It's inconceivable that laws designed to preserve world-wide human lives could be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, yet here we are. Follow the money.
I don't agree with the outcome, but this reasoning doesn't hold water. Laws are laws, regardless of the subject matter, and regardless of how important we consider a particular law - they all are, and should be, subject to SCOTUS review. The argument "It's inconceivable that laws designed to XYZ could be found unconstitutional" could have been used against the Roe decision way back when, because some people considered that an exceedingly important issue. Or against Brown v Board of Education.
The (perceived or real) importance of an issue isn't, and shouldn't be, part of SCOTUS review.
“To pass any bill to reform the Court—for example by imposing term limits or expanding its size—would require control of the House and at least 50 Democratic senators willing to carve out an exception to or eliminate the filibuster. “
We need all blue hands on deck. Get the young people engaged and registered. It is their future that is at serious risk.
I am hoping Biden is deferring any discussion of expansion of the court, ethics overview, or term limits as it would likely be a flash point for his Re-election. I don’t disagree with that decision as he needs to run on his record. I do expect that after he takes office for second term, IF the Congressional make up works in favor, he may move to propose some of these remedies.
Over 100 million people eligible to vote did not vote in the last election. Drives me nuts. How can ANYONE be that selfish - let alone a hundred million people?
Sorry, 2016. 100 million didn't vote in 2016. Yes, we did better in 2020. And no, amazingly, it wasn't voter suppression that was the major reason - but, as non-voters themselves stated, it was the fact they didn't believe it made any difference. NPR did a breakdown on it back in December 2020. Here is a direct quote:
================
To better understand what motivates these nonvoters, NPR and the Medill School of Journalism commissioned Ipsos to conduct a survey of U.S. adults who didn't vote this year. The Medill school's graduate students did deep dives into various aspects of the survey here.
Nonvoters' reasons for not voting include:
- not being registered to vote (29%)
- not being interested in politics (23%)
- not liking the candidates (20%)
- a feeling their vote wouldn't have made a difference (16%)
- being undecided on whom to vote for (10%)
============
In other words - 100% "can't be buggered". Those affected by voter suppression didn't stay home - they FOUGHT. They showed up. They stood in lines. But this lot? Nope. Just - can't be buggered.
It's not about "can't be buggered" as much as "give me somebody I can actually get behind.
I blame the Democrats for 2016 - the Democrats manipulated the primaries until they got the most unelectable candidate they could find nominated, hoping that she'd win against an even more unelectable opponent.
Turns out that campaigning on "I'm not quite as bad as the other guy" is a good way to get low turnout.
Ah... you are one of THOSE! Nevermind... Of COURSE it was the Democrats' fault that a highly experienced, intelligent, well-educated female candidate lost to a rapist thug aided by a terrorist nation. Of COURSE. Of COURSE such a candidate to was THE MOST unelectable compared to what else was available. Absolutely. Just.... meager pickings. Right... As an immigrant, I spent fourteen years in US immigration hell for the right to vote in this country. People who come up with the excuse "oooh, I just can't decide because I don't LIKE anyone" disgust me to the bottom of my heart. I wish I could ship them all to where we, immigrants, came from and let us vote instead - because we sure as hell wouldn't waste out votes in such a flippantly lame manner.
I don't have the power to make 100 million people stay home - they decided that all on their own. In a democracy, it's the candidate's job to convince voters, not the other way round. Hillary and Trump both failed to convince 100 million people to vote for either one of them - Trump just lost slightly less bad, and what little support he had was more geographically diverse.
You are welcome to call me "one of Those" whatever that means. Ask yourself: is that really a way to convince 100 million people to go vote next time? How about instead running a candidate who actually inspires and excites voters?
And being an immigrant doesn't make you special. I, too, am a US citizen by choice, and I, too, jumped through a lot of hoops to get here.
I too would have preferred someone else, yet I wasn't going to let that dissuade me from voting to prevent a captured scotus that we now see has come to fruition anyway. There's a bigger picture and stakes are far too high for that to be a reasonable excuse to not vote.
You are not wrong. You determined that of all the options, that was the best one to choose, for you, for the country. Your vote is your vote, and your reasons are your reasons. I'm not even disagreeing with your reasons. But 100 million people obviously did. And their reasons are every bit as valid as yours or mine. That's how elections work.
It would have been both candidate's job to convince those 100 million potential voters. (or at least many of them).
It's also somewhat disingenuous to blame only the Republicans for SCOTUS; many of the extremist candidates were confirmed with Democratic votes.
All that said - besides your SCOTUS big picture, there is another big picture aspect here. In terms of lack of excitement for a D candidate, 2016 was the rule rather than the exceptions, and people got tired of it. Heck, they were tired of it back in 2000 when Ralph Nader came along - and 16 years later, nothing had changed. That's one thing the Republicans got right: after their Ross Perot disaster, they turned their ship around (unfortunately, in the wrong direction). And they won big.
To get around some of the issues why people don't vote, Election Day should be a federal holiday, or employers should be required to allow employees to leave the job to vote with no penalties to their sick/vacation time. My local League of Women Voters organize car pools for those who otherwise can't get to the polling places, and in 2022 they arranged with local Lyft and Uber drivers to donate their time.
Yes, those things work. We know that because those are some of the very initiatives that have been targeted in voter suppression. If I recall correctly, some states made it illegal to organize rides to polling places, things like that..
Recall that everyone though he caved on the paid sick days for railroad workers, until he pulled it off. Biden is a savvy and experienced politician, and knows when to hold his cards close to the vest
We haven't had majority rule in this country for quite some time. Between gerrymandering and the outdated Electoral College, the party with the minority of supporters has been screwing us over for quite some time, including the number of far right wingnuts on the Supreme Court. If this isn't fixed soon, the only people with rights will be straight white males.
The Electoral College isn't "outdated" but works exactly as it was designed. In nearly all cases, it matches the popular votes - in only three cases in our entire history did it ever mismatch (a fourth case was 1876, which was so nasty that even Trump's coup attempt pales against it).
And the EC (actually, the Senate) was specifically created as a backstop, to prevent one region of the country from dominating politics at the expense of less populated regions. Back in 1789, the concern was about Virginia, today, it is California.
The EC was designed as a compromise to keep the nation together, and like so many devices to get over an immediate hump, it's a disaster in the long term. Especially since the powerful sentiment to get together to get along no longer exists.
It's more complicated than that. The compromise you are referring to was about something different. The original plan had been for House and Senate together to elect the President. Some people were concerned that this would make the President beholden to Congress, eroding separation of powers.
The compromise was to create a separate body, with the exact same numeric makeup, but from different people.
Thus, it is actually the numeric distribution in the Senate that is responsible for the EC overrepresenting small regions. But it's still intentional, to address a problem that still exists today the same way it existed in 1789.
We have people who are not doctors making decisions and passing laws affecting healthcare. We have people who are not educators meddling in what should be taught at school. We have people who - as pointed out here - are not scientists, let alone ecology specialists making decisions that impact the environment. There is something profoundly wrong about all this. We wouldn't let a politician design a bridge or a judge - even a SCOTUS judge - write airline flight safety protocols. So... why are we letting them mess with other areas, of which they have no clue?
"Congress must use “exceedingly clear language” whenever it wanted to “significantly alter” things?" Funny you'd think that would be true of the Constitution, too. Where is the exceedingly clear language in the First Amendment that says religious freedom includes the right to impose one's religion on others?
"Unrestrained"...a perfect and succinct encapsulation of the driving force propelling the Six Horsemen of The Apocalypse into constitutionally dangerous territory. And as pointed out, they neither lack imagination nor hubris in confecting "doctrines" to fit preconceived biases, *stare decisis* and other quaint notions notwithstanding. In fact, in this context, "unrestrained" equals "rogue", and for which there is no current remedy, politically or legally, to reign in The Six. Their collective view: Like it or lump it, this is OUR house.
The really scary part is that now that the cat is out of the bag, we can't simply return to judicial restraint and stare decisis - if we do, the conservatives would win by "ratchet effect". Something they have already done very successfully for the last 40 years, because in Congress and the WH, Democrats were too timid to undo the damage.
SCOTUS needs the ability to undo the damage once there is a liberal majority. Returning to stare decisis and judicial restraint would mean, leaving all the bad conservative precedents in place.
My thoughts on this group of Scotus's and one radical judge supporting the 'liberal' justices. By having one radical right wing judge agreeing with the minority opinion it gives the public a false sense that there is actually debate happening...
Maybe the President in every executive order and Congress in all legislation should include a preamble to the effect: "We really, really, really mean it, and we realize it's a big deal." And whatever happened to the rule that remedial laws shall be interpreted broadly?--that used to be a protection against the absurd "adjacent actually means touching" bollocks.
I agree that the 6 ultra-conservative, fanatical religious justices should all be investigated including all their bank accounts, tax returns, investments, etc. If a president has to divest him/herself of investments then surely SC Justices should.
It's inconceivable that laws designed to preserve world-wide human lives could be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, yet here we are. Follow the money.
Screw you, I got mine, gimme more: the amazingly simple agenda of the Federalist Society Overlords.
I don't agree with the outcome, but this reasoning doesn't hold water. Laws are laws, regardless of the subject matter, and regardless of how important we consider a particular law - they all are, and should be, subject to SCOTUS review. The argument "It's inconceivable that laws designed to XYZ could be found unconstitutional" could have been used against the Roe decision way back when, because some people considered that an exceedingly important issue. Or against Brown v Board of Education.
The (perceived or real) importance of an issue isn't, and shouldn't be, part of SCOTUS review.
But it was scotus (I don't use caps for them anymore) that started the “major questions” doctrine.
Do you really believe if the vax worked by having people eat it they would have gone through all the trouble of injecting billions of people?
Is your needle stuck?
“To pass any bill to reform the Court—for example by imposing term limits or expanding its size—would require control of the House and at least 50 Democratic senators willing to carve out an exception to or eliminate the filibuster. “
We need all blue hands on deck. Get the young people engaged and registered. It is their future that is at serious risk.
I am hoping Biden is deferring any discussion of expansion of the court, ethics overview, or term limits as it would likely be a flash point for his Re-election. I don’t disagree with that decision as he needs to run on his record. I do expect that after he takes office for second term, IF the Congressional make up works in favor, he may move to propose some of these remedies.
Again, all blue voters on deck.
Over 100 million people eligible to vote did not vote in the last election. Drives me nuts. How can ANYONE be that selfish - let alone a hundred million people?
Actually, it was under 80 million. And many (hard to tell how many) of those may have wanted to vote, but were unable due to vote suppression.
Sorry, 2016. 100 million didn't vote in 2016. Yes, we did better in 2020. And no, amazingly, it wasn't voter suppression that was the major reason - but, as non-voters themselves stated, it was the fact they didn't believe it made any difference. NPR did a breakdown on it back in December 2020. Here is a direct quote:
================
To better understand what motivates these nonvoters, NPR and the Medill School of Journalism commissioned Ipsos to conduct a survey of U.S. adults who didn't vote this year. The Medill school's graduate students did deep dives into various aspects of the survey here.
Nonvoters' reasons for not voting include:
- not being registered to vote (29%)
- not being interested in politics (23%)
- not liking the candidates (20%)
- a feeling their vote wouldn't have made a difference (16%)
- being undecided on whom to vote for (10%)
============
In other words - 100% "can't be buggered". Those affected by voter suppression didn't stay home - they FOUGHT. They showed up. They stood in lines. But this lot? Nope. Just - can't be buggered.
It's not about "can't be buggered" as much as "give me somebody I can actually get behind.
I blame the Democrats for 2016 - the Democrats manipulated the primaries until they got the most unelectable candidate they could find nominated, hoping that she'd win against an even more unelectable opponent.
Turns out that campaigning on "I'm not quite as bad as the other guy" is a good way to get low turnout.
Ah... you are one of THOSE! Nevermind... Of COURSE it was the Democrats' fault that a highly experienced, intelligent, well-educated female candidate lost to a rapist thug aided by a terrorist nation. Of COURSE. Of COURSE such a candidate to was THE MOST unelectable compared to what else was available. Absolutely. Just.... meager pickings. Right... As an immigrant, I spent fourteen years in US immigration hell for the right to vote in this country. People who come up with the excuse "oooh, I just can't decide because I don't LIKE anyone" disgust me to the bottom of my heart. I wish I could ship them all to where we, immigrants, came from and let us vote instead - because we sure as hell wouldn't waste out votes in such a flippantly lame manner.
I don't have the power to make 100 million people stay home - they decided that all on their own. In a democracy, it's the candidate's job to convince voters, not the other way round. Hillary and Trump both failed to convince 100 million people to vote for either one of them - Trump just lost slightly less bad, and what little support he had was more geographically diverse.
You are welcome to call me "one of Those" whatever that means. Ask yourself: is that really a way to convince 100 million people to go vote next time? How about instead running a candidate who actually inspires and excites voters?
And being an immigrant doesn't make you special. I, too, am a US citizen by choice, and I, too, jumped through a lot of hoops to get here.
I too would have preferred someone else, yet I wasn't going to let that dissuade me from voting to prevent a captured scotus that we now see has come to fruition anyway. There's a bigger picture and stakes are far too high for that to be a reasonable excuse to not vote.
You are not wrong. You determined that of all the options, that was the best one to choose, for you, for the country. Your vote is your vote, and your reasons are your reasons. I'm not even disagreeing with your reasons. But 100 million people obviously did. And their reasons are every bit as valid as yours or mine. That's how elections work.
It would have been both candidate's job to convince those 100 million potential voters. (or at least many of them).
It's also somewhat disingenuous to blame only the Republicans for SCOTUS; many of the extremist candidates were confirmed with Democratic votes.
All that said - besides your SCOTUS big picture, there is another big picture aspect here. In terms of lack of excitement for a D candidate, 2016 was the rule rather than the exceptions, and people got tired of it. Heck, they were tired of it back in 2000 when Ralph Nader came along - and 16 years later, nothing had changed. That's one thing the Republicans got right: after their Ross Perot disaster, they turned their ship around (unfortunately, in the wrong direction). And they won big.
To get around some of the issues why people don't vote, Election Day should be a federal holiday, or employers should be required to allow employees to leave the job to vote with no penalties to their sick/vacation time. My local League of Women Voters organize car pools for those who otherwise can't get to the polling places, and in 2022 they arranged with local Lyft and Uber drivers to donate their time.
Yes, those things work. We know that because those are some of the very initiatives that have been targeted in voter suppression. If I recall correctly, some states made it illegal to organize rides to polling places, things like that..
Recall that everyone though he caved on the paid sick days for railroad workers, until he pulled it off. Biden is a savvy and experienced politician, and knows when to hold his cards close to the vest
Same with the debt ceiling negotiations.
We haven't had majority rule in this country for quite some time. Between gerrymandering and the outdated Electoral College, the party with the minority of supporters has been screwing us over for quite some time, including the number of far right wingnuts on the Supreme Court. If this isn't fixed soon, the only people with rights will be straight white males.
The Electoral College isn't "outdated" but works exactly as it was designed. In nearly all cases, it matches the popular votes - in only three cases in our entire history did it ever mismatch (a fourth case was 1876, which was so nasty that even Trump's coup attempt pales against it).
And the EC (actually, the Senate) was specifically created as a backstop, to prevent one region of the country from dominating politics at the expense of less populated regions. Back in 1789, the concern was about Virginia, today, it is California.
The EC was designed as a compromise to keep the nation together, and like so many devices to get over an immediate hump, it's a disaster in the long term. Especially since the powerful sentiment to get together to get along no longer exists.
It's more complicated than that. The compromise you are referring to was about something different. The original plan had been for House and Senate together to elect the President. Some people were concerned that this would make the President beholden to Congress, eroding separation of powers.
The compromise was to create a separate body, with the exact same numeric makeup, but from different people.
Thus, it is actually the numeric distribution in the Senate that is responsible for the EC overrepresenting small regions. But it's still intentional, to address a problem that still exists today the same way it existed in 1789.
We have people who are not doctors making decisions and passing laws affecting healthcare. We have people who are not educators meddling in what should be taught at school. We have people who - as pointed out here - are not scientists, let alone ecology specialists making decisions that impact the environment. There is something profoundly wrong about all this. We wouldn't let a politician design a bridge or a judge - even a SCOTUS judge - write airline flight safety protocols. So... why are we letting them mess with other areas, of which they have no clue?
Add we have people who are not historians basing decisions on a cliff notes version of history. AKA, Dobbs.
13 Districts = 13 Justices expand the court!
"Congress must use “exceedingly clear language” whenever it wanted to “significantly alter” things?" Funny you'd think that would be true of the Constitution, too. Where is the exceedingly clear language in the First Amendment that says religious freedom includes the right to impose one's religion on others?
And that problematic bit in the 2nd Amendment about a "well-regulated militia."
SCOTUS can't declare parts of the Constitution unconstitutional, so none of these standards apply to it.
I would say that the 303 creative decision is a pretty good attempt.
Lurching away from Supreme, the Court is embracing Imperial. Heinous.
It is very scary how the SCOTUS has become so political. I don't know if it has ever been thus, but they certainly side with the ultra right GOP!
Jay! We need you over in Threads!
I think he's there; try looking for nycjayjay
"Unrestrained"...a perfect and succinct encapsulation of the driving force propelling the Six Horsemen of The Apocalypse into constitutionally dangerous territory. And as pointed out, they neither lack imagination nor hubris in confecting "doctrines" to fit preconceived biases, *stare decisis* and other quaint notions notwithstanding. In fact, in this context, "unrestrained" equals "rogue", and for which there is no current remedy, politically or legally, to reign in The Six. Their collective view: Like it or lump it, this is OUR house.
The really scary part is that now that the cat is out of the bag, we can't simply return to judicial restraint and stare decisis - if we do, the conservatives would win by "ratchet effect". Something they have already done very successfully for the last 40 years, because in Congress and the WH, Democrats were too timid to undo the damage.
SCOTUS needs the ability to undo the damage once there is a liberal majority. Returning to stare decisis and judicial restraint would mean, leaving all the bad conservative precedents in place.
My thoughts on this group of Scotus's and one radical judge supporting the 'liberal' justices. By having one radical right wing judge agreeing with the minority opinion it gives the public a false sense that there is actually debate happening...
We are no longer a country of laws or rules.
It’s down right scary and disgusting
Maybe the President in every executive order and Congress in all legislation should include a preamble to the effect: "We really, really, really mean it, and we realize it's a big deal." And whatever happened to the rule that remedial laws shall be interpreted broadly?--that used to be a protection against the absurd "adjacent actually means touching" bollocks.
I agree that the 6 ultra-conservative, fanatical religious justices should all be investigated including all their bank accounts, tax returns, investments, etc. If a president has to divest him/herself of investments then surely SC Justices should.
This was a lucid, enlightening, and somewhat calming review of the SC past, present, and future. Thank you Jay, I have shared it.