attends the Correspondents Dinner.
The nerd prom.
And FOX had the gall to attend. The jokes directed at them by the President and the speaker were funny and cut FOX to the bone; however, when Joe Biden spoke clearly and passionately about the lying "extreme media" without naming them, the whole room knew who his target was.
I didn't watch the dinner, but the clips I saw convinced me that the President is ready to go toe-to-toe with the Chump right this minute!
As an American I expect more transparency. Several justices clearly lied under oath to Senate prior to confirmation.
The whining of Alito is aggressive. Roberts avoidance of the Senate is peculiar. What is he hiding? Again Roberts and his wife’s millions of conflicts through her work appears not correctly reported on taxes. I’m still trying to figure out what kind of “lobbying work”Jesse Barrett does? And who paid off Brett Kavenaugh debts? (There were at least 70 complaints from citizens about him prior to his “controversial confirmation” with Trump preventing a real FBI investigation into credible allegations of abusive behavior.)
All is reflected in their cruel Dobbs decision and the related chaos causing so much pain for women and families.
I fear the extremist justices political will is to continue to harm Americans as they shape the country in horrible decisions to come. I’m grateful the press is exposing the decades of corruption. Fear we will not survive as a democracy with such “stench” in the supreme court.
I have no reason to include the 3 other dissenting justices.
If it weren't for Koch money -- many tens of millions of dollars over time -- George Mason University would be just another second- or third-tier school. And recall that Charles Koch and the Federalist Society (also the beneficiary of enormous largesse from far-right billionaires Olin, Scaife, Mercer, and Koch) had direct influence on faculty hiring in the school's economics and law schools.
In essence, extremist billionaires bought GMU and its law school and turned it into the ultra-conservative mill that it is today. It, Scalia Law, and the Federalist Society are poster children for the success of one major part of the far-right's strategy to impose extreme conservatism on the country.
Absent a fuller context, I am astonished and disappointed that Ken Randall chose to lend his talents to Scalia Law.
If you are looking for a way to fill some time, do an Internet search on the terms "George Mason University Koch funding" or variations on that. Then read _Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right_, by Jane Mayer.
I didn't sleep after I read Dark Money. I got the book right after it came out. A woman in at a yoga class that I taught saw the title, and said, "That's my daughter's book." I believe that Jane's mother lived in Seattle and came to my classes when her regular teacher was off. Now, I'm wondering if this really happened. Thanks for the reading list.
Around the same time I read _Dark Money_, I also read _Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America_, by Nancy MacLean. I heartily recommend it as a companion piece to Mayer's book. I thought each book was excellent on its own; taken together, they staggered me, caused me connect a swirling mass of dots in my head and understand much more comprehensively what's going on beyond a given day's headlines.
I "liked" this whole thread because I like it when folks share their readings relevant to the topics de jour. My public library is right around the corner, and I am heading that way when I finish this cup of coffee.
With this court you know how they are going to rule just by what is before them. Huge percentage have their minds made up ahead of time . the lawyer’s arguments are just a waste of time.
Ethics is a foreign word to some.
As usual thanks Joyce for “week ahead” and all in between .
It is reprehensible that (some) members of the Court have no sense of accountability to the American people. Apparently their lifetime tenure has made them too secure in their position and too arrogant to care. And partisan politics has effectively disemboweled the countervailing effect of institutional jealousy, and our system of checks and balances. A Republican Congress will certainly do nothing.
Karen, Thank the Universe he won’t testify! He soils everything with his stench....I saw Biden at the WH press dinner. He was great. I laughed throughout. I thought Joyce’s comments about a healthy democracy were right on: one in which the President shows up and takes his digs and hands out a few, too.
prosecution. I've never heard of it at the supreme court level, but it's time we all began to. our divided congress won't impeach them, so it has to be prosecution.
I guess it wouldn't be appropriate for any of the justices to declare their position on rules of conduct in public but I would hope there is much discussion amongst themselves.
Everyone is impatient for the jury to return on the Proud Boy trial but I think it is good that they are taking their time to discuss and review evidence and charges. From what I have read due to the number of defendants and multiple charges it will be tricky. Whether we like the defendants or not they are entitled to a fair trial. I admit that at times my inner pitchfork and torch carrying towns person is hard to subdue.
As I understand it, a remedy to remove, is that the House can vote for impeachment, and then a Senate trial is held, with a two-thirds vote needed to convict.We know how that vote would go in todays world!??
Perhaps we'll see a complexion change out of the 24 elections. If America can diss DeSantis at this early date and scarlet Kansas can say yes to abortion, the mood of the country may be changing direction.
yes indeed? Perhaps Ms. Vance can answer. I wouldn't know about civil trials, but I don't think those under criminal indictment usually can leave country. Don't forget he is also under criminal indictment. I know in Nevada if one is on bail it can be rescinded for leaving the state.
Manhattan is criminal indictment, but it's not "violent" I say while throwing up in my mouth a bit. And he's a "first time offender" in the eyes of the law, also throwing up in my mouth a bit. Though they did take Bannon's passport, so who knows.
Ethics guidelines? They need parole officers.
At least for six of them. I was really surprised Kagan, Brown Jackson and Sotomayor signed that letter. Very disappointing.
I was as well. Do the 3 liberal members also lack a true appreciation of how smarmy the court looks out here in the real world?
A commentator explained that that preserves some options for hearings and keeps it from being all shadow docket, all the time. And I hear you.
Elizabeth, I, too, was stunned by their signing, and, though I could be wrong, I read their action as indicating that fealty to the Court as an institution supersedes personal proclivities.
I pretty much agree, though I'm guessing that they realized what their *not* signing would have looked like to the Court-watching public: it would very likely have become an issue in itself., and maybe even created sympathy for CJ Roberts. They are three. The majority is six -- five, if you don't count the chief justice waffling somewhere in the middle. And that is part of the point: the chief justice seems to have lost control of the Court, and it's not because of the three liberal justices. It's his own conservative cohorts who are dragging the Court's reputation down. By signing the letter Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are saying, in effect, "We have the Court's reputation in mind (unlike some others we choose not to name)."
Susanna, Thank you for the mighty impressive deep analysis.
Your take on their signing takes the sting out of my initial reaction about it, i.e., "WTF?" Thanks, Barbara Jo.
Lynell, I'm with you. I feel the same. In fact I appreciate the honest and respectful responses on this. Clearly the three liberal justices have to be very thoughtful about how they navigate on this court. I understand better now. Thanks to all you smart folks!
My pleasure, Lynell, especially considering how often I find your comments clarifying.
Now, that calls for a big Thank You again, Barbara Jo!
Could they have been pressured into signing by Roberts?
recusal should also mean they can sit on cases where they made up their minds prior to hearing a case. Alito I know wrote a pamphlet about overturning Roe, if you can find it on internet, it's pretty much the same as what he wrote. When testifying at his nomination he claimed it was a "discussion paper'. I think Thomas, who had done the same called his article "a theoretical exercise." I accept that judges have opinions, both moral and theoretical, but when they have announced opinions before being promoted to the court, that should require a recusal as well. I have heard some senators talking about some type of judiciary oversight committee. I don't know much about it, I wonder if Ms. Vance might explain what they are talking about sometime.
Certainly though they should be punished and prosecuted as any one else would be, and federal judges in the past have been impeached for such conflicts---it is technically a crime, and requires a rehearing when judges have been shown to have had conflicts of interest---while the supreme court assumes responsibility for policing itself, I have found no law exempting them from criminality and judicial malpractice by hearing cases they have an interest in. Because there is no law exempting them, (maybe there is and I haven't found it) but there wasn't when the only scotus impeachment trial ever occurred in 1804.
Annals of Congress
Call Number: KF35
Published/Created: 1789-1824
Some actions concerning the investigation are published in volume 13, including the debate on and approval of the resolution, which appears on pages 1171-77. The actual impeachment and trial are published in volume 14; the debate on the articles appears on pages 726-62, with approval of the committee report on page 762 (available at A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation).
And in that report congress certainly was under no delusion that the judges were allowed to hear cases they even had an INTEREST in.
Another reason to GOTV for blue candidates for every office and to fund public ethics organizations that take on corruption.
LOL!
(Sorry for laughing as I know it’s a serious matter but I cracked up after reading your comment. Then again maybe you meant it to be sarcastic humor).
Do you know what isn't a dirty little secret? It's America. No department of sanitation could clean up this place. The accusation of rape against the former president is a drop of salt water in oceans of lies, dishonesty, abuse, cruelty, corruption, transfer of the people's wealth, the loss of rights... 'The Week Ahead' trumpets our story.
I agree. Elisabeth! Yes, Fern absolutely has a way with words. We need to look at criminal behavior squarely at the Truth. TFG was elected after bragging that he sexually assaults women. Past, present, future. For all the world to hear. No wonder he expects to continue his attacks without accountability. He was still elected. Either slip under the radar or get out daddy’s wallet. Or pay his own lawyer to pay off his girl. I do wonder if the time span is too long to convict this time. I hope Justice prevails. In the Courts, the House and the Presidency. Ethics. Can TFG and the Justices spell it?
In regard to timespan: the defamation claim in this case is for comments made recently enough, because he repeated them on twitter after leaving office. The sexual battery claim for rape is made under a NY law allowing such claims for one year regardless of how long ago the assault happened.
Fern, you DO have a way with words....couldn’t have said it better!💙
Thank you, Elizabeth. There is such a combination of strong feelings in response to how punishing this country has become. I didn't want to write those lines. Although far from the myths the US has been selling, the country has not been like this in my long lifetime. To be next to such evil as there is now, we must work harder against it.
Which is why it is so important to talk to everyone you know or meet and get them to vote out those who condone the criminality. It is really the only way we have of setting this country back on a civilized course. To VOTE. And to do so before we lose the right altogether.
Fern, agree 1000%!
Fern, the last time I remember our country was in a similar hole was during the 60s decade. Civil Rights movement & Vietnam. I was the classic hippie in San Francisco: protesting for and against in that order.
Most of our classic hippies have come back to activism in our small reddish town. Just learned that the GOP group that smeared a blue candidate last election is coming out to counter protest a blue issue protest next week. Last time, (George Floyd) they brought guns. Since unlike many Sheriffs in Eastern Oregon, ours is moderately ethical, I called him for safety patrols. Our folks won't be armed. Theirs will.
If they arrive armed in say, a public park, muni, county, state & federal laws may be at play preventing firearms there and a good case for mass arrests. Whatever happens, keep your heads low and try to become invisible. Keep us posted please.
Karen, I agree that the 1960s saw the country very divided from 'sex, drugs and rock'n'roll' to the Vietnam War, but I see no comparison between then and now when considering the survival of democracy in the USA. What about the Republican Party, do you see no differences between then and now? What about the transfer of wealth from the people to the Ultrarich? Do you score hatred within families, in neighborhoods and states to be similar then and now? What about gun violence and deaths; did school children fear shootings in their schools in the 1960s as they do now? 'African American mass demonstrations, televised racial violence, and the federally enforced desegregation of higher education institutions, as well as the black passive resistance movement of the early 1960s led to adoption of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.'
'Support for a federal Civil Rights Act was one of the goals of the 1963 March on Washington. President John F. Kennedy had introduced the bill before his assassination. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed it into law on July 2, 1964. It achieved many of the aims of a Reconstruction-era law, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was passed but soon overturned.'
'The landmark 1964 act barred discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in public facilities — such as restaurants, theaters, or hotels. Discrimination in hiring practices was also outlawed, and the act established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to help enforce the law. Although the law attempted to legislate fair election practices, not all the ways used to deny blacks a vote could be covered; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be required to address this issue comprehensively.' (PBS, American Experience)
It was bad in the 1960s and much worse in the 2020s, in my estimation, Karen.
Fern, I only meant that was the last American upheaval in my lifetime. Not that they were similar. What is unbelievable in this instance is that an entire political party is practicing fascism, an ideology not seen in the US since the attempted overthrow of the government in the 1930s. I'm referencing Rachael Maddows blog, "Ultra." Find it online. It's mesmerizing. The answer to that crisis was found in the accidental death of a US senator. When the bubble bursts with today's crisis, I believe many people will be killed because there is still a majority body of people out there who refuse to turn their backs on democracy. Once the Right's violence starts with the neo-nazis, numerous, so-called patriot groups and whacko QaNon followers out there who see you-know-who as the messiah reincarnated, the Left should be ready to organize and stop them in their tracks. Fat mouthed MGT may have something with her prediction of civil war.
History repeats itself.
Actually, they are similar and manipulative, still using death threats and KKK tactics from the 40s today. And that's in the white towns. Worse where there are minorities.
Sticking to your guns without without making a case.
Fern, I want this not to be true, but I think it is. Whatever the reason the three liberals signed the letter, it suggests the Court is in trouble.
Trump, Weinberg, Cuomo...power to these weak and insecure men makes their inferiority-bully complex almost them to need to abuse others because they seek power to override their own feelings of self-despise. If people don't submit to their every whim they are afraid. So forcing others to submit to their abuse is the only way they are capable of sustaining their authority.
Actually the real rape is the rape of this country, little by little. That evil (let's call it, maybe residual from the Civil War even, passed on) was fought against in the 60's burst of awakening that pushed us a bit ahead, but that subsequently subsided. As guard was let down the forces of dishonesty, criminality etc- your above- continued on perfecting its goals on every front... even now to the Supreme Court for which we had high regard. We have been weakening the structures that the founders created to keep us standing. I think we are down to the streets mattering again. Young people need to be more engaged. For that they need education, higher education. For that they need access. Education is key..if you believe democracy, liberal democracy can work. We still are an experiment. This won't work by itself.
Hello, Potter. Good to see you. I don't get around as I used to, by that I mean around the country. What I do know about young people now is that they are generally more democratic than most others in the past regarding civil rights, sexual orientation, gun reform legislation, addressing Climate Change...of course, the more the better. Civics, face to face communication with each other, educating their parents, other family members, friends, neighbors and VOTING are crucial! Cheers, Potter; we're doing harmony!
Thanks Fern..I grew up in NYC- public school system all the way through college. NYC is not now what it was then either. We grow old and wear the bottoms of our pants rolled to paraphrase Auden. I don't get to NYC lately ---as I would like to.
But I am here to say I forgot in my comment to register my anxiety about losing the VOTE as well .. the meaning of a vote, the corruption aiming more and more to skew it, repress it, dilute it etc. This is very real. The forces against democracy are on every front. And I fear talking so much about how awful things, leads to feeling that it's useless, the evil is winning. This may make voters withdraw even more. I consider myself a fighter and I understand this is a battle we are in. I will fight with rolled pants bottoms. But to your point, everything is out in the open now, what was hushed/repressed. Trump was pushing for that, our worst angels out of hiding. Climate issues that we knew about many years ago have gotten more urgent. We have less face to face (especially since covid) but we have this here, information and a wider world virtually. We still have neighbors if we want to get to know them. We seek like minded people.
Random thoughts from your comments.. thanks!
Potter, I like our directness - a NYC kind of getting to know you. I think this city is still great. We suffered and died for more than a year of the pandemic, and we hung, too; clapped, banged pots and sang to the hospital workers, doctors, nurses, therapists...I love this place; it's my country! We'll meet again; I know it, Potter!
Yes and we were with you!!!
Thank you.
The rot goes deep. When an institution lapses from its vision, it might become irreversibly illegitimate. Are we, the USA?
You are describing a “shithole country”
Please share your description of the USA at this time, Hale Irwin.
I just did using the words of the biggest shit of all.
Seems that all the R appointed justices are every bit as venal, dishonest, and arrogantly out of touch as today's entirely fascist republican party.
We're watching the highest court in the land celebrate their private orgy of perjury, greed, and misogyny as they work to dismantle our society and system of government.
They are all Disgraces, and should be aptly referred to as the Injustices of the scotus.
Injustice Thomas, Injustice Barrett, Injustice Alito, Injustice Kavanaugh, Injustice Gorsuch, and Chief Injustice Roberts. They, and a couple of their wives are never to be trusted again. Never.
✅️✅️✅️✅️
I respectfully disagree in so far as, in my opinion, justices on the United States Supreme Court should be barred from outside employment. They have enough of a bully pulpit as it is.
Obviously, their wives should be barred as well.
Well, if they are not overthrowing the government, they should be allowed to work. If they are subverting our democracy, however, they should definitely be prosecuted asap!
I saw tonight, CJ Roberts' wife, Jane, averages $1.2M/yr in commissions matching hot attorneys with high powered law firms, some of which have appeared before the Court. Her cut is 20% of lawyer's first year. Two or three placements each year adds up. The relational aspect of this work is too close for comfort.
the wife? the judge? maybe both?
Except they believe they are above the law. That disgusting letter told us as much. And we have nothing in place to correct the situation. Until we do, they will continue to behave with impunity and bloated egos. Destroying lives and Democracy. They are basically, monsters.
It would seem like some are in jobs that may be legally dubious even without the SCOTUS connection.
I agree. But it's tricky and would have to apply across the board for all elected officials and be applied to spouses not "wives". I think we will have to accept that would be political dynamite and we have to trust judges, even if they are stay-at-home spouses, or prosecutors, or those with access to sensitive information to not divulge or discuss the issues with their partners. It certainly happens, but it's like a jury being told not to discuss the case or read about it during the trial. Probably sometimes they break the rule---but people do have outside lives, and unless we can clearly show they were influenced by a spouse I think we have to tread lightly. Like I said, I tend to agree, but I think, the best we can do is probably what we do if we found a juror had violated his oath.
But then first wives put their outside career on hold, and Kamala Harris' spouse did the same. But especially in the case of Thomas, there seems to be a direct link.
I'd be interested in other opinions on this. I think your point Ms. Spence is well taken. I wouldn't know how it could be commonly accepted, or if it has ever been done for any but pres. whose wife has a lot of ceremonial duties and responsibilities, since our pres. is executive and head of state.
All other federal judges have an explicit ethics code. Clearly these right wing injustices are not capable of acting ethically on their own.
Ken, I say both. Elected officials are in the business of showing favors to their constituencies. That's a given. But members of the high court are appointed by the Prez and senate confirmed. Anything to do with the USSC should never be mistaken for making an appearance of impropriety. Ginny T made $600k last year working on far right wing causes. Trump appointed Thomas as a member of the trust fund board of the Library of Congress. She is a member of the conservative Council for National Policy, and in 2019, she became part of its board. That's a lot of dough for serving on boards of directors and hobnobbing with the DC set...
well I am working on an article for my substack column on the current court and how they are priming this country for disaster. I should be able to publish it Thurs. I think that there are some judges that simply must be removed or we won't survive. If you have good honest justices, maybe the wife's role wouldn't be an issue. I think it is something to check into---the past history of justice's spouses. But until recently I never heard of conflicts. Certainly it is another reason to maneuver them out of the court. But you may right, maybe to be appointed their spouses should need to give up being involved to avoid conflict.
I don't know if you noticed, but today Justice Brown-Jackson is recusing herself from a case in which she had a prior interest.
Thank you, Joyce, for your good writing, brilliant thinking and knowledge and a focus on what matters. I really hope you can address the whole issue of our fallen Supreme Court. I can’t imagine being Kagan, Brown Jackson or Sotomayor in that toxic climate. Can you?
I’m thinking the same: “I can’t imagine being Kagan, Brown Jackson or Sotomayor in that toxic climate. Can you?”
And yes, thank you, Joyce, for your wisdom.
A cousin of mine worked at a Seattle company that is over 100 years old, a major employer in the area, and a company that when it sneezes, Seattle always gets at least a cold So, this cousin was an Ethics Director, one of few in the company that now nationwide. He engaged in unethical personal behavior, garden variety not necessary to name. I asked him about it once it became known. How could he be an Ethics Director and not recognize how far across the line of decency he had gone. His family and our extended family was torn apart His response, personal ethics are different than business ethics. In that moment, I got everything I needed to see the world in all of its complexity, rot, and squalor. There is nothing unique about my cousin. He did something wrong. If he had owned his behavior, apologized, and made amends, things could be very different now. My cousin I believe is above average smart, educated, well traveled. Most people thought of him as a fun interesting person to hang out with. Knowing what we know, it's foolish to believe that the SCT is going to be any different than other groups of individuals, highly educated or not. There will be lapses. Having a code of ethics allows for an investigation . We should investigate when there is enough credible evidence to call for action. We cannot let Thomas try to wash the issue of ethics aways based on the fact that we've never had ethical standards before. Clearly, we need them now. The SCT is filled with scandal, and if it were smoke, we'd see it coming out of their chamber. I pity the decent Justices who are serving in good faith. While I'm at it. I think it was stupid to make Senator Al Franken resign without a proper investigation. Long-winded.
I agree, especially about Franken. The democrats have an ugly habit of taking a high road instead of forcing the facts be found and then take action.
Yep!
Franken's grandchildren are here in NYC and he has a home as well. I wouldn't be at all disappointed if he primaried Gilibrand.
ooooooh, I like this.
I agree about Franken. I wonder about all our other courts? Especially about our Federal courts? Thinking about that judge in Amarillo.
Ernest Hemingway wrote in Death in the Afternoon “So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.”
As Thomas, Alito, and their ilk show, ethics and morals are very subjective. Probably haven’t read Hemingway. Machiavelli more likely.
Maybe so but still thoughtfully written.
Yes, Joyce, it says something about the man and the country when the President attends the Correspondents Dinner.
The nerd prom.
And FOX had the gall to attend. The jokes directed at them by the President and the speaker were funny and cut FOX to the bone; however, when Joe Biden spoke clearly and passionately about the lying "extreme media" without naming them, the whole room knew who his target was.
I didn't watch the dinner, but the clips I saw convinced me that the President is ready to go toe-to-toe with the Chump right this minute!
Thank you, for covering the important stuff....
As an American I expect more transparency. Several justices clearly lied under oath to Senate prior to confirmation.
The whining of Alito is aggressive. Roberts avoidance of the Senate is peculiar. What is he hiding? Again Roberts and his wife’s millions of conflicts through her work appears not correctly reported on taxes. I’m still trying to figure out what kind of “lobbying work”Jesse Barrett does? And who paid off Brett Kavenaugh debts? (There were at least 70 complaints from citizens about him prior to his “controversial confirmation” with Trump preventing a real FBI investigation into credible allegations of abusive behavior.)
All is reflected in their cruel Dobbs decision and the related chaos causing so much pain for women and families.
I fear the extremist justices political will is to continue to harm Americans as they shape the country in horrible decisions to come. I’m grateful the press is exposing the decades of corruption. Fear we will not survive as a democracy with such “stench” in the supreme court.
I have no reason to include the 3 other dissenting justices.
Damn, "stench" is the perfect word here. What a tragedy for America this bunch has become.
All credit for my use of “stench” goes to Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her blistering Dobbs dissent. Worth reading.
Yes.
Several? Try six of the current nine.
If it weren't for Koch money -- many tens of millions of dollars over time -- George Mason University would be just another second- or third-tier school. And recall that Charles Koch and the Federalist Society (also the beneficiary of enormous largesse from far-right billionaires Olin, Scaife, Mercer, and Koch) had direct influence on faculty hiring in the school's economics and law schools.
In essence, extremist billionaires bought GMU and its law school and turned it into the ultra-conservative mill that it is today. It, Scalia Law, and the Federalist Society are poster children for the success of one major part of the far-right's strategy to impose extreme conservatism on the country.
Absent a fuller context, I am astonished and disappointed that Ken Randall chose to lend his talents to Scalia Law.
If you are looking for a way to fill some time, do an Internet search on the terms "George Mason University Koch funding" or variations on that. Then read _Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right_, by Jane Mayer.
I didn't sleep after I read Dark Money. I got the book right after it came out. A woman in at a yoga class that I taught saw the title, and said, "That's my daughter's book." I believe that Jane's mother lived in Seattle and came to my classes when her regular teacher was off. Now, I'm wondering if this really happened. Thanks for the reading list.
Around the same time I read _Dark Money_, I also read _Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America_, by Nancy MacLean. I heartily recommend it as a companion piece to Mayer's book. I thought each book was excellent on its own; taken together, they staggered me, caused me connect a swirling mass of dots in my head and understand much more comprehensively what's going on beyond a given day's headlines.
Thank you. It sounds like an important book to read. It's on my list. From what I can tell, the radical right is uglier than I ever thought.
I "liked" this whole thread because I like it when folks share their readings relevant to the topics de jour. My public library is right around the corner, and I am heading that way when I finish this cup of coffee.
With this court you know how they are going to rule just by what is before them. Huge percentage have their minds made up ahead of time . the lawyer’s arguments are just a waste of time.
Ethics is a foreign word to some.
As usual thanks Joyce for “week ahead” and all in between .
We’ve got to get ahead of this situation.
It is reprehensible that (some) members of the Court have no sense of accountability to the American people. Apparently their lifetime tenure has made them too secure in their position and too arrogant to care. And partisan politics has effectively disemboweled the countervailing effect of institutional jealousy, and our system of checks and balances. A Republican Congress will certainly do nothing.
They are probably so esconsed within the money machine that they can no longer see with any clarity.
Trump won't testify. No cameras.
Really loved watching the correspondents dinner. So many laughs.
Karen, Thank the Universe he won’t testify! He soils everything with his stench....I saw Biden at the WH press dinner. He was great. I laughed throughout. I thought Joyce’s comments about a healthy democracy were right on: one in which the President shows up and takes his digs and hands out a few, too.
Absolutely!!
At what point will the Justices be forced to comment on this? What must happen for the Justices to act with any decency?
prosecution. I've never heard of it at the supreme court level, but it's time we all began to. our divided congress won't impeach them, so it has to be prosecution.
More Justices on this court 😀
Technically, they did comment. They said "screw you"
Old age.
I guess it wouldn't be appropriate for any of the justices to declare their position on rules of conduct in public but I would hope there is much discussion amongst themselves.
Everyone is impatient for the jury to return on the Proud Boy trial but I think it is good that they are taking their time to discuss and review evidence and charges. From what I have read due to the number of defendants and multiple charges it will be tricky. Whether we like the defendants or not they are entitled to a fair trial. I admit that at times my inner pitchfork and torch carrying towns person is hard to subdue.
Should the Supreme Court choose not to establish any rules of conduct for itself, is there any remedy?
As I understand it, a remedy to remove, is that the House can vote for impeachment, and then a Senate trial is held, with a two-thirds vote needed to convict.We know how that vote would go in todays world!??
Perhaps we'll see a complexion change out of the 24 elections. If America can diss DeSantis at this early date and scarlet Kansas can say yes to abortion, the mood of the country may be changing direction.
Great question.
The separation of powers pretty much quells that idea but I'm no lawyer. Joyce, what say you?
Ooo-ooo, read MaryAnn below.
Trump is headed to Scotland and Ireland so he will not be testifying.
And why does he get to leave the country while indicted?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65389505
yes indeed? Perhaps Ms. Vance can answer. I wouldn't know about civil trials, but I don't think those under criminal indictment usually can leave country. Don't forget he is also under criminal indictment. I know in Nevada if one is on bail it can be rescinded for leaving the state.
Manhattan is criminal indictment, but it's not "violent" I say while throwing up in my mouth a bit. And he's a "first time offender" in the eyes of the law, also throwing up in my mouth a bit. Though they did take Bannon's passport, so who knows.