The entire edifice of Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election — that it was stolen from him through illegal votes cast by Democrats — now seems to rest on the unprepossessing business-suit-clad shoulders of one man: Jeffrey Clark, a former official in the Trump Department of Justice.
What we all need to be doing is working our butts off, wherever we live, to make sure that the Democrats increase their majority in the House and and acquire a real majority in the Senate -- one that doesn't leave them at the mercy of the likes of Manchin and Sinema.
My hope is that the Supreme Court will stumble into creating a voting Tsunami by women and men who don't hate women that will flush the GOP and their ilk away!
I wish you were correct, but I don't think that this issue has the traction that we wish it had or would like it to be. The republicans have implemented a long term strategy with minority rule (perhaps "permanently") firmly in place. The strategy has worked brilliantly with the help of Fox News and right wing radio. I fear that in ten years, we will not recognize the country we live in today.
I suspect it has more traction among women than among men. Over the past few years, Republican-leaning women have turned out to be more readily repulsed by Trump and Trumpism than Republican-leaning men.
Justice Sotomayor has coined a new phrase: BENCH STENCH.
This is why we need to address the problems of that no longer reputable body called SCOTUS: "Any cases brought against the likes of Clark, or others allegedly involved in conspiring to overturn the election, will be assigned to a judiciary packed with more than 220 Trump appointees to the federal bench. As we saw in the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, those judges can be depended on to be legal experts — or at least, experts at finding justifications for the outcomes that best suit the Federalist Society and the Republican Party."
Many of the Federalist Society judges are in a quiet way unwilling to be recalled in history as sycophants or as fifth columnists. They might be hard core loyalists to the Republicans but they are not willing insurrectionists. Even a staunch reactionary will back up when it comes to treason or handing out slight punishment to those who would burn the country down.
Forgive me, but I just don’t see that as truism. The Federalist Society was formed in the 80’s when Reagan and GW were presidents. Their membership has always been a “proxy for adherence to conservative ideology”. Behind the scenes of FS are the billionaires like the Kochs and Mercers who like to push their masses of money and influence around by exercising of what they want, rather than what is true judgment. They very intently misconstrue the Constitution and it’s laws to meet their satisfaction. They have memberships out of the kazoo which are aimed at young law student. I have no doubt that the FS paid Kavanaugh’s debts off for his “loyalty”.
I think, based on the very little I know of the FS's inner workings, that IF its members did indeed see themselves as treasonous or willing to "burn the country down," they MIGHT back up. but that's just NOT the way they think about it...they tell themselves that their ultimate goals are patriotic and that their activities aim at getting the country back on the correct, anti-socialist, pro-hard work path. I can only assume that's what they think because it's what they keep saying. the willingness of people to deceive themselves should never be underestimated. also, if I'm not mistaken, aren't there also specific religious criteria involved in making that list of "desirable" judges? I remember reading that somewhere....
Religious criteria..... like "not Jewish?" Preferably (VERY preferably) fundamentalist Protestant/Southern Baptist or charismatic Catholic? No Moslems, Hindus or Buddhists, and definitely no agnostics or atheists? These criteria wouldn't be written down anywhere, but everyone making the decisions would know them by heart.
actually, the religious tests I was reading about had to do with the FS recommendations being considered even more desirable is the judges under consideration are devoutly Christian. devout Catholics are preferable, as are evangelicals and their ilk. I'm sure that there are, in fact, at least a smallish cabal of jews. just not those "freethinking" ones, the ones who were such a significant bete noire (I can't do the proper accents) to TS Eliot....
President Obama did what he could not to be associated with angry liberals aching for a fight with the Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation that would create needless fires. Accusing anyone of plotting to destroy America or to take over the government might feel good, but it just ads to the alienation. There are wealthy left wing ideologues who are just as nasty and polemical as the FS or others. Extremist eventually defeat themselves. Trump and Mike Lindell are dangerous, The Mercers and Koch are a threat, but they are not going to gut the government or reinvent the country. People accused the Rockefellers, Fisks, and Carnegie of the same dark plans and we survived them. I am not discounting anything, I am asking for a accurate understanding of these people. Trumps mob did not overthrow the congress. Mitch McConnell's 300 judges will reveal themselves and their masters and be driven from the bench. Remember that a few million people now understand what is going on, make enough noise to upset 300 million people and these Trumpers and McConnell mobs will get washed away in the next election.
“Driven from the bench???” I don’t understand how that can happen. Aren’t those judicial appointments for a lifetime? How, exactly, are these right-wing judges to be dislodged?
In the 1930's as the culture changed, a number of judges both state and national came under serious scrutiny. (FDR v Supreme Court 1937) In the 1950's after Brown V Education a number of judges were forced to step down due to openly racist rulings. In recent years several judges were forced into retirement due to misogynist behavior. No judge is beyond reproach. Because of limited space here I can't give deep details, go to the internet and look up how many sitting judges resigned in the last 20 years, not because of age, but bad behavior or exhibiting dated thinking.
That's encouraging to consider, and I hope you're correct, but I don't see any of today's judicial right-wing ideologues EVER giving up their places on the bench by voluntarily resigning. They are totally without shame or conscience, and so I don't see how they could be forced to resign, short of their being literally arrested and dragged out of the courtroom.
a number of years ago, the estimable Kim Philps-Fein published a boo called (I think) "Invisible Hands." in it, she traces the current "conservative movement" very directly back to the 1932 election. the first big culprits were the DuPonts, and god knows, they're still in it, but of course, since then, some of the major players have changed. but what's remarkable is how little the exact bullshit they were bitching about then (and the specific language they used) has changed so little. it's actually pretty astonishing. one unbroken line....and yes...it's the same "vast right-wing conspiracy" for which Hillary was mocked ad nauseum, just as she's been mocked for other "insane" and "outrageous" and "paranoid" things she's said, all of which turned out to be completely true. and since I'm here, talking about books...I am eagerly awaiting a big new book, due to be released next month called "Gangsters of Capitalism," all about Smedley Butler. I've been wondering when such a book would come out, because it's just so NECESSARY; how many people today even know the barest outlines of the story. Lucian, if I seem to be hinting that, were you so inclined, a future newsletter entry that included some recounting of Butler's extraordinary heroism OFF the battlefield would hardly be a waste of anyone's time....
You just reminded me that I need to be scared $hitless for the next year ...
What we all need to be doing is working our butts off, wherever we live, to make sure that the Democrats increase their majority in the House and and acquire a real majority in the Senate -- one that doesn't leave them at the mercy of the likes of Manchin and Sinema.
Oh. I'm motivated, but I'm still allowed be scared.
Of course you are, but I know quite a few people whose "activism" is limited to gloom-and-dooming on social media and it got old a long time ago.
I am so sorry.. I did not mean to bring anyone gloom-and-dooming. It was an idiotic comment to make about such a prescient article.
Who made the idiotic comment?
My hope is that the Supreme Court will stumble into creating a voting Tsunami by women and men who don't hate women that will flush the GOP and their ilk away!
The Stench will be gone!
I wish you were correct, but I don't think that this issue has the traction that we wish it had or would like it to be. The republicans have implemented a long term strategy with minority rule (perhaps "permanently") firmly in place. The strategy has worked brilliantly with the help of Fox News and right wing radio. I fear that in ten years, we will not recognize the country we live in today.
I suspect it has more traction among women than among men. Over the past few years, Republican-leaning women have turned out to be more readily repulsed by Trump and Trumpism than Republican-leaning men.
Read David Pepper's "Laboratories of Autocracy."
I hope I’m dead by then!
True, unless...
Justice Sotomayor has coined a new phrase: BENCH STENCH.
This is why we need to address the problems of that no longer reputable body called SCOTUS: "Any cases brought against the likes of Clark, or others allegedly involved in conspiring to overturn the election, will be assigned to a judiciary packed with more than 220 Trump appointees to the federal bench. As we saw in the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, those judges can be depended on to be legal experts — or at least, experts at finding justifications for the outcomes that best suit the Federalist Society and the Republican Party."
Many of the Federalist Society judges are in a quiet way unwilling to be recalled in history as sycophants or as fifth columnists. They might be hard core loyalists to the Republicans but they are not willing insurrectionists. Even a staunch reactionary will back up when it comes to treason or handing out slight punishment to those who would burn the country down.
Forgive me, but I just don’t see that as truism. The Federalist Society was formed in the 80’s when Reagan and GW were presidents. Their membership has always been a “proxy for adherence to conservative ideology”. Behind the scenes of FS are the billionaires like the Kochs and Mercers who like to push their masses of money and influence around by exercising of what they want, rather than what is true judgment. They very intently misconstrue the Constitution and it’s laws to meet their satisfaction. They have memberships out of the kazoo which are aimed at young law student. I have no doubt that the FS paid Kavanaugh’s debts off for his “loyalty”.
I think, based on the very little I know of the FS's inner workings, that IF its members did indeed see themselves as treasonous or willing to "burn the country down," they MIGHT back up. but that's just NOT the way they think about it...they tell themselves that their ultimate goals are patriotic and that their activities aim at getting the country back on the correct, anti-socialist, pro-hard work path. I can only assume that's what they think because it's what they keep saying. the willingness of people to deceive themselves should never be underestimated. also, if I'm not mistaken, aren't there also specific religious criteria involved in making that list of "desirable" judges? I remember reading that somewhere....
Religious criteria..... like "not Jewish?" Preferably (VERY preferably) fundamentalist Protestant/Southern Baptist or charismatic Catholic? No Moslems, Hindus or Buddhists, and definitely no agnostics or atheists? These criteria wouldn't be written down anywhere, but everyone making the decisions would know them by heart.
actually, the religious tests I was reading about had to do with the FS recommendations being considered even more desirable is the judges under consideration are devoutly Christian. devout Catholics are preferable, as are evangelicals and their ilk. I'm sure that there are, in fact, at least a smallish cabal of jews. just not those "freethinking" ones, the ones who were such a significant bete noire (I can't do the proper accents) to TS Eliot....
President Obama did what he could not to be associated with angry liberals aching for a fight with the Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation that would create needless fires. Accusing anyone of plotting to destroy America or to take over the government might feel good, but it just ads to the alienation. There are wealthy left wing ideologues who are just as nasty and polemical as the FS or others. Extremist eventually defeat themselves. Trump and Mike Lindell are dangerous, The Mercers and Koch are a threat, but they are not going to gut the government or reinvent the country. People accused the Rockefellers, Fisks, and Carnegie of the same dark plans and we survived them. I am not discounting anything, I am asking for a accurate understanding of these people. Trumps mob did not overthrow the congress. Mitch McConnell's 300 judges will reveal themselves and their masters and be driven from the bench. Remember that a few million people now understand what is going on, make enough noise to upset 300 million people and these Trumpers and McConnell mobs will get washed away in the next election.
“Driven from the bench???” I don’t understand how that can happen. Aren’t those judicial appointments for a lifetime? How, exactly, are these right-wing judges to be dislodged?
In the 1930's as the culture changed, a number of judges both state and national came under serious scrutiny. (FDR v Supreme Court 1937) In the 1950's after Brown V Education a number of judges were forced to step down due to openly racist rulings. In recent years several judges were forced into retirement due to misogynist behavior. No judge is beyond reproach. Because of limited space here I can't give deep details, go to the internet and look up how many sitting judges resigned in the last 20 years, not because of age, but bad behavior or exhibiting dated thinking.
That's encouraging to consider, and I hope you're correct, but I don't see any of today's judicial right-wing ideologues EVER giving up their places on the bench by voluntarily resigning. They are totally without shame or conscience, and so I don't see how they could be forced to resign, short of their being literally arrested and dragged out of the courtroom.
a number of years ago, the estimable Kim Philps-Fein published a boo called (I think) "Invisible Hands." in it, she traces the current "conservative movement" very directly back to the 1932 election. the first big culprits were the DuPonts, and god knows, they're still in it, but of course, since then, some of the major players have changed. but what's remarkable is how little the exact bullshit they were bitching about then (and the specific language they used) has changed so little. it's actually pretty astonishing. one unbroken line....and yes...it's the same "vast right-wing conspiracy" for which Hillary was mocked ad nauseum, just as she's been mocked for other "insane" and "outrageous" and "paranoid" things she's said, all of which turned out to be completely true. and since I'm here, talking about books...I am eagerly awaiting a big new book, due to be released next month called "Gangsters of Capitalism," all about Smedley Butler. I've been wondering when such a book would come out, because it's just so NECESSARY; how many people today even know the barest outlines of the story. Lucian, if I seem to be hinting that, were you so inclined, a future newsletter entry that included some recounting of Butler's extraordinary heroism OFF the battlefield would hardly be a waste of anyone's time....
Huh??? That sounds like highly unjustifiable optimism! Examples, please? I will believe it when I see or read of it.
Not to be too gloom and doomy, but do you have any evidence to support that statement? Any? At all?