If you thought that today’s hearing on a claim of absolute immunity by the likes of Donald Trump was a chance for the court to get beyond its three liberals on one side and six conservatives on the other set-piece, you’ve got another think coming.
"That seemed to be the argument made by at least five of the conservative Republicans on the court."
Can we please stop referring to these extremist radicals -- on the Court and in Congress -- as "conservatives." They wish to destroy our Constitution, not conserve it. They wish to destroy our rights, our democracy, our health, and our planet, not conserve them. To call them conservative plays into their hands, making them seem anodyne. The Democrats are the conservatives in this country, as they try to save it from destruction by the Republicans.
In memory of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Wendell Willkie, Dwight Eisenhower, and all others you want to name, could we please stop calling them Repubicans? Trumpublicans, okay. MAGAnarchists, okay. But to give them the same name as the party whose leader prayed that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"?
The "crap" has been aging a bit longer. Nixon's first run for office was 1946, but in 1934 the GOP used fake newsreels produced by MGM wunderkind Irving Thalberg and other media tricks to slime Upton Sinclair, running fo governor of California as a Democrat. Greg Mitchell's book, "The Campaign of the Century," about that 1934 campaign, strongly recommended. Read how the White Protestant party of rectitude (Prohibition! The Comstock Law!) turned from Doctor Jekyll into Edward Hyde. Oh! to be able to insert here an IMDB photo of Frederic March as Hyde, grinning and holding a flagon of his chemical transformation liquid, alongside one of Deranged, Depraved Defendant, holding a wine glass filled with Diet Coke.
You’re right of course. I’d heard of the smear machine turned on Upton Sinclair— there is no mercy - or ethics in pursuit of power. I wonder if there can ever be.
Upton Beall Sinclair Jr. (September 20, 1878 – November 25, 1968) was an American writer, muckraker, political activist and the 1934 Democratic Party nominee for governor of California. He wrote nearly 100 books and other works in several genres. Sinclair's work was well known and popular in the first half of the 20th century, and he won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1943.
In 1906, Sinclair acquired particular fame for his classic muck-raking novel, The Jungle, which exposed labor and sanitary conditions in the U.S. meatpacking industry, causing a public uproar that contributed in part to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.[1] In 1919, he published The Brass Check, a muck-raking exposé of American journalism that publicized the issue of yellow journalism and the limitations of the "free press" in the United States. Four years after publication of The Brass Check, the first code of ethics for journalists was created.[2] Time magazine called him "a man with every gift except humor and silence".[3] He is also well remembered for the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."[4] He used this line in speeches and the book about his campaign for governor as a way to explain why the editors and publishers of the major newspapers in California would not treat seriously his proposals for old age pensions and other progressive reforms.[4] Many of his novels can be read as historical works. Writing during the Progressive Era, Sinclair describes the world of the industrialized United States from both the working man's and the industrialist's points of view. Novels such as King Coal (1917), The Coal War (published posthumously), Oil! (1927), and The Flivver King (1937) describe the working conditions of the coal, oil, and auto industries at the time.
The Flivver King describes the rise of Henry Ford, his "wage reform" and his company's Sociological Department, to his decline into antisemitism as publisher of The Dearborn Independent. King Coal confronts John D. Rockefeller Jr., and his role in the 1914 Ludlow Massacre in the coal fields of Colorado.
Sinclair was an outspoken socialist and ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a nominee from the Socialist Party. He was also the Democratic Party candidate for governor of California during the Great Depression, running under the banner of the End Poverty in California campaign, but was defeated in the 1934 election.
Early life and education
Sinclair was born in Baltimore, Maryland, to Upton Beall Sinclair Sr. and Priscilla Harden Sinclair. His father was a liquor salesman whose alcoholism shadowed his son's childhood. Priscilla Harden Sinclair was a strict Episcopalian who disliked alcohol, tea, and coffee. Both of Upton Sinclair's parents were of British ancestry. His paternal grandparents were Scottish, and all of his ancestors emigrated to America from Great Britain during the late 1600s and early 1700s.[5][failed verification] As a child, Sinclair slept either on sofas or cross-ways on his parents' bed. When his father was out for the night, he would sleep in the bed with his mother.[6] His mother's family was very affluent: her parents were very prosperous in Baltimore, and her sister married a millionaire. Sinclair had wealthy maternal grandparents with whom he often stayed. This gave him insight into how both the rich and the poor lived during the late 19th century. Living in two social settings affected him and greatly influenced his books. Upton Beall Sinclair Sr. was from a highly respected family in the South, but the family was financially ruined by the Civil War, the end of slavery causing disruptions of the labor system during the Reconstruction era, and an extended agricultural depression.
As he was growing up, Upton's family moved frequently, as his father was not successful in his career. He developed a love for reading when he was five years old. He read every book his mother owned for a deeper understanding of the world. He did not start school until he was 10 years old. He was deficient in math and worked hard to catch up quickly because of his embarrassment.[6] In 1888, the Sinclair family moved to Queens, New York City, New York, where his father sold shoes. Upton entered the City College of New York five days before his 14th birthday,[7] on September 15, 1892.[6] He wrote jokes, dime novels, and magazine articles in boys' weekly and pulp magazines to pay for his tuition.[8] With that income, he was able to move his parents to an apartment when he was seventeen years old.[6]
He graduated from City College in June 1897. He subsequently studied law at Columbia University,[9] but he was more interested in writing. He learned several languages, including Spanish, German, and French. He paid the one-time enrollment fee to be able to learn a variety of subjects. He would sign up for a class and then later drop it.[10] *******
Paul Metsa performs "Slow Justice" live at the Farm Aid concert in Irving, Texas on March 14, 1992. Farm Aid was started by Willie Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp in 1985 to keep family farmers on the land and has worked since then to make sure everyone has access to good food from family farmers. Dave Matthews joined Farm Aid's board of directors in 2001.
The Republican Party has been "the party of Lincoln" in name only for many, many decades. If I had to draw a line across the calendar, I'd go for the mid-1960s, when white Southern Democrats started to swarm into the Republican Party in opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
And why should we stop calling them Republicans? That's the name of the party they belong to, and -- despite the evolution of its principles and priorities -- a clear line of descent can be traced to the foundation of the Republican Party in the 1850s. Erasing or prettifying history is a surefire way to make sure we don't learn from it.
At the risk of going all historical, I suggest that the line drawn should be in March, 1877, when the party founded in opposition to slavery traded a promise to end federal troop-enforced Reconstruction for a few electoral votes in the South needed to put Hayes in the White House, not Tilden, winner of the popular vote.
And with all due respect, suggesting that the MAGAmob don't deserve the name "Republican" as originally conceived and (sporadically) practiced is not "erasing" or "prettifying" history. Quite the opposite. Think of the shame as disgraced military officers used to be publicly stripped of the uniform symbols of their rank.
Of course, in MAGAlandia, there is no shame at being what the right wing always accused liberals of: un-American.
You can draw a line there if you want, but then you've got to account for, e.g., the economic liberals in the Republican Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the ways in which the New Deal placated those entrenched white Democrats from the one-party South. And Joe McCarthy -- let's not forget him.
Institutions change over time, and that includes political parties. I'm currently a registered Democrat -- does that make me part of the "party of Jackson"? I don't think so. I grew up in New England surrounded by Republicans, nearly all of whom were good people -- and many of whom, if they were alive today, would have changed their registration to "unenrolled" and be voting for Democrats. I'm old enough, and have been politically sentient long enough, to have seen the change happen on the ground in real time.
For that matter, I can *say* I'm not the same person I was at 13 or 33 or 53 or going on 73 but in reality I *am* the same person, even if the cells in my body (maybe comparable to the individuals in a political party?) aren't the same as they were a decade or two or seven ago.
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,[1] frequently called the "court-packing plan",[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years. *******
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.
The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.
The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York.
The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters on Thursday she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."
"I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step."
The push represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year. *******
Perhaps they will wait till Trump takes office to issue their holding. They could put it over to next term. If Biden wins, then they can say the President is not immune.
I have sadly seen this sort of comment over and over again on websites like WAPO and here and etc. Kinda meaningless since Biden is not the ruthless type to take advantage of such a situation as the Orange Defiler is.
Today five of the conservative Supreme Court justices completely and utterly disgraced themselves. We already knew it's an existential requirement that the voters give Trump a drubbing in November. Until today I was thinking although it's very important that Democrats keep our Senate majority and if possible expand it, and if at all possible, take back the House, those are now existential goals, too. We need to be in a position to impeach at least "Justice" Clarence Thomas, for being nakedly on the take. And that requires that the Democrats run both houses of Congress, so the House can pass articles of impeachment and the Senate can not only try him but if it's supported by the evidence, convict him. (Of course the evidence will support conviction.) We also need to increase the Democratic majority in the Senate, chuck the fillibuster, and eliminate some other strangling Senate rules. That would put Democrats in a position to appoint additional justices to the Supreme Court. We absolutely need to break the unethically installed Trump super majority. They are clearly intent upon using their positions to do everything possible to set the stage for the election of a radical religious fundamentalist as president. And they are doing their damnedest to ensure s/he will have the unfettered ability to remake our democratic, constitutional, pluralistic republic governed by the secular law, into a religiously dominated, punitive, white nationalist autocracy governed by fundamentalist Christianist beliefs and rules.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we expand our voice in the Senate and regain the House and Biden gets re-elected. We have a lot of work to do then!
The compromises in the ratification of the Constitution in the 18 century have made it more and more difficult with every passing day to make the changes necessary for the changes required for a more democratic document 📃. We need a constitutional convention,and a massive sustainable majority in both houses of Congress and multiple Presidencies for multiple terms to make it happen! We sold out in the fomenting of our nation just to get it done , ….bad deal by the founding fathers,but the best they could do at the time ! 😟
I agree with everything you say with one exception. If a Constitutional Convention is held, it’s a wide-open process. IIRC, everything in the Constitution is at risk and up for grabs. That would put us right back to the same kinds of quandries requiring ugly compromises, that the Founders had to make. Then the main sticking point was slavery. Now it would be things like Should we still have separation of church and state? Should all citizens still have the right to vote? Should women still have the right to vote? Some people on the religious right fringe are actually talking now about taking the franchise away from women. Imho, given our current extreme polarization, a Constitutional Convention would be extremely dangerous. I’d rather see certain specific parts targetted for change, in the state-by-state process. The president should be subject to the rule of law, and specifically prohibited from intwrfering with or attempting to overthrow elections. The Second Amendment is wildly in need of overhaul, to specify that owning a gun is a privilege, not a right, and requires at least as much training, licensing, registration, insurance, and proof of responsible operation as a car. Etc. etc.
Dot Rat ! And You? St. Maggie’s hospital Circa 56 Ashmont ,Fields Corner denizen ,was a nice place to grow up in,my daughter and my grand kiddos still live in Ashie .🙃
First of all, the tired argument that a president must be impeached and convicted before going on trial has already been rebuked and proven wrong. The insurrectionist on appeal is using only one part of the law to justify his appeal ... the conservative justices are looking for a way out. I cannot believe that one side is constrained by the most picayunish interpretation of law into saying that a violent uprising against a legal government process cannot be prosecuted and that a president who has lost an election is somehow given the benefit of the doubt despite all of his actions prior to and on the day of 6 Jan. Finally, has anybody thought to ask why Trump simply did not stop the rioters that day?
Impeachment and criminal convictions have nothing to do with each other. It's absurd to make one depend on the other. This is an argument being used because there are no other arguments available.
Afterthoughts: do away with lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Justices and they instead should be elected by the people for fixed terms and subject to impeachment or recall proceedings if their conduct requires it. Also, abolish the antiquated Electoral College. Ok. I’m done. Lights out soon. Thank you and goodnight Lucian.
We need to expand the court once Biden gets re-elected as Lawrence O'Donnell has stated several times! I sure hope he is correct! Elie Mystal of the Nation Magazine stated that today on MSNBC! I know him from the Nation cruises. I am going on one December 2024 and he will be there. We will be drinking either way and hopefully celebrating!
Well, so much for the yowling about "textualism" and original intent" we've had to listen to from the fascists on the Court. The Founders did not want a king, but this Court seems determined to shove one down our throats, the Constitution be damned. I particularly despise Alito, the woman-hating witch burner, Thomas, the fat corrupt pig with the equally corrupt sow of a wife, and Gorsuch, who is hell bent on getting revenge for Anne, his nasty and evil mother. I am terrified of what the future holds with this Court reigning unchecked and Trump back in office. Too old and too poor to escape, so I guess I'll just have to find a way to fight back.
The problem is that the fascists are busy dreaming up ways to suppress our votes, and the DOJ isn't doing a bloody thing to stop it. Garland is a disaster.
Here’s to hoping that Garland is just bidding time and energy ,when the time is right he’ll surprise the shit outa all of them,and lower the boom 💥 arrest all the criminal traitors in government as well as those who have supported them. A couple of Supreme Court justices would be the icing on the cake!🎂 🥳
I listened for about 20 minutes and what I heard was making me sick. It sounded as if some justices already knew what they were going to decide and were simply looking for ways to justify their decision. I also heard someone - Chief Justice Roberts? - cutting off justices who were speaking. I really never thought I'd see leaders of our judiciary eager to overthrow our democracy.
Do Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh really think Trump/MAGA won't go after them personally for the least perceived infraction? Do they really think the Supreme Court is immune from Trump/MAGA and even more extreme right-wing extremists? Ha!
I think they were trying to make it look like they were seriously considering this absurd appeal so that when they reject it people will think there was thought put into the decision. In truth no thought is necessary. This should go down in flames 9-0 and I believe it will.
Gorsucks likes to interrupt the women justices, particularly Jackson. There's some new research on how often he and Roberts interrupt, not surprising but still troubling.
I was wondering how the traditional/reactionary male justices react to having 4 women on the bench, including one who is Black. You'd think they'd at least want to fake being respectful and courteous.
Funny thing,common sense,empathy,honesty,and patriotism are not the taken for granted things of todays Supreme Court .These traditional givens are just theories that are to be questioned ,and discarded if they don’t further the aims of a political agenda! 🖕
If they go along with this Biden should immediately have them arrested and deposed and appoint his own justices, as well as every Congressman and Senator that voted to overturn the election, comity be damned.
Chief Justice Roberts is reportedly discouraged with the low estimate most Americans now have of SCOTUS, yet does nothing to pull his Court out of the dregs. The fact that Thomas didn't excuse himself from this case only damages the Court more. Alito wasn't a danger when he painted himself into the loony right wing corner until Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined him and Thomas, all thanks to Mitch McConnell. Why they want to lose their reputations by backing the Bloated Yam beats me.
On this or any other day in the reality based community, Barrett is nothing but a stooge, woefully out of her depth and educationally impaired. Her "church" is called "People Who Praise" if you read about it you'll need at least a dozen roll-aids taken beforehand.
Putin is a prime example of a president who has absolute immunity, - same - in N. Korea, Chane too for that matter. Is that what the conservative Supreme Court justices want for the United States? If so they should all congregate on the steps outside and publically tear up a copy of the constitution.
Trump, if elected again could sell top secret national defense documents to his pal Putin and have no fear of prosecution, He could even rob a bank to pay all his fines and legal bills. Or maybe maybe order a few million dollars in gold bars to be delivered to Mar A Lago :)
But my guess is that no decisions will be made to distinguish the difference between official acts and non-official acts, but will allow some limited immunity to abvious official acts as covered in Lucian's article per the constitution. We'll see...
As someone who practiced in federal courts, including at the supreme court, for over 40 years, I can only say I'm distressed and horrified. At one time, before Rehnquist and Scalia, there was hope that SCOTUS would find a way. By 2010 the discussion was how to avoid being there. A very dark day for our democracy and hope for the future. Jamie Raskin said it on MSNBC tonight, the only answer is to organize and vote in November.
Justice Jackson seemed to be the only one asking coherent, pertinent questions. The rest to me were going through the motions, throwing out red herring questions to make it look like there was an actual decision to be made here. If this Court does anything other than reject the appeal by Trump 9-0 we are in real trouble.
Yes.The rogue MAGA judges are shredding our rule of law .We The People have got to scream from the rooftops that NO ONE IS IMMUNE from the rule of law.Not Trump not me nor you.I am appalled that this bullshit is and has been around that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.This was not in the Constitution and is something in a memo somewhere.Bull shit.If we ever rid ourselves of the Trump scourge then legislation needs to be put in place to prevent this horror from ever happening again.
I make it 7-2 finally, with Alito and Thomas wearing their swastika armbands. More likely they’ll kick it back to the lower court to make sure they don’t have to make a decision before next term.
"That seemed to be the argument made by at least five of the conservative Republicans on the court."
Can we please stop referring to these extremist radicals -- on the Court and in Congress -- as "conservatives." They wish to destroy our Constitution, not conserve it. They wish to destroy our rights, our democracy, our health, and our planet, not conserve them. To call them conservative plays into their hands, making them seem anodyne. The Democrats are the conservatives in this country, as they try to save it from destruction by the Republicans.
In memory of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Wendell Willkie, Dwight Eisenhower, and all others you want to name, could we please stop calling them Repubicans? Trumpublicans, okay. MAGAnarchists, okay. But to give them the same name as the party whose leader prayed that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"?
Sorry but it’s been a slide into this crap since Nixon. Reagan heaped more on the mess and it galloped into this insanity of degeneracy.
The "crap" has been aging a bit longer. Nixon's first run for office was 1946, but in 1934 the GOP used fake newsreels produced by MGM wunderkind Irving Thalberg and other media tricks to slime Upton Sinclair, running fo governor of California as a Democrat. Greg Mitchell's book, "The Campaign of the Century," about that 1934 campaign, strongly recommended. Read how the White Protestant party of rectitude (Prohibition! The Comstock Law!) turned from Doctor Jekyll into Edward Hyde. Oh! to be able to insert here an IMDB photo of Frederic March as Hyde, grinning and holding a flagon of his chemical transformation liquid, alongside one of Deranged, Depraved Defendant, holding a wine glass filled with Diet Coke.
You’re right of course. I’d heard of the smear machine turned on Upton Sinclair— there is no mercy - or ethics in pursuit of power. I wonder if there can ever be.
Here's why! [Wikipedia, opening excerpt}
Upton Beall Sinclair Jr. (September 20, 1878 – November 25, 1968) was an American writer, muckraker, political activist and the 1934 Democratic Party nominee for governor of California. He wrote nearly 100 books and other works in several genres. Sinclair's work was well known and popular in the first half of the 20th century, and he won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1943.
In 1906, Sinclair acquired particular fame for his classic muck-raking novel, The Jungle, which exposed labor and sanitary conditions in the U.S. meatpacking industry, causing a public uproar that contributed in part to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.[1] In 1919, he published The Brass Check, a muck-raking exposé of American journalism that publicized the issue of yellow journalism and the limitations of the "free press" in the United States. Four years after publication of The Brass Check, the first code of ethics for journalists was created.[2] Time magazine called him "a man with every gift except humor and silence".[3] He is also well remembered for the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."[4] He used this line in speeches and the book about his campaign for governor as a way to explain why the editors and publishers of the major newspapers in California would not treat seriously his proposals for old age pensions and other progressive reforms.[4] Many of his novels can be read as historical works. Writing during the Progressive Era, Sinclair describes the world of the industrialized United States from both the working man's and the industrialist's points of view. Novels such as King Coal (1917), The Coal War (published posthumously), Oil! (1927), and The Flivver King (1937) describe the working conditions of the coal, oil, and auto industries at the time.
The Flivver King describes the rise of Henry Ford, his "wage reform" and his company's Sociological Department, to his decline into antisemitism as publisher of The Dearborn Independent. King Coal confronts John D. Rockefeller Jr., and his role in the 1914 Ludlow Massacre in the coal fields of Colorado.
Sinclair was an outspoken socialist and ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a nominee from the Socialist Party. He was also the Democratic Party candidate for governor of California during the Great Depression, running under the banner of the End Poverty in California campaign, but was defeated in the 1934 election.
Early life and education
Sinclair was born in Baltimore, Maryland, to Upton Beall Sinclair Sr. and Priscilla Harden Sinclair. His father was a liquor salesman whose alcoholism shadowed his son's childhood. Priscilla Harden Sinclair was a strict Episcopalian who disliked alcohol, tea, and coffee. Both of Upton Sinclair's parents were of British ancestry. His paternal grandparents were Scottish, and all of his ancestors emigrated to America from Great Britain during the late 1600s and early 1700s.[5][failed verification] As a child, Sinclair slept either on sofas or cross-ways on his parents' bed. When his father was out for the night, he would sleep in the bed with his mother.[6] His mother's family was very affluent: her parents were very prosperous in Baltimore, and her sister married a millionaire. Sinclair had wealthy maternal grandparents with whom he often stayed. This gave him insight into how both the rich and the poor lived during the late 19th century. Living in two social settings affected him and greatly influenced his books. Upton Beall Sinclair Sr. was from a highly respected family in the South, but the family was financially ruined by the Civil War, the end of slavery causing disruptions of the labor system during the Reconstruction era, and an extended agricultural depression.
As he was growing up, Upton's family moved frequently, as his father was not successful in his career. He developed a love for reading when he was five years old. He read every book his mother owned for a deeper understanding of the world. He did not start school until he was 10 years old. He was deficient in math and worked hard to catch up quickly because of his embarrassment.[6] In 1888, the Sinclair family moved to Queens, New York City, New York, where his father sold shoes. Upton entered the City College of New York five days before his 14th birthday,[7] on September 15, 1892.[6] He wrote jokes, dime novels, and magazine articles in boys' weekly and pulp magazines to pay for his tuition.[8] With that income, he was able to move his parents to an apartment when he was seventeen years old.[6]
He graduated from City College in June 1897. He subsequently studied law at Columbia University,[9] but he was more interested in writing. He learned several languages, including Spanish, German, and French. He paid the one-time enrollment fee to be able to learn a variety of subjects. He would sign up for a class and then later drop it.[10] *******
People will vote for the least educated candidate- unless a better looking one is running. We’re hopeless (like the rest of humanity).
It's dire and why does justice come so slow???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=GWAs6PmomEc
/ 4:15
Slow Justice // Paul Metsa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9qFHeXox7I
Paul Metsa - Slow Justice (Live at Farm Aid 1992)
Farm Aid 640K subscribers
954 views Jan 16, 2013
Paul Metsa performs "Slow Justice" live at the Farm Aid concert in Irving, Texas on March 14, 1992. Farm Aid was started by Willie Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp in 1985 to keep family farmers on the land and has worked since then to make sure everyone has access to good food from family farmers. Dave Matthews joined Farm Aid's board of directors in 2001.
The Republican Party has been "the party of Lincoln" in name only for many, many decades. If I had to draw a line across the calendar, I'd go for the mid-1960s, when white Southern Democrats started to swarm into the Republican Party in opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
And why should we stop calling them Republicans? That's the name of the party they belong to, and -- despite the evolution of its principles and priorities -- a clear line of descent can be traced to the foundation of the Republican Party in the 1850s. Erasing or prettifying history is a surefire way to make sure we don't learn from it.
At the risk of going all historical, I suggest that the line drawn should be in March, 1877, when the party founded in opposition to slavery traded a promise to end federal troop-enforced Reconstruction for a few electoral votes in the South needed to put Hayes in the White House, not Tilden, winner of the popular vote.
And with all due respect, suggesting that the MAGAmob don't deserve the name "Republican" as originally conceived and (sporadically) practiced is not "erasing" or "prettifying" history. Quite the opposite. Think of the shame as disgraced military officers used to be publicly stripped of the uniform symbols of their rank.
Of course, in MAGAlandia, there is no shame at being what the right wing always accused liberals of: un-American.
You can draw a line there if you want, but then you've got to account for, e.g., the economic liberals in the Republican Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the ways in which the New Deal placated those entrenched white Democrats from the one-party South. And Joe McCarthy -- let's not forget him.
Institutions change over time, and that includes political parties. I'm currently a registered Democrat -- does that make me part of the "party of Jackson"? I don't think so. I grew up in New England surrounded by Republicans, nearly all of whom were good people -- and many of whom, if they were alive today, would have changed their registration to "unenrolled" and be voting for Democrats. I'm old enough, and have been politically sentient long enough, to have seen the change happen on the ground in real time.
For that matter, I can *say* I'm not the same person I was at 13 or 33 or 53 or going on 73 but in reality I *am* the same person, even if the cells in my body (maybe comparable to the individuals in a political party?) aren't the same as they were a decade or two or seven ago.
Yes
Amen,brother.
well said
Barry Goldwater is laughing 🤣 his dry old ass bones off ! “guess I wasn’t quite the ultimate conservative after all “
well said
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
In this case arguably the "alteration and abolition" is this, revised, amended and extended:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,[1] frequently called the "court-packing plan",[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years. *******
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132
April 14, 2021, 8:00 PM CDT
By Sahil Kapur
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.
The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.
The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York.
The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters on Thursday she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."
"I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step."
The push represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year. *******
I call them misfits or Injustice 6.
When they vote 5-4 for complete presidential immunity, Joe Biden should get a gun and shoot Adjudicated Sexual Assailant P1135809 in full public view.
Perhaps they will wait till Trump takes office to issue their holding. They could put it over to next term. If Biden wins, then they can say the President is not immune.
WOW, that is a really cynical thought! I like it!
Sadly, more realistic than cynical. So maybe this thought is cynical?
That would be an Official Act!
I have sadly seen this sort of comment over and over again on websites like WAPO and here and etc. Kinda meaningless since Biden is not the ruthless type to take advantage of such a situation as the Orange Defiler is.
Self preservation is a definite game changer!
Why echo the kind of garbage that extremists spout?
Save some ammo for the rest of them .
He'll be immune as it is an official duty!
Today five of the conservative Supreme Court justices completely and utterly disgraced themselves. We already knew it's an existential requirement that the voters give Trump a drubbing in November. Until today I was thinking although it's very important that Democrats keep our Senate majority and if possible expand it, and if at all possible, take back the House, those are now existential goals, too. We need to be in a position to impeach at least "Justice" Clarence Thomas, for being nakedly on the take. And that requires that the Democrats run both houses of Congress, so the House can pass articles of impeachment and the Senate can not only try him but if it's supported by the evidence, convict him. (Of course the evidence will support conviction.) We also need to increase the Democratic majority in the Senate, chuck the fillibuster, and eliminate some other strangling Senate rules. That would put Democrats in a position to appoint additional justices to the Supreme Court. We absolutely need to break the unethically installed Trump super majority. They are clearly intent upon using their positions to do everything possible to set the stage for the election of a radical religious fundamentalist as president. And they are doing their damnedest to ensure s/he will have the unfettered ability to remake our democratic, constitutional, pluralistic republic governed by the secular law, into a religiously dominated, punitive, white nationalist autocracy governed by fundamentalist Christianist beliefs and rules.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we expand our voice in the Senate and regain the House and Biden gets re-elected. We have a lot of work to do then!
Don't forget that conviction after impeachment requires two-thirds of the Senate. The Democrats' running the Senate would not be enough.
The compromises in the ratification of the Constitution in the 18 century have made it more and more difficult with every passing day to make the changes necessary for the changes required for a more democratic document 📃. We need a constitutional convention,and a massive sustainable majority in both houses of Congress and multiple Presidencies for multiple terms to make it happen! We sold out in the fomenting of our nation just to get it done , ….bad deal by the founding fathers,but the best they could do at the time ! 😟
I agree with everything you say with one exception. If a Constitutional Convention is held, it’s a wide-open process. IIRC, everything in the Constitution is at risk and up for grabs. That would put us right back to the same kinds of quandries requiring ugly compromises, that the Founders had to make. Then the main sticking point was slavery. Now it would be things like Should we still have separation of church and state? Should all citizens still have the right to vote? Should women still have the right to vote? Some people on the religious right fringe are actually talking now about taking the franchise away from women. Imho, given our current extreme polarization, a Constitutional Convention would be extremely dangerous. I’d rather see certain specific parts targetted for change, in the state-by-state process. The president should be subject to the rule of law, and specifically prohibited from intwrfering with or attempting to overthrow elections. The Second Amendment is wildly in need of overhaul, to specify that owning a gun is a privilege, not a right, and requires at least as much training, licensing, registration, insurance, and proof of responsible operation as a car. Etc. etc.
And the president should be elected by popular vote, not by an Electoral College.
Good point ,when I vent I occasionally forget to 🤔 think things through,you know how us Boston guys are!🤬🤗🤔
Boston girl here, too, born and bred :-)
Dot Rat ! And You? St. Maggie’s hospital Circa 56 Ashmont ,Fields Corner denizen ,was a nice place to grow up in,my daughter and my grand kiddos still live in Ashie .🙃
Born at Boston Lying In, Back Bay for a few months, Lexington for five years, then all through the public schools in Bedford.
And governed by the corporations that feed thrm.
First of all, the tired argument that a president must be impeached and convicted before going on trial has already been rebuked and proven wrong. The insurrectionist on appeal is using only one part of the law to justify his appeal ... the conservative justices are looking for a way out. I cannot believe that one side is constrained by the most picayunish interpretation of law into saying that a violent uprising against a legal government process cannot be prosecuted and that a president who has lost an election is somehow given the benefit of the doubt despite all of his actions prior to and on the day of 6 Jan. Finally, has anybody thought to ask why Trump simply did not stop the rioters that day?
Impeachment and criminal convictions have nothing to do with each other. It's absurd to make one depend on the other. This is an argument being used because there are no other arguments available.
everything is absurd in this situation! I mean what the f&@K. They wouldn't even talk about the case upon which this hearing based!!
The Roberts court has all the markings of going down in history as the Roger Taney Court (Dred Scott) and Melville Fuller Court (Plessy v. Ferguson).
Of course it took a civil war to right those wrongs.
I fucking love this column. I really do.
Lucian for President, Supreme Court Justice or Secretary of Defense. Pick one. Just don’t fucking draft me into the Army again.
Afterthoughts: do away with lifetime appointments of Supreme Court Justices and they instead should be elected by the people for fixed terms and subject to impeachment or recall proceedings if their conduct requires it. Also, abolish the antiquated Electoral College. Ok. I’m done. Lights out soon. Thank you and goodnight Lucian.
seconded!
And Revoke Citizen’s United!
That should be the FIRST order of a new term!
We need to expand the court once Biden gets re-elected as Lawrence O'Donnell has stated several times! I sure hope he is correct! Elie Mystal of the Nation Magazine stated that today on MSNBC! I know him from the Nation cruises. I am going on one December 2024 and he will be there. We will be drinking either way and hopefully celebrating!
I second the motion!
Well, so much for the yowling about "textualism" and original intent" we've had to listen to from the fascists on the Court. The Founders did not want a king, but this Court seems determined to shove one down our throats, the Constitution be damned. I particularly despise Alito, the woman-hating witch burner, Thomas, the fat corrupt pig with the equally corrupt sow of a wife, and Gorsuch, who is hell bent on getting revenge for Anne, his nasty and evil mother. I am terrified of what the future holds with this Court reigning unchecked and Trump back in office. Too old and too poor to escape, so I guess I'll just have to find a way to fight back.
We have to fight and VOTE!
The problem is that the fascists are busy dreaming up ways to suppress our votes, and the DOJ isn't doing a bloody thing to stop it. Garland is a disaster.
Here’s to hoping that Garland is just bidding time and energy ,when the time is right he’ll surprise the shit outa all of them,and lower the boom 💥 arrest all the criminal traitors in government as well as those who have supported them. A couple of Supreme Court justices would be the icing on the cake!🎂 🥳
Come on, Linda, tell us how you REALLY feel!! I agree with every word!! Beautifully said.
I listened for about 20 minutes and what I heard was making me sick. It sounded as if some justices already knew what they were going to decide and were simply looking for ways to justify their decision. I also heard someone - Chief Justice Roberts? - cutting off justices who were speaking. I really never thought I'd see leaders of our judiciary eager to overthrow our democracy.
Do Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh really think Trump/MAGA won't go after them personally for the least perceived infraction? Do they really think the Supreme Court is immune from Trump/MAGA and even more extreme right-wing extremists? Ha!
I had to mute and go to close captions whenever John Sauer spoke. I could not bear listening to his voice!
To quote Bill Maher: “Whiny Little Bitch!”
I think they were trying to make it look like they were seriously considering this absurd appeal so that when they reject it people will think there was thought put into the decision. In truth no thought is necessary. This should go down in flames 9-0 and I believe it will.
I hope you're right, Eric!
Gorsucks likes to interrupt the women justices, particularly Jackson. There's some new research on how often he and Roberts interrupt, not surprising but still troubling.
I was wondering how the traditional/reactionary male justices react to having 4 women on the bench, including one who is Black. You'd think they'd at least want to fake being respectful and courteous.
Nah. They’re total asses.
Funny thing,common sense,empathy,honesty,and patriotism are not the taken for granted things of todays Supreme Court .These traditional givens are just theories that are to be questioned ,and discarded if they don’t further the aims of a political agenda! 🖕
Women have made a lot of progress, even being appointed to the Supreme Court, but they are still being interrupted by men talking over them!
So paraphrasing a FB meme I saw about SCOTUS on Presidental power:
- Forgiving student loan debt? NO!
- Mandating vaccines in a pandemic? NO!
- Climate change regulations? NO!
- Staging a military coup? Maybe.....
Seriously, what planet is this?
Alderon the one the Death Star zapped in the first Star Wars!
It certainly seems like someone thinks they should have as much power as Emperor Palpatine
This Court is corrupt. Full stop.
If they go along with this Biden should immediately have them arrested and deposed and appoint his own justices, as well as every Congressman and Senator that voted to overturn the election, comity be damned.
Chief Justice Roberts is reportedly discouraged with the low estimate most Americans now have of SCOTUS, yet does nothing to pull his Court out of the dregs. The fact that Thomas didn't excuse himself from this case only damages the Court more. Alito wasn't a danger when he painted himself into the loony right wing corner until Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined him and Thomas, all thanks to Mitch McConnell. Why they want to lose their reputations by backing the Bloated Yam beats me.
And overturning Roe v. Wade.
On this or any other day in the reality based community, Barrett is nothing but a stooge, woefully out of her depth and educationally impaired. Her "church" is called "People Who Praise" if you read about it you'll need at least a dozen roll-aids taken beforehand.
Putin is a prime example of a president who has absolute immunity, - same - in N. Korea, Chane too for that matter. Is that what the conservative Supreme Court justices want for the United States? If so they should all congregate on the steps outside and publically tear up a copy of the constitution.
Trump, if elected again could sell top secret national defense documents to his pal Putin and have no fear of prosecution, He could even rob a bank to pay all his fines and legal bills. Or maybe maybe order a few million dollars in gold bars to be delivered to Mar A Lago :)
But my guess is that no decisions will be made to distinguish the difference between official acts and non-official acts, but will allow some limited immunity to abvious official acts as covered in Lucian's article per the constitution. We'll see...
Tin pots, here we come. Or how about the president has everyone assassinated whom he doesn't like?
As someone who practiced in federal courts, including at the supreme court, for over 40 years, I can only say I'm distressed and horrified. At one time, before Rehnquist and Scalia, there was hope that SCOTUS would find a way. By 2010 the discussion was how to avoid being there. A very dark day for our democracy and hope for the future. Jamie Raskin said it on MSNBC tonight, the only answer is to organize and vote in November.
Justice Jackson seemed to be the only one asking coherent, pertinent questions. The rest to me were going through the motions, throwing out red herring questions to make it look like there was an actual decision to be made here. If this Court does anything other than reject the appeal by Trump 9-0 we are in real trouble.
9-0 against Trump is my prediction.
We are in real trouble.
Yes.The rogue MAGA judges are shredding our rule of law .We The People have got to scream from the rooftops that NO ONE IS IMMUNE from the rule of law.Not Trump not me nor you.I am appalled that this bullshit is and has been around that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted.This was not in the Constitution and is something in a memo somewhere.Bull shit.If we ever rid ourselves of the Trump scourge then legislation needs to be put in place to prevent this horror from ever happening again.
We should not forget that before the Colorado exclusion ruling this Court has ruled against trump on every decision that involved him personally.
Yeah but they are so hit and miss.I can never trust in their steadiness and will always be afraid of their radicalness
This is the most preposterous appeal brought before SCOTUS in history. If they can't get this one right how did they get all the others right?
I make it 7-2 finally, with Alito and Thomas wearing their swastika armbands. More likely they’ll kick it back to the lower court to make sure they don’t have to make a decision before next term.