Projection…the false religion”progressive” intellectual Marxianity has considered the Supreme Court as a wholly own subsidiary since 1965.
“It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821
“The best general key for the solution of questions of power between our governments is the fact that 'Every foreign and federal power is given to the Federal Government, and to the States every power purely domestic.'” Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824
Our Creator exists and will decide who sits on a Supreme Court tasked with defending a Constitution with His personal imprimatur. I have said it before and I will say it again, I will pray for Justice Ginsburg.
The acting head of Justice Department is on record as saying only Christians should be on the bench. The rest of the world knows this because of the video record.
There is no reason for this debate the acting Attorney General said everything that needed be said. Only Christians should serve on the bench. This puts a new perspective on the refusal to consider Merrick Garland because Matthew Whitaker represents so much of the GOP base and the entirety of the GOP Iowa base as he was joined in his view by Senator Ernst. It is the party of Steve King regardless of the denials.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-judges-christian
1
First, Trump nominated Kavanaugh because he would make sure Trump would avoid whatever comes down the pike from Mueller and ensure his expansive executive powers.
Then, Trump named Whittaker as AG because he would make sure an extra boulder would be placed in the way to anything to come out of Mueller's probe even before it got to SCOTUS.
There is such corruption with Trump.
2
That's the thing about putting people in a no lose situation, (i.e. lifetime appointment), you never know what they're going to do. Especially if it means having them compromise their intellectual and jurisdictional integrity for the likes of Donald Trump, regardless of what they promised him to get the job. Having a career marked by the stain of twisting the law to give Trump a 'get out of jail free card', would be untenable for them.
2
Newt Gingrich said recently that "we'll find out whether Kavanaugh was worth it".
Cynical, bad faith, zero sum politics.
I'm hoping Roberts doesn't want his court remembered for being Trump's tool, jumping over lower courts as if on call for him.
Hoping :/
4
The Supreme Court -- the most prominent and respected of all courts will likely soon prove that the third branch of government is as corrupt and self-serving as the other two.
And it's about time.
Do you have anything else for us, Ms. Greenhouse?
1
I absolutely diasgree with columnist Linda Greenhouse. The US still remains a beacon, a sacrament of the checks and balances of the three basic branches of power. Montesquieu and even Toqueville would agree with yours truly that the SCJ has simply done its job. As a foreigner I find it adeqaute and wonderful to see how a good American like President Trump instead of handing out money to illegal aliens is finally making sure that the organic budget of your country is adequate enough to attend the real population of legal citizens. In less than 2 years Mr Trump has even put many Latinos, whites and Afro americans off food satms and into jobs. Plus has asked his cabinet secs to reduce in 5% their budgets. And magistrates like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the best of the best. Americans should rejoice that finally some one is putting things in order, that their country is being respected and envied by the rest of nations.
2
I lost all faith in the integrity of the Supreme Court in 2000, when they stopped the vote count and declared George W. Bush president. The Citizens United decision really made it obvious to me that the Supreme Court was owned by the rich just like the other two branches. The Trumplicans will have no trouble at all with this court.
4
If the POTUS and members of the Congress have term limits, why is it different for Justices of the Supreme Court?
Has it got to be the POTUS who has to nominate to fill in a vacancy at the SCOTUS?
At the State level, do potential Judges not go through the electoral process?
Today, we are questioning who owns the Supreme Court, the role of the Supreme Court, and whether the Supreme Court is or would act impartially? Or whether there is impartiality?
The Opinion today, is also wondering whether the Trump Administration is treating the Supreme Court like a wholly owned subsidiary?
The question we are not asking is whether there is a problem with the System? Is the System due a change? We can blame anyone we want, and point fingers. We may see the System being capitalized, at the expense of flaws, if any. Perhaps, that is where the point of origin is.
2
If Wilbur lied under oath shouldn't he be prosecuted for perjury.
4
It's a political institution not a legal one. It started in that direction years after the Roe decision when conservatives, years after the Roe decision, came up with the new idea that abortion was murder. The Court's been hard right-leaning for 40 years or so. Now, we have judges who were intentionally groomed by the Federalist Society to spout a one-sided view of the Constitution. "Originalism" isn't what it's touted to be. It's really just a judicial blank check the judiciary writes itself to justify re-writing the Constitution by referring to quasi-historical but always uber-selective and privileged references to pre-Constitutional norms. You'll see the Court rip up established precedent just because this group is so much smarter than those previous judges. This Court, in fact, knows so more about the founding of this country than the founding fathers. That's true "originalism."
1
Thank you for your formidable, well written and clear exposure of the drama and, yes, comedy (a tragic comedy undoubtedly, but comedy )regarding what is going on at the highest level of our Court and the Trump "handling" of it with the help undoubtedly now of his new addition to it, another "Supremo." Perhaps, for what is happening at all levels of the political discourse and behavior, the right word to explain all this debacle and lack of ethics is "disaster"
3
My presumption of an impartial Supreme Court was signed away nearly two decades ago by five justices in Bush v. Gore.
Suddenly, the "originalists" who consistently championed states' rights were intervening directly in Florida's selection of Presidential electors. They even included a sheepish mea-culpa: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Yeah, right. In other words, this isn't precedent, it's just our guy needs to be on the bench.
Expect more of the same, until either you or the Supreme Court cease to exist.
49
This piece is chilling to read.There is no comedy about Wilbur Ross lying to Congress about the origin of the census question on citizenship.I hope you keep us apprised , Linda, of all the appeals to the Court from the administration.Our Supreme Court cannot be seen as an arm of the Trump misadministration.He is working mightily to destroy the Justice Department- where will we look for “ Equal Justice Under Law”.
3
Congress should dictate what goes on the census form.
1
This is no laughing matter.
1
We no longer have a Supreme Court, a SCOTUS.
We have a Republican Ideology Enforcement Panel, a RIEP.
Citizens have now 'rieped' what the Federalist Society and multiple alt-right organizations have sown since the emergence of the totalitarian "christian" subversives 40 years ago with the "moral" majority.
Never underestimate how few angry white males it takes to destroy a republic and establish a dictatorship when an under-educated populace is fed constant propaganda..
3
It's not very convincing to make a claim at the start of an essay only to have all your examples prove the opposite.
2
Thank you. What an amazing piece!
Shall we call it an eye-opener, or an eye-popper?
2
"Maybe the administration’s lawyers assume that Justice Anthony Kennedy wasn’t with them back then but that Justice Kavanaugh, his successor, will be with them now."
Well, of course. And in addition to its being a different SC for a request for a writ of certiorari, it is even more importantly a different SC now for all the appeals about to come before the it. Without doubt, we're in for a horrible time in this country, and a truly catastrophic one if, as seems likely, Trump gets another SC appointment. Linda and I (71 and 70) will both be dead a long time before this disaster plays itself out.
2
The Republican Party owns the Supreme Court.
2
Why is it I suspect this column would not have been written if there were a liberal majority instead of a conservative one? No Linda -- no one owns the Supreme Court. And the fact you are unhappy with its current tilt does not alter that fact.
8
@CHM You can't be serious.
13
It is not merely a matter of the court being conservative, it is that it is not aligned with the culture of the nation. A president who lost the popular vote by several million stole an appointment not belonging to him and has now appointed a disproportionate number of justices. The SC should be representative of the nation, and it is not.
17
@CHM Let me ask you, did you vote for Trump so that he would fill the courts with "conservative" justices? If yes, and I suspect you did, you don't even believe what you're saying. And please don't tell me that Trump's conservative justices know how to interpret laws and the constitution properly and that liberal judges do not. The interpretation is a matter of one's approach to the constitution: do I interpret the letter of the law or the spirit? Well, nobody has the absolute answer to that question and will be debating it forever, so please don't assume your side alone owns the truth.
13
Not being qualified to judge who owns the Supreme Court, I should try, nevertheless to point out that the issues behind the question are certainly not comedic in nature, and the people affected by the issues are potentially subject to tragical consequences. It should be remembered, however, that the interpretive role which the Court fulfills is not political. The appointments, in the minds of those who appoint, might be political, but that is as far as it goes. The application of fairness and reason is the substance of the role which the Court plays in the balance of powers. The only way in which bias enters into the judgments is in the case of the use of analogy to interpret the law; what seems a pros pros to some people might not seem so to others as regards the relevance of analogy to the interpretation of law. Human kind is possessed of a tri-parte process as regards the development of conscience or moral sense, that is, the movement from pre-possessions to dissimulations to prejudices. Interpretations of precedents, we hope, are not affected by this process. The question of who owns the Supreme Court is tragi-comic, but not of any real relevance.
1
@Disinterested Party: The quaint notion that a life-term appointment puts judges above the vicissitudes of petty politics is utterly mocked by populating the Court with judges who believe that their rulings in lawsuits could cause God to punish them forever after they're dead.
@Steve Bolger
It seems odd that you should equate a lifetime position with omniscience; that is that the vagaries of pettiness which inhabit the will to power are overshadowed by a desire to unify fairness and reason, the lack of doing so on pain of eternal punishment. No such considerations enter into the minds of justices. There is nothing quaint about some sort of supra political stance being inherent in the position; there is no such notion, at least in the minds of the justices, this picture notwithstanding. Now the idea of a unitary executive as a return favor for a political appointment is wrong-headed as well. Not that a unitary executive is something which is either desirable or implicit in the Constitution. It is not. The Supreme Court does not wield power; it has none. To think otherwise would be to mock the notion of a society under law, something which has adhered since the beginnings of human society.
Anyone who believes the SCOTUS isn't another GOP-run institution looking out for the wealthy and the business class just isn't paying attention. The Roberts court will go down in history as the epitome of debasement an the institution. And Roberts has no one to blame but himself and his fellow GOP turncoats.
@Matt: The Roman Catholic Supreme Court of the United States has been established by abortion politics.
The Supreme Court began its complicity with a plutocracy as far back as the Rehnquist Court. It has continued to move in the direction of fascism and is just one justice away from being an arm of the plutocrats. Justice Ginsburg is not likely to outlast Trump. Things don't look good.
@Bill: Fascism is when the government owns your body and supervises every way you can use it.
Apparently the rule of law in the United States depends on one man -- John Roberts. That is a frightening prospect.
1
@Paul Nelson: Cardinal Roberts is in charge of the meaning of the English Language now. It reminds me of the comic book where the Joker copyrighted the alphabet and held the publishing industry hostage until Superman liberated it.
4
@Steve Bolger Please allow me to correct myself. The Prankster copyrighted the alphabet. The Joker tormented Batman.
4
The Supreme Courtesans have been a branch of the Republican party, ideological conservatives, and the wealthiest .01% for many years.
What does not yet exist are requisite checks and balances upon it, as we have (to some degree) for other branches of government.
It should be required that the court must vote with a Super Majority to overturn an act of Congress, and to overturn a SCOTUS precedent.
In addition, lifetime appointments must end, and a system of limited terms with rigid appointment and retirement timeframes be established.
"Who Owns the Supreme Court?" Let's see... 4 justices are Harvard grads, 4 justices are Yale grads, and one justice is a Columbia grad. I'd say the northeast Ivy League owns the Supreme Court.
2
@Total Socialist: The present US Supreme Court is comprised of 3 Jews and 6 Roman Catholics. There are nine monotheists, and zero atheists, pantheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Taoists etc. etc. etc.
2
Another brilliant update on the saga of that US Supreme Court by the brilliant Ms. Greenhouse. I fear that the line might turn quickly (and irrevocably in my lifetime) to "tragedy" but if anyone can give an even-handed and dare I say whimsical update on the Judiciary it's Ms. Greenhouse, the best Op-Ed writer on the Times' staff.
3
We should all thank Linda Greenhouse for her expertise, writing skills, and conscience, while she brings court information to us in such a timely manner. Thank you.
2
If Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are concerned how history will treat their lives, they should remember that one of the principal functions of the Supreme Court is to serve as a check on overreach by the the other two branches of our federal government. This means not only will they not aid and abet Trump and his administration, but also they will not give even the appearance of being Trump's judicial toadies. So far Gorsuch seems either not to to care about his reputation or he's forgotten about his duty to check Executive Branch overreaching, or both. It's still too early to form any such impression about Kavanaugh. Let's hope he surprises us.
2
Who owns the Supreme Court? The folks who fund the Federalist Society, of course.
Not Trump - not in any way, shape, or form...he's just another asset.
3
Perhaps the question of who owns the Supreme Court is less the issue than the more frightening possibility in these deteriorating times in the question of who will ABIDE by the rulings of the SC?
We rightly assume that the court’s rulings constitute settled law. Whether we love or hate those rulings, we abide by them because America adheres to the rule of law as the bedrock of our republic. Until those decisions are reversed, they are law. The question is, can we really assume now that all future SC rulings will be actually applied, enforced, or adhered to as the law? Do we still stand on bedrock, or is the ground shifting?
Brown v. BoE became the law of the land the moment the SC published its decision, but settled law became applied law only by its enforcement by the Executive branch. It takes two to tango. Had Eisenhower not called out the National Guard, Little Rock could have ignored the decision with impunity.
What happens when the court rules that the president is in violation of the Emoluments Clause and must divest of his business interests, and Trump says, “Make me!” What happens when the court overturns Rove v. Wade and the State of New York says, “Fuggetaboutit! -- Abortion remains the law of New York”. What then?
The madness we find ourselves in at the moment teaches us that we can assume nothing. Precedence, fidelity to the rule of law, and just plain old decency are already either off the table, or tottering near its edge.
2
Harry Reid and his band of progressives set the precedent by ending the filibuster for federal judges. After that, it didn't take much for Mitch McConnell to end the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices. Did the progressives really think the precedent they argued for would not be extended to the Supreme Court? Really?
The filibuster was one way to ensure that Presidents would not appoint judges too far to the extreme, and would give the opposite party some voice in the advice and consent process. By ending the filibuster and turning it into a pure majority rule, progressives made it possible for us to have Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh. And if RBG leaves the Supreme Court in the next two years, progressives will have another fit.
2
@Tony It's worth asking WHY Harry Reid made such a move. Could it have been because the Republicans acted in bad faith and blocked confirmations, denying a duly elected Democratic President his ability to appoint judges? Reasonable people might disagree with politics, but assume a judge would rule fairly and decently with respect to established law. But Republicans don't want those judges - they want judges who twist the law to suit their outcomes.
I support any president who follows basic decency and protocol - the Democrats did not obstruct GW or GHW Bush appointees unless those appointees showed clear unfitness. But now McConnell and his ilk have jammed Kavanaugh, who was proved to have perjured himself through emails, onto the bench, and jammed a thumb in the eye of rape and sexual abuse survivors. The Democrats did not raise such a furor about Gorsuch - and why not? Despite disagreements, Gorsuch's character never became an issue.
Now we have a Supreme Court in which many Americans have no expectation of fairness, decency, or a showing of following the idea that the Supreme Court is the Court of ALL Americans, not just Americans who think Democrats are the Enemy, or whatever the insult du jour is. Is that the country you want? Do you think it's a great idea for the country to have a Supreme Court not respected by millions of Americans? The path to anarchy lies that way...do you think you can control anarchy once it is loosed?
1
"By just such incremental developments will the line between comedy and tragedy be etched by the newly constituted Roberts court."
Thank you to Linda Greenhouse for keeping us abreast of the incremental but oh so significant developments.
Unfortunately, the line has been erased. This is nothing short of high tragedy and comedy at its lowest.
3
The first explanation is usually the right one but I think I agree with the last explanation more this time. Trump views the Justice Department as his own personal legal team. A team reimbursed by the US tax payer. Trump's behavior is very in character with his civilian legal dealings. If someone else is paying for the lawyer, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Maybe Trump will get lucky on some issue.
The surprising part is the how SCOTUS hasn't offered a sterner check on the effort. I can't imagine walking into a courtroom and offering frivolous, or at the very least redundant, legal maneuvering without getting a stern rebuke from the judge. If you're a lawyer under Trump, you should probably submit a brief apologizing in advance before entering the courtroom.
Disclaimer: I was ordered to do this. Sorry.
1
@Andy: In many states, one picks lawyers for how well connected they are with judges.
3
Who "owns" the Supreme Court depends on one's fundamental way of thinking about courts, government and society.
"Ownership" means we are talking about courts in property terms. I don't mean in some facile sense like saying there is a "deed" to SCOTUS or it can be "sold". I just mean that to say something is "owned" is to be speaking in terms of "control" and/or "possession." Legitimate control and possession is preferable, sure, but as the Aborigines, Native Americans, Ainu, China/Taiwan, Israel/Palestine, Crimea/Russia would argue... legitimacy is a "complicated" factor. Either way, in this framework, SCOTUS is "owned" by whatever forces can claim to possess its seats and control its functions.
If, however, courts and gov't institutions are viewed as having some independent existence/purpose beyond whomever controls or possesses them at any given moment, then no one owns them. Even the military, unquestionably under the control of each president, is not "owned" by anyone. Unlike weapons, they serve certain fundamental and independent purposes and their duty to obey orders has always been secondary. Courts too serve purposes independent of even the judges themselves, much less any president or party. Trying to override that principle simply destroys the institution itself, at which point the various factions can trot it around like "Weekend at Bernie's"; nudging its hand, making it "say" things and whatnot. But make no mistake... it'd be a corpse, not a court.
Please continue your focus and expertise on this matter which is of life and death importance - for generations to come. See https://www.legalreader.com/trump-administration-reshapes-judiciary/
3
Please read about the Lewis Powell memo. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.
Maybe Trump can appoint Roy Cohn.
2
@db2: The dead do rule the living through those who claim to know what the dead think in this con-artist's paradise.
1
NOBODY.
1
Nothing funny about a Supreme Court taking orders from a white nationalist White House.
3
The Right owns the Supreme Court. And Chief John Roberts, long a proponent of sliding back government protections for ordinary citizens, is now paying the price for his absurd statement during his confirmation hearings that he only called "balls and strikes." The Chief Justice is an ideologue of the first water, are all of the conservatives on the Court. They now, whether or not they know it, are under this current president's thumb. They can balk if they wish, but it will be interpreted as a public relations move.
Donald Trump nominated frat boy/drinking boy/party boy Brett Kavanaugh onto the Court expressly to do his bidding. One can only guess at how his confirmation hearings played out behind the closed doors of the Court but the institution has now gone a very long way towards its own delegitimization.
The Trump administration's meddling in Court matters is a direct result of his campaign promises to protect the country from immigrants. When Secretary Ross lied as to the reasons for the Census question, he was pressured by Stephen Bannon. Of course the intention was to keep immigration populations in the shadows when the Census was counted. Who wants to out themselves as anything other than "white?"
The Chief Justice, were he an honorable man, would have done some serious politicking with his eight associates behind the public barrier. But Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are beyond redemption, owned by the Right.
History will be unkind this Court.
8
@Soxared, '04, '07, '13: They never look more stupid than when they claim that some right reserved by the people doesn't exist because it isn't listed in the Constitution.
4
Yes, it seems that the administration threw balls to get thrills. That a decision maker’s mental process is irrelevant to the legality of actions also reminds me of the Muslim ban issued by Mr. Trump, which was argued as the president’s motivations to be irrelevant when its legality is judged as adequate. The Supreme Court cannot override the executive decision within this judgement, I learned. Stay of a trial or not is no trille for those who are subjects of the matter, however. Beyond the citizenship question, good faith and consciences should rule over, I assert. At the bottom, there have been exploitations of the Obama era immigration policy and leniencies, which would come up to the surface at any time as the issue, I guess.
Who owns the supreme court?
Charles and David Koch.
Next question.
8
The GOP owns it
Thanks To Bernie
No Bernie no DJT
The Greenhouse Effect is over and the Constitution is returning from exile. Eat your heart out.
4
All I know is that I hope that RBG can hang in there for another two years.
2
First, let me offer my best wishes to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who just cracked three ribs.
Second, who is Whitaker and where did he come from?
I googled him.
Talk about a skimpy bio!
About all that was there was a report by the Wall Street Journal that Whitaker had been a paid advisory board member for "World Patent Marketing", which was shut down by the federal regulators in 2017 - I will repeat that: 2017. That was LAST YEAR! - because it was an alleged scam in which consumers lost about $26 MILLION.
Really???
And this year, 2018! he is the top dog at the Justice Department?!?
How does that happen!!!
Okay, yes, I get it: He's also an evangelical, a loud one, is a Hilly-Hater and is well-loved by Charles Grassley.
...and trump.
So, some explain this to me.
What kind of loons have taken over this government?
Get well soon, Justice Ginsberg.
4
We may not like it but the president appoints members of the Supreme Court. Simple fact.
We approved of the shift leftward... now we are outraged a Republican exercises the same constitutional authority.
At least we're consistent.
When our guy raped a 24-year-old intern we forgot years of pedantic lecturing - with a power differential there can be no consent - but with their guy we're outraged he made purile jokes about women on a bus.
With our guy we thought one accusation was probably a tramp trying to get rich - remember "the trash you attract when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park"? - with their guy one accusation makes him a rapist unqualified for the job.
5
@TJ
Rape? Maybe if W had gotten a BJ once in a while he would have calmed down, not listened to Cheney so much and so no Iraq.
All that hullabaloo over a BJ. My my my.
2
This is utter nonsense...
A census question on citizenship is absolutely legitimate...
Or is citizenship like health care – free stuff to be given away by Progressives, regardless of who earned the money to pay for it or give it value in the first place...
I don't see a line of citizen applicants out the door at any civil services facility in Venezuela or any of a dozen other totalitarian socialist countries-as-living-case-studies for the redistributionist dream...
.....
For clarity, this is in no way advocacy for immigration enforcement policy that's nothing more than a proxy for slave-owning policy of 150 years ago, or the Jim Crow policy – that included anti-miscegenation laws for almost 100 years after that – or Wilson’s abhorrent systemic racism, as President...
Also for clarity, ballot stuffing by ineligible voters and voter suppression are not two sides of the same coin...
The balloting is like stealing bread to survive...
The suppression is like cutting off the thief’s hand – as much for blood-sport as for justice...
4
@W in the Middle: 700,000 people now targeted for deportation for signing up for DACA are an example to everyone else to be sure to lay low for the census.
1
Ummm, because it is?!
Republicans, by hook or crook.
4
YIKES! Will Trump append gold TRUMP letters on the SCOTUS building anytime soon???
2
Not to beat a dead horse, but who will have any faith in or respect for SCOTUS decisions in the future that angry partisan spoiled-brat Brett Kavanaugh doesn't recuse himself from?
3
There is no comedy. Just a sad, sick would be dictator. Trump "owns" the ridiculously partisan Supreme Court, or at least thinks he does. Sadly, I suspect he is right.
1
Duh! And the GOP loves it: "can we have another sir." When our Nuremberg trials come Mitch McConnell will be first of the capital cases
2
What Scotus needs is a Manchurian candidate justice; one who based upon prima facia evidentiary background checks seems to be in bed with religious evangelical wing nuts & corporate interests so a Trump would nominate them and once on the court for life flips and morphs into William Douglas or Sonia Sotomayor. Its happened before & theres no reason for a justice not to be independent if its a life sentence. I can just hear Trump's post mortem: I selected the most Liberal judge in history and the Liberals still disparage me. (the writer doesn't mean to put big words in Trumps lexicon).
Ms. Greenhouse,
It's President Trump's way of riling the Liberals!
1
I see in the picture leading into this story, Trump has his new trained, pet puppy !off the leash, yet! following along at his side . . .
1
If this isn't fascism, it's one step short of it.
50
I always read Linda Greenhouse's articles on the SC; she is knowledgeable, insightful, and trustworthy.
What is happening to the courts is a reflection of McConnell's undisguised view of our Constitution (which he blatantly ignores) as irrelevant when compared to the
GOP's draconian vision for America. He has been a terrifying "leader" that exercises raw power in the pursuit of his goals.
1
Are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh sitting things out because of the threatening statements made by Judge Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing? Are they just lying low for now, only to team up later?
Or, has the majesty and awe of the Supreme Court tempered their judgment about loyalty to a political party?
I think it's the first one.
Mr. Trump does, in fact, own the Supreme Court. He can, and will, do anything he pleases
and the Court will back him. Congress will be unable to act against him.
Since 1790 , the supreme court has been politicised more than once when serial presidential elections place one or the other party in power too long. Lifetime appointments to the court assure that, being human, elderly justices tend towards a deep belief in the infallible certainty of their own view of law, politics, and cultural norms.
Let’s hope that this court “ learns from the election returns” and historical precedent and retires gracefully before they damage the confidence of the American people that the court can restrain its manifest partisanship. The nation must never reexperience Bush v. Gore.
2
Easy question! The NRA and who or whatever owns trump and the GOP. It's now a tool for them. The two "justices" nominated by trump should be impeached and removed and their rulings nullified.
When the Democrats take back the government, hopefully in 2020, they can simply add more seats to the court. The better solution would be to eliminate lifetime appointments for all levels of the Federal judiciary.
@George: The whole US system is a patchwork.
The Administration is frankly entitled to believe they own the Court, given the political battles that were fought to attain a conservative majority. It will be more important to learn whether the Court believes that it is owned by this Administration. So far, the answer is clearly no.
1
Once Trump got his $1.5Trillion pay-off for the GOP's donors through congress he lost interest in the House as he does not have any other major pieces of legislation to progress that he actually cares about. The Senate and the Supreme Court is all he needs to protect him from his law breaking ways and he now fully owns both.
The real issue is that there are just too many americans perfectly happy with that, and so rabid tribalism is here to stay. Trump is not the root cause of our problem, he is simply a symptom of the current general state of american values and apathy.
That Joe Biden is front runner to take on Trump in 2020 suggests Democrats are determined to prove that Einstein's Theory of Insanity is correct!
2
@CarpeDeam: It looks like were in for another two years of pig-wrestling in muck.
And we call this justice. Hmmm. Thanks you Linda for making sense of all of this fiasco.
1
At NYT your pictures speak a thousand words and answers this headline. Sadly, Kavanaugh is Trump's guy and he reports to Trump and will use his intelligence to read the law in order to protect Trump. So yes, with Kavanaugh on the court, Trump owns the court. You can complain and write all you want, but this picture answers the question.
Any honest lawyer knows that a district court can't stop a president from discontinuing an extra-legal policy that had been imposed by a former president.
1
@victor - well, Trump's first two very clumsy bans on Muslims from countries without a record of anti-American terrorism got stopped by judges below the Supreme Court level.
1
Who owns the Supreme Court? Gee, the last time I checked the right wing of the Court had a 5-4 majority. Anyone who thinks this group is going to do anything but support Trump approximately 100% of the time can think again.
1
Who owns the Supreme Court? Need that question be asked? At present it is determined by how many Justices kiss the rings on the fingers of Republicans.
The description of these actions by admin lawyers sounds very much like the big baby screaming and ranting and his staff reacting in the staid legal language of petitions and requests for stays.
Look for the Republican operatives disguised as Supreme Court Justices to slowly but surely turn America into a Corporate State anserable to no one.
For now, they just want to make out they're fair.
Since it's beyond doubt that Wilbur Ross lied under oath when he claimed that the DOJ, not Ross, pressed for the citizenship question, why isn't he under indictment for perjury? And why is he still in office?
He doesn't have a very good record as a truth-teller. Based on his representations, Forbes had him on its Billionaires list, at $2.9 Billion. But it has come out that that he's worth "only" $700 Million.
"Forbes now believes that the $2 billion may have never existed. What’s more, Forbes reports that Ross may have been overstating his wealth at least since he first appeared on The Forbes 400 in 2004, when the publication estimated his net worth at $1 billion. Forbes now says that this amount “was nearly four times as much as he was likely worth” at the time." http://time.com/money/5013112/wilbur-ross-net-worth-forbes-2-billion-transfer/
So he's both a perjurer, and a guy who thinks it's important that people think he's worth $2.9B, not a mere $700M.
2
Soon to be completely run by the Republicans with the help of a renewed Senate. Yeah!
It's said they key to comedy is.........timing. Great questions about the timing of the petitions by Sessions. And please, Ms. Greenhouse, if any legal speculations are, indeed, "above (your) pay grade", then your supervisor/s need to make an immediate adjustment.
Who owns the SCOTUS? It would seem this "administration" considers the court an extension of itself and its "policies", not an independent arbiter of the "law of the land". Indeed, the last two "appointments" were both made under extremely shady and highly questionable circumstances. The most recent appointment was certainly made to defend against potential and, it would seem, inevitable legal actions to remove the president from office. There seems much more likelihood of tragedy on the national horizon, despite how sorely we need some comedy.
At issue are the Bill of Rights and separation of powers, of checks and balances, and whether this administration's move toward autocracy can be challenged and halted. Always in the forefront of my thoughts is the German Enabling Act of 1933, which gave Hitler "law by decree". I see a pretext to that now, in the form of the president's fixation on executive orders, and his dismissal of any reliance on the legislative process. Unfortunately, he seems to have found a supporter of that in McConnell, who seems quite easily (too easily) satisfied to let actual, serious issues, requiring legislative attention, to simply "simmer on the back burner", without action.
2
We should be doling our federal dollars based on populations of US CITIZENS.
15
@M: Here in New York, many people are working their way through the legal entry process. At what point do you think we should begin to help pay for schools for their children?
11
@M Legal resident non-citizens pay taxes also. By your logic we should let their houses burn down, or deny them police protection? Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you meant to use the awkward term, U.S. Persons as is used on the tax forms we all fill out.
23
@M - even if that's what you want, that's not the question here. Question is do we want an accurate census, as required in the Constitution? Ross doesn't because his approach would, as census experts have documented, result in a less-accurate census. The census then is used to allocate seats in the House.
So if you want non-citizens to avoid being counted, that could result in states like, say, Washington, losing power in the federal goverment, and losing access to funding.
"Washington—the state with the second-highest food production in the nation—relies heavily on its growing immigrant population. While roughly one in seven Washington residents is foreign-born, over half of the state’s farmers, fishers, and foresters are immigrants. As workers, business owners, taxpayers, and neighbors, immigrants are an integral part of Washington’s diverse and thriving communities and make extensive contributions that benefit all.
Roughly one in seven residents of Washington State is an immigrant, while one in eight residents is a native-born U.S. citizen with at least one immigrant parent."
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-in-washington
17
Reportedly, Donald Trump and his companies, either as plaintiff or defendant, have been involved in approximately 3,500 lawsuits in the last three decades. There is nothing Mr. Trump would like more than to have the judicial system in his pocket.
Fundamentalism in the law is as dysfunctional with respect to messy reality as fundamentalism is in religion.
The right-wing legal fundamentalists in the SCOTUS have weaponized the First Amendment in various ways, especially in Citizens United, which equates money with speech.
Money is not speech. Money is a means of amplifying speech. And like other abuses of amplification, too much causes harms that can and should be regulated in a time/place/manner way. Which is what election finance laws are all about.
Long ago the SCOTUS ruled that trucks amplifying political speech could be constitutionally regulated. Citizens United deserves overturning for the same reasons.
We need fewer fundamentalists on the Supreme Court. Or any other court for that matter.
3
@Doug McKenna: The very same people who whited-out the "well regulated" specification of the second amendment directive to states to supervise possession and use of military arms, for the security of their own liberty (if the state or local government allows it at all), now fully intend to wipe out the first amendment prohibition specifically directed at Congress to enact any legislation that treats an article of faith as an established fact.
Linda, you know as well as I do who controls those 5 votes. It's the corporate world. They never vote against the corporations. They also like the evangelical world but will vote against them sometimes. Trump might seem to control them but it is only to the degree that his actions line up with the corporate and evangelical worlds.
I hold out hope that the comedy, the joke will be on this administration. The Supreme Court members, men and women who have dedicated their lives to a love of the law, the rule of law, are beyond administration control, threats, political promises, influence. I have to believe they will take their own ‘ long view’ and decide on sound legal principles, an understanding of the checks and balances of the three branches, rather than political or personal motives.
Another thing hit me in reading this use of our highest court. Ordinary people wait years, often spend their savings to get a critical question answered by our last legal voice. Lives ruined, put on hold, waiting. Hoping for justice. And this president, using rules designed for immediacy, crucial intervention, time and again jumps the line, pushing past ‘the little people?’ to get a political ‘gotcha’. There was a good reason for a lifetime tenure- this court might want to remind the president why that was.
88
This court decided Citizens United - money over people. I think the reverence you speak of for this body is not always its due. I wish it was.
56
I know- wishful thinking. But maybe if enough people, comments, remind them of.....those better angels, the reasons they were first attracted to a life in law, they will - reclaim their historical role. Their....independence the Founders granted them.
5
@Jo Williams Hogwash !! Federalist Society acolytes already have shown their colors. Your explanation is a naive "theory". Citizen's United and Voting rights are screaming examples of a fixed game.
12
The country faces another looming threat against an independent judiciary, beyond the Supreme Court's composition. Midterm voters may not have considered the crucial role the Senate plays in confirming federal judicial nominees when considering their Senate votes. The results of the midterm elections added additional Trumpsters to the Senate. There are so many federal judgeships vacant, and now the flow of Trump nominated/partial jurists will be unchecked by the Senate. These are lifetime appointments, so the risk of long term damage to the separation of powers is real and present.
187
@Times Reader Mitch McConnell has already said that his job between now and January is to confirm as many right wing, ideological judges as possible. There is nothing to stop him from doing that.
81
@Marc
I believe the term he used was "conservative".
3
@Times Reader Wow. Voters change one house: "it's a mandate." Voters retain a majority in the other: "clearly a threat to democracy." No, a threat to Democrats ... and the liberal agenda, enforced by the courts.
5
Everything in this opinion piece indicates a Supreme Court that is acting appropriately. It does not seem as though any favorable treatment is being given to the current administration which proper. I believe that this Supreme Court will be just as respectful of its role in government and the process of government as any that have come before.This opinion lacks any proof that this is not the case.
20
@John: This court of originalist fakes holds "sincerely held beliefs" above establishments of science, and "free exercise of religion" to be coercion of others into compliance with faith-based beliefs at gunpoint and/or penalty of law.
12
@John there is no assertion in the article that the Court is acting inappropriately, so you are missing the point. The article is clearly raising awareness to blatant abuse of its position by the Justice Department. It would be crassly insensitive for either Kavannaugh or Roberts to align with their pals to sustain the overbearing claims of the Justice Department.
12
@Miguel I have no doubt that the current admin wants to manipulate the justice system. I was merely pointing out that there is no evidence at this point that it will succeed.
1
The Court is bought and paid for by the Republican Party and Mr. Trump. It has 5 reliable votes for any decision it wishes to obtain, pre paid. Given the age of Justices Breyer and Ginsberg, liberal votes may diminish to 2 before the end of Mr. Trump's second term.
The only hope for a Court which reflects the will of the population (as opposed to the will of the Red State Bible Belt) would be a Democratic take over of the Senate, House and Presidency and then a determined effort to pack the Court--and there are many schemes to do this.
The most purely political part of our federal system is the Supreme Court where every case is pre judged according the political faith of the Justice and the man who appointed that Justice.
44
@Claudia Once the court could have been counted on to do the Constitutional thing & do it right. Now with this administration it is going to be a loyalty test of the last two appointees & any others he can get on the bench. trump will accept nothing but full rulings in his favor no matter what. He is packing the lower courts as fast as possible between now & Jan. 2019. He can't be honest & forthright so he has to load the court with lackeys who will approve of every crime he commits.
5
Q. Who Owns the Supreme Court ?
A. Yale and Harvard
Every current Supreme Court justice attended Harvard or Yale. Out of 205 ABA accredited law schools in the US
59
@Woof
And the proof is the many decisions issued that favor Yale and Harvard -- right?
2
@Thomas Zaslavsky
The proof is that there is a complete lack of diversity of perspective. Diversity improves outcome. Where are the cries of "elitism" from the right?
9
@Thomas Zaslavsky The proof is a lack of perspective other than that at Harvard and Yale.
2
The Justice Department’s petitions aren’t “aggressive.” They are defensive responses to lawsuits that challenge the administration’s authority to make policy decisions that reverse policy decisions made by a previous administration. The lawsuits are of constitutional importance because the plaintiffs seek to transfer the executive branch’s policy-making authority to the federal courts.
For example, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was established by a Department of Homeland Security memorandum titled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” It granted immigrants brought to the United States as children a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation." The plaintiffs now argue that new administrations cannot exercise its prosecutorial discretion by ending the program without permission from the federal courts.
13
@William Case
If the exercise of discretion is motivated by racism, it can be questioned by the courts.
6
@William Case If the trump administration was so confident that your opinion is correct, why do they need to skip over the federal appeals court and jump straight to a Court they believe is in their pockets?
7
@snarkqueen
Why argue cases in multiple jurisdictions when the issue could be settled by a single court decision?
3
Who owns the Supreme court? The people do. Ostensibly, anyway. In today's practice, the President effectively does.
And look at who's at the party here, arguing for this repressive question to be added to the census - two of the favorites to be the next Attorney General, Kris Kobach and Noel Francisco.
Does Trump own the Supreme Court? You bet. And he's in the process of emasculating the DoJ by stripping it of any credibility whatsoever.
What has happened to the country we have known and loved? The Trump Coup is almost complete.
101
@Max Dither Too true and too tragic thanks to so many low information voters and the outdated Electoral College.
And I share your fear about Kobach now that he will no longer has a job in Kansas
12
Who owns the Supreme Court?
Though SCOTUS has been, since “Justice” Roberts became its chief, increasingly swayed by: Corporations, Wall Street, Capital as opposed to Labor, the Federalists, the Religious Right, and the Republican political agenda, let’s not kid ourselves, within the next two years, it will become a fully-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization.
50
@DJ
"within the next two years, it will become a fully-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. "
I hope that doesn't happen, if it does, it'll be too late to escape the totalitarianism that trump is trying to bring to the U.S.
8
Great article once again, Ms. Greenhouse. Could you please follow it up with a comparison of the number of attempts by the Trump administration to bypass lower courts and go directly to the Supreme Court with the historical trends? This nonsense started with the Clean Power Plan, when Justice Scalia provided the fifth vote, a few days before his death, for issuing a stay of that final rule even though the D.C. Circuit had just denied that same relief -- and even though the merits had not been briefed and there were years to go before the Clean Power Plan was about to go into effect. That ill-conceived decision encouraged this misuse of legal process. The Court has only itself to blame for becoming entangled in a barrage of requests for frivolous writs.
We should no let the court off the hook, i.e. we the people still expect them to live up to the high standards required of the supreme court.
1
@deguy
Great sentiment. If only it was true.
Like the post-midterm election firing of Sessions, these timed “Monday night” Supreme Court certiorari filings have Trumpian Administration treachery written all over them. Avoid another public eruption from taking place over a hot immigration issue. It would indeed be most ironic if the beleaguered Sessions promoted this legal maneuver against DACA in a vain attempt to avoid his sacking. If Kavanaugh votes for certiorari, without letting the cases proceed in their normal course through legal review, this will set off a hornet’s nest of delegitimizing Court protests. Is this what Roberts wants? Reap what you sow sir!
That's an easy answer — Trump owns the court. He controls it, and he will be the one behind all of the rulings. The supreme court use to be a highly respected branch of government, but not anymore. It is nothing more than a political puppet —
1
Trump doesn't need the Supreme Court. He's an autocrat who is free to do as he pleases, without any input from Congress or the Courts. After all, he has a pen and a phone.
4
@J. Waddell
Can you imagine the media if Trump had said that instead of Obama?!
Thank goodness Justice Ginsburg is only 143. I'm so glad she chose to see herself as indispensable to the Court. Hurrah.
2
The President owns the Supreme Court, and the President happens to be Trump. It's pretty simple.
I think we need to thank Harry Reid and the progressives who pushed him to eliminate the filibuster rule for consenting to federal judges. No real principled basis for not extending the progressives' elimination of the filibuster for federal judges to Supreme Court nominees. Short-sighted progressives won the battle, but seem to have lost the war.
Trump does not own the Supreme Court, but thanks to the progressives and Harry Reid, conservatives seem to control the Supreme Court.
4
@Tony Reid did that for the lower courts. McConnell did it for the supreme court.
This is the Roberts Court for good or bad! It is on him, the Chief Justice to decide in which direction the court will go. If he is a true believer in the court being independent and a separate branch of government he will do the right thing no matter what Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch or Kavanagh think. What do they all have to fear, they have life time tenure. They are beholden to no one except the constitution and the American People. That is how the founding fathers intended the court to be in order to avoid the very thing that some of the justices are currently doing. The justices should have the moral courage to interpret the law without party affiliation, after all lady justice is neither republican or democrat she represents all Americans so should they.
4
I find it of interest that the NY Times believes we should not be allowed to know how many citizens actually live in this country and its various political subdivisions, such as states, counties, cities, etc. Of all the things the census gathers information about, your income or the number of rooms in your home, for instance, I would think the number of people who are really citizens would be high on the list.
7
@James But the data you seek, while arguably worthwhile, is not the point of the Census as laid forth in the Constitution. It is strictly for counting the number of people for the apportionment of representation. While Court Cases since the republic's founding have said Congress has the authority to seek other statistics, it may not detract from it's constitutional requirement. And, therein, lies the legal squabble over the citizenship question. Of course, the end result does have its consequences for all parties involved.
@James
Oh, come on. You want to know how many people live in the United States. The citizenship test is to terrify immigrants and make them not answer to the census This will allow all the racists in trump's so called administration to cut funds from the states and districts who have large populations of immigrants, and shovel the government money into their pockets and thus enrich themselves. trump's government is nototriously corrupt just like the south is notoriously corrupt. Kemp, anyone?
1
It is at least slightly heartening to see that Bret Kavanaugh may have a semblance of a spine as we go forward. It seems that Trump may have been so intent on protecting his own behind against prosecution that he may have overlooked some of Kavanaugh's other opinions.
It is far too soon to see what Kavanaugh will do on the bench, but he may not be a Clarence Thomas exact clone. Time will tell and i hope that I am not being too optimistic.
Thank you Linda Greenhouse once again for your fine reporting on subjects that often fly below our radar.
9
I do find it interesting that both Chief Justice Robers and Justice Thomas gave talks recently about the Court’s not being seen as a political Court. Maybe they actually do have a conscience and really don’t want the Supreme Court to be seen as another political branch go government. As Ms Greenhouse says, we’ll have to wait and see.
6
@Pragmatic
I don't think 'conscience' has anything to do with it - there's no indication they have any - but, they may be concerned that they are on the verge of going so far across the line, they will reveal just how far outside the ethical legal mainstream they've always been & permanently tarnish their 'legacies'.
There're afraid they will go so far that even the mainstream legal media & organizations will stop giving them passes & regularly refer to them as political hacks.
1
Unfortunately, Ms. Greenhouse, the catholic church and Robber Barons own OUR United States Supreme Court. It must not stand in OUR America.
WE THE PEOPLE - average democracy-loving Americans across the land - must get Socially Conscious democrats and independents back in charge and DEMAND that they increase the size of OUR U.S. Supreme Court by two justices and pack it with progressive justices that will work for 99.9% of us.
They should do the same thing with district and appeals courts across America.
Then they must pass a law or unbreakable rule that requires 60% Senate approval for any federal judge. That will guarantee that senators have to work together for 99.9% of us.
The fight has just begun. WE THE PEOPLE must stay the course.
4
@njglea Won't work. The escalation, as soon as the republicans take the reins again (as if they have actually lost them this election) will justify another 'leveling' of the court by adding, yet again, more justices of the 'proper flavor' to appeal to 'their' voters. Best we just unpack the court and act like grown-ups. (Just HOW DO grownups act, now . . . I forget)
3
It will work, Ms. jackson, because once the democrats/independents pack the court with progressives - to undo the damage The Con Don and Robber Barons have done to OUR U.S. Justice system - they will pass a law or unbreakable rule that 60% Senate approval is needed for all federal judge positions.
That will take the politics back out of it.
@njglea . . . until the next election, where voters will find that work-around repulsive. I've seen this show before, and it just *never* follows the script we so carefully write . . .
1
And yet the lion of the Left, President Franklin D Roosevelt, attempted to stack the Court by increasing the number of Justices because it didn't walk lockstep with his desires to implement his agenda. The ideology of the court is often a reflection of the very Presidents who make appointments to the very court. Will Ms. Greenhouse make the same argument if a future President, one with Progressive leanings, decides to increase the number of justices in order to overcome the Conservative faction and use it as a tool to further the ideology of that President?
7
@Mike But Roosevelt was working to overcome the calamity of a full-blown depression that had NO padding to protect the average citizen from the fallout. I'm not saying that packing the court is ever a great thing to do, but sometimes an emergency calls for extreme measures. There is no such emergency at this time, unless the trump funny-farm decides to start unwinding the protective covering that protects the average citizen.
1
Today's headlines bring worrying news about the health of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health. If Trump should get another Supreme Court pick it is quite obvious that his next selection would be without doubt the most extreme right wing choice possible who will be confirmed with with another barest Senate majority.
The election of 2020 is looking more and more and the election where the US either saves democracy back or loses it, possibly forever.
8
@David Patin
I am afraid that if Trump gets the chance to picks another right leaning Suprereme Court Justice the US is done as a democratic Republic and indeed transformed into an Aristocracy and Trump becomes more or less a dictator. As it is he already is a "wanna be dictator" and nobody is there to stop him.
1
Somebody who's here legally isn't going to fear the census.
We keep talking about immigrants being afraid. But it's those here illegally.
The fact that it's now phrased as immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants, shows how warped the whole conversation has become.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to know how many people here are citizens. In fact, the idea that we don't have a clue is ludicrous.
Even more so is the idea that there is something irrational and racist about wanting to know. But when one estimate says there 11-12 million people here illegally, and another says 22 million--and that's just the middle of a range--the whole thing becomes crazy.
If you want to know how many people are in certain areas overall for purposes of federal funding, etc, OK.
But the fact that people here illegally now constitute a reason for not being able to ask about citizenship--thw whole thing makes my head spin.
11
@Talbot. My next-door legal-immigrant neighbor, who has lived here for many years, will not post her name on her apartment buzzer or her mailbox. As a result I need to sort her mail from mine and buzz in her visitors. I seriously doubt that she will give information to a census worker.
The Trump administration has filled immigrants' lives with fear. Trump is challenging the citizenship of the children that immigrants, including legal immigrants, have given birth to in the U.S. Do you really expect their adult, birthright-citizen children to allow their information to be recorded in a federal census? Politics has consequences.
3
@Talbot
"Somebody who's here legally isn't going to fear the census." I think that's naive. I know a permanent resident that was rounded up in an ICE van at a diner where he worked because it took him a few minutes to find his green card. He had to pound on the van window, holding the green card up to window, to be let out. It's clear that authority is hostile to anyone with an accent, legal or not, and most immigrants, even legal one, just want to stay off the radar. And people may have family members that are undocumented.
6
We've managed for several decades without the question, and it's pretty obvious that racial animus is driving the change
1
It comes as no surprise that the Ideology, personality, gender and religion of Court appointees is scrutinized and leveraged by politicians and court observers.
As a result of new patterns in news diffusion and greater transparency, intrigue surrounding the Supreme Court is of increased interest to a wider public. This expanded dialog has revealed The Supreme Court as not being immune from identity politics. It's emerging as another postmodern flattening of the once vaunted division within the branches of American governance.
3
Maybe some of this ties to McConnell's comments that he has no immediate appetite for tackling immigration reform: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/mcconnell-immigration-plan/index.html ?
Hence the executive branch is encouraged to use its new leverage with SCOTUS to do this via the courts. But of course we know Kavanaugh would decry legislating from the bench.
How do you explain all this to the general public? Would most of them care? How can the public be convinced that the SCOTUS is not simply a partisan arm of whatever executive branch is lucky enough to be able to steer its course? It is not enough to say that the vast majority of decisions are not 5-4. Those contentious decisions, even if a distinct minority, drive pubic impressions of the court, feeding into hardened partisan narratives on both sides.
5
@JSK
We need term limits for the Supreme Court Justices that would solve a few problems.
1
I anyone really surprised by any of this? it is plenty well known that Donald Trump has been remarkably litigious across his entire adult life. Why would it stop now? He is going to press the Justice Department to file, file, file, the most agressive petitions at a rate that has never before been seen from an administration.
It is an often overlooked about face from the current Republican party: tort reform is but a quaint policy platform sitting in the junk heap of what used to define the Republican party.
8
"Tort reform" has only ever been intended to prevent suits from the "little people".
1
Under Obama, the Democrats had full control for the first two years until unilateral action on Obamacare set up the mid-term loss. Without the ability to pass legislation, Obama moved to test the limits of the Presidential pen + use of regulatory authority. Only the courts were the counter balance. We have the same situation today. Trump was already emboldened to use executive orders and executive authority to unwind regulatory actions by Obama. He now only has these methods to make policy. As such, the Courts are going to be the only bulwark against Presidential abuse of power. There is a real opportunity for the Supreme Court to be less reactive and to draw clear lines on Executive authority. We will see
4
@Chris
Thanks to GOP obstruction, it took longer for President Obama and the Dems in Congress to get ANYTHING done. (Always remember and never forget the 2009 inauguration night conspiracy.)
The nation faced an economic emergency as well as millions of people with no health insurance. There was not the space for comprehensive immigration reform. Nevertheless, after 2010, the Senate passed a bi-partisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, but John Boehner refused to bring it to the floor of the House for a vote because of the Hastert Rule.
Do, here we are.
7
@Valerie Elverton Dixon - Valeria, I agree that once the Dems lost the House and Senate, the GOP obstructed Obama's legislative agenda. I would contend that the Dems in the same place are going to obstruct Trump. You may agree with the Democratic agenda or the Republican agenda but it's unlikely that just because the President wants something, the other side is going to go along with it. That is the point.
4
@Valerie Elverton Dixon
How can anybody forget that Mitch McConnell refused Judge Garland to be even considered for a hearing a year prior to the election! Clearly Mitch McConnell and Trump's plan is to send another right leaning judge to the Supreme Court.
I wonder if Justice Stevens now regrets retiring in the face of what Trump and his ilk are doing to the SCOTUS.
As a Canadian all I can say, one way or the other, the US appears to be truly doomed.
Presently many of my college friends refuse to visit the US now and I can not blame them.
1
Checks and balance is the cornerstone crafted by our founding fathers who chose democracy over tyranny. Why would anyone tolerate those that take a hammer to crumble this cornerstone? Power corrupts, no matter the party.
2
@william phillips: They would have crowned George Washington a king if he hadn't refused the honor.
2
Without question, we now have a forever tainted Supreme Court. The scales of justice are leaning so far down to the benefit of the wealthy, and large corporations, that they have become a symbol of injustice rather than jurisprudence. The checks and balances our founding fathers envisioned have been destroyed by a Republican party run amok by their unbridled greed and insane lust for power. Finally, democracy ended when the popular vote ( by a large margin ) lost.
14
With the new conservative Supreme Court firmly in place, we are headed for thirty years of backward evolution toward a second Dark Ages where beliefs will replace reason and logic in deciding the laws of the land. The lessons will be cruel, but maybe that is what we need if the world is to undergo the paradigm shift in human thought necessary to return to reason and logic.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in a computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof that we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
4
@RLB Lessons are never 'truly' learned . . . as long as those who live during the crisis age and die, and another generation takes its place. Those new citizens have never lived through the bad times, and often insist 'they never really happened, anyway . . .'
1
So much for voting if trump is allowed to walk all over our democracy. What is stopping him now? Our laws are only as good as the people upholding them. The newly elected and remaining Democrats better grow a spine really quick. The very soul of our country and our freedoms are at grave risk. Most distressing though is that this monster and his destructive agenda are supported by 40% of the people, especially those who claim to hold the Constitution as sacred as their "bible" and claim to be the "true" patriots while allying and aligning with a wanna be despot. I truly fear for our country, my children, my loved ones and friends if our justice system is turned into a mockery to be used to suit the whim of trump and the conservative right. How did we fall so far?
10
Donald Trump is determined to spark a Constitutional crisis to deflect the loss of the House of Representatives, a result of the midterm elections which was extremely likely as of a month ago.
Trump has a very simple, direct way of looking at things like this. Ably abetted by Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch and other Republicans in the Senate, Donald Trump gave Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh their dream jobs.
Now, the President is expecting a return favor.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is collateral damage, fired for the crime of recusal. Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, is a partisan road warrior, whose public views match Trump’s very nicely. Whitaker, however, is unlikely to be approved for a promotion within the warp-speed agenda required by Trump.
Solicitor General, Noel Francisco, whose flamboyant arguments this week in seeking certiorari to protect Wilbur Ross are so remarkable, has a more important function: If and when Donald Trump fires Rod Rosenstein, Francisco is the man who – by law – succeeds immediately to Rosenstein’s role of Robert Mueller’s protector and the definer of the investigation’s scope.
We have all heard of dark comedy, but this is dangerous comedy.
5
Rent-to-own judges are the best insurance a business man can invest in. DONALD J. TRUMP is the World's Greatest Negotiator. He wrote the book on the Art of Renting judges.
4
Trump seems determined to force a constitutional crisis as grave as any since the Civil War. His appointees (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) are going to be tested as few on the Supreme Court ever have been.
7
@MKR
I do not trust Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to be apolitical. I believe they will certainly covertly rule in favor of Trump and or Republicans.
Term limits are needed for justices now appointed, especially so since those appointed by Trump are appointed under a cloud of suspicion. The Supreme Court has lost its credibility in the eyes of many.
6
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for your coverage of these 'under the radar' moves of the Trump administration. It's all well and good for TV ratings to cover the President's lying, disputatious press conference or his ignorant tweets. But the real damage he is doing to the country are in actions like these. Please continue to focus on these actions, much appreciated.
4
Nice try, Ms. Greehouse, but this argument can apply to most Presidents in the 20th century, especially FDR, who I admire very much, who tried to pack the court with justices who support the New Deal, to the point of increasing the number of justices from 9 to 12. I do not think President Trump will go that far, but based on breaking news from other media outlets currently, he may have the chance to make another appointment since Justice Ginsburg has been hospitalized with broken ribs from a fall yesterday.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/8/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-after-fall/
5
It seems that political power rests in the hands of lawyers, judges, and the Supreme Court. As Republicans increase their grip on every level of the judicial system, they are squeezing out every legalized drop to further their agenda, making it more useful to them than most congressional action or inaction. Aside from revealing articles such as this one, most of these machinations are hidden from a public that tries to make sense out of the political blather that pollutes the airwaves.
3
It is frightening that two of the Justices had such misogynistic tendencies to warrant investigation but were still seated. Even more frightening is the ruling on Citizens United, which put corporations and money above people, and drastically changed the political landscape and not for the better. And if the frailty of RBG requires her to step down, the most unqualified, amoral President in our history will have appointed THREE Justices. That is the most frightening of all.
6
It is worth noting that it passes as an aside that the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, lied under oath to Congress. Is there to be no consequence? Or is justice different for the rich and powerful?
The Supreme Court of the land is being molded into a political weapon, partisan operatives in black robes.
People look around you. There's something happening here.
12
Why should President Obama’s decision to establish DACA be carved in stone? Why should the executive actions of one president not be subject to review, reappraisal and even reversal by another president?
Should executive actions taken by President Trump thus be similarly unreversible by a future president?
1
While Trump is not the first President to "own" the Supreme Court, he is the first to try and profit from it and make it de facto criminal.
Supreme Courts have always been political. FDR try to stack it. The liberal Warren Court swung way to the left, the Berger court, a little too far to the right but this is different as far as I can see.
Trump will expect to get payback from his two new appointees and the other conservatives on any ruling that he can profit from and also agree to any criminal acts he does including breaking the emolument clause, pardoning criminals who aided and abetted him, etc. etc.
4
Is this a serious question ?
It’s the Republicans, Republicans own the supreme court .
2
They’re not bending the courts to their will, it’s the Constitution that’s getting bent and many rights and liberties along with it. When a co-equal branch, the Senate, refuses to advise and consent re: Garland, that’s a crisis, if not an attempted coup. And it was allowed to stand; outrageous. The text in Article II is clear and without ambiguity and yet they McConnell got away with it.
We're heading for white minority rule here. We already have minority ruled elections in the form of the electoral college. And most of those voting white folk are easily swayed by fear owing to a lack of strong critical thought. You can go back to ’64 when LBJ in TV ads declared Goldwater would end the world with nukes. The Right counts on this reaction by their folk who won’t do a deep dive into the facts and just parrot what they’ve heard on TV.
Our Constitution is clear: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”
Says “persons," not citizens, but like Scalia, they’ll ignore that parts that don’t help them. They’ll ignore the parts of THE document they revere, second only to the Bible.
4
@Mike B Please ! Stop with the hysteria. The electoral college will actually save the Republic so smaller states don't get dictated to by the larger states. This is by design and has served the country well and will continue to do so. We never elected presidents by the popular vote yet this canard gets recycled endlessly. It was "most of those white folks" that elected Obama over other white folks, twice!
California has 50+ Representatives to North Dakota's 1. You don't think that's fair? You'd feel better if the small states had 0?
The Dems have to do three simple things:
1) Stop the identity politics and pushing people into smaller and fragmented tribes.
2) Get a message. We're not them is not good enough.
3) Find a non-toxic candidate.
It should not be that hard to defeat someone like Trump.
2
Who Owns the Supreme Court?
Is that a recognition that the Supreme Court majority are the slaves of the Trump administration?
2
Given the fact that Ginsburg is 85 and in the hospital with three broken ribs, I would say that Trump owns the Supreme Court.
4
The legitimacy of the high court is now all but trashed due to cynical political abuse, mostly by the GOP. Can Roberts still single handedly hold off disaster? Will the system survive intact when Roe v. Wade comes up for review?
2
History is best left to the past.
This living in exciting times, watching future history being made and dictators challenging the very core of democracy, is frightening.
Some of us were raised in autocratic households, and know that a moment of weakness or of inattention can lead to disasters, and lead to warring hurts that destroy family and friendships. Trump could win it all, and turn us into Putin's disgrace of a country, a pretend democracy with pretend media and courts.
Trump is a miserable, horrible person, but he is doing one thing of great use to me, personally. He has educated me to see that today's Republican Party is not only not worthy of respect, it is a criminal organization sworn to destroying our Constitution, in order to replace it with some sort of capitalist demand for capitulation from the poor and the powerless.
America isn't for, or about the Trump family, though may it one day face punishments for stealing hundreds of millions from the American people in tax fraud. If one engages in a criminal conspiracy to hide one's crime, doesn't that negate statute of limitations?
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
5
Is discovery against senior leadership of a federal agency to probe their internal motivations really ‘ordinary legal process’ Linda? Come on, you know better than that. The true abusers of the federal courts are those on the left using activist litigation to try to restrain the administration from carrying out lawful policy that they happen to disagree with. Their abetters are the federal district judges happy to slap a nationwide injunction on this or that in order to get a favorable mention in this column. Confronted by something similar, no Obama or Bush solicitor general would act any differently.
4
When those motivations are transparently criminal, yeah, it's a necessary thing
What could be the GOP's endgame on this? Do they really think that destroying the sanctity of the Court, in the name of keeping immigrants and minorities disenfranchised, will make America a better place? It is just another example of the GOP placing party over country.
2
Given how divided the country is culturally, it is a mistake for the Supreme Court to act like a social dictator. Suppose that Roe v Wade was overturned. Abortion would still remain legal in New York and California. So retaining Roe v Wade means forcing Louisiana and Texas to keep it legal.
But do you have the moral right to decide what Texas and Louisiana should do? And why should New York City, which is 5% of the country's population, account for 33% of SC justices?
New York liberals and other living in blue states need to give a little bit of cultural slack to the red states. If you can be a little bit tolerant and stop pretending that your values are universal human rights, then we can all get along.
People, the important things are global warming, excessive differences of wealth and a health care system which is a mess. Please concentrate on these and let go of "abortion rights in Texas".
But no, you want it all, and so you got Kavanaugh. Enjoy!
3
The SCOTUS has been for decades the wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP. What else is new?
4
Trump - the emperor, his Roman Curia - the Supreme Court, and his college of Cardinals - the Senate, rule the land with an evangelical zeal for absolute power over a former democracy become feudal land of peasants, paupers and plutocrats.
5
Wow!!
THESE ARE SCAREY TIMES.
AS AN INDEPENDENT I AM GOING TO TRUST THE ROBERT'S
COURT TO BE ONE OF THE BEST, BECAUSE IT IS UNDER SUCH A CLOUD OF DISTRUST OF TRUMP AND HIS INFLUENCE.
THEY TAKE AN OATH,THE GOOD ONES WILL EMBRACE IT.
What we call a Supreme Court is a subsidiary of the party that has appointed the majority of so-called Justices. Why go on pretending otherwise?
1
Conservatives don't want to own the Supreme Court--if that were even possible. They're simply doing what Liberals have always done when they have control: appointing justices that align with their political philosophy. In keeping with that, Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan--2 of the most liberal justices in history.
Liberals have successfully used the courts to validate and institute their left-wing policies--when they couldn't otherwise get them through the political process. They believe in judicial activism and judge shopping. That's why so many Liberals file motions in the 9th Circuit--because it is famously left-leaning.
To all you Liberals out there--if you're as confused as Ms. Greenhouse seems to be, listen up. Conservatives have only 1 goal when it comes to judicial nominations--to nominate originalist, textualist, judges--who believe it is their job to interpret laws, statutes and the Constitution--as written--and not to make them up as they go along.
Conservatives believe the judiciary is the judiciary, that the legislature is the legislature--and neither should attempt to assume the functions of the other branch.
It is no secret why Kavanaugh was so viciously opposed by Liberals. His appointment effectively cemented an originalist majority on the court. That simply means the door has closed to Liberals who want to bypass the legislative process--and impose their progressive policies on the nation.
Easy, to understand, huh?
4
John Roberts, if he wishes not to go down in infamy in the history books, would have to start examining himself and the group he heads. A travesty of Justice is not justice. That's where this is heading.
1
Love the photo. Trump and his mini-me, as in the Frat Boy version. Except HE never actually ATTENDED College (s), except as a Visitor. Seriously.
1
Trump has no respect for the rule of law and he
nominated Kavanaugh as a "get out of jail free card."
Will Roberts let his court become a Trumpian
lapdog?
I am not optimistic
4
While a far right winger, Chief Justice Roberts is no fool and not a mindless Trump follower. He knows turning the Court into a Trump rubberstamp would destroy their credibility and encourage Democratic efforts to expand the membership when they regain complete control of the US government.
This means Roberts may be a certain vote on the right wing agenda, but he won’t be an obvious Trump lackey. He understands any decision unduly helping Trump is precedent for the next Democrat occupying the Oval Office.
Since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 we have know that the Roberts Court is racist Republican Southern Strategy Court.
Voter suppression and Gerrymandering has been rampant in the Republican States as their Republican Legislatures restrict and block Democratic voters.
I don't see how anyone could question the racism of the Republican Roberts Court.
4
Why are we still talking and writing about the Supreme Court as if it has any legitimacy? For the life of me, I can't see how it has any since the installation of Neil Gorsuch.
5
I love reading Linda Greenhouse, she writes well and entertainingly about an often dry subject. I fear her skills will be wasted on this court, whose actions will not warrant the thoughtful analysis she is capable of.
These guys are hacks.
the Absurd proposition that the Supreme Court is non-political was shredded by Bush V Gore
4
Trump is treating the entire structure of our Government as a whole owned subsidiary, so there is nothing new here. Look at his two picks for Justice, groomed by Heritage Foundation from WAY back. Do you doubt their complete loyalty?
3
The Court is not owned by anyone but those who sit it. Look at the membership who sat and judged back in 1973 that becoming human doesn't happen until the mother says it happens. If that's a scientifc decision, pigs fly.
Back then, Republican Nixon was president and he did not support "pro-abortion when a woman so chooses." But The Court did.
This terminating of the lives of many millions of humankind is truly barbaric. Not getting pregnant is accessible to everyone. Getting pregnant anyway is inexcusable. Choosing abortion instead of a 9 month pregnancy is worse and horrificaly tragic.
Choose life. Your mother did. Or you wouldn't be reading this. We can only hope The Court rights these tragic wrongs.
2
Mitch McConnell, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin own the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the least democratic branch of our divided limited power constitutional republic. Law is not fair nor just nor moral nor objective. Law is gender , color aka race, socioeconomics, politics, faith, education and history plus arithmetic. Both black African enslavement and separate and unequal were legal.
1
There is no line between comedy and tragedy here, just tragedy and malevolence on Trump's part to make the Supreme Court his puppet, just to validate his every move towards abuse of his presidential power, shrewdly maneuvered by his corrupted aides as an urgent matter. This all is shameful, and brutishly cruel, as Trump's egomanic nonsense demands loyalty and way above the law. That Wilbur Ross is a disgusting liar leaves no doubt and ought to be held in contempt...if Trump were not his co-equal in 'crime' and protecting his graft. Now, we all are corruptible, and the higher our position in power, the more painful the fall,certainly applicable to the judges in the Supreme Court, that seem too partisan for Mother Justice to have a chance. So, what's our price when the bidding goes up?
1
Given yesterday's statements by Trump, it would seem that the Trump Administration views the U.S. Senate as a wholly owned subsidiary as well.
The Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch, all subsidiaries of Trump, Inc.
Now, doesn't that make them feel special.
5
I've been a lawyer since 1979 and must say that the current composition of the court is at a very low level. Have not seen such political corruption since Bush v. Gore.
7
There is a glimmer of hope that Chief Justice Roberts will try to nudge the court to an apolitical consensus. He surely is aware of his own legacy for the history books.
Even if Linda Greenhouse were correct on the merits of the cases here, she doesn't offer a shred of evidence to to back the preposterous claim that that Trump thinks he owns the Supreme Court or can dictate to it.
What Greenhouse's own evidence shows is the exact opposite is true. The courts have thwarted the Administration at every turn -- which is why it has had to resort to "three highly unusual petitions."
Far from the Administration "trying to bend the court to its will," it has been reduced to "pleading" -- which is the usual posture of petitioners before our courts.
So please spare us the spin.
4
I didn't realize court filing ever contained the empathy that Greenhouse finds lacking in these. Trump's executive order was supposedly a prompt to Congress to act on DACA, but Democrats have been unwilling to give anything in return given that the midterms wee eminent and the appeals were in process.
Now liberals were surprised that Republicans were unwilling to act on a standalone DACA bill, but that's the way politics in played in DC. $2B for a wall would be a cheap price to pay.
6
Why is this the Democrats fault? It was Republicans who torpedoed Bush's immigration reform, and then Tea Party twits who have made it impossible since 2010
But what is the remedy for this? Tuesday, 45 million Americans voted Democratic in Senate elections, against only 33 million Republicans. The GOP still increased its majority in the Senate, and with it, the power to confirm partisan justices and judges. We are no longer a democracy, despite having a Constitution that purports to outline the mechanism. How will that change, while small states with reactionary residents have an outsized voice in government?
23
@Ockham9 The remedy is to stop whining about the Senate and the Constitution and start competing. As recently as 2009, the Democrats had a 60 seat majority, most of those who’ve become eligible to vote since then are younger and more liberal, go out and win them over.
4
The election in 2016 was always about control of the Supreme Court.
Yet many "educated" progressives decided there was "no difference" between the Reality Show Con Artist and someone President Obama said was the most qualified person to ever run for office.
Some loudly "held their nose" as if that is an effective way to attract independents to the cause.
Others decided to "sit it out" or even register a "protest vote" and Gary Johnson and Jill Stein registered even a higher number of votes than the Ralph Nader debacle that resulted in George W. Bush in 2000 hat resulted in two seats on the court for conservatives.
"Educated" progressives do not understand US elections are binary choices and if they aren't happy with Citizens United, the restrictions or overturning that will surely come to Roe vs. Wade and future decision, they have only to look in the mirror for the culprit.
17
@Mike N: This entire judicial coup d'état is intended to overturn separation of church and state.
2
This is rich. For the last 50 years or so the Democrats have pursued their political agenda through the least democratic branch of government—the Courts. The current divisiveness in this country might in large part be traced back to another Supreme Court panel’s decision in Roe v Wade—leftish legislating of the worst kind. The court is appointed by politicians who want the Cort to reflect their views. Always has been and always will. The main reason I voted for Trump with all his issues was to see more Scalia like justices and fewer Sotomayors. And since conservative justices are not interested in opening Pandora’s Box ever wider, or in bypassing the Constitution’s Amendment process by making things up that have no textual support, they are no long term threat to the left and, frankly, may for awhile protect the left from the consequences of its anything goes philosophy. But eventually the Court will swing left again and the Box will again open wider.
5
SCOTUS has been predominantly dominated by conservative forces over our history. Can you cite a liberal court other than the Warren Court? BTW, a conservative court doesn’t mean supporting the people- it means supporting the corporations and powerful forces that control all of us.
6
@ehillesum: Now we have judges so fake that they say we have no powers reserved by the people because the Constitution doesn't list any.
3
@James Osborneh: The less it conserves, the more conservative it is!
In filing theses frivolous requests for injunctions the attorneys are violating the code of professional responsibility and should be sanctioned.
10
Now that the Court has a majority of partisan conservative apparatchiks, the rest of us must struggle to find a way around the Court. That is a dangerous path. If we refuse to obey partisan political rulings, like Citizens United, that emanate from the Court, we also reject the rule of law.
16
One person, one vote? No, it wasn't just Citizens United. It was when the Supreme Court made corporations citizens long ago. To equate personhood with money was a very slippery slope and we have seen its results throughout the past century. Citizens United just made it more egregious.
38
@Quatt
A pin I own says "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one"
I'd be embarrassed to argue to a court that lives in its explanatory opinions that “an agency decision maker’s mental processes are generally irrelevant to evaluating the legality of agency action,” there was no reason to “probe the secretary’s mental processes.”
The importance of judicial opinions is in explaining why a particular decision was reached. Otherwise we would have a government by oracles.
8
I have lost my idealism when it comes to the Supreme Court. It is no longer a champion of the rule of law. It is an arm of the Trump White House, bought and paid for by Republicans and will do the bidding of the president. As with the confirmation of Thomas (who appears to fall asleep during most court sessions), the addition of Kavanaugh (certainly no great legal mind, but loyal to a fault) sealed the deal.
35
“Events have their own implacable logic. Consequences will follow our ordinary actions which are often the opposite we intend.” Solzhenitsyn, The First Circle.
11
Interesting to think of this as a Trump Supreme Court. The new court has 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish Justices. Trump is a Protestant. The position of the Catholic Church on immigration is that states have the right to stop armies from crossing their borders but do not have the right to limit migration of civilians. In other words, the United States and European nations do not have the right to limit immigration. Many individual Jews share that opinion. It will be interesting to see how this new Supreme Court rules on immigration issues. As to the citizen question on the census, Ross should have simply said, I felt it was important for the United States to obtain this information again and made the decision to reinsert the question into the census. How we view this question is totally partisan. The Times is pro open borders, mass immigration, and amnesty. They see this question hurting their agenda. If they thought it would help their agenda, they would be all for it. Why is asking someone if they are a citizen controversial? The answer is many immigrants have illegal immigrants living in their households. They are facilitating family members to break our laws. That is a crime. Democrats are afraid that large numbers of these violators of our immigration laws, whose families generally vote Democratic and live in Blue states, will avoid being counted. If that occurred, there would be a transfer of power in the House of Representatives to Red states.
8
@Mike
The purpose of the census was not to find and record "illegal" residents. It was designed by the founders to count all residents of the USA in order to allocate funds and representation per capita. It was to include all residents - citizen and otherwise.
34
Scariest comment ever. One, the intent of our census has never been to ferret out criminals, which may be a fair description of illegals. That job is for law enforcement, not census workers. The legacy goal is to count all the residents who live here so dollars and representation are doled out proportionately. This trump move is designed to undercount important states like CA so we unfairly lose both. A Mafioso act of revenge against we liberals. Who happen to be donors to the federal coffers under current circumstances.
1
Does the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the far-reaching case of Ross v. the U.S. census provide basis for hope that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh will join in a holy alliance - at least in certain cases - to save the nation from its putative leader?
3
Implied in Linda Greenhouse's recent columns is the possibility that Justice Roberts may be the vote that prevents politicization of the court by siding with the liberal wing. Whether Justice Kavanaugh assumes the role of Justice Kennedy on the court remains to be seen.
2
Blind justice? This court, the Roberts-Trump court, couldn't find justice with GPS. Because it doesn't want to. Ms. Greenhouse, forget comedy, this is pure tragedy.
25
Rule of Law is a fragile thing. I wonder if the Justices are aware of how revolted large segments of the population are by Trump and by Supreme Court recent rulings from Citizens United to failing to support freedom from religious intrusion into health and welfare. If Trump and the GOP undercut Rule of Law enough, the populace will move away as well. I can see Blue states that truly adhere to the Constitution over GOP manipulation simply insisting they are "the country" and proceed to ignore the Supreme Court en mass. I wonder if Roberts is aware or concerned. Given Citizens United I doubt it.
27
The Supreme Court started it's path to partisan corruption almost 17 years ago when it selected George Bush as president by stopping the Florida re-count being run by his brother Jeb Bush. It completed it's conversion to irrelevance under Judge Roberts with their ruling on Citizens United in 2010.
66
@Rocketscientist...same old argument on Bush v. Gore that fails to take into account the democratic lawyers and courts in FL that brought it to the supreme court. By the way, not one re-count ever showed that Gore won. Get over it!
2
@Jim You don't get to make up your own facts: The re-count was halted. "The recount was in progress on December 9 when the United States Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote granted Bush's emergency plea for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court recount ruling, stopping the incomplete recount."
3
The entire enterprise of the Repub Party for the last 30-40 years has been to delegitimize any Democratic President, administration and policies; indeed any Dem government at all. So this is not surprising. For all the talk about smug Dem elites and elite assumptions, I find the Gingrich/McConnell/Trump mode of sheer takeover much more concerning. If you think the last 10 years have been politics as usual you haven't been paying attention.
47
McGahn directed Trump's choice of justices, first Gorsuch, then Kavanaugh. McGahn surely told Trump about Kavanaugh's opinion that a sitting President cannot be subpoenaed or indicted which got Trump on the bandwagon. McGahn spent hours with Mueller, unknown to Trump. McGahn gave the FBI it's marching orders on the limits to their Kavanaugh "investigation". McGahn is a man with an agenda. At some point Trump realized it wasn't all about him and announced McGahn's exit. Now Trump wants to know if Kavanaugh is loyal to him?
I stopped believing the Supreme Court was the Guardian of the Constitution years ago - how could they have set loose a plague of Dark Money on us? How could they make it so hard to govern for the Public Good? How could they possibly believe their interpretation of the 2nd amendment? How could they gut a Voting Rights law in a Democracy?
298
@Saint999
Amen. Right on the money, literally.
The USA is no longer a democracy.
17
@Saint999 -- The answer to your questions is the growing legalism in our society. We constantly tout the Constitution, and strain (at gnats) to conform our law to its very sketchy provisions. And what is/was written is all that counts. In reality, most of our "legal" practice is based on common law, which relies on the concept of equity - what is "fair" and "right".
7
@Saint999
After carefully reading your post, I am thinking that you might feel more at home... in say... Havana, or even... Beijing.
2
Trump does get his way with each Court
Bankruptcy, Supreme, never short,
And this decerebrate
Has a base thinks he's great,
Even after Mueller will report.
6
@Larry Eisenberg
'Decerebrate' is very good. I am reminded of an old 'x-ray' cartoon of Homer Simpson showing a teeny, tiny brain floating in the void of his skull.
1
Given the chaotic nature of the Trump Admin, and with the head of the Justice Dept out the door, looking for a reason may be assuming too much.
This could well be the random output of a complex machine running without any effective controls, without reason at all.
It is a reach to assume complex calculation on the part of Trump's group.
7
One frightening development is that the Supreme Court is out of sync with the appellate courts on key issues related to our democracy. The lower courts apply the law as it exists and then the Supreme Court ignores or changes the law. The Muslim ban is the most obvious example. In that case a series of appellate courts ruled consistently to find the ban, in its various iterations, to be illegal. Then the Supreme Court intervened and immediately allowed the ban to go forward, then later ruled, disregarding well established law and specific statutory language, to sustain the administration's position and overturning the lower courts. Then the Court ruled that a baker can discriminate to deny services, with tortured reasoning which ignored language in the Muslim ban decision that would have forbidden this result. The administration's turn to the Supreme Court before consideration of issues in the appellate or trial courts, reinforces the notion that the right wing activists believe, and the right wing activists on the Supreme Court agree, that there is no point to allowing lower court participation in the system. The very body charged with protecting the rule of law is failing us.
66
These recent moves by the Trump administration should surprise no one. I don't think even the most delusional Republican expected to keep the House. From the GOP's perspective losing the House is irrelevant. They've won the Senate ...increasing their majority. Control the Senate & you control the most important lever of power: the judiciary. That means the Republican's will continue to nominate more conservative justices. The courts are the source of the Republican's power, their blunt instrument in the cultural war that divides us. The GOP is not going to have to worry about confirmation battles anymore. They're not going to have to worry about appeasing moderates. They will put up whoever they want...the more to the right the better...and get them quickly confirmed. The GOP is playing a long game. Trump will be gone soon. They will still be here. The GOP will wait him out & achieve all of their objectives. Their goal is to nominate 3-4 very conservative Supreme Court justices. Trump has gotten two SCOTUS appointments, he may get more. He’s moved much faster on lower-court appointments than Obama did. The legal arm of the conservative movement is the best organized & most far-seeing sector of the Right. They truly are in it — and have been in it — for the long term goals. 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. Nothing will get in the way of that goal.
33
Maybe with the House about to go to Democratic control, Trump wanted to regain full executive control over the Dreamers. This would put the administration in the best position to discuss the terms of immigration reform, including the wall. Waiting for the three Courts of Appeals to decide could push the issue too close to the 2020 presidential election.
6
Trump has opened a civil war on US law as we know it. Will the courts go along? The prospects do not look good.
27
Horace Walpoloe noted that "The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel."
The justices on the SCOTUS may be cerebral but clearly they have no idea who the Dreamers are or how they feel. It is safe to say that particularly the two most recent appointees to the SCOTUS have no difficulty in issuing inhumane orders.
As Dr. Ford testified, the only thing that rings in the ears of the afflicted is the laughter of the oppressor.
95
The right wing has been working for 50 years to make the SC a wholly-owned subsidiary, and now they've finally got it done.
72
@Pat
Not just the Supreme Courts, all American Courts. The Senate now is perfectly poised to quickly pass all nominees of the President. As with Citizens United, the baker and gutting of the VRA, all the courts will act in unison to protect the 1%, Corporations and Evangelists. What could possibly go wrong?
5
"But for those of us hanging on the court’s every move, there was hardly time to catch our breath before the Trump administration was back at it again, trying to bend the court to its will."
It's this "bending the court to its will," that is the key point. Many write that Donald Trump has no understanding of the role of the AG and other DOJ institutional rules, norms, and players he tries to command from the Oval Office.
This weary claim "he doesn't understand" should be immediately eliminated from the lexicon of those who cover the White House.
As Linda Greenhouse points out, the administration knows full well what it's doing, even if DOJ lawyers had to explain its actions in 5th grade language to a president who increasingly acts like a dictator, as he continues to go unchecked.
Yes, Greenhouse is right: Donald Trump views the DOJ and the Supreme Court as his personal fiefdom to make sham gestures and rulings that give him "legal" cover for suspect actions.
Far from 'not understanding,' this president understands all too well how much he can get away with in the arcane maneuverings between his administration and the courts.
87
Justice Roberts senses that a string of 5-4 decisions on contentious issues is bad of the image of the Roberts Court. Kavanaugh should take care to put some distance between his partisan conspiracy laden rant before Congress before ruling in favor of the administration.
20
@texsun
A fair point. History will not be kind to Chief Justice Roberts if his court becomes a bunch of lickspittles to Trump. Perhaps he should have a long conversation with the ghost of Roger Taney.
1
You should express the op-ed's title as a statement, not a question. As in: "Trump owns the Supreme Court."
Or, more accurately, "Trump owns the people of the United States."
17
@Ben Alcobra
Trump does not own me and never will!
1
When did cult trump power in Washington?
Washington DC is filled with ambitious people who (Ok, giving people the benefit of the doubt here) believe that they can really help the country, and by help, I mean be in positions of power and authority to really protect our principles and guide us into the future.
As we all learned in school (well, those of us where public education hasn’t been emaciated) there are three equal branches of government. While we have a strong executive, this means that you don't have to be president to hold significant power and have significant impact. There is the Congress and it's two houses and there is the Supreme Court. We have lots of positions for ambitious people to rise and have power even if ideally all should be disinterested in personal power as George Washington was.
So back to my question, when did all these people in power, who would normally want to demonstrate a degree of independence, to show that they are the equal of their peers, give up their independence in a single-minded quest to a single vision and to consolidate power in a single man.
Today’s government seems more and more like the Stepford pols all with the same personality marching to the same tune. It all seems to be cultish following where independence and personal ambition are absent. I would argue while ambition can be detrimental, that a degree of human ambition and ego is necessary among the branches to fulfill the Constitution’s goal of checks and balances.
7
@Marie I guess you are unaware of the land grants George Washington received.
"Maybe the chief justice and Justice Kavanaugh simply found Solicitor General Francisco’s hyperbolic rhetoric unpersuasive. Or maybe it was something deeper, a sense that a 5-to-4 vote to shield the Trump administration from ordinary legal process would have been a needless step on the road to disaster for a court already seen as polarized by political allegiances. By just such incremental developments will the line between comedy and tragedy be etched by the newly constituted Roberts court."
Thank you, Linda Greenhouse, your columns are always informative and interesting.
Maybe the line is actually between catastrophe and the blackest of a comedy of horrors.
Merrick Garland, so sorry we didn't get to know ye...
38
The GOP and therefore Trump do own the Supreme Court.
That has been the whole point of the right's 20 year effort to concentrate all their monies and efforts to grooming and advancing right wing judges across America.
Trump has been picking his nominees off of the approved List.
There is no room for being coy.
The GOP and their benefactors have bought and paid for the Supreme Court.
28
My guess is that the Trump administration is in a hurry to push through a number of changes and we are likely to see even more aggressive attempts to block local law suits.
Trump saw his legislative agenda go up in smoke on Tuesday. So with a Congress that he no longer controls he will do the same thing that he criticized the Obama administration for, use the executive order and the administrative process that he still controls.
The later has so far proven problematic because it seems none of his secretaries ever took administrative law and none have any regard for due process.
But at some point, on some case that fourth vote will fall. Then we will see what this court really looks like.
13
@drspock: His secretaries are there only to make money for themselves and their friends. De-regulate everything, destroy the air and water regulations, get rid of pesky laws that protect the people, give themselves huge tax cuts.
That's it.
1
Oh boy, another doozy of a piece from Linda Greenhouse, particularly on immigration. This paragraph stands out:
"Census experts have warned that a question about citizenship status will deter immigrants from responding altogether, leading to a potentially significant undercount in parts of the country with large immigrant populations, which could affect federal funding to states and representation in Congress."
This highlights the inherent problem of liberal thinking - immigrants are NOT citizens and as such should NOT to be considered when determining federal funding and most definitely NOT be considered for population counts in drawing Congressional districts.
This is how off the rails our nation has gone from basing actions and laws in common sense and instead is using 'good intentions' of what is considered by liberals as 'just' and 'equitable'. This is why not only Trump but other reasonable, rational Americans will continue to look askance at liberals and their magical reasoning on developing and implementing public policy.
5
@Common Sense
The Constitution mandates the counting over persons, not citizens. Art. 1, Section 2 states:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
Citizenship has nothing to do with the Census.
Just people.
54
@Common Sense
I’m interested to define the purpose of the census. There’s an argument out there that the citizenship question is not a political question, based on the idea that services, legislative representation, etc. should not be based on population counts that include non-citizens.
Is it effective and accurate to say that we count the population to understand our population, not with regard to who is a citizen and who isn’t, but with more fundamental aims?
For example, let’s say there is a pandemic. Having a correct count of population would be essential to developing strategies for quelling outbreaks, to sending appropriate amounts of a vaccine to an area, for example; or, for establishing quarantine areas or setting up clinics.
6
@Fan of English language
Sad, but true as it stands now. Add this to the list of things that should change.
This court drama is but a microcosm of the overall drama of Trump's unreality show. What's going on is ever increasing efforts to upset and upend the workings of the system until such time as he can garner support and applause for treating anyone, including the supreme court, the way he treats reporters, most recently Jim Acosta.
22
@EricR Boss trump.
1
There surely will be increased pressure from this administration to press the Court to ratify its politically motivated decisions. President Trump feels the right-leaning majority on the Court owes him. He will exact his pound of flesh and will not be subtle about it. His recent contention that he could proscribe birthright citizenship by executive fiat might have been an electoral gimmick, but it is also revelatory of a deeply held belief that he now owns the Court and expects fealty from it. Whether the Court will ultimately stand up to him will unfold over the next term or two. We will be watching with trepidation.
51
Wow! sharper than a serpents tooth is the greenhouse wit. thank you, Linda Greenhouse, another insightful colulmn.
50
This administration has a commitment to the continued aggressive "no holds barred" methodology in the pursuit of its agenda. By the use of excessive demands and attacks on the constitutional structures that would hold their excesses in check they hope to force concessions in their favor. This methodology is well known and practiced in the business world, but can result in the dismantling of the constitutional structure that protects us all.
40
Another way to characterize the administration's behavior is to recognize it's "Attack Dog Posture. Throw him a bone and perhaps he'll go away, or alternatively bite the hand that feeds him.
Carey
1
Is the judiciary independent? Given the quality and partisan appointments across the federal judiciary, not at all. The litmus test for judges seems to be how far right in your opinions. We face a generation of a far right activist judiciary that plan to overturn every precedent. I would not be surprised at all if the current supreme court let stand some appeal court ruling that reinstated plessy v ferguson or limited the application of the 15th or 19th amendment.
55
Perhaps, the administration expected (and argued) that after the failure to vacate the lower court's ruling has resulted (in September 2018) the largest increase of families crossing the border (which is what the President has warned about if we don't secure the border).
As an attorney, I am truly dumbfounded how 9 justices who swore to uphold the Constitution can allow lower courts to protect a statute that President Obama himself acknowledged he lacked the authority to give. His actions were reminiscent of Andrew Jackson's famous proclamation to Chief Justice Marshal. Then when President Trump seeks to follow the law they fail to act.
6
@Matthew
Try looking at the facts:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
The author speculates that the Court decided not to intervene because it would be "a needless step on the road to disaster" for the Court itself.
The media obviously see the Supreme Court as an active part of the Washington melodrama that they have been reporting breathlessly for some time now. Perhaps that is true, and if so, we are in trouble.
But let us have a little evidence for this first.
4
So, let's make sure I have this straight.
It was just fine when the Obama team made regular visits to the Supreme Court to request rulings, respond to legal actions, and file petitions - but - when the Trump adminstration does exactly the same thing, it's not fine, because the author disagrees with their motive.
Does that sound about right ?
17
@Objectivist: No. Ms Greenhouse makes it plain that the petitions from the Trump administration are unusual in the extreme, quite unlike those from any previous administration.
140
@pmbrig
Baloney.
All activites at the court follow the same procedures. There is no special treatment given to administration requests by the court.
Greenhouse's assertion: " trying to bend the court to its will" is a lie, plain and simple.
The court, dos not "bend" to anyone's will.
It considers legality and constitutionality.
Period.
That the Trump adminstration files a lot of material, is a non-event.
3
@Objectivist "The court, dos not "bend" to anyone's will. It considers legality and constitutionality. " Nonsense! As it becomes stacked with increasingly "conservative" (read corporatist rightists) it's becoming "bent". Considerations of legality and constitutionality are subject to the individual interpretations of the justices, as they have always been!
5
Rule of Law? More like the Rule of Ideology or Personality or whatever Trump and GOP want.
Comedy? Well, the international community may be laughing. Here in the US we are terrified.
127
Linda Greenhouse, what would we do without you? Thanks to your informative opinion pieces on the Supreme Court, many of us regular citizens who care about the state of justice in the Age of Trump can begin to understand the implications of the shenanigans of the Federalist Society’s handpicked nominees. Their reasoning may remain impenetrable, as do those of all the justices, but the White House’s belief that its own conservative “politics” align with those of its handpicked justices, poses a real threat to our assumption that the Court can remain impartial. For instance, it may have been legal to gut the voting rights act but it was terrifically unjust. Any citizen who believes that the right to vote is a fundamental bond understands that and feels that the Court’s decision was partisan. Citizen’s United as well. What other nightmares await us as Trump exercises his privileged relationship to his well-placed friends? Shudder.
290
@Elizabeth
In deed I shudder especially since Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. For he certainly wears his allegiance to the Republican Party and Trump on his sleeve. I for one certainly do not trust him at all.
11
I entirely agree, but please don't award an "Age of" to a brazen criminal who barely acts the "Age of" a toddler!
(It's a common error among The Media too, I know.)
3
The real "wild card" is Chief Justice Roberts. He recognizes that if he simply goes political he will destroy both any legitimacy of the Court and his own legacy. So expect that he will, to the extent he can, dodge the issues.
I expect this will happen in the political gerrymandering cases. He will write an opinion affirming the lower courts striking down districting in North Carolina and Maryland (the first for the GOP and the second for the Democrats) on a very narrow basis … that those who wrote the law overtly said that they were doing it solely to punish the voters of one party. Since no future legislator will ever say that again, this will be a one-off decision that has no practical effect.
37
@John Graubard
I think that the Chief Justice has already shown that his reasoning is his own. He may be 'conservative' but he is not swayed by waves of political pressure.
5
What is troubling here to me (and clearly not to Ms. Greenhouse) is the insertion of the judiciary into what are clearly policy choices entrusted to the executive. Indeed, there is a Congressional oversight mechanism here, which is contained in certain reporting requirements established by 13 U.S.C 141. Presumably, the administration has complied with those requirements, hence it’s not clear where the court obtains its authority to meddle in this politically freighted issue. The citizenship question is not unprecedented or irrelevant so there’s that.
To claim that Commerce had a political motivation in including the question (just like the plaintiffs here have a clear political motivation in excluding it in an effort to try to ensure that all legal AND illegal non-citizens participate) is silly. Political appointees by definition consider political considerations. Obama certainly had political “base-pleasing” motivations underlying the DACA program, which at its essence was a declaration that the administration would choose not to enforce, or in the terms of the presidential oath, “faithfully execute,” the law. Again, it’s troubling that (almost always Democratic appointed judges like Furman) continue to jump into policy matters that are not their province.
13
@airish
I see this as the administration, current, as inviting the newly reformed Court to "meddle" and assuming it will gain what it wants.
The question on citizenship was entirely politically motivated.
25
@airish: You dismiss the plaintiffs' effort "to try to ensure that all legal AND illegal non-citizens participate" as though this were a partisan political move. The Constitution says explicitly that the census shall count all persons under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. It does not say "citizens." The partisan political move is on the part of the administration, which is attempting to exclude non-citizens. Objecting to this is not partisan, it's patriotic.
102
@airish first off, he lied under oath. second off, it is not against the dems to ask the census Question, it is against the people of the united states, it is against representative government, democratic government, and also the report of speicalists in the field, so it is also anti-science.
31
Perhaps,
just perhaps,
Justice Kavanaugh
and the other Conservatives
might surprise Liberals
by voting against what the Trump Administration
is seeking, instead of rubbing stamping their appeals.
Imagine that -
an independent Judiciary -
that Liberals said was impossible
if Trump was able to place his nominees on the
Federal Courts.
Meanwhile,
I am still trying to figure out,
unless a Federal Employee has
conspired for ill-gotten gains,
why the ways and means they came to
make an administrative decision is the
purview of any court.
Rather odd that the Census can ask for
age, gender, racial/ethnic ancestry, marriage status
but cannot ask if you are a citizen or not.
[ Provided the information is kept secret. ]
12
@John Brown
Liberals did not say it was impossible. Just likely that the court will issue political decisions. Also, the conservative justices are smart men; they will not appear to be blatantly political all the time. They will do so in very important decisions.
11
@John Brown
A lot of the impact does depend on the Census being able to maintain confidentiality - something that is promised in exchange for providing information.
Would Trump and some Republicans see gains for them in attacking the confidentiality, no matter how much it compromised the quality of data? I think so.
And would it simply make the data less accurate over all? I am sure it would. I did canvassing in the last Census, and did count some who were apparently undocumented who provided information - enough at least for the count -with the assurance that they were no individually identified.
19
Given Cavanaugh's disgusting display at the confirmation hearing, his long history of being a mean drunk and sexual predator, and all of his writings that the Senate was able to see, which was only 10%, it's obvious that this man is unfit for the bench, and that he will seek to undo many of the settled cases of law that the Supreme Court has previously decided. If Roe v Wade is not completely killed, it will die the death of a thousand cuts, and the result will be the same. Poor women, mostly women of color, will lose the last vestige of access to reproductive services, not just abortion, but birth control, pap smears and other procedures that makeup nearly all of planned parenthood's services. This new far-right Supreme Court will do much more to uphold the damage that Trump and Republicans are doing to the country, removing your rights, but just the loss of the protections of Roe v Wade is a large enough disaster that none of us should pretend that any of this is normal.
3
Everyone and everything which is associated with The Con Don eventually is diminished, corrupted, or becomes a laughing stock. See what happened to the faithful Sessions who was a natural supporter of The Donald's repressive immigration and civil rights policies. The Supremes need to take a principled stand on an important case which makes it clear that they are not part of The Donald's faithful. I like to think that Roberts and Kavanaugh are perceptive enough to see that it would be a good thing to demonstrate the court's independence; Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito naturally tend to a right-wing view of things so they are natural administration supporters and probably care little about public perceptions of the court.
One thing that gives me hope is that most actions by the Supreme Court go into the history books. I like to think that the Justices care about what might be written about them in the future. And they can't be fired.
On another point related to the republican court.
The effects of past court actions could be seen this past week. Several years ago the Court gutted a key part of the voting rights law. By gutting that law the Court made it much easier for states to enact new voting laws and to engage in vote suppression in a big way. In a close election, that could make a difference. One place where it might have made a difference is in Georgia. If the Court had not gutted the voting law, Stacy Abrams might be the new Governor of Georgia.
199
@Aubrey
I agree with your comment except I do NOT trust Kavanaugh. He showed his true color in his confirmation hearing and is a loyal right leaning Republican. Sorry but he wears his loyalty to Trump on his sleeve.
14
@Aubrey
Yes, Stacy Abrams might be the new governor of Georgia and that is precisely what the gutting of the Voting Rights Act was intended to prevent.
5
In the last two years, where’s the comedy. The world may be laughing, because the jokes on us. The tragedy is in the demise of democracy.
115
@David J and the demise of the natural world, the repubs fiddling and rome is burning..
15
"Maybe the administration’s lawyers assume that Justice Anthony Kennedy wasn’t with them back then but that Justice Kavanaugh, his successor, will be with them now."
I think this sentence sums up the complete failure of justice in America. Why should anyone rely on a system where the personality of the judge determines the outcome of a case instead of the evidence?
327
@irdac
Judges are people, too, sweating and straining under the same sun in these sometimes United States as they do in Britain. We rely on judges because we have hope that their better angels will prevail as they discharge their duties, despite whatever ugly circumstances of privilege and politics that influenced their appointments.
Thanks to Ms. Greenhouse for reminding us that the die may be cast, but the outcome remains uncertain.
31
@irdac YES ! We once sought a government of law and not of men. If we had that, a government of laws, the choice of judges would not as important as it is.
5