126 Comments
Jan 18Liked by Jay Kuo

Expanding the court will be the only future option, until then we will subjected to the tyranny of the minority.

Expand full comment

13 Districts=13 Justices

Expand full comment

Exatly. However, it is now too late in the game with elections looming to actually get this done. Democrats have always been too afraid to expand the court thinking public opinion woud be against them. If (God forbid) the rEpublicrites get the power to expand the SC to 13 with a GQP president, they will do exactly that and our current 6-3 court will quickly become a 10-3 whacko majority for generations. I really wish the Democrats woud learn to play political hard ball.

Expand full comment

As someone who is not subject to your Supreme courts decisions but bathed daily in American Politics and news, you need to :

- expand that court to 13 Justices, as mentioned above.

- set term limits, say 75 or 10 years which ever one is reached second.

- set up and maintain a list of say 5 replacements, who go through the vetting process when first appointed to the list, and then an abbreviated vetting when actually about to appointed to the court.

- They come off the list when appointed, reach 70 years of age, die or are deemed mentally incompetent, withdraw, or are impeached.

- Spread the initial appointments to the list over the next 2 or 3 presidential terms.

Expand full comment
RemovedJan 18
Expand full comment

Republicans are making it a one party state because the Republican Party is a neo-fascist criminal endeavor and has lost its rights as a viable institution. Ike is rolling in his grave at your criminal and ethical malfeasance.

Expand full comment

Once the Freedom Caucus ousted (edit: ousted is not an accurate characterization. The house would not work with Boehner, so he resigned and Paul Ryan stepped in) John Boehner as House Speaker and Paul Ryan took over. That was the ascension of fascism over the moderate republicans. Many did not re-run and retired from politics and the rest, Liz Cheney being the last, were voted out.

This inevitability was assured by the 2010 SCOTUS decision Citizens United vs FEC. At that point the war was over and all that was left was the mechanics of implementation.

That assured that the symbiotic parasitic relationship between the legislature and private interests would make the Republic the proxy for corporations.

People somehow, think this is a recent thing. They forget what fascism is or were never taught. In the late 1800's and early 1900's Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan all were thought of as fascists. The Ludlow Massacre in 1910 is the bloodbath of labor that got us 8 hour work days, safety in the work place and other benefits. Rockefeller was the corporate executive called on by the President to end this conflict. We forget too soon. Many think Rockefeller out of benevolence GAVE workers these rights. Nothing was given. It was paid for in blood and by dead bodies of men, women and children.

The first blow to the independence of the Republic was the SCOTUS decision Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869. This decision made corporations people by giving them equal protection under the 14th amendment.

So here we are in 2024 and the intervening decades have been shaped by corporations more than anything. It is the golden rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules and the legislature is the toady of corporations and private interests.

Expand full comment

So much confession and projection in that statement. Funny that you consider yourself a "Kaczyznskyist." You may go now.

Expand full comment
RemovedJan 18
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Your interpretation of history doesn't impress me, any more that your incorrect usage of "ad hominem" does. You may go now.

Expand full comment
Jan 18Liked by Jay Kuo

Ann, not Amy, Gorsuch.

Lordie what a terrifying future for environmental law/reproductive rights (among many other areas) if Chevron is overturned.

Can we impeach and replace Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh?

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the catch

Expand full comment

Not with Congress as currently constructed.

Expand full comment

Wouldn't that be nice? Sadly, no way the House will go for it, what with being controlled by a handful of extremists.

Expand full comment

Even if they did, conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate. Not happening, unfortunately.

Expand full comment

Actually, it's Anne (with an "e") Gorsuch.

Expand full comment
RemovedJan 18
Comment removed
Expand full comment

So says the troll who claims he didn't vote for Trump but spouts off his memes like they're coming out of a recording .

Expand full comment

This is your occasional reminder that only one of the six conservative justices was appointed by a president who got the most votes. Just in case you’d forgotten how completely illegitimate this court is.

Expand full comment

It would be nice to think that this Court has been taken aback, at least a bit, by the backlash from Dobbs, including their radical departure from precedent.

Add to that the public's reaction to Clarence's money "issues". If they truly want to be popular and respected, they are, so far, on the wrong path. Doing away with Chevron would make that worse.

But they are probably being rewarded for kowtowing to their big business masters, and do not particularly care if the American people are unhappy with them.

Expand full comment
Jan 18Liked by Jay Kuo

Your last sentence says it all.

Expand full comment

I don’t know. On one hand, there always comes a point where the bad guy knows the jig is up and they just go for it. I don’t know whether this is that moment, but it might be.

On the other hand, Roberts is a complete Republican operative, but he’s also the smartest one they have, and he probably knows how bad this all looks.

On the third hand, as we saw with Dobbs, he can vote with the three actual Americans on the court, and they still lose. Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have the chance to simply declare themselves an unelected super-legislature, and there’s nothing in any of their backgrounds to suggest they have the strength of character or commitment to American law to turn it down.

Expand full comment
Jan 18·edited Jan 18

This just shows the nomination to Supreme Courts by the President is a flawed process. For a real reform of SCOTUS we would need a non political body to nominate those judges. There also needs to be a recall process and a term limit.

Expand full comment

We’ll never get all three of those things. I’ll settle for term limits.

Expand full comment

If not a term limit, how about a mandatory retirement age? Make them retire by age 75, or even 70. The older they get, the more health issues they can have.

I've read that an earlier retirement by RBG might have given Obama the opportunity to get a nominee onto the Court.

Mandatory retirement, while possibly inconvenient to one party or the other, allows us to benefit from, probably, ten or twenty years of experience (you don't want justices much younger than that or, like Kavanaugh or Comey-Barrett, they won't have enough lower court experience.

I'm sure Republicans would find a way to cheat with this as well. Didn't we read that the justices had already decided on Dobbs, and were just waiting for the right case to come before them?

Expand full comment

"..... declare themselves an unelected super-legislature..." Exactly!

Expand full comment

This is more than devastating; one of the first things that comes to mind are the regulations of CO2 emissions destroying our planet more rapidly every day. So the “unelected supermajority” destroy the planet 🌎 and we do nothing? This cannot be the outcome; murder of all generations that would follow ours?

Expand full comment

And look at the direction they are taking this country. It's definitely not "making us great".

Expand full comment

Yeah, walking us lockstep into fascism/oligarchy.

Expand full comment

"This is your occasional reminder that only one of the six conservative justices was appointed by a president who got the most votes. Just in case you’d forgotten how completely illegitimate this court is."

That's false; three of the conservative justices were. Clarence Thomas was nominated by Bush (father) in 1991, Alito and Roberts were both nominated by Bush (son) in 2005 and 2006, respectively. That was during the son's second term. The son won the popular vote in 2004 (although he didn't in 2000).

The other three were of course nominated by Trump.

And, quite frankly, please stop with this "didn't win the popular vote" nonsense. That is awfully close to saying "the election was stolen" with the shoe on the other foot. All that matters is the 2000 and 2016 elections were won fair and square by the Republicans according to the rules, even if we don't like it.

Expand full comment

Wrong on so many levels:

I’m not saying they didn’t win (like Republicans say about Biden). I’m saying they don’t have legitimacy. I was taught decades ago that sure you COULD win the presidency with a minority of the popular vote, but you wouldn’t want to because no one would respect you. And they were right. (And somehow, Democrats manage to win the popular AND electoral votes because they understand this.)

Also, Little Bush wouldn’t have been in a position to win reelection if he hadn’t been put into office by the Electoral College, his father’s friends on the Supreme Court and his Florida campaign manager who was secretary of state, and thus in charge of counting votes. I know he won, but I don’t have to respect it as if it were the will of the people, like all Republicans demand that I do.

And finally: “Quite frankly,” you’re not going to tell me to stop saying anything, do you understand? I’m nearly 60 years old and I’ve spent 40 years watching the Republican Party turn into the lawless, violent mob they are today, and 40 years being told I’m overreacting, that I’m not reaching out, that I’m not paying them enough respect. Well, being a white, straight, cis man, conservatives think I’m one of them so they’ve spent 40 years telling me what they really think, and Trump’s current “shocking” speeches are exactly what they want. And I’m going to keep telling people that. Quite frankly.

Expand full comment

Well said. Thank you!!!!

Expand full comment

Frightening. Their decision assumes judges know more than scientists. Another extremist move designed to hurt the welfare of Americans. :( The video was outstanding, BTW. Thank you.

Expand full comment
author

I enjoyed writing the script!

Expand full comment

Very well done...we non-lawyers appreciate being able to understand such heavy topics!

Expand full comment

Everyone on both sides acknowledges scientists know more than judges and these days one side regards science as evil, anti-business and industry and therefore anti-American.

The judiciary would simply solve that by requesting friends of the court briefs, which in reality would be decision by cherry picked experts with unethical corrupt views on the subject. The judge reappears from behind the curtain, after reading the briefs of his choice, with the predetermined ruling.

David versus Goliath where Goliath is high priced big law firms with big retainers representing industry (looking at your daddy Amy B.) with unlimited financial resources bringing cases to cherry picked right-wing ultra conservative tRump appointed judges of the Fifth Circuit in Texas or for that matter almost anywhere in the south, plains, and most of the Midwest.

Expand full comment
Jan 18Liked by Jay Kuo

Per CNN, Anne Gorsuch was forced to resign over her anti-regulatory activity. You think Neil doesn’t have a grudge to pay back?! He should recuse himself. But he won’t.

Expand full comment

I’m in the UK and living in a post-Brexit world. Now I know why the Vote Leave campaign was so full-on. It wasn’t for us ordinary folk. It was so we no longer had to follow EU regulations which might have affected corporations’ profits and also the new tax laws that were about to be introduced. Good luck, America.

Expand full comment
Jan 18Liked by Jay Kuo

As you stated in your final paragraph this is already happening in cases with "judge shopping" like the mifepristone case. I find this idea to let courts make decisions on things they actually know no facts about to be terrifying and sadly par for the course in recent years 😳😠

Expand full comment

Judge shopping is rampant with these clowns who spent a decade or two railing against 'activist judges' anytime they didn't like a ruling. Now they are all in on activist judges to cement minority rule.

https://www.kdrv.com/news/local/court-issues-permanent-injunction-stopping-oregon-gun-control-plan-measure-114/article_f7ab3c1a-aff7-11ee-bfa1-3f13b9bfc952.html

Expand full comment

Judge shopping is always rampant, it just doesn't usually draw attention. One somewhat well-known example is patent trolls using the East Texas court for patent shakedown lawsuits (I think that problem has been stemmed, and a few of the patent trolls ended up in prison). IIRC, some patent-troll companies even relocated their headquarters just so they could use this particular friendly court.

Expand full comment

Strictly speaking, the judge relied in that case on the current allowance of courts to decide things like abuse of power or (in his case) alleged failure to follow the APA procedures. Those have always been appealable to courts. Of course, in that case he ignored the experts at the FDA who had determined that mifepristone is safe but forgot to dot a procedural i, so he claimed.

That the current Chevron case is likely to be decided before the mifepristone case bodes ill for the results of that case. Kacsmaryk will just be able to decide for himself the safety. Unless the court punts on standing.

Expand full comment

The judges already feel they can practice medicine without a license. They have put the brakes on research involving stem cells--good luck if you are losing your eyesight, battling chronic diseases--it’s a big, “Fuck U” from the Crime syndicate aka the RNC.

Climate Change denial by these NON EXPERTS has brought us to a tipping point AND STILL the RNC obstructs all meaningful solutions. So, they think they can adjudicate Nature, laws of engineering, physics, chemistry--any of it? What it comes down to is GREED. Not religion. Not morality. Certainly not justice. Just pure, unadulterated, KKKoch-style GREED.

Expand full comment

Well, this is a truly terrifying situation. Last I heard the Federal judiciary is already overwhelmed by their caseloads. And do these judges actually understand esoteric concepts like pharmacology?

Expand full comment
author

They do not.

Expand full comment

Exactly the problem. In law school I read cases with claims wrapped around serious mental illnesses, and it was clear the judges didn’t understand the issues any better than I understood their holdings.

Expand full comment

It would be nice if democracy could be on the offence instead of always playing defense. Sitting back and hoping the billionaire bullies will go away is not a strategy. Keeping Biden in the white house shouldn't be the only strategy to keep our democracy thriving instead of hanging on by a thread.

Expand full comment
RemovedJan 18
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Are you talking about a candidate who rapes women, instigates an insurrection, orchestrates a false elector scheme, doesn't accept publicly that he lost the election even if he knows better, has numerous failed businesses, love dictators and wants to be one?

Expand full comment
RemovedJan 18
Comment removed
Expand full comment

(eyeroll)

Expand full comment
Jan 18Liked by Jay Kuo

Justice Barrett was as skeptical as the three liberal Justices in dumping *Chevron*...Roberts did his "yes, but..." routine, and the four reprobates were after hanging *Chevron* high. The best to hope for is a narrow reading and finding for the plaintiffs...the worst? Well, you and Robert Reich highlighted that prospect, Jay.

Expand full comment

After years of complaints about "radical liberal judges", it's rather telling that it was instead the most Conservative judicial branch that has upended decades of established law.

Expand full comment

They made a calculated shift. They have now decided that their activist judges will be the ticket to instituting and enforcing minority rule.

Expand full comment

But that’s how we got these “conservatives” on the bench by calling reasonable people “liberals”.

Expand full comment

Should I even think that if the Dems pull out a trifecta ....God are you listening?...the first thing they should do is try and put more justices on the court ? I don't think that is affected by the filibuster...it's only a 51 majority in the Senate , correct? And they should get rid of the filibuster while they are at it...and just learn to play the game the way the Repugs do!

Expand full comment
author

It’s within the realm of possibility. Certainly the WH and the House are ours to lose.

Expand full comment

Jay... do you think we have a good chance to keep the Senate??? I’ve been told we have a better chance to take back the House... and as for the Prez they better find TFG Guilty x 4 x 91!!! And no consecutive sentences!!!

Expand full comment

What, you want all the sentences to run concurrently?

The Senate is tricky. One concern is what will happen with Manchin's seat. Kyrsten Synema is also a wildcard. Of course, both fall in the "good riddance" category; they wouldn't have supported a decent SCOTUS justice anyway.

Expand full comment

At this point perhaps that is best done AFTER the election.

Expand full comment

I think 50 votes in the Senate is sufficient, plus the Senate president (who is Kamala Harris) as a tie-breaker.

If any seats are vacant, even less than 50 may be enough. Lately, vacancies were on the D side (Feinstein and Kamala Harris come to mind), but sooner or later there are bound to be some vacancies on the R side, too.

Expand full comment

The video is a helpful explanation, but as with most things supreme court related, I'm at a loss for next steps - what exactly can citizens do to have any impact on this ruling?

Expand full comment
author

The most important thing is to ensure that we retain the WH, and then if we can the Senate. Placing judges who will not insert their own “expertise” into the process by finding “ambiguities” where they do not exist will be important should Chevron fall.

Expand full comment

This also strikes me as one of many topics that a Democratic majority in both Houses along with President Biden reelected which should be addressed in the first term of the next Congress. Top of the list would be legislation ensuring reproductive rights but, complex as it might be, legislation explicitly ensuring agency responsibility for development and enforcement of regulations under Acts of Congress.

Expand full comment

Teaming up with Robert Reich can never be a bad thing during all this madness. Go team!

Ironically, the Republicans may rue their overreach even if they win. If Biden wins another term, he'll be able to install more of those liberal judges, and help reboot the court system away from the Federalist Society. If a Democrat wins after Biden, the reboot continues. Greenland may have melted by that time, but the Republicans will have less firepower.

Also, Amy Coney Barrett is actually right when she says it will clog up the court system. How on earth do they intend to handle the thousands of cases that right wing organizations will start to file to delete all the regulations they hate?

A part of me says, "Bring it on."

Why? Because as Barrett says, it will clog up the court system.

Currently, the far-right is on a rampage to block agency regulation, anyway. By plugging up the dockets, they'll have less ability to win these suits. It will take years to take challenge existing regulations, because the court system simply won't have the resources to trudge through all the cases.

Expand full comment

Biden, if he wins and has enough votes in the Senate, is going to have to add seats to SCOTUS to undo this shit show.

Expand full comment

He has stated he has no intention of doing that.

Expand full comment