Well, as expected, SCOTUS saved the worst for last, as they first decided a law really isn't a law because they said so, invalidating Biden's student loan forgiveness program based upon the congressionally passed HEROES Act. Then, to top that, the majority OKed the right to discriminate against LGBTQ customers of a public business, even though the "case" involved a presently NON-EXISTENT business and an UNINJURED party, on some factitious 1st Amendment "speech" issue.
Today should be a National Day of Mourning for democracy and human rights here in the US, as this Court has done its damnedest to destroy it...oy vey!
I love the idea of turning the tables...Oh my religion doesn't permit me to serve <evangelicals, magats, kkk members, nra nutters, etc> so shoo shoo away with you!
Absolutely. Always make sure that the fascists understand the sword cuts both ways.
They make it legal to discriminate based on “religious views“? Great. Start putting up the “We don’t serve Christians” signs.
They say it’s OK for a single individual to require a book be removed from the library so nobody can read it? Great. Make sure that pornographic work the Bible gets outlawed.
Actions and decisions have consequences. And they make the decisions they do it only because they’ve never had to bear the consequences before. We need to show them that it’s no longer the case.
That is because they are a bunch of cowardly evil people, with a few exceptions. So, what the right has been doing is making up cases just to get things before the Supreme Court. I think we need to not replace them, but have a higher court than the Supreme Court like the Supreme Court of Appeals or the Anointed Court! I think that should be the way to go. Biden should appoint all of them. I mean if they can overrule the 2 other branches of government like in a rock, paper, scissors game, then Biden should just create a new court, and it should be a place to appeal all decisions based on fake cases, like this supposed one about serving LGBTQ+ people, when they did not have a real case. Also, that is true of the Affirmative action case, my understanding from a women on NPR who is Asian and furious a the case, supposedly representing an Asian point of view, when we know that Right wing Whites sponsored this case. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/28/donors-sffa-conservative-trusts/
So, let us be clear. Mr. Blum does not give a flying you know what about whether or not Asian students are more fairly admitted to Harvard, or any other university for that matter. He just wants to make it easier to sue if White people are not admitted, by claiming that Universities are protecting Asian rights. Hahaha! If you believe that I know a bridge I can sell you. It might be true in China, or India, or Taiwan, or South Korea, but it is not true here!
Check my logic, in trying to veil the intent of their ruling, that WCN rights beat out LGBTQ+ rights, did they not hand down a ruling saying that "If your work is creative and expressive, you are now federally protected in refusing to 'create' anything you don't want to"? Head baker at Publix is racist, refuses to 'create' cakes, etc., for minorities, job protected, so Publix has to stop serving minorities?
I know they put a slight twist in that. Gorsuch bent over backwards to repeatedly repeat that she is more than willing to serve and create for ... (gay couples) so long as she doesn't have to put their pictures or names on their wedding website. She will kindly substitute pictures from frames at Target. So the theoretical baker would need to not want to create what minorities want created I suppose. But just think of the latitude this vague ruling contains.
Second question: Are the members of SCOTUS subject to US laws and the constitution, or lacking a supermajority in congress willing to put country over party, are they untouchable despots? I was thinking that someone injured by this ruling should have standing to sue the conservative justices directly. And that when the case came before SCOTUS, being defendants in the case, the hateful 6 would have to recuse themselves.
The only way to remove a SCOTUS is via impeachment. But we can render them less powerful by limiting their terms or expanding their numbers. That would take an act of Congress, which means creating a carve out for the filibuster in the Senate.
I’m not a fan of packing the court. Liberals do, VERY much, need to be far more willing to fight fire with fire and start being as ruthless as Republicans, but expanding the Court is a president that WILL boomerang.
Term limits, and requiring something more like 60% votes for confirmation, would significantly limit the appointment of radical justices, and the amount of time they can spend doing damage.
Meanwhile, Congress should absolutely impose a code of ethics on the Court, and start immediate investigations into those justices who have obviously excepted bribes, refused to recuse themselves, when cases in which they have a personal interest come up, and/or have shown such an obvious disregard for basic tenets of the law as to demonstrate that they are unsuited to serve on any court let alone on the highest one.
Packing the court is still a very bad idea that will come back to haunt us.
Imagine Biden and Democrats in Congress were to increase the court to 13 and push thru four liberal justices. At some point Republicans will gain control of the Senate. And when that inevitability happens, you KNOW the very first thing they’ll do would be to add four more ultra-conservative seats.
It’s an arms race that can do nothing but escalate and would lead to disaster.
Far better to deal with the current situation as it is and do what can be done to fix it. Apply a code of ethics that actually has teeth. Make sure the justices are held accountable to it. Make all of their corruption a campaign issue and keep pushing it in front of people’s attention so Republicans finally catch on that stacking the court with political toadies is a losing strategy, and so whatever little bit of conscience remains in the corrupt justices, will possibly influence them enough that they don’t go to far while we wait for them to die.
More seats on the court doesn't necessarily fix the issues of SCOTUS. At some point, it just means more seats to be filled by our ideological opponents. Imagine those seats filled with MAGA ideologues. What then? Plus, in our current political climate, such a move would further the distrust in the institution. SCOTUS is already expediting that distrust. We should try not to exacerbate it. Once we lose all trust in the institution, we will stop recognizing its authority, which is an integral part of our system of government. Things will not get better under such conditions.
That's not to say that reforms aren't in order. Enforcible ethical standards and a transparent recusal policy is a good start. Term limits could also help by at least allowing for increased turnover in the court so that more opportunities are presented to appoint justices reflecting the changing electorate. I'm sure we could design a system such that a justice retires each presidential term, allowing each new administration one appointment, guaranteed. We should also reform the nomination process so we don't have more Mitch McConnell-style gamesmanship. Appointees should their hearings in a timely manner and senators should be limited in why they can refuse a nominee to legitimate concerns of inexperience, ineptitude, and moral failings, not ideological differences.
I've wondered about that this week, whether the Justices could be sued. Would love to pop up some corn and watch that! Someone please make sure it's broadcast on Netflix.
Have a great vacation and thanks for all you do to help those of us who can hardly take watching the news anymore at least get a spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down - especially after this week!
I loved "Was the Russian leader like the Russian army, all swagger and no strength?" It reminded me of the wonderful Ann Richards' quote, "All hat and no cattle." I miss her and Pat Schroeder - their take on the crap the Right is spewing these days would be priceless.
Have a wonderful, relaxing vacation. And, seriously, this week’s “Tweets & Memes” not as fun as usual, because this week was a bit of a douche. Poor pup! Everyone knows you shouldn’t eat bees. Except, maybe, the six on the SC.
Have an excellent holiday and come home with even better insights for your essays. Your readers comments are priceless in this Week in Tweets and Memes. Watch out for Orcas near the rudder-eh?
"Sometimes the whole world seems upside down from a total lack of self-awareness." When one does not subscribe to facts, one does not recognize hypocrisy. Or projection or accountability, or the rule of law........critical thinking, empathy, and multiple perspectives don't exist. Damn, I sound like a public educator trying to indoctrinate liberalism and democracy, don't I?
Sounds like a most wonderful vacation coming up - enjoy!
Well, as expected, SCOTUS saved the worst for last, as they first decided a law really isn't a law because they said so, invalidating Biden's student loan forgiveness program based upon the congressionally passed HEROES Act. Then, to top that, the majority OKed the right to discriminate against LGBTQ customers of a public business, even though the "case" involved a presently NON-EXISTENT business and an UNINJURED party, on some factitious 1st Amendment "speech" issue.
Today should be a National Day of Mourning for democracy and human rights here in the US, as this Court has done its damnedest to destroy it...oy vey!
I love the idea of turning the tables...Oh my religion doesn't permit me to serve <evangelicals, magats, kkk members, nra nutters, etc> so shoo shoo away with you!
Absolutely. Always make sure that the fascists understand the sword cuts both ways.
They make it legal to discriminate based on “religious views“? Great. Start putting up the “We don’t serve Christians” signs.
They say it’s OK for a single individual to require a book be removed from the library so nobody can read it? Great. Make sure that pornographic work the Bible gets outlawed.
Actions and decisions have consequences. And they make the decisions they do it only because they’ve never had to bear the consequences before. We need to show them that it’s no longer the case.
Yup. I KNEW they were going to do something shitty. I just knew it. They always do after doing a couple of things right.
Well said
That is because they are a bunch of cowardly evil people, with a few exceptions. So, what the right has been doing is making up cases just to get things before the Supreme Court. I think we need to not replace them, but have a higher court than the Supreme Court like the Supreme Court of Appeals or the Anointed Court! I think that should be the way to go. Biden should appoint all of them. I mean if they can overrule the 2 other branches of government like in a rock, paper, scissors game, then Biden should just create a new court, and it should be a place to appeal all decisions based on fake cases, like this supposed one about serving LGBTQ+ people, when they did not have a real case. Also, that is true of the Affirmative action case, my understanding from a women on NPR who is Asian and furious a the case, supposedly representing an Asian point of view, when we know that Right wing Whites sponsored this case. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/28/donors-sffa-conservative-trusts/
Versus the Asians represented in this case against it. https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/students-fair-admissions-v-president-fellows-harvard-college
Student for Fair Admissions SFFA is a group started by a White man, Edward Blum, who is not Asian. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-courts-conservative-majority-strikes-down-race-based-affirmative-action-in-university-admissions#:~:text=The%20affirmative%20action%20cases%20were,the%20landmark%20Voting%20Rights%20Act.
https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/meet-edward-blum-man-who-wants-kill-affirmative-action-higher
So, let us be clear. Mr. Blum does not give a flying you know what about whether or not Asian students are more fairly admitted to Harvard, or any other university for that matter. He just wants to make it easier to sue if White people are not admitted, by claiming that Universities are protecting Asian rights. Hahaha! If you believe that I know a bridge I can sell you. It might be true in China, or India, or Taiwan, or South Korea, but it is not true here!
Enjoy your Summer vacation; “Camping on the water.” it sounds like a delightful way to relax and unwind.
Check my logic, in trying to veil the intent of their ruling, that WCN rights beat out LGBTQ+ rights, did they not hand down a ruling saying that "If your work is creative and expressive, you are now federally protected in refusing to 'create' anything you don't want to"? Head baker at Publix is racist, refuses to 'create' cakes, etc., for minorities, job protected, so Publix has to stop serving minorities?
I know they put a slight twist in that. Gorsuch bent over backwards to repeatedly repeat that she is more than willing to serve and create for ... (gay couples) so long as she doesn't have to put their pictures or names on their wedding website. She will kindly substitute pictures from frames at Target. So the theoretical baker would need to not want to create what minorities want created I suppose. But just think of the latitude this vague ruling contains.
Second question: Are the members of SCOTUS subject to US laws and the constitution, or lacking a supermajority in congress willing to put country over party, are they untouchable despots? I was thinking that someone injured by this ruling should have standing to sue the conservative justices directly. And that when the case came before SCOTUS, being defendants in the case, the hateful 6 would have to recuse themselves.
The only way to remove a SCOTUS is via impeachment. But we can render them less powerful by limiting their terms or expanding their numbers. That would take an act of Congress, which means creating a carve out for the filibuster in the Senate.
I’m not a fan of packing the court. Liberals do, VERY much, need to be far more willing to fight fire with fire and start being as ruthless as Republicans, but expanding the Court is a president that WILL boomerang.
Term limits, and requiring something more like 60% votes for confirmation, would significantly limit the appointment of radical justices, and the amount of time they can spend doing damage.
Meanwhile, Congress should absolutely impose a code of ethics on the Court, and start immediate investigations into those justices who have obviously excepted bribes, refused to recuse themselves, when cases in which they have a personal interest come up, and/or have shown such an obvious disregard for basic tenets of the law as to demonstrate that they are unsuited to serve on any court let alone on the highest one.
The GOP/Federalist Society has ALREADY packed the court. It needs to be rebalanced now.
Which I'd do by impeaching and replacing Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. NOT by expanding the court.
But the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, which is higher than to just pass a law to change the number of justices.
Packing the court is still a very bad idea that will come back to haunt us.
Imagine Biden and Democrats in Congress were to increase the court to 13 and push thru four liberal justices. At some point Republicans will gain control of the Senate. And when that inevitability happens, you KNOW the very first thing they’ll do would be to add four more ultra-conservative seats.
It’s an arms race that can do nothing but escalate and would lead to disaster.
Far better to deal with the current situation as it is and do what can be done to fix it. Apply a code of ethics that actually has teeth. Make sure the justices are held accountable to it. Make all of their corruption a campaign issue and keep pushing it in front of people’s attention so Republicans finally catch on that stacking the court with political toadies is a losing strategy, and so whatever little bit of conscience remains in the corrupt justices, will possibly influence them enough that they don’t go to far while we wait for them to die.
More seats on the court doesn't necessarily fix the issues of SCOTUS. At some point, it just means more seats to be filled by our ideological opponents. Imagine those seats filled with MAGA ideologues. What then? Plus, in our current political climate, such a move would further the distrust in the institution. SCOTUS is already expediting that distrust. We should try not to exacerbate it. Once we lose all trust in the institution, we will stop recognizing its authority, which is an integral part of our system of government. Things will not get better under such conditions.
That's not to say that reforms aren't in order. Enforcible ethical standards and a transparent recusal policy is a good start. Term limits could also help by at least allowing for increased turnover in the court so that more opportunities are presented to appoint justices reflecting the changing electorate. I'm sure we could design a system such that a justice retires each presidential term, allowing each new administration one appointment, guaranteed. We should also reform the nomination process so we don't have more Mitch McConnell-style gamesmanship. Appointees should their hearings in a timely manner and senators should be limited in why they can refuse a nominee to legitimate concerns of inexperience, ineptitude, and moral failings, not ideological differences.
I've wondered about that this week, whether the Justices could be sued. Would love to pop up some corn and watch that! Someone please make sure it's broadcast on Netflix.
Have a great vacation and thanks for all you do to help those of us who can hardly take watching the news anymore at least get a spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down - especially after this week!
I loved "Was the Russian leader like the Russian army, all swagger and no strength?" It reminded me of the wonderful Ann Richards' quote, "All hat and no cattle." I miss her and Pat Schroeder - their take on the crap the Right is spewing these days would be priceless.
Thanks for this and enjoy your vacation! 💗
Have a wonderful, relaxing vacation. And, seriously, this week’s “Tweets & Memes” not as fun as usual, because this week was a bit of a douche. Poor pup! Everyone knows you shouldn’t eat bees. Except, maybe, the six on the SC.
Enjoy your vacation. Hike who made me spit out my tea. Lol
Have a great trip, Jay! Do unwind well, your mind and soul need it... we will wait. 💙
Safe travels, Jay! We will miss you!
Have an excellent holiday and come home with even better insights for your essays. Your readers comments are priceless in this Week in Tweets and Memes. Watch out for Orcas near the rudder-eh?
We whale!
"Sometimes the whole world seems upside down from a total lack of self-awareness." When one does not subscribe to facts, one does not recognize hypocrisy. Or projection or accountability, or the rule of law........critical thinking, empathy, and multiple perspectives don't exist. Damn, I sound like a public educator trying to indoctrinate liberalism and democracy, don't I?
Sounds like a most wonderful vacation coming up - enjoy!
Enjoy your break, Jay. It’s well deserved. You’re a treasure.
Loved your video on Bidenomics this week, Jessica!
Thanks Jay. That one took rather a lot of work.
Seamus forgot the GIMME MORE part of the "Uncle" Thomas tagline - it's the most important element of the Federalist Society Overlord agenda.
Through great intellect comes outstanding humor.
Through the lens of satire and wit (and snark), we shall overcome!
Another great week in review!! Enjoy that boat-sounds divine! DM me if you need a senior citizen sailor to legitimize the lot of ya! 😄 🛥️