The people who control the Republican Party don't want to set the dial on the Wayback machine to the 1950s. They want to return the country to the era before Franklin Roosevelt or before Teddy Roosevelt. Some want to return to the era before the Civil War or before the decline in debtor's prisons.
The Democratic Party was weakened during the 1968 Chicago convention, and apparently never has recovered. Partly as a result, the Democrats often act undisciplined and short-sighted politically. The Democrats have less dark money than the Republicans, and less money for think tanks. The Democrats often do not put top emphasis on goals that also appeal to independents and moderate Republicans, such as _good_ jobs.
Funny how Democrats never minded a packed Court of liberals who for decades made law instead of interpreted it (gay 'marriage' being the most recent example).. Nice to see utimately with Kavanaugh's confirmation and Gingburg's ultimate retirement, secular progressivism will be dead..thank goodness
Can we finally abandon the conversation-stopper fantasy that "strict constitutional construction" is province of the conservative wing of the courts, or that this will rule the day? Pshaw.
Exhibit A : Janus case --striking down public union agency fees as "compelled speech"-- was anything but strict constitutional construction.
Freedom of speech was not incorporated into the 14th A until 1925 (and then by judicial interpretation, not constitutional amendment). State laws were not subject to 1st amendment free speech at all until 1925 --which is where most public union dues regulations come from: state law.
Add to that the Court in Janus's odd claim that Jefferson's famous statement that taxpayers should not be compelled to support religious beliefs contrary to their own conscience(remember Jefferson was in France when Constitution was written) somehow proves "the Framers" thought public employees should not have to pay agency fees. Say what? Whoo boy. That is a stretch that would make RBG's exercise regimen look like a little warm up.
Let's admit it out loud:
Judicial ideology matters.
The Federalist Society agenda matters.
Individual lawyers seeking particular outcomes who have the
President's ear matter.
Champagne corks flew last night in conservative circles for good reason. A very big, very partisan fight for particular outcomes was won. The Constitution, strictly construed, did not prevail. They did.
2
While Dems and the Berners continue to keep their "eye on the prize" in terms of Roe v Wade and LBGT cases, conservatives and their friends in the judiciary have made structural changes that threaten the ability of progressives to win elections even when they represent a substantial majority of the electorate. Citizens United and the decimation of the Voting Rights Act are only the beginning of an era of rule by an oligarchic minority.
3
Being wrong for a long time (abortion) doesnt make you right. Plessey Vs Ferguson stood for more than 50 years before it was correctly overturned.
Make no mistake about it. For all their committees, and foundations, and advisory boards, conservatives ultimately only got to where they are now with the court through naked and unapologetic deceit.
They forced President Obama’s hand with the filibuster by blockading his every judicial pick for the lower courts, openly declaring that they would not consider a single one. They then stole the Obama presidency’s rightful Supreme Court nomination in its final year - essentially creating the “McConnell Rule”, which ensures that no nominee will be considered henceforth, unless the president and the Senate majority are of the same party. Finally, they co-opted any remaining semblance of bi-partisan comity by eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees altogether.
Republicans have tragically fallen victim to a twisted culture of win at all costs, and when the only way to win is to cheat, they cheat.
Make America great again? What a sick joke!
2
In the end, the Supreme Court is about law. If Roe vs Wade was good law, it wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is today.
Democrats want judges who will legislate from the bench, like the 9th Circuit. The problem with that is what happens when judges start legislating from the bench against your desires?
Does the social impact of a law matter to the judiciary? Why? Should justice be blind, and leave the impacts to politicians? Is it the court's job to counter a law's political impact? Why?
These are questions the press ignores, but should discuss.
2
If Hillary would have won then we'd be looking at a 6-3 liberal court with this pick (assuming Kennedy still retires). Wow, what a difference an election makes! I think Trump is a fool but it's worth dealing with his buffoonery in order to avoid such a debacle.
1
What a bunch of Hooey. Obama made two appointments to the Supreme Court. If he had made wise choices, Kennedy, or any other of the non-Obama appointees could have resigned when Obama was in office, forcing Congress to act on his nominees.
The fact is, Obama chose, as he usually did, to go for appearances rather than excellence.
Predicting the voting behavior of Justices is dicey business and I am sure that there were Republicans that were stunned by some of Justice Kennedy’s votes, majority decisions and minority dissents and anyone that thinks that Kavanaugh is a conservative “ rubber stamp” hasn’t carefully read his decisions. The Roe v. Wade histrionics by the left are a red herring
History repeats the same lessons, liberty and democratic governance reinforce each other, privilege and inequities undermine both. The reversals of old interpretations of law by the Supreme Court which the right has fumed about for about seventy years which conservatives want reversed all promoted liberty and democracy and removed legal precedents that provided privileges and inequities. Those who believe that liberty and equality are opposites actually think that freedom is a scarce commodity which some can have only if others don't and represent liberty in such a way that exploiting others is included. This is why there is conservative support for allowing businesses to pollute with impunity and imposing limits upon voting rights. Conservatives really do not approve of equality that allows people who they see as losers and undeserving having the same voting rights and equality before the law. They consider the ability of businesses to make money more important to society than the harm that they might do to some people or to the environment. They understand that life is unfair but trying to make government fair at the expense of more important things that they values is unjustified.
1
Sure wish conservatives could get over the idea that America's past success and the successful future of America rests solely on the presence of conservatives.
1
They claim to stave off God from making it worse.
1
"A house divided against itself, cannot stand." So said an earlier Republican.
Today, we find ourselves at a similar crossroads, except that what divides us is not literal slavery, but an economic system that has created extreme wealth in the hands of the few, and a steadily falling standard of living for the many. At its most extreme, this "system" has created hordes of homeless in all of our cities and millions of refugees fleeing war and destruction in countries where we have intervened on the side of wealth and empire. This system devours life itself in the form of burning forests and dead oceans. It is no secret that the GOP has become nothing more than errand boys for the likes of the Koch Brothers, who are terrified of losing their wealth in the form of stranded assets. When they have taken their mantra for lower taxes, deregulation and privatization as far as it can go (is there an end in sight?), we will finally have made America great again in the mold of the many South American countries with "strong men" dictators for life. On the present course, which they have forced on us, the planet will be unlivable for many billions of people in just a few decades. These are not ordinary times, and the pendulum cannot be allowed to take us to full-blown fascism, or we will never recover.
1
Thanks for this calm, reasonable, and exactly accurate assessment of where we are. The out of control emotion and drowning of reason takes up too much column space these days. Right now my emblem of where we are is in the video of the university students offering their assessment of the Supreme Court pick even before the nomination had been made: https://thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-scotus-nominee-college-students-fr...
It's unethical and hostile journalism, and I don't approve of it, but it is revealing.
The work is always before us. We must keep our feet on the ground. And we just have to return to reason and truthfulness and more respect and conscientiousness on all sides.
"determined to avoid the disappointment they felt after Republican appointees like Earl Warren, William J. Brennan Jr., David H. Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Kennedy proved more moderate or liberal once they joined the court. ..."
Is it possible that is because the constitution itself is moderate and liberal?
1
The Right - and the Republican Party it controls - exploits the weaknesses (yes, weaknesses) in our Constitution to degrade that very document and undermine our democracy.
A farm system (the Federalist Society) funded by right-wing plutocrats, created specifically for selecting and grooming right-wing judges like Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to protect plutocratic interests, and embraced by a single party controlling the legislative and executive branches, is the antithesis of what the "originalists" who wrote the Constitution intended.
Those framers most likely did not imagine that such a perversion of democracy could emerge from within the system they envisioned and put in place.
This is not separation of powers; this is consolidation of power, all bought and paid for.
2
We watch the events transpire south of the border and as my American wife is paralyzed with depression we know that it is even worse south of the border.
George Orwell warned us about people like William F. Buckley Jr and others who would change the political language so as to render it meaningless.
What I believe is happening is a war on the middle-class. I use the dictionary meaning of middle -class which is that class below the aristocracy or plutocracy that possesses the education skills , ethics and understanding to run a modern liberal democracy. Here in Canada our Supreme Court's job is to determine justice not law. If a law is unjust it cannot stand and our justices therefore are apolitical because laws are not necessarily written to institute justice and are often a statement of social or political policy. If a law is inherently unjust our Court renders it void. One of the reasons we needed a new constitution is because so many of our 18th century laws were unjust and it was easier to start anew with a late 20th century understanding.
Your country will not survive a conservative Supreme Court based on a mistaken belief in 18th century norms and understandings. Reagan was the worst President ever and his nomination of Bork and Scalia may signal the beginning of the end for the greatest experiment in human political development. The most important discovery of the 20th century was the pill and its discovery requires a revolution in how we understand the world.
1
Did someone say something about a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hillary Clinton totally warned us. So much winning.
1
Cheaters DO win. It's the American way, GOP style.
November. Seriously.
2
It never ends.
Pack the courts, gerrymander the districts, suppress the vote, close the borders, preserve the racist anachronisms in the Constitution.
Only as a last resort: jailings and murder.
Minority rule is hard.
1
And the despicable Democrats have stood by, French-kissing their wealthy Wall Street patrons, as the Republicans had a field day pushing the country to the right.
If this conservative court succeeds in overturning Roe v Wade, what plans do the evangelicals & their churches have for the 650,000 additional births of unwanted children? Will they fund foster care, open orphanages or adopt these children into their homes regardless of color? There will be consequences. What are the plans?
3
You don't get it. This is to deter sex, just as separating children from parents at the border is supposed to deter illegal immigration.
2
Meanwhile, Terry McAuliffe and his co-conspirators, the Clintoons, have gotten very fat, indeed.
The GOP will get a sixth judge when judge ginsberg retires. Good night and good luck
2
Given the accelerated stakes for the eventual crippling, if not outright reversal, of the Constitutional Roe with this Supreme Court nomination, it is within the appropriate range of questioning of this candidate to inquire whether he has ever been involved in the securing of abortion services for any female. Conversely, has Kavanaugh ever been instrumental in preventing any woman from obtaining abortion services.
I think that Senator Warren, for one, possesses the integrity and political fortitude to pursue this line of questioning. Also, Senator Booker.
1
It will be taken as invasion of the nominee's privacy. Don't do it. Stick to getting a plain answer to "What is the meaning of [establishment of religion] in the [establishment clause] of the first amendment of the US Constitution?".
It's hard to blame this nightmare completely on Conservatives for two reasons:
1. In 1991, during Republican President George H. W. Bush's administration, liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall retired which ultimately gave us conservative Clarence Thomas. Had Justice Marshall stayed on the court until he died (like Justice Scalia did), he would have done so days into the Clinton Administration and President Clinton would have had a presumably liberal choice with the nation being spared the Thomas who, in a sense, was the pivotal "flipped seat" on the Court.
2. Even though it likely would have ultimately failed, President Obama should have sued Mitch McConnell and the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Supreme Court for obstruction of his Article II Section 2 Clause 2 ("The Appointments Clause") duty of nominating a Supreme Court Justice and having the Senate (presumably the FULL Senate) vote on his choice of Merrick Garland to the Court. Essentially, the Senate Judiciary Committee obstructed that vote. What Obama might have been able to do is a recess appointment of Garland while his case in the Supreme Court played out. Obama likely would have lost the Garland vote in the full Senate though from a strict party line vote. However, had Obama won such a Supreme Court case, that would have had major ramifications for the very structure and procedures of Congress. I doubt it would have survived in the Supreme Court.
So, blame it all on Thurgood Marshall.
No surprise that such detailed coverage was available within minutes of President Trump's announcement of his Supreme Court nominee. All the media have had these stories and editorials ready to go for days. There were 4 "top picks", and a week is more than enough time to prepare detailed pieces on 4 people. It's like having canned obituaries for celebrities; the boiler-plate text and images are already done, all that is needed is a bit of updating before the final product is ready to print, post or broadcast.
Here's my own prediction, written (I swear) hours before the President's announcement: The choice doesn't matter.
Whoever Trump picked, the mainstream media would launch a salvo of articles and opinion (scare) pieces explaining why the pick is terrible for women, LGBTQs, migrants, poor people, abortion supporters, in fact pretty much everyone else except the notorious 1% and big business. The media would also say the Supreme Court will now be biased or even irrelevant.
The purposes of the barrage, of course, are to draw all but negative attention away from the nominee and to agitate the Democrat-liberal-socialist-radical base.
In fact, there is little the roused rabble can do about this; Trump pretty much has the votes to confirm. However, stay tuned for the mass breast-beating, hand-wringing, wailing, virtue-signaling, "spontaneous" protests, and accosting Republicans in restaurants.
What are Democrats to do? Get out the vote in November!
"But liberals lost their chance to solidify a left-leaning majority on the court when Senate Republicans refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s conservative stalwart. "
I still consider McConnell's theft of a nominee as a failure to fulfill his oath of office, no matter how ridiculously the Senate is able to set their internal rules. To claim that "the American people deserve a say" when a twice-elected President's nominee should have been voted on should be grounds for removing him from office, unfortunately, it's not.
Any conservatives trying to defend this action remember what goes around comes around. The Republican Senate majority narrowed in 2016, and could go away, or leave things so even a vote from Pence won't give them 50 votes.
Picture the mess if Schumer notes that the majority of American voters did not vote for the incumbent, and starts copying this McConnell tweet "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."
McConnell should be out of office.
4
"A Conservative court push"?
More like concerted Conservative packing of the court, via illegal delay of (well-qualified) nominees of the Democrats and right-wing appointments by an illegal administration, currently under investigation for corruption at many levels.
2
The Good Old Boys' think they "won".
WE THE PEOPLE have news for them.
Women will not go back to the 5th/15th centuries or 1950s when their supposed "rights" were severely suppressed.
Blacks will not go back. Other minorities will not go back. Socially Conscious men will not go back. Union members will not go back.
The Robber Baron days are in their dying times.
WE THE PEOPLE will prove it in November and 2020 when WE elect Socially Conscious lawmakers who will pass the Equal Rights Amendment to OUR U. S. Constitution, increase the size of OUR U.S. Supreme Court by two or three justices, pack the courts with progressive/liberal judges and help US restore social/financial equity for ALL American citizens.
The Robber Barons think we're stupid and, frankly, some of us have acted stupidly by letting them get control.
However, that can change in a heartbeat with OUR votes. NOW is the time to use them carefully and to vote in every, single election.
2
Never forget that they do think we're stupid, so their dark money front-runs what they anticipate to be our moves.
From the Declaration of Independence: "That 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." Once the government becomes unrepresentative of a substantial number of the people, we should expect that this clause will be exercised...and maybe not nicely.
1
With a couple of historical exceptions--the Age of Jackson and the post Depression era--the party representing the economic elite--Federalists, Whigs, and now Republicans--has been the dominant party. It is a great tribute to the American voters' inability to see their self interest. The last time Republicans dominated government to the degree they do today, it took the Great Depression to break up their control. I suspect it is going to take something comparable now.
6
The republicans control the Supreme Court, the Presidency, Senate, House, most State Governorships, most State House and Senate seats AND they are still whining.
4
the GOP is poised to end up with a net seat gain between 2 and 6 seats this fall , this will give them between 52-56 seats next year , so even if nobody gets confirmed before the elections it will just be easier next year
1
The irony being that the so-called conservatives are far to the right of mere conservatism, and the so-called liberals are far to the right of anything liberal. So, you have hard-right "conservatives" and you have soft-right "liberals" forming the acceptable range. Which amounts to a net win for the right-wing, however it shakes out.
If there were actual left-wing judges out there, the country might be able to move forward on a host of issues. As it stands, only the right wing is flapping, which is why the country keeps going in circles (and falling behind First World nations that have an actual left, instead of pretend-left).
So, to hear right-wingers fret over leftward drift of judges is a joke. It's only because they're so reactionary that it appears that way. It reflects the hard skew inflicted by the ideological industry of the American right wing, aided and abetted by Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, etc. They want closed minds and jurists who march in lockstep in service to their reactionary ideology. The Bolsheviks and Jacobins would be proud of what the GOP has accomplished, ironically enough.
3
We are not a Christian nation, and we are not a nation that exists for the good of the very wealthy over everyone else. We the people, the majority, not the extreme right wing Christians and rich criminals.
Time to get busy.
1
Reading the comments from our “conservative” friends, I am astonished how they still have the nerve to complain about how liberal things are. They have held the Supreme Court for decades (think blocking Obama’s ability to nominate a Justice, Citizens United and voter suppression and union bashing, gerrymandering,etc.), they have the Senate, the House, their corporations who crashed the economy and were bailed out to the tune of 16 trillion, they have their master in the White House, they just sent 8 Republican senators to kiss up to their master’s handler (Putin) a couple of weeks ago, they have a trade war or wars, they have trashed environmental and other protections, they have exploded the deficit so they can poor mouth it in the future to attack social security and Medicare, they have all of the electronic media except the DNC’s MSNBC (liberal? really?), they have the good people who march with torches, they have the tax supported churches, they have their support for dictators everywhere, they are destroying NATO and planning to use the Justice Department for their own purposes, I could go on. I guess it’s still in their script to be the poor offended party helping the downtrodden with their Blue Collar Billionaires. It seems to work for them.
6
And they have jacked up the nuclear threat the US brandishes at the whole rest of the world.
There is nothing but planetary death wish to the whole suicidal enablement of this grotesque psychotic.
1
Anyone who understands plain English in current usage, much as it was when the US Constitution was ratified, can derive that an "establishment of religion" is a belief held on faith alone.
1
The caption says it all. The slow methodical push to move the court far to the right was always about payback by industrialists who were steamed over Nixon's establishment of the EPA and these guys finally having to answer for their gross exploitation of the environment. If you delve deeper, you'll find the core of their mission which is that is not the purview of the people to shape civilization, but it is the role of business to do it. Of course with all of this new found freedom from oversight will come vast income inequality, rampant trashing of the environment and our resources, poor and unsafe working conditions and a well-heeled plutocracy. Welcome to the new United States of America, Inc.
6
It is likely the future court will attack Roe v. Wade and perhaps even kill it entirely. And yet nearly two-thirds of the US wants Roe upheld. What happens when, after three decades of methodical efforts, the country and the courts are at odds with each other?
3
Groups like the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the Judicial Crisis Network, the Judicial Action Group and the Committee for Justice are funded by "dark money". The 10's of millions of dollars that will be spent on media campaigns to pressure senators will come from the same source.
Dark Money is the term of New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer (author of the book title). It refers to a group of conservative billionaires that have funded the rise of neoconservatism in US government.
Money given to philanthropies, by people like the Koch brothers, goes to "nonprofit" interest groups. These groups fund government think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. This "money laundering" avoids criminal prosecution for large donations to political campaigns.
Since philanthropists like the Kochs sit on the boards of these think tanks the dark money gets securely directed to goals the original source of the funds chooses, and all the donations to personal philanthropies are tax free.
4
It really is a complete waste of everyone's time and money to take any legal issue to any US court, where the financial interest of the entire legal industry lies in deciding nothing at all.
1
These folks are the best thing that every happened to ambitious and articulate liars. I suspect I have been solicited a time or two myself, but the proffered perks were devoid of any appeal to me, and the cause without merit.
The idea that the left has been asleep at the wheel is a misreading of the situation.
Because while the right naturally looks to the court for grounding, because of their reverence for the “rule of law,” we progressives tend to go beyond rule of law, and to social justice for our grounding.
In the conservatives’ case, they genuinely believe that all should be equal before the law, even when it’s clear that some laws are bad. Their answer to bad laws is to change them. Thus their fetish for constitutionalism, civics, and liberty and freedom from the State.
So take the case of DACA. We progressives were willing to put the rule of law aside, to achieve social justice. We were fine with the Executive Branch selectively enforcing the law. Or affirmative action. We progressives are willing to use shifting standards in qualification to achieve the social justice of having certain minorities admitted, even though this hurts other minorities. Or the freedom of speech. Conservatives take a more expansive view; we progressives tend to think where words hurt, they should be silenced. Who gets to speak depends on what they have to say. Or take this most recent case, over minor laws being enforced against migrants and people of color. It doesn’t serve social justice, so we’re against it.
We haven’t been asleep, we’ve just been focused on other things, like winning the media, Higher Education, the culture wars, and winning the Presidency. Our goals don’t require rule of law!
2
"Who gets to speak depends on what they have to say"???
And who decides, You?
Right.
Not just me. The whole community. The workers at The Red Hen. The students of Oberlin. The teachers in the states with massive walk-outs. The community of Believers and people world-wide who understand that to make fun of someone's religious leader is unacceptable.
This is what People Power looks like. It is progressive communities standing up to the falsehoods and hate speech of the fascist right.
There aren't enough judges, lawyers, or cops to do anything about it either. Again, our goals don't require the so called "rule of law." Making progress is a higher calling, one that supersedes this small country with its short history. We're talking here about class struggle, and a shifting of power from the racist white North to the vibrant and diverse Global South and the Workers of the world. What we're talking about was best exemplified by the undocumented woman from Congo who recently climbed up the Statue of Liberty, with an Abolish ICE banner and a plea to open borders. In other words, progress is about HUMANITY achieving HUMAN goals.
The conservatives can have their court. We progressives will take the world!
The process of selection of our highest court elections have become like a dirty political campaign. Special interests can pour unlimited $$ into campaigns and nominations (thanks to Republicans in SCOTUS unleashing Citizens United).
Once that happened, Democrats lost seats in Congress and McConnell became the majority leader. McConnell illegally refused to recognize Garland's nomination, huge money was shifted to support the GOP, McConnell, GOP leaning SCOTUS potentials and any GOP candidates who is willing to support their special interests.
Special interests groups with unlimited money now can select their own group of nominees (such as the Federalist Society) to favor their monetary causes. Once these judges are placed on the court, when a case comes to court that involves their cause, they send down teams to file "AMICUS BRIEFS" which are used as a guide for their selected judges to make decisions. The additional information found in such a document can be useful for the judge evaluating the case, and it becomes part of the official case record.
So now if an average American files a lawsuit in high court, they most likely could lose, NOT because of what the lawsuit pertains, but because of WHO you are, and if you have the "AMICUS" briefers on your side. The courts are becoming partisan and selection of judges are now openly selected using dark money thanks to Citizens United.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-c...
Kavanaugh's nomination represents more than the nomination, to the Supreme Court, of the fourth person who rose through being a (Republican) White House or Senatorial Aide.
We might ask whether having so many Justices with overtly political backgrounds (plus Gorsuch, the scion of a prominent Republican family) represents the kind the kind of professional balance we should expect from the "independent" judiciary.
Unfortunately, such considerations probably will not trouble the current US Senate.
1
If we don't agree to be be governed by these fakes, they will seek to have us burned as heretics.
1
The ideal court would have only excellent judges, with about 3 liberal, 3 conservative, and three moderate, all willing to be persuaded and not dogmatic. I feel like we are missing that middle, not just one "swing" judge but 3. Would be much healthier for the country.
9
Trumpist "liberty" is unlimited abuse of power to concentrate more power.
1
Adherence to "faith" is inherently dogmatic. There is no honest room for belief in anything that isn't substantiated by evidence in courtrooms.
The Supreme Court became an opponent to conservatives’ idea of liberty during the time after World War II through the 1970’s. Interestingly, it was interpretations that strengthened democracy and the rights of individuals to be protected against oppression by powerful groups and decisions that removed the legal authority of individuals who gained by exploiting others that made conservatives perceive this as a loss of liberty.
The decisions included ending racial segregation and discrimination by gender, religious convictions, race, and national origins, ending religious practices in public institutions, reducing state authority over reproductive choices of people, assuring that everyone received equality before the law, allowing society to insist that businesses respect product safety and safe working conditions, and basically for the country to become more like it’s most cherished ideas dictated.
Conservatives oppose changes because they fear that it only trades known injustices for unknown ones. It also means that injustices which have not disadvantaged them would be replaced by injustices which would. All those changes in the law moved this or that group who felt oppressed by them into the conservative camp. Suddenly segregationists were side by side with pro-business/anti-union conservatives and with religionists who abhorred the separation of church and state and toleration of ungodliness by the secular government were working to restore all the old ways.
2
You can thank Wasserman-Schultz and Brazile for sabotaging Bernie and making it all come true.
4
Hardly anyone in the entire US political scam cares about much beyond their home district.
Nobody in the entire US political scam cares about anything larger than the district they purportedly represent.
1
It's actually the votes that the electorate cast (or didn't cast) that made this all come true. We all had a choice in November '16. Unfortunately too many chose to abstain or protest vote. We could've guaranteed ourselves a liberal leaning court for a generation or more.
2
A Supreme Court packed with Southern conservatives gave us the Dred Scott decision and probably worse. It remains to be seen how a "conservative" Supreme Court will affect American lives in the 21st Century. Will this court try to overturn advancements made in American civil society in the last half of the 20th Century? An effective Congress can make a Supreme Court irrelevant by passing laws that circumvent narrow Supreme Court decisions. It's up to the American voter to elect an effective legislature that advances American values. The only reason the SCOTUS is so important is because the Congress is so ineffective.
5
So, why have the Democrats, the press, and everyone else not aligned with this movement been asleep at the switch for so long while it bullied its way to power?
It's not like it happened in secret; it was there for all to see. It's not like no one spoke out about it - voices like George Lakoff warned us about it decades ago.
Yet so many who should have been standing in staunch defense of liberal values, principles and democracy lay dormant for all this time instead- oblivious, unconcerned, even enabling the right wing movement's massive campaign to undermine, even demonize the liberal foundation of our government and politics.
So here we are, watching our country regress into far right wing territory at the hands of a movement that is remaking American law and government into something unrecognizable.
And still I wonder - who cares?
6
There was no perceived problem in 2016. Media sources assured us that the Republican Party was dead and the Times told us that Hillary had a 92 percent chance of winning. Why vote? Don't you remember how the news people and late night talk show hosts were ready to make fun of Trump when he lost? Don't you remember the banner on (unbiased?) MSNBC after the election proclaiming "The Obituary of America". Overconfidence led to laziness before the election and surprise and despair afterwards.
"It’ll be the first time we can really say we have a conservative court, really the first time since the 1930s.”
That statement should give everyone pause. What happened in the 1930's? Right, rising nationalism, a great depression, a world war and the holocaust. And this is something we want?
4
In simple but cogent terms the civil rights issues we've been
fighting over, namely, integration and religiously based conflicts
such as the right to abortion and freedom to choose one's
sexual preference, remain fundamental our divided society.
Thanks God a wise, conservatively oriented Chief Justice
had the good sense to find that discrimination based upon
race discriminated against black people. But what I continue
to have great trouble understanding is how and why conservative
minded people still refuse to honor our constitutionally guaranteed separation between church and state. One can
believe anything one wishes, or not believe at all, if this does
not affect others. And while I know some of the connected issues
are legally more complex, what it all comes down to is the willingness to extend these most basic freedoms to others.
Eg, nobody's telling a woman who doesn't seek an abortion
that she must have one. But upon religious grounds to insist
that she has no choice or that a gay couple does not have
the right to be served in a bakery really steps upon what, at least
for now, we still remain as a society of laws, namely, free.
3
The most religiously focused people always opposed having to live in a secular state since the Constitution was adopted as the law over our federal government. Many refused to participate in it because they considered it ungodly. A secular state had to tolerate behaviors which did not interfere with civic life but which were sinful according to religious beliefs. Allowing people to lose their souls was not freedom to pious believers. That included toleration of contrary religious beliefs, too. Freedom is to be found in following God’s will, and God for most believers has only one will, one good path, what they believe.
1
Let's all hope that we can all stop hearing the conservatives of all stripes whining about being persecuted and victims. They are shaping the country in their image of the future. They will own the future now and the blame game rings hollow to those of us who still think and analyze for ourselves. I suggest they man up or woman up, as the case may be, and be proud of what they are accomplishing instead of acting like victims and trying to blame others for their own failures.
1
KAVANAUGH'S Law School Professor had high praise for his former student, saying that he is briliant, open-minded and fair. In fact, the professor said that the only other judge around who could match Kavanaugh's achievements would be Garland Merrick,Obama's nominee who was never even given a hearing by the Senate. I wouldn't be so sure that the Court now has a "reliable conservative majority." Judges are known for being independent in their attempts to administer justice, on the bench of the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
4
The time was right for a more conservative Supreme Court as our country was swinging too far left in no small part due to some of the recent Court's decisions. President Trump promised he would appoint more conservative Supreme Court justices and he is fulfilling his promise. This is why many voted for him and unlike past presidents he keeps his word.
This is so exciting for those on the right who have been waiting for this day to come. There are some important cases on the docket, and helpfully they will be decided upon in a more balanced manner. We have waited a long time to see this new day and it was worth the wait.
1
Is the judicial system becoming Trump's "deep state?" Probably more consequential than the bureaucracy about which he constantly complains.
Or "the destruction of any pretense of an actual democratic, communitarian political process by the most revanchist and wealthy in the US was decades in the making". The pendulum always swings between wealth /power completely obliterating the lives of everyone else and almost completely doing so.
A somewhat unrelated question.... why are the justices overwhelmingly Catholic and Jewish? Personally, I'm not sure that the justices place the tenets of their faith above the US Constitution; however, surely someone's faith informs their interpretations of law to a degree. It just seems odd that the makeup of the court does not reflect the makeup of the country.
4
One of the first things this article should mention is the millions spent by billionaires to make this happen. For example, shipping magnate Uihlein has donated millions over the years to groups like the Federalist Society that work to orient the judiciary in a more conservative direction. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/business/economy/labor-court-conserva...
2
I've seen these Doomsday prophecies before, and oddly, they come out only during Republican administrations. Remember how Roe v. Wade (it's always Roe v. Wade, as if that's the only decision in the history of the court) was going to be "gutted," "decimated," and utterly "destroyed" after Reagan's appointments? Remember how Bushes One and Two would drive America back into the Jim Crow era? And now this. This time, it really is Doomsday! Again.
4
Justices of the Supreme Court, of course, can be impeached too. And Gorsuch should be impeached for the despicable conspiracy by which Republicans nominated him.
1
Conservatives have actually had to do very little except watch as liberals have moved farther and farther left, and now are in the process of being unmasked for the hard left Socialists they are at heart. The Democratic Party would be unrecognizable today to the laborer, factory worker, and even the civil rights workers of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.
5
Democrats and Progressives need to do three things:
1. Stop whining
2. Don't ever, ever, ever vote for anything Trump wants. Ever
3. Keep repeating the same lines again, and again, and again and again. All the time
4. Get a catchy simple, short phrase (see item #3)
America's attention span is as short as a toothpick. So whatever you say has to be short and very easy to understand
This country is going down the tubes very fast. And this Supreme Court pick just gave it a huge shove.
Like all Empires, the US will eventually fall and become a second rate country.
10
After decades of backing up, capitulating to liberal policies-- it is a great time to be a Conservative in America again. Republicans hold the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the vast majority of state houses and governorships. And now--we are one confirmation away from a decades-long Conservative majority on the Supreme Court. At long last, liberalism is in retreat.
Finally... our laws and statutes will be interpreted according to the Constitution--and not the progressive sensitivities of liberal judges who believe social justice is their mission. Not more legislating from the bench.
Finally...5 decades of destructive liberal policies are being rolled back, one-by-one, and America will finally be restored to its promise--as a land of freedom, individual initiative and responsibility, free markets, and prosperity.
This had to happen folks. Donald Trump was inevitable. We could not have continued the path we were on--over-taxed, over-regulated, being stomped on by political correctness in an economic morass feeding on eternal malaise.
America is back--and for those of us who are not liberal, we expect this to be the best time of our lives. You can either join the party--or bask in self-immolating resentment and envy as the good times roll on.
But for liberals, now it is YOUR time to understand what it is like to be on a decades-long losing streak--and to watch helplessly as your beloved culture and policies are dismantled.
6
Well, since most posters like you are rejoicing in conservative victory. I suggest a parallel: The bombing of Pearl Harbor and Yamamoto realizing that to loosely paraphrase had awakened the sleeping tige
The outrage of nastiness and hate by Trump has now energized the liberals. No, liberalism is about to come back in spades. Watch the millenials in action.
2
Conservatives who want to undo rulings that brought justice and equality before the law removing a lot of hypocrisy and enabling of some to hold privileges over others and the laws to repress them have no moral authority. Roe v Wade was just and respectful of the moral authority assured by freedom of conscience. The law does not condone murder as self proclaimed ‘pro-life’ advocates assert. That is based upon an unproven hypothesis unsupported by biology. The complications and risks of pregnancy are too case dependent for determining the better decision for anyone of them with a simple overarching law.
Democrats look like bumbling naïfs. Republicans have been in it for the long game, assiduously doing their homework for decades while Democrats fingered their peace beads and sang Pete Seeger songs around the campfire, hoping for a better world. Perhaps, instead of blaming Republicans for where we are today, in the final death throes of a 242 year old democracy, we should blame Democrats for not putting in the work to defend it. We hear only deafening radio silence and crickets from Pelosi and Schumer as their country crumbles around them. I’m so disgusted with them. I cannot wait to see the back of either of them and I hope November shows them the door after a leadership fight. The only thing Pelosi has fought for is her own position.
7
Trump picks a far right winger who, with 4 other radical extremists, cement an ugly misogynist oligarchy. Unlimited money in politics? Sure. Gut unions? Yep. Strip women of control over their own bodies? Of course. Corporations have more rights than actual people? Naturally.
And, lest we forget, this judge has written that a president is above the law while in office. Trump can’t be held criminally liable for anything he’s done.
Kavanaugh is a “two-fer”.
5
The regressive reactionary forces of authoritarianism, theocracy, bigotry, and/or plutocracy have about won.
Today we are ruled by an OBVIOUSLY devastatingly dangerous MINORITY. If you don't see it that way you are either one of them or otherwise about brain dead.
Give that MINORITY credit for cunning, passion, drive, and focus. And a certain "morality" in that at least they believe in fighting for what they think is right - however wrong it really is.
However give the MAJORITY blame for political apathy, cynicism, willful ignorance, poor planning, lack of attention, squandering of opportunity, lack of conviction, gullibility, and/or parochialism.
This MAJORITY allowed the horror show! They ignored every reason to KNOW what's the right thing or they failed to take voting thoughtfully and seriously.
Yes the MINORITY is about to tangibly put in decline our modernity, progress, and noble egalitarianism
But the sin of it happening lies with the MAJORITY!
Thanks to the MAJORITY's lack of support for "by and for the People" liberal democracy we are about to be hard cast into a Plutocracy tinged with theocratic and racial demagoguery.
Our place as a Nation will diminish in History - an experiment in uplifting humankind that horribly failed for lack of commitment to the greater good when that commitment was most important.
Soon we will lose the ONLY "jury like thing" we had to nullify the tyranny of egotistical/theocratic/plutocratic actors.
Scary! So sad!
A good conservative pick. What's wrong with that?
5
The Republicans are good thieves, I will give them that.
They plotted and conspired for years, until they were able to steal the Obama seat.
But they are not doing it for any ideological reason, they are doing it for their masters, the Americans oligarchs, who are intent on making America just another Russia, with a present court system, pretend democracy, and pretend media.
There is no such thing as a good Republican.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
9
Let us not orget that Nixon appointed two conservatives one of whom became liberal and wrote Roe v Wadw. Reagan did the same with Kennedy, Scalia and O'Conner. O'Conner became moderate and Kennedy becae the swing Vote. George H. played the race card and named tain Let us hope. \ed Thomas who forgor what brought him up to his status - not Nixon and Reagan but Martin Luther King. Scalia was what I called intellectuallu ccurrupt religious supremacist. Will Roberts become the new moderate?
Also et us not forget that the we Democrats lost the election first in 2008 when we elected a biracial presidwnr inciting white supremacists and then in 2010 by giving them the cover called the Tea Party. What can democrats do now? Can we have a labor-student party?
I find it particularly disturbing and sad that the author of this article neglects to inform the readers that the Democrats have their own version of The Federalist Society.
It’s called the American Constitution Society since 2001.
And guess what it is modelled after? Surprise, Surprise... The Federalist Society.
It would have have been nice to allow even the slightest balance to the article.
Instead this article allows the reader to believe that Republicans are the Big Bully of judge selection who just took the Democratic kids bike.
12
Haven’t the Democrats done the same thing to turn the court to the left?
2
Should we roll back to permitting slavery? That was enshrined in the Constitution ...along with the assertion that a corporation is really a person ( a whole person, not 3/5 s of one) and that citizens need not bother wilth joining a “ well- regulated militia,” but can create personal arsenals that are bigger than Montana... speaking of Montana, the Constitution of course stated that ranchers can graze on any land at all even if it’s not theirs without paying for it...wait! None of this stuff is in the Constitution. So much for “originalists.”
And the single minded focus of evangelical voters dedicated to their Republican monopoly promising to deliver prohibition of abortion - what kind of party would the Republicans be without that? They reliably turned up in every election with gay rights on the ballot too. And they been voting for the white Republican men who are felons, rapists, conmen, white supremacists - absolutely anyone so long as they are Republican, ANY Republican promising to fight abortion.
And guess what evangelicals? The oligarchs in charge do not care one whit about abortion. They need to continue to use that issue to keep you at the ballot box. No - the people they are putting into the courts support monopoly, gutting govt regulatory infrastructure such as EPA and FDA, and corruption. Kavanaugh has stated that according to federal law, the govt cannot place an undue burden on the right of a woman to have an abortion. There you have it.
Despite the control of the Senate, the Republicans have failed to deliver. And the hope is that Democrats will overreach, and they can paint the red state Democrats as blue as possible. They want to get you out to vote one more time. They are always wanting more from you, without delivering anything. They will crank up their rage machine, and know you will fall for it one more time.
My prediction - Republicans will drag it out past the midterm vote and use their media machine to blame the Democrats. And the blue state Democrats will be named.
6
...establish a bench firmly committed to their principles."
A frightening statement considering that this bunch has none.
2
How are any of these anti-democratic actions and principles to be labelled “conservative”? By using such a term, the Times gives lawless power grabs the color of respectability.
1
If the jurist matters so much, then we must have a system that is individual or ideology-dependent rather than one where we all agree on "the law". The 30 years of conservative efforts around the judiciary must have been based on the fact that much of "the law" is variable and subject to interpretation. Thus, in many ways the bench is legislating and judges are law-makers as case law becomes de facto law. And they are there forever.
How did we end up with positions that are essentially unaccountable in a country that prides itself on being a meritocracy? In a country and where the branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances on each other, how in the world did we come up with the idea of lifetime appointments for judges?
4
With Citizens United, free speech is determined by the amounts of money a person can spend to have free speech heard. With unions being cut off at the knees by corporate vested interests, only about 10% of the people will actually have free speech. Elections are now rigged to favor big power interests. That means reactionary judges are appointed to serve those corporate interests. People must get registered and vote in primaries and in November, 2018; not only vote, but vote Democratic. It may be the last chance to literally save the Republic for freedom and justice for all. This idea is not original with me, nor is the suggestion to vote Democratic; however, it cannot be repeated enough.
9
This article is half-baked without including the fact that the 2000 election was stolen with Supreme Court political hacks (and Bush 2000 recount staffer Brett Kavanaugh at that time) rigging the Florida vote totals for Republicans, and the tainted, Kremlin-Comey-corrupted 2016 'election' of Trump, who lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes.
It's the willingness of Republicans to repeatedly steal Presidential elections and cheat, with the assistance of partisan Republican 'justices' and a Russian-Republican Congress, and thorough rejection of the will of the people that has allowed for the rise of this radical Robber Baron, Reverse Robin Hood, religious court.
Republicans have stolen democracy and the court system and are hellbent on stealing every last dollar from the middle class, the environment and the US Treasury in their psychopathic lust for power, money and one-party rule.
In the short-term, we can vote and register all the voters that Republicans have suppressed.
In the long-term, we may have fight these Russian-Republican radicals and oligarchs in their mansions, yachts and secret donor meetings.
The country has been stolen.
Donate to democracy.
https://www.voterparticipation.org/support-our-work/donate-to-vpc/
This country is in big trouble.
November 6 2018
59
Move. I did.
1
Evidently “Socrates” has a short memory. In 2008 the Democrats won the Presidency and voters also gave them massive majorities in the House and Senate. Nothing was “stolen” from them. They simply failed to deliver on their false promises.
“Socrates” claim that the “country has been stolen” is true. However, the thieves are members of both corrupt political parties (and their wealthy donors). They have simply taken turns robbing the middle class for the last 40 years.
1
It amazes me that we still see comments about how "we want our country back" when the current administration is a MINORITY-elected government. The moral elitism of the right is the height of hubris, but the left seems ill-equipped to deal with it.
7
It's not as if the information was hidden. Way before the Internet, Joe McCarthy was on TV spewing the hatred.
Then clown Reagan sold us the tax cuts which effectively destroyed the middle class.
Anywhere along the line people could have said NO, and many did, but indifference and ignorance prevailed.
So now it's precarious. One more reactionary "judge," then we can abolish clean air, return to child labor, and enjoy government by presidential proclamation.
Are we having fun yet?
15
Why would anyone be surprised that long term planning of cohesive conservatives has beaten the fragmented liberals again.
9
The headline belies the whole truth. We've known for years, since Ronald Reagan, exactly what the goal of the ultra-conservatives is. Republicans targeted local and state government piece by piece until they dominated those state, city and municipal governments. Also, they target the least educated and unworldly voters who couldn't separate facts and real history from propaganda of party ideologues. Republicans also created Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. For the last 30 years Democrats abandoned their base. They abandoned the middle class shipping jobs overseas while trying to build Democracies at the expense of our workers, our families and our cities and neighborhoods. Bill Clinton might have felt our pain but it didn't bother him. He created Nafta and killed manufacturing. Obama sold us out too with his cold elitism and the gutting of our military. And of course Hillary when asked about our outsourced jobs and factories she remarked cavalierly "Those jobs are not coming back." Now Dems are complaining about another conservative Supreme Court appointee by a president who bullies the weak and the world. The so-called Moral Majority won by being immoral conservative Republicans. Civil rights are being eliminated. Women's rights will disappear as will the right to abortion and perhaps even birth control. Minorities will have less power and fewer rights. Blacks have no future. Immigration, the life blood of America's diversity is in jeopardy. Conservative won everything.
5
It is a remarkable accomplishment. Conservatives, whose views are not supported by the majority of people in this country, dominate every branch of government and next the Supreme Court.
29
Good article. It catches the flavor of what happened when Goldwater lost in 1964. Even before that election, Ronald Reagan saw how the wind was blowing. His seminal speech, now remembered by the title “A time for choosing,” repeated the “individual freedom” themes that had flourished before the Civil War. When Nixon won the White House, he launched the Southern Strategy. The GOP ceased to be the party of Lincoln and became the party of greed and of racism. As a result, the Democratic Party was forced to identify itself with a different constituency, which included the urban poor and disadvantaged blacks. Among the ongoing rightward moves, was the formation of the Federalist Society (1982), a collection of jurists thought of as strict constructionists and/or originalists. For a time, it seemed that the only American jurists who knew the hearts of the Framers were Roman Catholics. Scalia was a member of that society, as were Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, all Catholic. Kavanaugh is also Catholic and a member of the FS. Peter Baker is right: this right-wing coup was long in the making. Why did so few see that happening?
13
There is a very simple reason that we have been pushing to make the Supreme Court more conservative. It's because the liberal judges has usurped their power to interpret the law and instead forced the liberal agenda upon us. We want our country back, based on the rule of law and the Constitution. Thank God for Trump.
2
except he breaks the law...
1
Please define this for me: "We want our country back, based on the rule of law and the Constitution".
I am open minded but back from what? Who's rule of law, or better yet, where can I read this 'rule of law'?
I look forward to your reply Jon.
Checks and Balances 2.0 and "judicial incrementalism" (SCOTUS composition): https://www.fundamentalreform.org/
How we appoint Justices to the Supreme Court and maintain them on it needs fundamental reform.
Life tenure for SCOTUS Justices injects unnecessary uncertainty, risk, and, ultimately, polarization into our political process; and each of these negative aspects will intensify as life expectancy increases in the coming years. The ideal for our representative democracy is that no majority (conservative, liberal, or other) can disproportionately impact the political direction of its country. Life tenure for US Supreme Court Justices all but guarantees this will happen.
Please go to Checks and Balances 2.0 at https://www.fundamentalreform.org/ and read about the checks and balance that “judicial incrementalism” would provide. While the concept is not perfect, I believe it is on the right track and could provide a better way forward to manage the appointment and maintenance of our Supreme Court Justices.
2
This is the number one reason why I voted for Mr. Trump and he has delivered. I shudder to think of what this country would be like if Bill Clinton’s wife had won.
5
You're about to find out JP. I hope you are rich, white, catholic and made of teflon. Then the conservative changes will slide off with no problem. However if you're only two of the three, rough road ahead for your weakest link.
Wait and see ... you will be shuddering in the future, along with the poor , what little will remain of the middle class , and the people of color... unless ,of course, your are a white , wealthy middle age man.
It is a pity that the only real criteria required for appointment are the opposing traits of blind loyalty to an ideology and dedication to the law.
The real issue is that the Senate is ridiculously un democratic. Half of the U.S. population lives in 9 states so 161 million Americans in those states are represented by 18 Senators while the rest of America gets 82 Senators. The Senate and also the Electoral College does not even come close the representing the majority of Americans.
As for court appointees,make all nominees pass by 60 votes......yeah right. They would not even have a hearing on Merrick Garland.
12
Darryl:
You will recall that for many decades ALL judicial nominees used to require 60 votes. That was true right up until 2013. Unfortunately, Harry Reid (fueled by the heady euphoria of the Democrats holding a majority in the Senate and apparently not considering the possibility that their majority might be other than permanent) then decided that having to get 60 votes was just too inconvenient and also limited the majority's god-given right to run roughshod over the minority. So he eliminated the filibuster for judicial (but not SCOTUS) appointments. McConnell simply finished Reid's purge of the minority protections by extending the filibuster ban to cover SCOTUS appointments.
Everybody thank Harry for his wisdom and foresight!
1
My primary concern in the last election, like millions of Americans, was upcoming nominations to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump has done exactly as promised and I suspect he will get additional nominations as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not going to stay so she can write dissenting opinions. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor will be marginalized, likely given only corporate decisions of little importance as the Court moves to the right.
1
No thought given, of course, to a search for the best, the brightest, or the wisest. The only thing that matters to the right is their own obsolete ideology, and the power to inflict it upon the rest of us. Selling out to corporate, plutocratic, and even Russian interests is a price they're perfectly happy to pay.
The United States used to be a beacon of progress and a reliable foe of the despots and tyrants of the world. It's the cowardly retreat from that position of leadership that most saddens me.
39
Judging by the current and planned composition, I would say that the making of the present Supreme Court must date back more than decades. I would say several centuries, dating back to the Spanish Inquisition.
9
The effort to push the American justice system to a more favorable position with respect to judicial conservatism and reactionary right wing interests ...here decoupled...began decades earlier than cited in the article.
In the 1950's, wealthy right-wingers seeded "law and economics" centers at law schools scattered across the nation. These centers inoculated, then in decades to come fertilized, notions associated with the theme that the price system, market economics, was coupled in the Constitution with democracy, freedom, and individualism. They partnered with newly formed and equally-well funded university economics centers mirroring what we call today Chicago School Economics. Together, they oversaw the evolution of American judicial thought as a bastion for protecting, then for advancing, then interests of the already advantaged, America's 21st Century oligarchs.
12
The same reactions would occur regardless of who Trump picked. Who else among the likely nominees would have caused a different reaction from the left? Trump was going to pick a conservative. It was one of the ways that he cemented his nomination and he has to keep that promise, just like he has to keep pumping for a wall he's not likely going to get unless the rise of socialists in the D party so focuses conservative and even moderates that we wind up with a few more R senators.
It is just my opinion, but, while some chipping away at Roe (or Casey) is not unlikely, I do not see a 5-4 court overturning it, and it mostly comes down to Roe, despite all the faux personal attacks, horror at his decisions and outrage over a supposed connection to torture memos we will see in the hearings. If hypothetically, BK vowed not to overturn Roe, he wouldn't face a real challenge. He's not going to say that, of course, but will almost certainly testify like he did in 2006, politely refusing to answer questions. The D Senators know what questions to ask to get the stone wall and many questions will simply be attempts to smear Trump, like "If the president declares martial law, will you let him?" Don't be surprised, b/c what the hearing will really be about - is the next election.
I hope the administration understands it is not unlikely Kavanaugh and even his family could be bullied or attacked in public, given the new tactics we are seeing.
6
Decades to come?! If the US government rolls-back our rights and freedoms, there won’t be a nation to speak of. The US government will rightfully be overthrown and replaced with a government that reflects the will of The People, rather than the will of an un-popular President who is in office simply due to the Electoral College, a GOP who maintains power through gerrymandering districts, and a government where business has more rights and protections than its citizens. If we once again be a nation of taxation without representation, this messy experiment will have come to an end and we will be forced to create a new system of government. There is only one way for this ship to sail on its current course, and that is towards doom.
5
Hey Dan, the States are doing a good job of taxation without representation on their own. Get out the vote next time if you don't like it.
There is nothing "rightful" about overthrowing and replacing the U.S. government because of an unpopular president. Be patient with this "messy experiment" because extreme righteousness portends more doom than the status quo.
The Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have a sworn duty to use it as their guiding principle in every decision. That is it. They are not there to help any political side achieve what it could not through the legislative process. If you want change, do it the right way. Through the ballot box
29
The Constitution, especially its meaning, is a living document, always subject to the reality, values, and biases held by the justices reading and applying it.
4
I take it you don't believe in the appeals process. That's how cases get to the Supreme Court, you know. The legislative is but one branch of our government. We need all three.
3
I think this way over the top analysis of "grooming" judges over decades.
The problem here is the so called presidential election that did not get mentioned.
If this POTUS had not triumphed - we would be talking about an entirely different ball game. The Conservatives would be grooming for another 3 decades.
While it is true that justice Souter is a poster child of what can go wrong when even a president is misled - I think if the 43rd had enough political capital left (Iraq had drained most of it) - he could have prevailed with Ms. Harriet.
This POTUS having made a bargain with Republican establishment - with that list - has no choice but to go that list.
If in his next term - two appointments open up - there is no telling what this POTUS would do. And not that there is anything wrong - because it is his duty and obligation.
3
I'd like to see some reporting if Kavanaugh picked by Kennedy, not Trump...locked and loaded during the months the administration threw rose petals on Kennedy's path to retirement.
11
Volumes will be written and spoken about the new Supreme Court nominee.It would be important to remember that Mr.Trump is involved in an inquiry into Russian influence on our election.His case could come before the Court and he was careful to select a judge who would look favorably on legal entanglements of presidents.The famous "fixer " for Joseph McCarthy was Roy Cohn.He famously said," I don't want to know what the law is-I want to know who the judge is".Mr. Trump knew and admired Roy Cohn.He has followed his advice- he has picked his own Judge.
47
Therein lies the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives had a plan and relentlessly pursued it in a coordinated fashion for years, showing remarkable planning. Liberals get caught with their pants down, show up after the fact and all they can do is post online, create hashtags and protest in the streets once it’s too late.
To this day, there isn’t a single non-conservative candidate being floated as a possible alternative to Trump for the 2020 elections, which are only 28 months away.
81
We can’t handle 8 years of Trump. His negatives do outweigh his positives. The Dems need to find a moderate to run, and fast. Runnng someone from the far left will lose the center and further embolden Trump and his supporters. Feels like nobody from the Left wants to stake a claim?
6
The hashtaggery in particular not only has exactly zero benefit (dear Islamist terrorists, please, please hashtag bring back our girls! um...we have cookies?), but solidifies the tag-team stupid fad of systematically creepy InstaFace and institutionally bigoted Twitter—both of which are on the record as supporting both Russian datamining and adblitzing, and covfefean bigotry and cruelty. The only hero in both marketing websites (don't call them "social media") is the one who deleted "covfefe" from Twitter as his last task on the job.
But the response to field a moderate, which is to say a caver like President Obama (sane as he otherwise was), is absurd when we need impeachment for the dotard and all on down the line of succession. When we waive the punitive damages they've earned and just "look forward" as with Obama on the Cheney/Dubya/Rice torture scheme or say "It is over" when Biden had a chance to stop the s'Electoral count, the GOP simply grows bolder and thanks us for our foolish chivalry.
Those bullies need bruises, not benedictions.
How does a country start a constitutional crisis? Slowly, slowly, then all of the sudden to paraphrase Hemingway.
Your crisis has arrived whether you know it or not; and you are not ready for it. It is more than the installation of another rabid conservative justice. It is more than a deeply and uniquely unqualified president. It is more than money polluting the political process. It is more than a congress that gives away trillions to the 1% and exacerbates inequality. It is more than yet another forever war quagmire.
It is all of that and more.
Your archaic constitution is a marvel of an 18th century document. It is the 21st century however and a lot has changed. You can either anticipate events and modernize, or you can sleepwalk into another civil war.
92
@ D Priest: You fail to appreciate our constitution for the monument to undemocracy that it is. Our electoral system allows for a President to be elected with a minority of the popular vote. Our Senate can block any legislation, while allowing only two votes per state regardless of population count. Our House of Representatives was democratically flawed by design, but that has been corrected by gerrymandering. Where else would you find such a marvel of political engineering?
5
Question number one for Judge Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings: In your meetings with President Trump, did he ask for your personal loyalty to him?
Given what we know about comments the president has made to other members of the government, that should be first question for anybody taking part in the confirmation hearings.
52
Trump didn't need to ask that question. Kavanaugh had been fully vetted long before that.
4
As a Libertarian it truly sadness me to see what the Supreme Court has become.
The Supreme Court exists for a singular reason. To ensure that the Constitution is upheld. Period.
Sadly, as time passes, the Supreme Court has grabbed and gained more power then it ever was intended to have. And the two major political parties in this country treat it as their own personal Politboro. As if they exist only to rubber stamp their pet issues.
The Supreme Court does not exist to ENSURE that abortion remains legal or whether corporations are people with First Amendment rights. It exists to ensure that the CONSTITUTION is being adhered to.
That appears to be lost on vast swaths of our populace.
54
The path of liberal judges interpretation of laws according to their own personal views was a dangerous path. Separation of powers and rule of law are sacrosanct.
This man will interpret laws as written, restoring balance of power. For those who believe in democracy and congressional power to write law, this is a fine choice.
For those with intellectual honesty who can put aside their own views, we know this man will serve the court (and country) well.
24
“Laws as written” excluded black people, women, “laws as written” could not and did not have to deal with changes in technology, science, society ..... I guess the so called “originalists” are fine with that. And they are fine w and wish to “take America back” ..... to the 1700s. A time when mainly straight white property owning men were allowed to vote.
Guess what folks, We probably are on our way back there. Did any of us ever believe that the right wing (mainly) white power structure in this country would roll over and accept the browning of America? The (brilliant from their POV) long term strategic plan to stack all levels of the courts w “conservative” judges has borne fruit. Our nation will be much the worse for it. :(
24
Of course a group that feels threatened wouldn't accept it. But that group is getting smaller and smaller and over time, it will be the one that is assimilated, just like that group assimilated so many others. Your comments seem to indicate that this is some sort of a resurgence, that in the long term that we will go back to the 1700s. It's possible but I think highly unlikely. I think the browning of the US and the world will continue and the countries that adapt best to it will do well. I think what we're seeing is the death throes of a group that has become a minority.
The way we go back to the 1700s is if we lose hope. I love in NY and you're in NJ, so I think it's easy for us to become cynical since even a conservative Republican from these states tend to not to be so rabidly conservative (even Christie had his moments) and our votes don't count for much since the liberal majority is strong here. However, nationally, in terms of the electoral college, only a few states need to continue their browning for things to shift.
What I would hope for is that the new US continues to uphold the ideals of its founders minus the mistakes. For a while that seemed to be the case but these days I'm not sure. I guess all empires decline.
Same claims made with every conservative. Conservative judges are arbitrary and personal. The path of conservative judges interpretation of laws according to their own personal views is a dangerous path. Separation of powers and rule of law are sacrosanct.
5
Let us be very clear. The origins of conservatism were in the structures of the powers of the upper classes to preserve their wealth and influence. The status quo let them make decisions and denied others their ability to participate in society except as peonlabor. Conservatism resists change against the arc of progress of democracy. These are the expansion of rights of all citizens without regard to gender, color or sexual orientation. Conservatives use religion as a bludgeon and tool of the state. Look at the church in russia. The treatment of money as power as Citizens United is the ultimate test of this philosophy. We see money buying congress and there is no money trail about where it comes from and what it is buying. We see McConnell staging a constitution al coup in denying President Obama his responsibility to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and then smirking Neil Gorsuch taking an illegitimate seat on that court. And now another smirker on the court.
36
The GOP's main objective has always been to control SCOTUS. Controlling SCOTUS is the grand slam that ends the ball game. Control SCOTUS & you win the Cultural wars. Control SCOTUS & you destroy the liberal agenda once & for all. If the GOP can pull this off they control the political process for another generation whether they win elections or not. To do this they need to win one more Presidential election. That will put them in a position to nominate 3-4 very conservative Supreme Court justices. That's why they are putting up with Trump for now. Trump has gotten two Supreme Court appointments, he may well get more, and he’s moved more quickly on lower-court appointments than Obama did. The legal arm of the conservative movement is probably the best organized, most far-reaching and far-seeing sector of the Right. They truly are in it — and have been in it — for the long game. Control the Supreme Court, stack the judiciary, and you can stop the progressive movement, no matter how popular it is, no matter how much legislative power it has, for decades. All other priorities are rescinded. Archimedes said give me a place to stand & I will move the world. With this embrace of the judiciary the Right has found it's lever & place to stand. Long after Trump is gone, the GOP will rely on the judiciary — & behind that, the Constitution — to protect, enlarge, & consolidate their gains. Why is the MSM just figuring this out? This story has been right in front of them for decades.
23
The same doggedly determined, lushly financed project to pack the judiciary with reliably conservatives has been promulgated at all levels of government by the same handful of right wing plutocrats that has given us the Freedom Caucus, Tea Party and ALEC. As a result, Congress’ ability to pass meaningful, bipartisan legislation that benefits the majority of Americans has come to a screeching halt. In response, the presidency has become excessively powerful and we have relied far too much on the judiciary to rewrite poorly crafted legislation and to occasionally create new laws out of whole cloth. What is needed is a return to the balance of powers that our founders intended, and that means a return to the principles of democratic representation that Congress is supposed to provide.
But we are constrained by our Constitution, that venerable 18th century document that is proving to be a poor fit for an urban, multicultural and technologically complex society. It’s inherent structural flaw, which gives disproportionate power to sparsely populated, rural states, has been exploited along with gerrymandering to embed anti-majoritarian rule. Therefore, despite the fact that more Americans vote Democratic than Republican at all levels of federal elections, we are stuck with an increasingly reactionary Republican Congress that is proving difficult to dislodge.
But the answer may lie with electoral reform along the lines of California and Maine's approach...
42
I agree 100% - Obama said elections has consequences and we should let all Trump nominees sail thru as Americans knew the list beforehand and overwhelmingly elected Trump.
This, I think, points out the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives for decades have methodically been building an infrastructure that enables them to rule this country with the support of a minority of the population. Liberals, and I'm one of them, seem to have no such discipline. "I belong to no organized political party" Will Rogers once famously said "I'm a Democrat."
Mainstream Democrats also seem to be incapable of articulating an appealing vision of what they want our future to look like and how they propose to get us there. Despite pages and pages of well thought out position papers, Hillary Clinton's message in the end fell flat. Barak Obama, that great orator, was able to build castles of hope and change in the air but in the end he did little to help his party adapt to a changing world and by handing its infrastructure back to the same dour "professionals" who nearly destroyed it before his successful campaign, has hurt it.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Trump wants to bring us back to the 1950s--minus the strong unions that helped build a viable middle class of course. Mainstream Democrats rail against Bernie Sanders, but at least that grumpy old socialist has a vision of what he'd like America to look like 20 years from now. The message I get from Democrats is "Suck it up--it ain't getting any better--but at least we're not Trump."
FDR must be spinning in his grave.
52
I enjoyed reading brooklyncowgirl's insights. My only addition would be to point-out the difference between "rule" and "govern". It appears that the democratics would prefer to rule, rather than to govern. President Obama demonstrated that with his phone and pen methodology. His legacy is melting fast due to an inability to manage the governance of legislation. Congress' inability to legislate on the big issues has created the "vacuum" that is being filled by the judiciary.
1
Perhaps you may want to revisit the liberal agenda and understand that you are on the wrong side of history. If liberals were truly open about their goals they would never hold a majority or the Presidency. They have used the courts to legislate what the American people didn't vote for.
1
Great term for them, smirker. I hope it catches on. We older people think of them as Eddie Haskells, a fearless conservative from the immortal television series 'Leave It To Beaver.' Eddie always seemed less than sincere when talking to people he wished to manipulate.
During this nomination debate little will be said about the ideological politics that masquerades as judicial philosophy.
Law schools teach that there are different "judicial philosophies" and conservatives usually support "original intent" or a strict interpretation of the law, rather than an expansive one.
This, they argue keeps the judiciary from playing a legislative role. It all sounds good, but in reality it simply masks the naked exercise of power of the court in service to a more ideologically based agenda.
The law is not simply a neutral tool designed to support our democracy by keeping each branch of government in line with certain basic principles, derived from the constitution.
Ideology not law gave us Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and a host of criminal procedure cases that have turned due process of law into a fiction.
There is a right-wing agenda behind each of these decisions and there was nothing inherent in those cases that compelled the result.
Our laws and the court are a part of government and have always functioned as part of politics and ideology.
This is not to say that judges simply do what they please. There are rules in the judicial arena. But there also is an ideological agenda in the law and on the court that the people rarely see.
But if you want to see it in full form read how conservatives created the corporation as a person from whole cloth and turned it into law. Original intent? Hardly, this is the politics of law.
17
Thank goodness for strict Constitutional conservatives. Imagine where America would go if the current Democrats, liberals and progressives had their way. Open borders. Free college for everyone. The end of I.C.E. Guaranteed jobs and incomes. Onerous taxation. The gutting of our military. The Democrat agenda today would be the end of America and capitalism, replaced by a one world order and socialism. See how that worked out for the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela.
15
Seriously hope you are saying this with tongue firmly in cheek.
heaven forbid liberals and progressives have their way. After all, if wasn't for them, conservatives could have had their way earlier and we could still have child labor and women wouldn't be able to vote.
2
We advocate better family planning to avoid a global population catastrophe. No wall you can build will hold back billions of people migrating as local ecosystems break down from amplified climate stresses.
2
Interestingly enough, Conservatives have moved much further right than Dems have moved left. Elected Dems are much more likely to be centrist voters than Reps are. This bipartisan blog that assess the function of Congress found that "Over the past four decades the average Republican’s vote score has unquestionably moved farther right than Democrats have pulled left." There is a nice graph in this article to help visualize.
http://www.legbranch.com/rule22blog/2015/05/28/left-or-right-whos-furthe...
Here is another that shows the particular polarization of House Republicans. https://voteviewblog.com/2015/02/10/an-early-look-at-polarization-in-the...
In many ways, it's our own fault for uncritically participating in the charade that insists the law can be interpreted and applied in some clinical, "unbiased" fashion, as if the Constitution were a complicated and delicate piece of machinery that only requires a skilled technician and proper inputs before churning out an absolute, infallible truth. I maintain that Republicans pretend to believe this in bad faith, as evidenced by their shrewd and systematic approach to the judiciary, while Democrats believe if they just explain it well enough, any observer will understand the truth is on their side. And we wring our hands and wonder why we keep getting steamrolled.
All judges are advocates before they become jurists. In law school, we're taught to see and argue both sides of a legal question. Our very training assumes that there is no secret waiting to be revealed, only a set of manipulable facts and a body of legal doctrine from which you can pick the principles that will achieve your desired result. Judges are people, and every person has a mostly-subconscious moral framework that determines who deserves to prevail and who doesn't. (See George Lakoff's fantastic body of work if you really want to dig into this. It's groundbreaking.) This isn't some sort of original sin, it's a fact of human cognition.
We are self-deluding fools for engaging in the willful blindness that allows this civic mythology of the all-but-holy, impartial judge to persist, decade after decade.
13
The future of our elected branches of government is likely going to be center left to left. Millennials are more liberal, more open to socialism, less religious. The people who voted in Trump are disproportionately old. Corporations need educated workers and affluent customers and so actively work to support socially liberal policies and locate in areas with socially liberal laws. The Sun Belt gets bluer as millennials flock to Austin and Atlanta and the Hispanic population grows in Texas and Florida.
Gay rights and marriage aren't going anywhere.
Contraception isn't going anywhere.
Women's financial independence isn't going anywhere.
Even if Roe were overturned (a very big if) abortion will certainly remain legal for the majority of the country and might even get legislative wins in "red" America when the consequences of illegal abortion are felt.
The make up of the Supreme Court will affect none of these things.
But in the next 30 years, as the big blue wave swells in legislatures and executive branches, those of us in the middle - moderates, centrists - those who want neither a reactionary return to the 50s nor socialist solutions and government programs running every bit of our lives, are going to be very, very glad to have a conservative Supreme Court as a check on all the emergent Ocasio-Cortez clones.
Best of luck to Judge Kavanaugh.
17
When that generational wave finally hits, I'll be sure to advocate mandatory term limits for Supreme Court Justices then. 18 years sounds about right.
"Even if Roe were overturned (a very big if) abortion will certainly remain legal for the majority of the country and might even get legislative wins in "red" America when the consequences of illegal abortion are felt."
Roe v. Wade will be overturned. But that won't be the end of it. Next will come a federal ban on abortion, which will be upheld by SCOTUS.
You disagree? Haven't you been surprised enough yet?
If you would like a reasonable prophesy I would suggest that the USA has not got another thirty years. The outlook from my side of the border and one which finds almost complete denial from your intelligentsia both left and right except when the conversation returns to government where neither side listens to each other and there is no room for compromise.
The executive, legislative and judiciary have virtually no credibility outside your border. The relentless war on your middle class will exact a heavy toll. The Newspeak of the right will come up against the dictionary meaning of middle class and the greatness that was America will be shown to have been the largest most empowered middle-class that ever was. You will cease having the engine that drives modern nation states an educated vast competent middle class and you will be another Russia.
Russia is the ideal GOP state with a state religion, a corrupt judiciary, a rubber stamp legislature and a plutocracy that lives elsewhere. Like Russia you will have a concentration of wealth and power in very few hands and an economy though rich in resources smaller than Italy's.
I am 70 years old and I see the past and I see the future and your leadership cannot compete with women and those hungry to grasp the future and know the future is not the past.
You want to see your future look at the most conservative white male dominated theocracy and plutocratic nation on Earth, Mother Russia.
2
That is because the Democrats are trying to square a circle -- they want to be "for the people" but only as long as it doesn't offend the wealthy Funding Fathers.
7
One suspect the Koch boys must regale in the shabbiness of the US below them, where everywhere is flyover country.
Kavanaugh is chosen to be an anchor set to windward.