We've seen this sort of judicial hocus-pocus nonsense before. In 1905, the Supreme Court decided Lochner v. New York, which was for that time the apotheosis of the doctrine of 'freedom of contract'. It took some time for the Supreme Court to recognize the error of its ways, and tailor its decisions to the realities of living and working in a multifaceted world. The court's conservative majority is still trying to rewrite history and pretend that the New Deal never occurred. The spurious arguments and hypothecations by the conservative justices during oral argument, pretending that coronavirus can be reined in by state political boundaries is patently perverse. These are essentially stupid people playing make-believe with other people's lives because they abhor the necessity of a national government taking charge of a pandemic that threatens everybody, simply because we are all interconnected. The Supreme Court's notion that the states can control these outbreaks of disease might be arguable if we go back to the 1830s, before the invention of the steam locomotive and the railroad. Even then, there arguments would've been a giant step into fantasyland, given our collective experience with plague and other communicable diseases. Each of those so-called conservatives deserves to be impeached for dereliction of duty, and for ignoring the stark realities that are facing a world in which a lethal virus can spread itself worldwide simply by hopping on an airplane.
Kavanaugh and Barrett shouldn't even BE on that court - both lied under oath. Gorsuch shouldn't BE on that court; our AG should be there. And then we have that husband of a traitor (you know, the one who helped finance the insurrection?) all dressed up nicely in his robes, pretending to be a judge. We have at least two among that bunch that should be investigated for various and sundry. Unless we expand SCOTUS to provide some sense and balance, what need is there for a group I call the STENCH BENCH to sit for life and dismantle our country ON OUR DIME? Excuse the all caps, but I am blistering angry at these incompetent idiots who weaseled their way into a cushy lifetime appointment. If any branch of government has shown itself to be worthless (aside from the current mobsters in the Senate), it's SCOTUS.
The Court seems to want to take us back to a loose confederation of states. That didn’t work in the 1780’s and it won’t work now. It will lead to the end of the United States as we know it
I would expect, at the very least, that a filing regarding vaccinations would include a list of the known risks associated with receiving a vaccination with more authority than the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (a.k.a. VAERS) which does not require verification. So Justice Alito is -- by his own admission -- a "vaccine skeptic" who does not require evidence. Can you say "Judicial Malpractice"? I knew you could.
it's interesting that the big-selling anti-vaxx schmucks (say, JFK Jr and that pathetic, invalidly self-impressed Breggin) are basing virtually ALL of their crap on VAERS stuff, which is unvetted. I could spent the rest of the night (or week) just making shit up and reporting it there. any of us could. intellectual integrity, anyone?
Sheer hypocrisy when you consider that LAWYERS, JUDGES, POLITICIANS are ALL practicing medicine without a license while refusing to acknowledge advice from actual health practitioners…Does this mean that the Supreme Court has designated the science and practice of Public Health as illegitimate ? Talk about overreach!
How useful or effective is state government at all? People treasure sports rivalries, I get it, but it strikes me that most of our structural political problems can be ascribed to the fact that smaller and sparsely populated states have wildly disproportionate political power when compared to the more populated states. State government is as useful to this country’s actual governance as student council is to the operation of a school district. “States’ Rights” has always been French for segregation anyhow; time to call bullshit and reorganize.
Bannon must be ecstatic. In case you forgot, his goal when running the country while Trump figured out his tv cable options was the "destruction of the administrative state."
Getting the Supreme Court to assist him must be orgasmic. Talk about unintended consequences...we are royally fucked!
Note that this has also been SCOTUS's approach to voting rights since Shelby v. Holder: No need to monitor the Jim Crow states anymore, they've learned their lesson, yadda yadda yadda. Then Jim Crow climbed up on his elephant and went to town.
I hope there is some way to get Lucian's message to all members of the Supreme Court, the trouble is the logic being used to allow each individual state to make its own safety rules means they are not bright enough to see the logic of a universal federal rule as Lucian so well points out. What is next, let states decide whether or not to mandate safety belts in cars? Besides no worker is being forced to get a vaccine, they can opt to get tested weekly instead. The point is to not jeopardize the health of fellow workers. This certainly would ve critical in hospitals but important everywhere, As far as the argument about more possible danger from the vaccine adverse cases is extremely rare, besides, as mentioned before the relatively few who are worried can opt for the weekly test, Voting procedures, mail in ballots for old people and others should be universal. l, r least for federal elections. , But back to Covid, school mandates have always been normal for all the childhood diseases, why the big uproar over Covid? Don't parents want to keep their kids safe anymore?Why was this made political in Texas and Florida and sine other states? They sure scream for help from the federal government when all their kids as well as the unvaccinated adults get sick and fill up the hospitals. A problem they caused themselves by playing down vaxx's and mask wearing and pushing quack cures.
Damned timely article! And right on the nose. If we go back some 18th century idea of self-governing states, we might as well pack up the federal government cause it will be every state for itself. Might as well formally declare them independent nations. This could be one way we're heading. De facto secession that slips in via judicial fiats and legislative maneuvers. This could also pave the way for new regional confederations to emerge. A sovereign West Coast nation; a sovereign New England. Et cetera. These events could take place peacefully, or with violence. Just one of the many scenarios when commentators speak (as they are more and more frequently doing) about a coming "new civil war."
No, no, no! You've seen what happened to the Republican Party after shedding its moderate adherents. Now imagine five or six of the Republican model, each jockeying for position within a coalition strong enough to govern. Coalition governments go for the lowest common denominator, with the most extreme calling the tune. Israel is a prime example. Italy is another. Democracies need working majorities that can agree upon major programs and then haggle over the details. The Republican Party used to be like that, it is no longer. The Democratic Party is a large coalition of diverse interests with a fairly consistent overriding philosophy. Fragment that party into its constituent parts, and the resulting fragmentation is less than the sum of its parts. There are no synergies; there is no compromise; and the parties in the middle lose out. Everything goes to the extremes. That's what you're asking for, and that's what we have right now with the Republicans. Wake up!
thank you, Arthur, for that reality check. I think that when people call for more parties (as I admit I have done, and frequently) aren't thinking small splinter parties that would then have to form large coalitions but rather, say, a more "moderate" Republican party (not unlike the old one) and the crazies and a "moderate" (whatever THAT means in this context) bunch of Dems and a full-on Social Democratic party.... but yes, your theory about coalitions DOES seem to be borne out by other countries' experience in recent years. but let's also remember that the Framers hated the idea of party politics ands wrote the Constitution accordingly, so that what we have now is...what? certainly a weird compromise that occasionally worked. but it could only work when people agreed to operate with at least SOME appearance of "good faith" (or, at very least, some level of trust in the extremely flawed system). now, based on available evidence, that's gone. and, also based on available evidence, Republicans seem to have decided to make sure it doesn't return. oy, yet again.
Our political system is badly broken and men (and women) of ill-will are abusing the faulty processes to gain power contrary to any intent of the original founders of the nation (however blind or compromised these were). I don't see how any reform or change is going to occur short of a massive breakdown and rebuilding. We have institutionalized inertia supporting the status quo and also being used to reinforce schemes by the GOP to seize power in any way they can and hold it indefinitely and without any checks or balances.
A West Coast republic would be an immediate world powerhouse economically. And I can see why progressives would desire it over being tyrannized by a hostile government in Washington DC. But since it would take such a big slice out of the Union pie, I can also see why it could be the hardest to pull off, since DC probably would not willingly let California or the entire West Coast go. But stranger things have happened. I certainly sympathize with the secessionist movements out there.
It could be brought into being; it would require an enormous effort of will, however, and smart leadership, the right politicking, and a Gandhi-like level of civil disobedience to force the desired results upon hostile authorities. Vox populi, vox Dei!
Yes, it would be difficult. I see all your points, all valid. But other modern countries have separated/split up. Ways were found. I worry that the alternatives to amicable divorce could be so much worse, and involve some of these same problems anyway. What's the solution going to be when part of the citizenry wants nothing to do with the other part? Or seeks to dominate it? Does it have to be a clash of arms? Massive resistance and protests? Or meek submission in the face of minority autocratic rule? There aren't a lot of best case options. We only have a few years to discuss all these issues and perhaps form some plans or agreements until the matter is going to be forced upon us.
when I repeat, doubtless tiresomely, that I'm terrified, it's because of this. and that, then THAT, then this, another that, etc. it just feels like there's this confluence of horrible things happening all at once to the extent that even thinking about our politics feels like an endless round of whack-a-mole. the new voter suppression laws, the horrible Shelby decision, the even-more-horrible Citizens United decision, the decision you discuss here, the laws you've also mentioned here, the laws and decisions and hubristic insanity you haven't mentioned here but have elsewhere....I don't think I need to continue enumerating. on a lot of days, it feels like one could easily spend a day or two just listing the things to be afraid of. now, in this case, we have another of the many good reasons that something needs to be done about the SCOTUS, and quickly. adding seats doesn't feel like it could gather a whole lot of support because many, many voters have been trained to look upon "court packing" as being dirty pool and they will tell you in a heartbeat that it's some kind of partisan "tampering with the Constitution," which brings us back to the eternally recurring fact that people being trained in "Civics" just isn't that important to the folks who determine what schools need to be teaching; if it's not math or "English Language Arts" it ain't nothin'. so if certain "news" sources tell their readers (actually, it's more likely they're VIEWERS) that court size (or the filibuster or any number of other issues) is mandated by the constitution, they'll believe it. I'm thinking that ending the lifetime appointments thing is just a better solution all around. I read somewhere in the past few days (probably a Times op-ed) that we have the only country in which appointments to that country's highest court are made for life. I also less recently read that, prior to the twentieth century, the average length of time that justices served was something like seven or eight years; they might have been able to serve until they died but chose not to do so. maybe it got boring after awhile. or maybe they wanted to get a lot richer in some top-tier firm. or maybe they just generally felt like they had better shit to do. but it's obvious that something has to be done about the Court. and then, there's everything else that these scumbags are getting done in plain sight, not breaking any laws as such, but taking huge dumps on the existing ones. I saw on the news today that McCarthy (the guy who obviously spent his English classes sniffing glue in the boys' room) is promising that, if the House flips, he'll relieve some very significant Democrats of their committee assignments. which is my long-winded way of saying that there are some excellent reasons for being terrified, and that they just keep multiplying.....
Bad behavior defeats itself again and again. It might take a bit of time but defeat always comes because humanity figures out the bad behavior and makes amends. Jim Crow lasted about 60 years and it was repealed by a better court. Right now the Federalist Society holds sway, but more and more members of society are getting wise to the plan. Perhaps John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch will back up and rule with the three moderates.
My dad thought he was "such a nice young man" when he and Mom met him at Ann Gorsuch's wedding. Dad was the chief lobbyist for the Chemical Manufacturer's Association, working with Rita Lavelle of EPA (got her into a little trouble) to hammer out a Superfund agreement the industry would literally buy into, and comply with. An independent state by state EPA system would have been a nightmare for polluting industries, since there was only so much room to build in Cancer (Kanawaw) Valley, West Virginia.
P.S. My dad told Rita Lavelle she was going over the line, but he said. "She was big, blond, and brassy, and told me I worry too much." Then Dad got the call from the Dow CEO telling him to quick pack a bag, grab the wife and "disappear" for 3 weeks." It's all in his book that we haven't published yet because Dow has threatened to sue us if we do.
Two and a half centuries after the Constitution replaced them, we still struggle with the concept of “the common good”—the interests and institutions, the environmental and material resources we share, and a common cultural identity we cannot seem to recognize.
We've seen this sort of judicial hocus-pocus nonsense before. In 1905, the Supreme Court decided Lochner v. New York, which was for that time the apotheosis of the doctrine of 'freedom of contract'. It took some time for the Supreme Court to recognize the error of its ways, and tailor its decisions to the realities of living and working in a multifaceted world. The court's conservative majority is still trying to rewrite history and pretend that the New Deal never occurred. The spurious arguments and hypothecations by the conservative justices during oral argument, pretending that coronavirus can be reined in by state political boundaries is patently perverse. These are essentially stupid people playing make-believe with other people's lives because they abhor the necessity of a national government taking charge of a pandemic that threatens everybody, simply because we are all interconnected. The Supreme Court's notion that the states can control these outbreaks of disease might be arguable if we go back to the 1830s, before the invention of the steam locomotive and the railroad. Even then, there arguments would've been a giant step into fantasyland, given our collective experience with plague and other communicable diseases. Each of those so-called conservatives deserves to be impeached for dereliction of duty, and for ignoring the stark realities that are facing a world in which a lethal virus can spread itself worldwide simply by hopping on an airplane.
Kavanaugh and Barrett shouldn't even BE on that court - both lied under oath. Gorsuch shouldn't BE on that court; our AG should be there. And then we have that husband of a traitor (you know, the one who helped finance the insurrection?) all dressed up nicely in his robes, pretending to be a judge. We have at least two among that bunch that should be investigated for various and sundry. Unless we expand SCOTUS to provide some sense and balance, what need is there for a group I call the STENCH BENCH to sit for life and dismantle our country ON OUR DIME? Excuse the all caps, but I am blistering angry at these incompetent idiots who weaseled their way into a cushy lifetime appointment. If any branch of government has shown itself to be worthless (aside from the current mobsters in the Senate), it's SCOTUS.
Spot on!
JSM just never gets old, does he?
I really really like this quote!
Why are we surprised at this? This is what the Federalist Society has wanted for decades and groomed these justices to carry out its will.
Exactly and Leonard Leo is more than happy to accommodate!
The Court seems to want to take us back to a loose confederation of states. That didn’t work in the 1780’s and it won’t work now. It will lead to the end of the United States as we know it
It will be the Triangle Shirt factory all over again.
Oh, you're right.
I would expect, at the very least, that a filing regarding vaccinations would include a list of the known risks associated with receiving a vaccination with more authority than the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (a.k.a. VAERS) which does not require verification. So Justice Alito is -- by his own admission -- a "vaccine skeptic" who does not require evidence. Can you say "Judicial Malpractice"? I knew you could.
He should recuse himself. He has bias. He is ignorant. He cannot make a fair decision. He knows not whereof he speaks.
it's interesting that the big-selling anti-vaxx schmucks (say, JFK Jr and that pathetic, invalidly self-impressed Breggin) are basing virtually ALL of their crap on VAERS stuff, which is unvetted. I could spent the rest of the night (or week) just making shit up and reporting it there. any of us could. intellectual integrity, anyone?
You mean Robert Kennedy, Jr.? He is truly an outlier in his family.
he's also an asshole.
Yes, well there’s that…
Sheer hypocrisy when you consider that LAWYERS, JUDGES, POLITICIANS are ALL practicing medicine without a license while refusing to acknowledge advice from actual health practitioners…Does this mean that the Supreme Court has designated the science and practice of Public Health as illegitimate ? Talk about overreach!
How useful or effective is state government at all? People treasure sports rivalries, I get it, but it strikes me that most of our structural political problems can be ascribed to the fact that smaller and sparsely populated states have wildly disproportionate political power when compared to the more populated states. State government is as useful to this country’s actual governance as student council is to the operation of a school district. “States’ Rights” has always been French for segregation anyhow; time to call bullshit and reorganize.
Bannon must be ecstatic. In case you forgot, his goal when running the country while Trump figured out his tv cable options was the "destruction of the administrative state."
Getting the Supreme Court to assist him must be orgasmic. Talk about unintended consequences...we are royally fucked!
Note that this has also been SCOTUS's approach to voting rights since Shelby v. Holder: No need to monitor the Jim Crow states anymore, they've learned their lesson, yadda yadda yadda. Then Jim Crow climbed up on his elephant and went to town.
I hope there is some way to get Lucian's message to all members of the Supreme Court, the trouble is the logic being used to allow each individual state to make its own safety rules means they are not bright enough to see the logic of a universal federal rule as Lucian so well points out. What is next, let states decide whether or not to mandate safety belts in cars? Besides no worker is being forced to get a vaccine, they can opt to get tested weekly instead. The point is to not jeopardize the health of fellow workers. This certainly would ve critical in hospitals but important everywhere, As far as the argument about more possible danger from the vaccine adverse cases is extremely rare, besides, as mentioned before the relatively few who are worried can opt for the weekly test, Voting procedures, mail in ballots for old people and others should be universal. l, r least for federal elections. , But back to Covid, school mandates have always been normal for all the childhood diseases, why the big uproar over Covid? Don't parents want to keep their kids safe anymore?Why was this made political in Texas and Florida and sine other states? They sure scream for help from the federal government when all their kids as well as the unvaccinated adults get sick and fill up the hospitals. A problem they caused themselves by playing down vaxx's and mask wearing and pushing quack cures.
does anybody remember how much everyone squawked about seat belts? helmets for motorcycles and bicycles? those who ignore history...etc.
Damned timely article! And right on the nose. If we go back some 18th century idea of self-governing states, we might as well pack up the federal government cause it will be every state for itself. Might as well formally declare them independent nations. This could be one way we're heading. De facto secession that slips in via judicial fiats and legislative maneuvers. This could also pave the way for new regional confederations to emerge. A sovereign West Coast nation; a sovereign New England. Et cetera. These events could take place peacefully, or with violence. Just one of the many scenarios when commentators speak (as they are more and more frequently doing) about a coming "new civil war."
My Congressman still thinks Trump won.
Then your congressman can’t think.
Nope, he is a young twit, wouldn't even acknowledge the Capitol Police. Total asshole!
We need multiple political parties to foster coalitions. We are too big for just two parties.
No, no, no! You've seen what happened to the Republican Party after shedding its moderate adherents. Now imagine five or six of the Republican model, each jockeying for position within a coalition strong enough to govern. Coalition governments go for the lowest common denominator, with the most extreme calling the tune. Israel is a prime example. Italy is another. Democracies need working majorities that can agree upon major programs and then haggle over the details. The Republican Party used to be like that, it is no longer. The Democratic Party is a large coalition of diverse interests with a fairly consistent overriding philosophy. Fragment that party into its constituent parts, and the resulting fragmentation is less than the sum of its parts. There are no synergies; there is no compromise; and the parties in the middle lose out. Everything goes to the extremes. That's what you're asking for, and that's what we have right now with the Republicans. Wake up!
thank you, Arthur, for that reality check. I think that when people call for more parties (as I admit I have done, and frequently) aren't thinking small splinter parties that would then have to form large coalitions but rather, say, a more "moderate" Republican party (not unlike the old one) and the crazies and a "moderate" (whatever THAT means in this context) bunch of Dems and a full-on Social Democratic party.... but yes, your theory about coalitions DOES seem to be borne out by other countries' experience in recent years. but let's also remember that the Framers hated the idea of party politics ands wrote the Constitution accordingly, so that what we have now is...what? certainly a weird compromise that occasionally worked. but it could only work when people agreed to operate with at least SOME appearance of "good faith" (or, at very least, some level of trust in the extremely flawed system). now, based on available evidence, that's gone. and, also based on available evidence, Republicans seem to have decided to make sure it doesn't return. oy, yet again.
Now the minority can take over!
Our political system is badly broken and men (and women) of ill-will are abusing the faulty processes to gain power contrary to any intent of the original founders of the nation (however blind or compromised these were). I don't see how any reform or change is going to occur short of a massive breakdown and rebuilding. We have institutionalized inertia supporting the status quo and also being used to reinforce schemes by the GOP to seize power in any way they can and hold it indefinitely and without any checks or balances.
Actually, secession for California is looking rather attractive to me. Of course, we want Oregon, Washington, and New York to join in.
A West Coast republic would be an immediate world powerhouse economically. And I can see why progressives would desire it over being tyrannized by a hostile government in Washington DC. But since it would take such a big slice out of the Union pie, I can also see why it could be the hardest to pull off, since DC probably would not willingly let California or the entire West Coast go. But stranger things have happened. I certainly sympathize with the secessionist movements out there.
It is really our thoughts of this that keep us going. Like you said, "stranger things have happened".
It could be brought into being; it would require an enormous effort of will, however, and smart leadership, the right politicking, and a Gandhi-like level of civil disobedience to force the desired results upon hostile authorities. Vox populi, vox Dei!
The Chile of North America, haha!
Yes, it would be difficult. I see all your points, all valid. But other modern countries have separated/split up. Ways were found. I worry that the alternatives to amicable divorce could be so much worse, and involve some of these same problems anyway. What's the solution going to be when part of the citizenry wants nothing to do with the other part? Or seeks to dominate it? Does it have to be a clash of arms? Massive resistance and protests? Or meek submission in the face of minority autocratic rule? There aren't a lot of best case options. We only have a few years to discuss all these issues and perhaps form some plans or agreements until the matter is going to be forced upon us.
Thank You for perspective TC.
when I repeat, doubtless tiresomely, that I'm terrified, it's because of this. and that, then THAT, then this, another that, etc. it just feels like there's this confluence of horrible things happening all at once to the extent that even thinking about our politics feels like an endless round of whack-a-mole. the new voter suppression laws, the horrible Shelby decision, the even-more-horrible Citizens United decision, the decision you discuss here, the laws you've also mentioned here, the laws and decisions and hubristic insanity you haven't mentioned here but have elsewhere....I don't think I need to continue enumerating. on a lot of days, it feels like one could easily spend a day or two just listing the things to be afraid of. now, in this case, we have another of the many good reasons that something needs to be done about the SCOTUS, and quickly. adding seats doesn't feel like it could gather a whole lot of support because many, many voters have been trained to look upon "court packing" as being dirty pool and they will tell you in a heartbeat that it's some kind of partisan "tampering with the Constitution," which brings us back to the eternally recurring fact that people being trained in "Civics" just isn't that important to the folks who determine what schools need to be teaching; if it's not math or "English Language Arts" it ain't nothin'. so if certain "news" sources tell their readers (actually, it's more likely they're VIEWERS) that court size (or the filibuster or any number of other issues) is mandated by the constitution, they'll believe it. I'm thinking that ending the lifetime appointments thing is just a better solution all around. I read somewhere in the past few days (probably a Times op-ed) that we have the only country in which appointments to that country's highest court are made for life. I also less recently read that, prior to the twentieth century, the average length of time that justices served was something like seven or eight years; they might have been able to serve until they died but chose not to do so. maybe it got boring after awhile. or maybe they wanted to get a lot richer in some top-tier firm. or maybe they just generally felt like they had better shit to do. but it's obvious that something has to be done about the Court. and then, there's everything else that these scumbags are getting done in plain sight, not breaking any laws as such, but taking huge dumps on the existing ones. I saw on the news today that McCarthy (the guy who obviously spent his English classes sniffing glue in the boys' room) is promising that, if the House flips, he'll relieve some very significant Democrats of their committee assignments. which is my long-winded way of saying that there are some excellent reasons for being terrified, and that they just keep multiplying.....
Shithole country?
Based on current results a sure thing.
A succinct and clear commentary on an utterly depressing topic.
Bad behavior defeats itself again and again. It might take a bit of time but defeat always comes because humanity figures out the bad behavior and makes amends. Jim Crow lasted about 60 years and it was repealed by a better court. Right now the Federalist Society holds sway, but more and more members of society are getting wise to the plan. Perhaps John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch will back up and rule with the three moderates.
Forget Gorsuch. He's worse than Alito.
My dad thought he was "such a nice young man" when he and Mom met him at Ann Gorsuch's wedding. Dad was the chief lobbyist for the Chemical Manufacturer's Association, working with Rita Lavelle of EPA (got her into a little trouble) to hammer out a Superfund agreement the industry would literally buy into, and comply with. An independent state by state EPA system would have been a nightmare for polluting industries, since there was only so much room to build in Cancer (Kanawaw) Valley, West Virginia.
P.S. My dad told Rita Lavelle she was going over the line, but he said. "She was big, blond, and brassy, and told me I worry too much." Then Dad got the call from the Dow CEO telling him to quick pack a bag, grab the wife and "disappear" for 3 weeks." It's all in his book that we haven't published yet because Dow has threatened to sue us if we do.
Wait! Maybe the case will go to the Supreme Court!
Shades of the Articles of Confederation.
Two and a half centuries after the Constitution replaced them, we still struggle with the concept of “the common good”—the interests and institutions, the environmental and material resources we share, and a common cultural identity we cannot seem to recognize.
THIS! EXACTLY. sadly