What a shit show. I’m consoling myself that the biggest deal last week was the Court kicking the Independent State Legislature Theory to the curb on the merits. Had they not, it would have ended democracy in this country. At least now we still have hope of clawing back some of the ground we lost. And I’m hoping the clamor from Dem voters to expand the Court will gain momentum. Biden is a fossil, but historically he has always moved his political positions to the exact center of wherever the majority of Dems are at any given moment. If expanding the Court becomes a mainstream position for most Dem voters, and I think it’s quickly heading in that direction, there’s a chance Biden may get onboard – if he gets a second term.
I think there's pretty substantial majority support for term limits right now, no reason for Chuck Schumer to not be introducing a term limits bill, other than the fact that he is Chuck Schumer.
And has anyone done the math (whatchoo lookin' at me fer?)) to figure out where we set the number to inflict maximum right-wing casualties?
Yeah, but they could have simply decided the current case was moot (which it was), but booting it on the merits goes a long way to removing further threat (I hope). I'm not a lawyer (although I was married to one, for my sins) but I've read several lawyers whose opinions I trust, and they seem pretty sanguine.
Someone whose opinion I respect but whose name I can't remember said that the Independent State Legislature ruling basically means there are 6 votes on the court for: 1) Yes, we should have elections 2) These elections should proceed along the lines generally followed over the past 200 or so years 3) No, we won't be inventing any new ways to pick a President just for the 2024 election, thanks. Whew, what a relief.
Court packing is fine, but I’m starting to think we need to eliminate “judicial review” of federal law. Yes, that’s problematic, but no more problematic than having the court function as the third, imperial branch of the legislature, with the power to negate and create laws with impunity. Judicial review is the fruit of the poison tree that was Marbury vs Madison, where the court appointed itself the ruling branch of government.
The most plausible theory I've read on why the super-Supremes put the kibosh (for now) on the Independent State Legislature wet dream is that they want to keep that power for themselves. The Iron Law of Institutions proves the pudding once again. Anything else they're happy to help build a legal wall to ensure no one ever escapes 1950 again.
I thought the idea was that state courts had no right to review state legislatures decision on federal elections but the federal courts still did? As Chris Hayes pointed out, it cleverly places all the power in the hands of two institutions (state legislatures and federal courts) that right-wingers control.
If the Court continues on its present path, we’ll eventually see Alito writing the opinion that declares the Emancipation Proclamation executive over-reach and reinstates slavery via the US v Bezos case (“the government has failed to show that Mr. Bezos’ fully-owned employees have suffered any injury sufficient to declare his ownership null and void”).
The case is more likely to be based on property rights. Outlawing slavery is a direct violation of every corporate citizen's right to own human beings, and thus the law and all applicable constitutional amendments must be struck down.
Frankly, I'm surprised the Suicide Six have not yet directly declared most of the constitution to be unconstitutional. As we all know, the entire document consists of "GUNZ4WhiteFolks" and "Welcome to JeebusLand." None of the other parts exist or need be heeded.
Looking at how their recent decisions have checked all the "major Democratic constituency" boxes (lessee... Women, LGBTQ folk, indebted young people, who did they miss?) I'm a little surprised they didn't fit in an attack on unions. Maybe savin' it for the next term? Expect a return to the pre-1930's reasoning that a union has no right to interfere with "an employment contract freely entered into."
Don't forget their slam on Black people: "you can get a leg up as cannon fodder in the armed services, but don't think we'll let you into OUR universities." They played all the hits, and I share your surprise they didn't find a way to add "fuck unions."
They would have to take out the 13th Amendment which states
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I worry about you channeling evil pricks like Alito. Ever see " A Double Life?"
With Ronald Coleman? A Cukor Film. Written by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Fine entertainment for the rest of us- for you, perhaps, a cautionary tale.
Oooh, I haven't seen this, and I love Ronald Coleman. If there was a podcast of Ronald Coleman reading the New York City phonebook circa 1945, I'd subscribe.
Just a few short steps to having the supremes behind plexiglass while greasy billionaires in the shadows feed in money to raise the screen and watch them gyrate
Having your photo taken on an Alaskan glacier drinking a martini with ice from that same rapidly-melting glacier right after you ruled the EPA doesn't have the power to regulate greenhouse gases, yeah, that sounds like something straight out of a music video.
Hey, anybody else remember that quaint notion of "standing" that determined whether you can sue in Federal court? Ha ha, that was fun while it lasted, huh? First, Christian-fundamentalist doctors were allowed sue to overturn FDA approval of birth-control pills on the argument that side-effects of said pills might sometime in the future require them to do the jobs they applied for and were hired to do and are well-compensated to do. Such harm they suffered! How do you top that? Well, now we know.
Turns out that things like standing and precedence are judicial norms, made up to spackle the holes in the Constitution as an instruction manual, and just like legislative norms like voting on a supreme court nomination you can just ignore them if you feel like it. Who knew? It doesn't say in the Constitution that a dog can't play basketball.
Paul Gigot is the editor of the WSJ opinion page? That cesspool of unhinged conservative raving? Wasn’t he an esteemed contributor to the PBS Newshour or one of those shows for years? No wonder Totebagger politics are so toxic.
Oh well, I’m sure it all evens out. On the one hand, Paul Gigot had a platform on PBS; on the other hand, some leftist rando was mean to a centrist on Twitter back in 2016, so you can see why “The Left” is the real problem.
Good to know the WSJ Editorial page hasn't changed one skosh since the days they were enthusiastically endorsing America-backed death squads in Central America.
Hah, Mr. Alito! I happen to know FOX can't be broadcasting that crime is rampant in Democrat cities, because everyone knows all those cities were BURNED DOWN in 2020! Hah, I say!
"if you don’t care for what I’m saying, rest assured there are men who have paid a lot more than the price of a subscription who find it very interesting indeed."
Coming this fall on the WB… it’s “That’s So Alito”! (quick preview clip, Justice Alito holding a smoking handgun in fake swamp surroundings with a comically surprised expression) while alligator hunting in Florida with his close friend The Koch Brothers, ole Justice Sam gets into a peck of trouble! How’s he getting out of this one?!
Alito: respect mah AUTHORITAAAH!
Roberts: I’m the eldest boy!
What a shit show. I’m consoling myself that the biggest deal last week was the Court kicking the Independent State Legislature Theory to the curb on the merits. Had they not, it would have ended democracy in this country. At least now we still have hope of clawing back some of the ground we lost. And I’m hoping the clamor from Dem voters to expand the Court will gain momentum. Biden is a fossil, but historically he has always moved his political positions to the exact center of wherever the majority of Dems are at any given moment. If expanding the Court becomes a mainstream position for most Dem voters, and I think it’s quickly heading in that direction, there’s a chance Biden may get onboard – if he gets a second term.
Go, Pack, go!
A Bears fan (for once) agrees with you.
I think there's pretty substantial majority support for term limits right now, no reason for Chuck Schumer to not be introducing a term limits bill, other than the fact that he is Chuck Schumer.
And has anyone done the math (whatchoo lookin' at me fer?)) to figure out where we set the number to inflict maximum right-wing casualties?
Sigh... OK, here's a formula: Alito - 1
"other than the fact that he is Chuck Schumer" unfortunately may be the beginning and end of the matter.
Chuck's gotta Chuck.
I think you mean other than the Constitution
Would term limits require a constitutional amendment? I didn't think they would.
"was the Court kicking the Independent State Legislature Theory to the curb on the merit"
Any good writer knows that you have to save something juicy for next season...
Yeah, but they could have simply decided the current case was moot (which it was), but booting it on the merits goes a long way to removing further threat (I hope). I'm not a lawyer (although I was married to one, for my sins) but I've read several lawyers whose opinions I trust, and they seem pretty sanguine.
Someone whose opinion I respect but whose name I can't remember said that the Independent State Legislature ruling basically means there are 6 votes on the court for: 1) Yes, we should have elections 2) These elections should proceed along the lines generally followed over the past 200 or so years 3) No, we won't be inventing any new ways to pick a President just for the 2024 election, thanks. Whew, what a relief.
Court packing is fine, but I’m starting to think we need to eliminate “judicial review” of federal law. Yes, that’s problematic, but no more problematic than having the court function as the third, imperial branch of the legislature, with the power to negate and create laws with impunity. Judicial review is the fruit of the poison tree that was Marbury vs Madison, where the court appointed itself the ruling branch of government.
Removing Judicial Review would likely redound to our disadvantage
I been dound (and redound!) so long it looks like up to me.
The most plausible theory I've read on why the super-Supremes put the kibosh (for now) on the Independent State Legislature wet dream is that they want to keep that power for themselves. The Iron Law of Institutions proves the pudding once again. Anything else they're happy to help build a legal wall to ensure no one ever escapes 1950 again.
This. "Independent State Legislature" would make Bush v. Gore a dead letter.
I thought the idea was that state courts had no right to review state legislatures decision on federal elections but the federal courts still did? As Chris Hayes pointed out, it cleverly places all the power in the hands of two institutions (state legislatures and federal courts) that right-wingers control.
If the Court continues on its present path, we’ll eventually see Alito writing the opinion that declares the Emancipation Proclamation executive over-reach and reinstates slavery via the US v Bezos case (“the government has failed to show that Mr. Bezos’ fully-owned employees have suffered any injury sufficient to declare his ownership null and void”).
The case is more likely to be based on property rights. Outlawing slavery is a direct violation of every corporate citizen's right to own human beings, and thus the law and all applicable constitutional amendments must be struck down.
Frankly, I'm surprised the Suicide Six have not yet directly declared most of the constitution to be unconstitutional. As we all know, the entire document consists of "GUNZ4WhiteFolks" and "Welcome to JeebusLand." None of the other parts exist or need be heeded.
"We're Constitutional originalists in that originally there was no Constitution..."
Originalists in that they agree with the slavers who founded the government.
Looking at how their recent decisions have checked all the "major Democratic constituency" boxes (lessee... Women, LGBTQ folk, indebted young people, who did they miss?) I'm a little surprised they didn't fit in an attack on unions. Maybe savin' it for the next term? Expect a return to the pre-1930's reasoning that a union has no right to interfere with "an employment contract freely entered into."
Don't forget their slam on Black people: "you can get a leg up as cannon fodder in the armed services, but don't think we'll let you into OUR universities." They played all the hits, and I share your surprise they didn't find a way to add "fuck unions."
"Well, if they wanted to get into Harvard, why didn't their grandfather build a library there, huh?"
Whiffenp...OOF
You're confusing "build" with "paid for." Some of their ancestors probably did build Harvard's libraries.
Oof.
OOF.
They would have to take out the 13th Amendment which states
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
There ya go with those pronouns again!
It is disturbing that I was not at all sure where we slipped into a fictitious case there and had to look it up to be sure.
As in, didn‘t anybody in the lower jurisdictions (on either side) stand up and say, „Hang on, what the hell?…“
Satire mere millimeters ahead of reality, breathing hard as it looks over its shoulder.
Perfect.
I worry about you channeling evil pricks like Alito. Ever see " A Double Life?"
With Ronald Coleman? A Cukor Film. Written by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Fine entertainment for the rest of us- for you, perhaps, a cautionary tale.
Here
https://youtu.be/24C6vASJWaU
A Double Life is awesome! Don't worry, the Bard is more seductive than the boors!
Oooh, I haven't seen this, and I love Ronald Coleman. If there was a podcast of Ronald Coleman reading the New York City phonebook circa 1945, I'd subscribe.
And it's got two of my favorite character actors, Ray Collins and Millard Mitchell in it! Definitely watching, thanks for the recommendation/warning!
“Written by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin”
I am SO there!
I can see these strutting little shark justices sidling up in billionaires' DMs & cooing "Daddy, are u generous?"
Just a few short steps to having the supremes behind plexiglass while greasy billionaires in the shadows feed in money to raise the screen and watch them gyrate
Having your photo taken on an Alaskan glacier drinking a martini with ice from that same rapidly-melting glacier right after you ruled the EPA doesn't have the power to regulate greenhouse gases, yeah, that sounds like something straight out of a music video.
Dave Gahan in ermine robes and crown, seated in a lawn chair on a glacier in Depeche Mode’s “Enjoy the Silence.”
OK, but that's a little too subtle and tasteful for Grandmaster Alito.
Ok then, Kid Rock, same scenariio
Hey, anybody else remember that quaint notion of "standing" that determined whether you can sue in Federal court? Ha ha, that was fun while it lasted, huh? First, Christian-fundamentalist doctors were allowed sue to overturn FDA approval of birth-control pills on the argument that side-effects of said pills might sometime in the future require them to do the jobs they applied for and were hired to do and are well-compensated to do. Such harm they suffered! How do you top that? Well, now we know.
And don’t get me started on the ripeness doctrine.
Oh, it's ripe all right.
Turns out that things like standing and precedence are judicial norms, made up to spackle the holes in the Constitution as an instruction manual, and just like legislative norms like voting on a supreme court nomination you can just ignore them if you feel like it. Who knew? It doesn't say in the Constitution that a dog can't play basketball.
Chuck Schumer, sputtering from the sidelines: "But... BUT ITS A DOG"
“Ref… but the ball” (waves hands confusingly at basketball hoop) “dog dunks! I mean.. no NO!”
Paul Gigot is the editor of the WSJ opinion page? That cesspool of unhinged conservative raving? Wasn’t he an esteemed contributor to the PBS Newshour or one of those shows for years? No wonder Totebagger politics are so toxic.
Yes, he is the very same smirking, condescending asshole.
Oh well, I’m sure it all evens out. On the one hand, Paul Gigot had a platform on PBS; on the other hand, some leftist rando was mean to a centrist on Twitter back in 2016, so you can see why “The Left” is the real problem.
But wait, wasn't he the replacement for David Brooks? You're forgetting we need to grade these things on a curve.
This curve is a parabola that goes straight up.
Now you're just being hyperbolic.
Hanging curve, that gets hit 450 feet into the right-field bleachers.
Yes and no. Was on PBS. Was not esteemed.
Good to know the WSJ Editorial page hasn't changed one skosh since the days they were enthusiastically endorsing America-backed death squads in Central America.
Let's be fair, this isn't that different than the NY Times agreeing to publish that manifesto from the Unabomber.
Hah, Mr. Alito! I happen to know FOX can't be broadcasting that crime is rampant in Democrat cities, because everyone knows all those cities were BURNED DOWN in 2020! Hah, I say!
Checkmate, robe-boy!
But... but... I got an email right here from a guy named Stewart who says his man-wife Mike was murdered in Detroit!
Nope, nope, no more cities! All gone!
Well, damn, where all our dead people gonna vote from now?
And there ^^^ you have it, my friends – one thread that covers the entirety of political science from end to end.
Christ, what an asshole -- as of course all the GOP apparatchiks there are, just more so.
And, of course, there’s their disrespect for the rule of law...
"if you don’t care for what I’m saying, rest assured there are men who have paid a lot more than the price of a subscription who find it very interesting indeed."
Speaking of "deliver[ing] the coup de grace"...
Hours late to only to say this was magnificent. Bravo. When "Fagkillers United" makes perfect sense in context, that's satire, baby!
Coming this fall on the WB… it’s “That’s So Alito”! (quick preview clip, Justice Alito holding a smoking handgun in fake swamp surroundings with a comically surprised expression) while alligator hunting in Florida with his close friend The Koch Brothers, ole Justice Sam gets into a peck of trouble! How’s he getting out of this one?!
If the season finale isn't written yet, I vote NOT for the gator.s.. I'd rather see the Burmese python resolution.
No cliffhanger. No cliffs in Florida.
I like the way you think