Many Republicans in Congress act as if their sole job is to curtail women's access to comprehensive reproductive care. The long list of features of American life that need serious attention are totally ignored. It's not at all surprising that this bunch of freeloaders doesn't care they've crippled the Supreme Court.
16
Better defered decisions than the bad ones that were likely to have gotten if Scalia had not died. And those bad decisions would have been more difficult to reverse (precident, the court's image, and all that).
6
The Republicans will and should continue to enforce the Biden Rule and not confirm a new Supreme until the election is over.
The only reason the NYT continues to whine about this matter is because the NYT is afraid that Trump will get to make the pick. If there was currently a Republican President the NYT would be arguing the opposite and saying that the pick should go to the next President.
There have been at least two times in our nation's history that, by statute, there were an even number of Supreme Court judges and we survived. We can survive until after the election.
The only reason the NYT continues to whine about this matter is because the NYT is afraid that Trump will get to make the pick. If there was currently a Republican President the NYT would be arguing the opposite and saying that the pick should go to the next President.
There have been at least two times in our nation's history that, by statute, there were an even number of Supreme Court judges and we survived. We can survive until after the election.
7
President Obama is not using the bully pulpit to put maximum pressure on Congress. He needs to be dramatic in describing the idiocy of the GOP position, that is part of their racist wall of opposition. And he needs to point out that when Hillary Clinton is president, a Republican Congress could continue in obstruction indefinitely.
But he isn't doing that and the time slides by. The closer we get to the end of his term, the easier it will be for the GOP to make theirr "let's wait" case.
But he isn't doing that and the time slides by. The closer we get to the end of his term, the easier it will be for the GOP to make theirr "let's wait" case.
8
This is an absolute disgrace. To ask the lower court to come up with a compromise in Zubik v. Burwell is irresponsible. The Appeals court made a ruling - the next step is an appeal of that decision, which has brought the case to the Supreme Court. In other words the Appeals court has done its job. Now it is time for the court to do its job.
The blame for this miscarriage of justice falls squarely at the doorstep of the Senate which refuses to conduct confirmation hearings on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. This playing of politics undermines the court’s ability to function properly as evidenced here.
The blame for this miscarriage of justice falls squarely at the doorstep of the Senate which refuses to conduct confirmation hearings on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. This playing of politics undermines the court’s ability to function properly as evidenced here.
8
Why doesn't the Court explain the situation to Congress and the American people and ask Congress to do its duty to resolve it? The Court needs to make its needs known. Republicans will still obstruct the Justices, but at least SCOTUS can clarify what's really going on. (How about asking the pro and con Justices to write opposing NYT Op-Eds to outline the real/relevant issues?
3
The very people who voted in a Republican Congress and whose members refuse to confirm President' Obama's choice now squawk when they cannot get a decision on their case. To quote the bible which they are love doing when it suits them: You reap what you sow. You can't have it both ways.
7
It's amazing watching the right-wingers try to rationalize the Court's immobilization by an insane Congress.
Oh, well--hardly surprising, given that they've taken the same approach to immobilizing the NLRB and other government boards, to say nothing of their working to deny appointments and immobilize voting.
This is what you do, when you can't win on the merits, and you ain't got the votes.
Oh, well--hardly surprising, given that they've taken the same approach to immobilizing the NLRB and other government boards, to say nothing of their working to deny appointments and immobilize voting.
This is what you do, when you can't win on the merits, and you ain't got the votes.
15
The Senate members refusing to hold a hear should be impeached for dereliction of duty, sedition and obstruction of justice. It must be lovely to earn $175,000.00 a year and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The Republican controlled Congress is literally running this country into the ground - embarrassing and it should be illegal.
5
A court made up of ivy leaguers who all came from corporate law firms, not a plaintiff lawyer or state law degree in the bunch.
4
Cries for an effective Supreme Court would no doubt be much less strident if the Court were likely to rule against certain pet causes.
3
The Editorial Board didn't get the liberal decision it wanted, so the Court is dysfunctional. Thanks for the civic lesson on the role and duties of the Court.
7
Just wait for another oldie to die and then it will be an uneven number. No more ties. With all their clerks, short sessions and lifetime tenurte this would be the economical thing to do.
2
Why not change the rules? In the event of a "hung" court, The opinion of the Chief Justice would be decisive, as the vote of the Vice President is in the Senate. Democracy is predicated on differences of opinion and arbitrary majority decisions..
2
The Times is sounded awfully dramatic. What they are really saying is, we need another flaming lefty on the court. If the situation was reversed and it was a GOP presdient, the same editors would be screaming to block the nomination.
7
I don't wish harm to anyone, but if Justice Thomas were to drop dead right after President Trump is sworn in, it would at least be entertaining to watch everyone switch positions instantly. McConnell would be complaining about the impaired court, Harry Reid would be saying, "eh 7 judges is plenty. Let's let the people decide, etc."
5
More damaging than the hobbling of the Supreme Court is the delegitimisation of election-year presidents. Hearing that the president is a "lame duck" with limited powers, might soldiers defy his orders?
A president not trusted with the appointment pen surely isn't trusted with the nuclear button.
Are treaties we signed in election years null and void, having been sealed without the people's voice?
The Supreme Court can work without a ninth justice, but the president
cannot without a clear mandate. Do we accept a hobbled presidency a quarter of the time?
A president not trusted with the appointment pen surely isn't trusted with the nuclear button.
Are treaties we signed in election years null and void, having been sealed without the people's voice?
The Supreme Court can work without a ninth justice, but the president
cannot without a clear mandate. Do we accept a hobbled presidency a quarter of the time?
4
2 Thoughts: it is not any employer's damn business what contraceptives any female employee takes, and this situation is the exact goal of Congressional Republicans to block the will of the people by having a 5-4 liberal majority. Regardless of who our next president is, I sincerely hope Obama appoints the 9th justice next Jan. when Congress is on recess.
3
Perhaps allowing law to be interpreted by mere majority is as much a tyranny as allowing pure majority rule in creating legislation. Maybe it is time to consider expanding the court to 10 justices with terms of 20 years, with two appointed by the winner of each presidential election. Then no Supreme Court case would be decided by less than a super majority of 60%, a more appropriate bar for such a major act.
1
the argument that a full bench of Nine judges is necessary to make a ruling is far-fetched. The Judges on the Supreme court should be legal experts who do not have party/religious affiliations. If they do have any such affiliations their judgements will surely be clouded and unfair. Minorities would never get justice.. It is a shame that our supreme court has judges that are not impartial.
A right ruling would have been - companies and corporate entities are not persons and cannot have religious beliefs. The argument of the plaintiffs is therefore baseless and needs to be thrown out.
A right ruling would have been - companies and corporate entities are not persons and cannot have religious beliefs. The argument of the plaintiffs is therefore baseless and needs to be thrown out.
22
"Crippled" is one perspective. Another perspective is that an eight-justice Court provides a check on judicial activism.
24
The obstructionism IS activism. All that's being blocked is meaningful judicial ACTION. Republicans have succeeded in their goal of paralyzing all three branches of government. The US is now structurally crippled, unable to fully defend itself from its enemies both inside and beyond its borders. For those who obsess over military and terrorist threats: Well, this is what you want and this is what you've got!
4
"Judicial Activism" = decisions I do not like.
8
Perhaps that is your definition. Supreme Court justices are not legislators.
4
Of course, The Times wouldn't be printing such an editorial if the sitting president was Ted Cruz.
3
Sam’s comment is an excellent example of pure fantasy. Since he cannot rebut the substance of the editorial, he instead offers an assertion brimming with petulant spite, designed to comfort himself, but utterly unsupported by any evidence.
— Brian
— Brian
3
Fortunately, the issue will never come up.
3
Our form of government has always been a game played by and for the wealthy. When they can't get their way they are in a better position than the poor to wait until the political winds change direction which is just what they are doing now.
I trust the majority of obstructionists are removed in a landslidel for the Democrats and our nation's newly elected consider matters which must be addressed through cooperation.
Which ever God our nation is under should direct those who we put in office, to get together and serve all of the citizens of our nation. That is, unless I'm misled, the reason for the their existence.
Liberty and justice for all, is not a question.
I trust the majority of obstructionists are removed in a landslidel for the Democrats and our nation's newly elected consider matters which must be addressed through cooperation.
Which ever God our nation is under should direct those who we put in office, to get together and serve all of the citizens of our nation. That is, unless I'm misled, the reason for the their existence.
Liberty and justice for all, is not a question.
3
The Republican Party has plunged this Nation into a full-fledged Constitutional crisis. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is blocking the Senate from performing its Constitutional duty, shared with the President, of ensuring that the Supreme Court has nine justices as required by the Judiciary Act of 1869. He is thus unlawfully forcing the Court to operate for at least an entire SCOTUS term with only eight.
His objective is to steal a year of Supreme Court picks for a possible President Trump, giving him five years of picks while Obama had only three.
His objective is to steal a year of Supreme Court picks for a possible President Trump, giving him five years of picks while Obama had only three.
7
What happened to Obama's other four years?
1
It is telling that the Republican Party refuses to consider the nomination of a imminently qualified moderate jurist, and instead pursues the path of obstructionism. It demonstrates clearly that their strategy is to pack the court with Republican operatives who will issue decisions based on ideology and politics instead of the law. This ultimately destroys the credibility of the Supreme Court. Along with their despicable presumptive nominee, it's an even more important reason to throw all Republicans out of office this fall and elect people who are prepared to govern this nation fairly and responsibly.
11
"It demonstrates clearly that their strategy is to pack the court with ... operatives who will issue decisions based on ideology and politics instead of the law."
You mean like FDR unsuccessfully tried to do?
You mean like FDR unsuccessfully tried to do?
1
Ideally, we would have an impartial Supreme Court.
In reality, we have a game, and whoever can pack the court with the most of their ideology wins.
For some time now, we have had a court that cares mostly about more money for the rich.
This is a pitiful and absurd situation.
America in the 21st century.
In reality, we have a game, and whoever can pack the court with the most of their ideology wins.
For some time now, we have had a court that cares mostly about more money for the rich.
This is a pitiful and absurd situation.
America in the 21st century.
5
So, the New York Times is arguing that a unanimous decision to send the case back to the lower court somehow indicates that the Supreme Court is crippled?
Really?
What would be the difference if the decision had been 9 - 0 to send it back? Would that also have indicated dysfunction of the Court?
Or, are you saying that the Court would have gone into partisan hack mode, if a fifth vote had been available? Is that a desirable outcome, as far as the Times is concerned?
This article is partisan garbage, meant to make a case that just isn't there to be made. Nice try, Times' editors, but this may be one of your weakest efforts yet.
Really?
What would be the difference if the decision had been 9 - 0 to send it back? Would that also have indicated dysfunction of the Court?
Or, are you saying that the Court would have gone into partisan hack mode, if a fifth vote had been available? Is that a desirable outcome, as far as the Times is concerned?
This article is partisan garbage, meant to make a case that just isn't there to be made. Nice try, Times' editors, but this may be one of your weakest efforts yet.
5
The Times needs to ask our current president why he filibustered the Supreme Court appointment of Samuel Alito when Obama was a U.S. Senator from Illinois. And he did it in the 6th year of the term of President Bush at the time. Now he wants his appointee to be given a fast track review and vote by Congress. The old saying "What goes around, comes around" is particularly appropriate here. Hypocrite in chief would be another.
5
@ Paul — The 25 senators who voted to filibuster knew they didn’t have the votes to sustain one, and were making a symbolic point. The far more important fact is they did not attempt to prevent the committee hearings on Alito’s nomination — and, they took the political responsibility of actually •voting• on the issue of the nomination. What the Republicans in the Senate are now doing is not simply opposing Judge Garland’s nomination, but evading the responsibility of putting that opposition on the record with their votes. The Republicans’ evasion of this responsibility is, simply, cowardly.
And your statement, that President Obama is seeking “fast track review” of Judge Garland’s nomination, is absolute nonsense, if not a flat-out lie. The President has asked for nothing more than ordinary hearings on the nomination, and then votes on the matter in due course. The facts show that your accusation, of hypocrisy on Obama’s part, is a threadbare attempt to compare actions that in fact have little in common; indeed, the aspersion is more aptly turned on you.
— Brian
And your statement, that President Obama is seeking “fast track review” of Judge Garland’s nomination, is absolute nonsense, if not a flat-out lie. The President has asked for nothing more than ordinary hearings on the nomination, and then votes on the matter in due course. The facts show that your accusation, of hypocrisy on Obama’s part, is a threadbare attempt to compare actions that in fact have little in common; indeed, the aspersion is more aptly turned on you.
— Brian
6
One may want to make not of the fact that Justice Alito sits on the court today.
4
Filibustering a specific nominee is way different than blocking _all_ nominees of a president. Filibustering lets the president nominate someone else.
2
The GOP Agenda shut down the Government, costing $17 billion in increased interest costs until order was restored in the financial markets--in addition to the $23 billion in salaries for lost service to the public the Government ended up paying anyway.
Now the Agenda is to do it at no charge, other than the enduring damage to respect for the institution of the Court and the rule of law.
The next Agenda step: Trump appoints 3 Supreme Court justices.
But only if we let him.
Now the Agenda is to do it at no charge, other than the enduring damage to respect for the institution of the Court and the rule of law.
The next Agenda step: Trump appoints 3 Supreme Court justices.
But only if we let him.
4
But the decision was unanimous. All eight Justices agreed. Had there been a ninth, it would likely have been 9-0. Please stop slanting the news to promote an agenda.
4
It was not a decision. The Court stated plainly and emphatically that it was deciding nothing, in remanding the case to the lower courts. Your statement that it’s the same action a nine-member Court would have taken shows only that you’re unwilling to read between the lines — or incapable of doing so.
— Brian
— Brian
1
How do you know this was--to use the specific word you right-wingers have been using all morning--"unanimous?"
@Robert
It's really not difficult to understand if you take the trouble to read the opinion in Zubik v Burwell, which is basis for the order. The opinion in Zubik was issued per curiam, which means it was unanimous...
It's really not difficult to understand if you take the trouble to read the opinion in Zubik v Burwell, which is basis for the order. The opinion in Zubik was issued per curiam, which means it was unanimous...
2
Why should the Republican Congress agree to the appointment of a Left wing judge? The American people voted for a stalemate when they gave the Congress and Presidency to opposing parties and that is exactly what they are getting. Democrats have a choice to back a compromise candidate or take their chances in the elections. By not picking a candidate who can get support across the aisle, they are making a choice. When you have 8 partisan Judges, who are voting the party line, the ninth one gets to make all the decisions, which was what Justice Kennedy was doing. He is the only Justice who has mattered in the last few years.
2
In its current state, the US Constitution allows "the American people" to elect the President and Vice President. Senators and Representatives are elected by the populations of individual states and districts. We have many who are put into office by fewer voters than live in a single NYC borough.
1
No one is asking Republicans to vote for a left wing Judge. They are asking them to fulfill their duty and oath to give an up or down vote to whomever the President chooses.
Also do I no not agree that the country voted for a stalemate, there is only a stalemate because Republicans aren't doing what they were elected to do. The truth is and what they are afraid of is the President choosing someone who isn't who they want but it is palatable to the Congress as a whole and gets confirmed.
Also do I no not agree that the country voted for a stalemate, there is only a stalemate because Republicans aren't doing what they were elected to do. The truth is and what they are afraid of is the President choosing someone who isn't who they want but it is palatable to the Congress as a whole and gets confirmed.
Virtually all the right supported the nominee for his current position. He is a compromise. Unfirtunately, compromise is not in their vocabulary.
3
The Supreme Court is a legislative body, making up law as it goes along. I want the opportunity to vote directly for nine justices in the Scalia / Thomas / Alito mold.
The collectivist extreme left wing justices are dragging our country into a state of savagery.
The collectivist extreme left wing justices are dragging our country into a state of savagery.
2
One could argue that rugged individualism has more in common with a state of savagery than collectivism, could one not?
1
Mitch McConnell shouldn't resign the Senate - he should step down as majority leader, though, for the harm he's been doing to the nation. Paralysis of the Senate was enough, yet he added a locked-up Supreme Court to his list of accomplishments in government inertia.
The people of his state can judge how he's doing for them - fighting a pointless battle to blame everything bad on the President is fun, but has the Senator done anything about training for displaced coal miners? The jobs were going before Obama became President, Sen. McConnell.
The people of his state can judge how he's doing for them - fighting a pointless battle to blame everything bad on the President is fun, but has the Senator done anything about training for displaced coal miners? The jobs were going before Obama became President, Sen. McConnell.
6
Mitch McConnell is having a temper tantrum. He is angry that with a Democratic President, Republicans are having a harder time looting the country - the real reason he wants control.
2
Although I am a liberal Democrat and a strong supporter of Barack Obama, it is my opinion that Merrick Garland is unsuitable for the Supreme Court. A justice who believes in capital punishment should not serve on the Supreme Court of a civilized country. Hate and revenge should be removed from our country.
6
There is a greater problem than an equally divided Supreme Court. The justices are divided not by their ability to interpret and apply the law but by ideology that obstructs a rational approach to legal opinions. The justices of the Supreme Court are literally separate and equal. They are divided by religious faith, dogma, doctrine and by the absurd differences of the political parties and the political system.
For instance Justice Thomas believes in strict constructionism and he also fervently believes that most if not all government social programs cause blacks and other minority groups to have government dependency rather than self-reliance. In other words welfare, food stamps and unemployment compensation are destructive rather than helpful. There may be a kernel of truth for some people but for most the programs are the last and only lifeline available.
Religious belief has overruled common sense and good judgement. Religious beliefs also override proven science and women's rights.
Regardless of whether or not there are six, eight or even nine justices the extreme differences remain. The Supreme Court has become, if not always was, the instrument through which a party in power can pursue its own belief systems.
Contraception should not be an issue in 2016. Employers should not be seeking exemption because of alleged religious objections.
The justices, all eight of them, should set aside their personal agenda and their religious beliefs.
For instance Justice Thomas believes in strict constructionism and he also fervently believes that most if not all government social programs cause blacks and other minority groups to have government dependency rather than self-reliance. In other words welfare, food stamps and unemployment compensation are destructive rather than helpful. There may be a kernel of truth for some people but for most the programs are the last and only lifeline available.
Religious belief has overruled common sense and good judgement. Religious beliefs also override proven science and women's rights.
Regardless of whether or not there are six, eight or even nine justices the extreme differences remain. The Supreme Court has become, if not always was, the instrument through which a party in power can pursue its own belief systems.
Contraception should not be an issue in 2016. Employers should not be seeking exemption because of alleged religious objections.
The justices, all eight of them, should set aside their personal agenda and their religious beliefs.
4
In other words, all eight current Justices should just ask your opinion about the proper interpretation of any legal controversy that comes their way. Sweet, Jay.
1
Under the Constitution the Court is to decide cases and controversies. Its role is not to decide the constitutionality of statutes. That role was arrogated by John Marshall. There is no legitimacy to his action other than the legitimacy of acceptance by the public and the other branches of government, which, according to liberal philosophy of a living breathing document, can be changed any time. This is that time. It is time to leave social issues to the legislature and the states.
It is not the job of one additional justice to determine the fate of these matters, whichever way the justice might lean.
Better to let the decisions be made state by state or within each circuit. This better reflect the true nature of our country as a diverse group of people
It is not the job of one additional justice to determine the fate of these matters, whichever way the justice might lean.
Better to let the decisions be made state by state or within each circuit. This better reflect the true nature of our country as a diverse group of people
3
@ Hooey (my goodness; •so• well named . . .) — The 18th century is calling; it wants its sophomoric vision of law and politics back. (So it can bury it more successfully, this time; in reality, it wasn’t actually popular even then.)
— Brian
— Brian
This issue of a deadlocked SCt is indeed a problem. Effectively, the Senate's obstinance in not even holding hearings for a judicial appointment has totally removed one branch of our nation's government.
Surely the Framers of our Constitution did not intend for things like this to happen.
But, it is happening. And...why would it ever change after the Presidential election, if a Democrat is elected (likely, Hillary) and the Senate stays in Republican hands (also likely, IMO)? The Senate will just refuse to appoint *any* Presidential nominees...period...as long as they stay in power.
Who was that (in)famous VP candidate for Ross Perot, way back when, that repeatedly uttered the word "Gridlock" in his debate debut? Well, here it is again.
If the Dems don't win the Senate in this next election, then the only reasonable remedy I see is through Obama filing a lawsuit with the SCt.
Surely the Framers of our Constitution did not intend for things like this to happen.
But, it is happening. And...why would it ever change after the Presidential election, if a Democrat is elected (likely, Hillary) and the Senate stays in Republican hands (also likely, IMO)? The Senate will just refuse to appoint *any* Presidential nominees...period...as long as they stay in power.
Who was that (in)famous VP candidate for Ross Perot, way back when, that repeatedly uttered the word "Gridlock" in his debate debut? Well, here it is again.
If the Dems don't win the Senate in this next election, then the only reasonable remedy I see is through Obama filing a lawsuit with the SCt.
1
This issue could be the nail in the coffin for the republican party and its obstructionist ways. Any moderate to progressive individual out there who does not see the importance of republican senators fulfilling their Constitutional duty to advise and consent on the Supreme Court is just not paying attention.
Republicans have become the anti-Democracy party and its time to show them the door.
Republicans have become the anti-Democracy party and its time to show them the door.
10
What did Joe Biden say about this issue back in the days when he was in the Senate? The more things change....and all that stuff. Karma is a bugger, isn't it?
2
LOL, the President has a constitutional duty to uphold the law and he could care less.
1
This situation is typical of the Republicans in their efforts to reduce the effectiveness of government and subvert its activities.
This is particularly true with respect to the Supreme Court where the Republicans are leading the race to the bottom for justice and liberty for all.
I can only wait for Clinton's appointee and the recriminations that will be piled on the chief bottom feeders, Mitch McConnell and his suckers.
This is particularly true with respect to the Supreme Court where the Republicans are leading the race to the bottom for justice and liberty for all.
I can only wait for Clinton's appointee and the recriminations that will be piled on the chief bottom feeders, Mitch McConnell and his suckers.
7
Never before has birth control been more urgently needed in light of the Zika virus and the threat it carries to a fetus. Under the ACA religious organizations are exempt from paying for the cost of contraceptives. Insurers are required to provide contraceptives for free to both employer and employee. Still Catholic organizations objected to signing the required notification to employees, because if would trigger the insurers providing coverage. We don't need a ruling by a court, we need the Pope to step up to the bat, and call for the end to the ban on contraceptive use.
One thing this does underscore is that if Trump is elected President, he will be selecting the next Supreme Court nominee. That alone, should be reason enough for the Democrats to stop squabbling, and get behind the candidate who already has the delegates needed to win the nomination.
One thing this does underscore is that if Trump is elected President, he will be selecting the next Supreme Court nominee. That alone, should be reason enough for the Democrats to stop squabbling, and get behind the candidate who already has the delegates needed to win the nomination.
11
"Every day that passes without a ninth justice..."
Another way to look at it:
Every day that passes without another vacancy...
The court will be just fine once Ginsberg either retires or expires.
Another way to look at it:
Every day that passes without another vacancy...
The court will be just fine once Ginsberg either retires or expires.
3
You may not see that.
"Tomorrow is promised to no man (or woman."
"Tomorrow is promised to no man (or woman."
2
If you think the Court is crippled now, just imagine what it would be like with Ted Cruz on the bench. That's the stakes, people.
15
I have an idea for a compromise: companies that don't want to fund contraceptives will contribute instead to a fund that will pay medical expenses for the children that will be born to women/families that cannot afford them.
8
We already have a "fund" that pays for these expenses.
Don’t be ridiculous. Just because the editors of the New York Times don’t like the action of the Supreme Court doesn’t mean the Court doesn’t function. The Court still functions – even if it sends the case back down to a lower court. And which is worse, a Supreme Court that sends cases back down to lower courts for decisions or one that, essentially, allows ideologue justices legislate from on high with virtual impunity? The New York Times was once the premier newspaper in the nation, if not the world. The newspaper’s increasingly liberal hyperbolic rhetoric is unseemly.
8
Separation of church and states will never work, whether the issue is contraception, abortion, or prayer in public. Jusitice Roy Moore defended the Ten Commandments. In 1992 - he placed a wood carving of the Commandments in his Etowah County courtroom. In August 2003, Judge Thompson stood by his original ruling and order the monument be removed from the public spaces of the judicial building by August 20, 2003. The judge said the state could be fined up to $5,000 a day if the monument was not removed. When Moore refused to follow the court order, his fellow justices had the monument removed instead. Moore was then suspended from his position and now awaits a trial by the court of the judiciary. He is also appealing the monument rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 6, 2016, Moore was suspended from the bench and awaits a hearing and trial by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for multiple ethics code violations, including abuse of authority and interference with federal-level court rulings and injunctions related to same-sex marriage. The supreme court will also make it mandatory for all children in U.S. schools to be taught how same gender homosexuals have sex and how same sex homosexuals produce a baby. Does this mirror nazi germans hatred and extermination of German Jews up to 1945? Decisions pertaining to decency, morality, and right and wrong will be decided by the white house and the supreme court jesters......and not by families nor parents.
1
The First Amendment protects all citizens from both the the freedom FROM religion, ("Congress shall pass no law..."), and freedom OF religion, ("..or prohibiting the free expression thereof,").. No individual may force their personal religious beliefs on the citizenry, as Moore so obviously did and would do.
The separation of church and state is on the most important founding principles of the republic. It is, and will continue to be STRONG, and defended.
The separation of church and state is on the most important founding principles of the republic. It is, and will continue to be STRONG, and defended.
5
If the separation of Church and State were a Founding Principle, the First Amendment reference to religion would have been elucidated in the original Constitution signed on September 17, 1878, in Philadelphia. The First Amendment did not even establish the separation doctrine.
Think about that when the next POTUS places a hand on the Bible held by the Chief Justice of the Catholic Court and swears to uphold the Constitution.
Think about that when the next POTUS places a hand on the Bible held by the Chief Justice of the Catholic Court and swears to uphold the Constitution.
A five to four decision is really not a good idea ever for a Constitutional question when a Constitutional amendment requires more than a majority vote by the States. A swing vote of one will always be a political vote rather than a thoughtful majority giving proper consideration to the four minority votes. Too bad the Founding Fathers did not see far enough down the road to the "politics" of SCOTUS voting.
1
The conservatives on this court have provided us decisions that burdened the voter and help corrupt our electoral process. Allowing the flow of dark money to overwhelm the voice of the average voter. It took quite a stretch to get to the point where money is allowed to be as free flowing as speech. First you have to make corporations people in need of their right of free speech protected. Then of course corporation can't really talk, money must be their voice. Now this flood of this money drowns out the average citizens.
The expansion of free speech to inanimate corporations was followed by the weakening of the voting rights act, turning a blind eye to obvious racial discrimination and efforts to disenfranchise voters. Disenfranchising voters has expanded from targeting race to include targeting voters political alignment. The use of limiting access to voters, burdening them with restrictive ID requirements and limiting polling stations is a national disgrace that is obvious to the world but not this court's conservatives.
Eight Federal Courts rejected the burden these religious groups claim. Yet these same conservatives, that sees no exceptional burden on voters, somehow can see signing a paper stating your religious objects a burden on these religious groups.
The expansion of free speech to inanimate corporations was followed by the weakening of the voting rights act, turning a blind eye to obvious racial discrimination and efforts to disenfranchise voters. Disenfranchising voters has expanded from targeting race to include targeting voters political alignment. The use of limiting access to voters, burdening them with restrictive ID requirements and limiting polling stations is a national disgrace that is obvious to the world but not this court's conservatives.
Eight Federal Courts rejected the burden these religious groups claim. Yet these same conservatives, that sees no exceptional burden on voters, somehow can see signing a paper stating your religious objects a burden on these religious groups.
2
This is the ONE thing that could force me to vote for Hillary instead of writing Bernie in - consideration of having to fill the Supreme Court vacancy or vacancies.
3
Nice to hear you may have reconsidered throwing your vote away by "writing in" another name. This is no time to quibble. Trump MUST be soundly defeated.
2
Obama picked a "middle of the road" jurist who likely would fill the role so often played by Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor. By not allowing his confirmation senate republicans are risking a much more liberal nominee if Hilary Clinton is elected. Vegas is a good place to role the dice; the senate's power to confirm does not seem a good candidate for that kind of gamble.
3
What difference would it make? Garland would vote with the liberal wing. Obama could have nominated Al Sharpton with similar results.
1
The outcome of the contraception decision is that the parties said they could -- and presumably will -- negotiate a resolution without the need for the Supreme Court to deal with difficult issues that divide the justices. That seems like a good outcome -- a lot better than having a 5-4 decision that will be viewed as unreasonable by the losers.
Put the blame where is truly lies, with the retrograde, hermatically sealed minds of the conservative members. If they could open their minds to the reality of the law and current social reality, maybe, just maybe they could function as human beings for a change, rather that automatons of conservatism.
3
Religious freedom for the Catholic church depends upon removing the freedom of citizens to choose contraception.
Catholic women of child-bearing years admit to use of contraception by a margin of three to one. The Church's battle with the congregation has been lost. So they're going after their own employees?
Catholic women of child-bearing years admit to use of contraception by a margin of three to one. The Church's battle with the congregation has been lost. So they're going after their own employees?
3
The cowards of the supreme court can't come to a decision without their bombastic leader, Scalia.
It is an absurdity for these religious groups to claim a violation of their religious freedom by signing a form that states they will not provide birth control. There is no logic in this argument which would make every decision unworkable to imply responsibility by extension. "I decided so therefore I am responsible in denial of birth control and by my denial I am allowing someone else to provide birth control". This is absurd and results in paralysis and is totally unworkable. The attorneys who came up with this spin worked long and hard to create this nonsense. For any Catholics involved in this absurdity, it is a hypocrisy and a contradictions to the changes made in the Mass and prayers by Pope Benedict, d/b/a John Paul II. They proclaim we are in this salvation thing totally alone. We no longer say "We believe in God" we say "I believe in God". So the Little Sisters were bamboozled into this despite the Pope's changes. We are responsible for ourselves, no one else, we pray alone, we get salvation alone, your actions are yours alone. This is an incredible and malicious use of "freedom of religion". No one's freedom of religion is affected here. This is illogic that defies any sensibility interpretation. It is control through miss use of the concept of religious freedom.
It is an absurdity for these religious groups to claim a violation of their religious freedom by signing a form that states they will not provide birth control. There is no logic in this argument which would make every decision unworkable to imply responsibility by extension. "I decided so therefore I am responsible in denial of birth control and by my denial I am allowing someone else to provide birth control". This is absurd and results in paralysis and is totally unworkable. The attorneys who came up with this spin worked long and hard to create this nonsense. For any Catholics involved in this absurdity, it is a hypocrisy and a contradictions to the changes made in the Mass and prayers by Pope Benedict, d/b/a John Paul II. They proclaim we are in this salvation thing totally alone. We no longer say "We believe in God" we say "I believe in God". So the Little Sisters were bamboozled into this despite the Pope's changes. We are responsible for ourselves, no one else, we pray alone, we get salvation alone, your actions are yours alone. This is an incredible and malicious use of "freedom of religion". No one's freedom of religion is affected here. This is illogic that defies any sensibility interpretation. It is control through miss use of the concept of religious freedom.
4
Or the "cowards" on the liberal activist Roberts Court cannot bring themselves to break ranks with Barack Obama and show a trace of respect for the Constitution of the United States, or the ordinary Americans who live by it.
2
It's fall-down funny to see you lot complaining that John Roberts is a "liberal activist."
Nice straw man, dear Editorial Board. But is is still a straw man.
The court IS functioning as it was intended.
In fact, I would be arguing that the Supreme Court rules should be changed to require a 6-4 decision, at minimum, for any case to be considered as precedent.
The concept of majority rules is best served by a broader consensus than the often bitter 5-4 decisions that do not reconcile the underlying issues but merely increase the political acrimony.
Democracy, to be successful needs to have The People believe in the actions of its government.
But, as you are the esteemed Editorial Board of the NY Times, you find it difficult to understand that, often, what you believe should be the reality is not the reality that the rest of The Nation believes.
And to suggest that you know better than the collective wisdom...and ethic...of The People is about as arrogant and tyrannical as it can be.
The court IS functioning as it was intended.
In fact, I would be arguing that the Supreme Court rules should be changed to require a 6-4 decision, at minimum, for any case to be considered as precedent.
The concept of majority rules is best served by a broader consensus than the often bitter 5-4 decisions that do not reconcile the underlying issues but merely increase the political acrimony.
Democracy, to be successful needs to have The People believe in the actions of its government.
But, as you are the esteemed Editorial Board of the NY Times, you find it difficult to understand that, often, what you believe should be the reality is not the reality that the rest of The Nation believes.
And to suggest that you know better than the collective wisdom...and ethic...of The People is about as arrogant and tyrannical as it can be.
5
Just another example of how religion ruins everything, and how public policy gets made in accordance with someone's mythology. Disgusting.
7
The "religious organizations" do not wish their employees to have a benefit, but they are unwilling to say so because another organization may then provide the benefit. I remember something about a "dog in a manger." Can anyone enlighten me?
3
Republicans want a conservative dictatorship even to the point of destroying their Party and our constitution. So it will be a country of the Party, for the Party and by the Party. But the Trump nomination if it proves one thing it is that even some in that Grasping Old party don't agree with that direction. So it really is just a few old guys in the Congress who have created a coup d'etate with the support of a few mindless voters. if they are allowed to do this our democracy will have the last nails pounded into it's coffin.
5
I don't see the problem. If the Republicans can't control the government, they will stop the government. Simple enough.
3
Given that the Court's order was unsigned and neither it nor the Times' article says a word about who voted for what, I am struck by the way that a number of commentors seem to know that the decision to remit was--and this is the specific word used--"unanimous."
Was this the daily viewpoint issued by "The Blaze," or something?
Was this the daily viewpoint issued by "The Blaze," or something?
1
It was probably based on in court testimony and the balance of the bench. It is a hypothesis, but a likely occurence nonetheless.
I've heard unanimous on a local TV station, CNN, and here at the Times. I don't typically look at the blaze or Daily Caller, so no idea how they characterize it, but many left-leaning news outfits have said it was unanimous.
@Robert
The order you refer to relies upon the opinion in Zubik v Burwell issued earlier that same date. The opinion in Zubik (a consolidated block of cases) was issued per curiam, which by definition means unanimous.
The order you refer to relies upon the opinion in Zubik v Burwell issued earlier that same date. The opinion in Zubik (a consolidated block of cases) was issued per curiam, which by definition means unanimous.
1
As a non-believer, where are my rights to deny others basic needs? Oh, that's right, I don't have any.
4
"The court’s job is not to propose complicated compromises for individual litigants; it is to provide the final word in interpreting the Constitution and the nation’s laws."
And, that's exactly what the Court has done here: They have validated the law and sent the case back to the lower court for arbitration and compromise. What the Supreme Court has *not* done here, which would have likely been the outcome if a full Court had been seated, is *make* law by 5-4 usurpation of the legislative process.
In my opinion, the absence of a ninth vote has been the best thing to happen to the Supreme Court in my lifetime. For the first time in memory, the justices are actively working to compromise with each other, rather than sway one fence-sitting vote one way or the other. They are interpreting the law, rather than handing down edicts that, in fact, create law.
If this situation continues, maybe Congress will start writing laws that are clear in their language to begin with, rather than expecting the Court to decide that the legislature actually meant. Congress should be making laws that are explicit, rather than relying on the Court's interpretation.
This Court is now far more reflective of what it was intended to be at its founding. Rather than a tennis match in which decisions are made based on 5-4 decisions that are dependent on who is currently in the slimmest of majorities, it is being forced to compromise. How is that, in any way, shape, or form, a bad thing?
And, that's exactly what the Court has done here: They have validated the law and sent the case back to the lower court for arbitration and compromise. What the Supreme Court has *not* done here, which would have likely been the outcome if a full Court had been seated, is *make* law by 5-4 usurpation of the legislative process.
In my opinion, the absence of a ninth vote has been the best thing to happen to the Supreme Court in my lifetime. For the first time in memory, the justices are actively working to compromise with each other, rather than sway one fence-sitting vote one way or the other. They are interpreting the law, rather than handing down edicts that, in fact, create law.
If this situation continues, maybe Congress will start writing laws that are clear in their language to begin with, rather than expecting the Court to decide that the legislature actually meant. Congress should be making laws that are explicit, rather than relying on the Court's interpretation.
This Court is now far more reflective of what it was intended to be at its founding. Rather than a tennis match in which decisions are made based on 5-4 decisions that are dependent on who is currently in the slimmest of majorities, it is being forced to compromise. How is that, in any way, shape, or form, a bad thing?
1
Because a 4 to 4 decision does not set a national precedent, which is the job of the Supreme Court. Congress should pass more laws, but that does not mean that SCOTUS should be crippled.
1
The Editorial Board's assertion that the Court "fail[ed] to reach a decision" is blatantly false. The decision -- not an uncommon one -- was to remand with instructions, and it was the result of an 8-0 vote...
I can only assume that the EB puts pen to paper and authors a piece such as this either out of ignorance or with the deliberate intent to mislead the Times' gullible readership in furtherance of a partisan agenda. In either case, you bring shame to a once proud publication...
I can only assume that the EB puts pen to paper and authors a piece such as this either out of ignorance or with the deliberate intent to mislead the Times' gullible readership in furtherance of a partisan agenda. In either case, you bring shame to a once proud publication...
4
The Court was first composed, pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, of six justices. It then increased to seven, nine, and ten, before being reduced to nine again after the Civil War. It has remained at nine since then.
But, the point is this: The original conception was a Court that could be evenly divided. This, by definition, means that no decision would be rendered by a bare majority. It would not be in the hands of one person to affect the lives of every person in the country based on his or her vote in a single case.
Congress needs to examine the makeup of the Court. A return to an eight-member Court may be just the remedy to some of the acrimony in this county. It would certainly reduce the weight of any single nominee by any president, regardless of party.
Go back to an even number of justices. It's working right now. Why wouldn't it continue to work in the future?
But, the point is this: The original conception was a Court that could be evenly divided. This, by definition, means that no decision would be rendered by a bare majority. It would not be in the hands of one person to affect the lives of every person in the country based on his or her vote in a single case.
Congress needs to examine the makeup of the Court. A return to an eight-member Court may be just the remedy to some of the acrimony in this county. It would certainly reduce the weight of any single nominee by any president, regardless of party.
Go back to an even number of justices. It's working right now. Why wouldn't it continue to work in the future?
1
The Founders never envisioned that anybody'd be stupid enough to put a Clarence Thomas on the Court, is why.
While we are waiting for a ninth Supreme Court justice perhaps one of the liberal judges could take a leave of absence. This would eliminate the tie votes that the New York Times deplores.
On the other hand, the New York Times might accept the fact that there is no finality on many of these issues such as Roe v Wade and its offspring. Indeed, a split among the Circuit Courts may in time reveal the wiser path and force the federal government to accommodate diversity.
Indeed, the law might actually be better with just eight justices on the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the New York Times might accept the fact that there is no finality on many of these issues such as Roe v Wade and its offspring. Indeed, a split among the Circuit Courts may in time reveal the wiser path and force the federal government to accommodate diversity.
Indeed, the law might actually be better with just eight justices on the Supreme Court.
3
Looking at the basic issue in this case, it boggles my mind that 8 courts of appeals have correctly recognized that this in no way places a substantial burden on religious freedom, yet the Supreme Court is split 4-4. How is this not an 8-0 opinion? Forget about the vacant seat, this is just bad jurisprudence.
4
It was 8-0 to send back to lower court.
1
I understand that. My question is how could this issue not be easily decided in favor of the government? Being required to send the government a form that invokes your religious freedom is somehow violating religious freedom? The fact that 8 lower courts all realize how ridiculous the "harm" in this case is just highlights the perverted jurisprudence of some of the Justices on the Court. They only voted 8-0 to send it back because they ended at a 4-4 tie in the case. It should have been 8-0 in favor of the government, and that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion on the majority of federal judges on EIGHT courts of appeals.
2
Don't be misled by the partisan rant of an Editorial Board intent upon deceiving you. Read the opinion of the Court to find out what was said. It was not a "split" decision; it was 8-0 -- i.e., unanimous...
1
The NY TMES only wants a 9 Justice court to satisfy it's own liberal agenda. 5-4 decisions in either direction are not good decisions. It may be best to keep it at 8 for now then only clear majorities would end much of the controversy.
4
And Republicans want an 8 justice court in order to prevent a liberal majority. Stop trying to act like Republicans have the high ground when they don't.
1
Republicans have appointed themselves to be god almighty, regardless of even the tenets of their own professed religion. Consideration for others is not in their plan for winning.
It is not surprising that half the country, on opposing sides, wants to tear the house down. What they appear not to realize is that demolishing the shreds of Democracy we have left will give even more power to the powerful, the rich, the exploiters, and the looters.
However, since community, civilization, and a livable climate are forbidden in the new Republican hegemony, we'll all go down together.
Tragic, but in the history of humankind, the owners of power have always tried to degrade the rest, to demean and disempower. Few of history's era treated the slave class as real people. I'm afraid we are going down that dark and destructive road.
Kochs and Roves, Becks and Limbaughs, Moranos and Cruzs, will likely live to regret being wrong. But they have the reins, and they'd prefer to steer us all to smash that give them up.
It is not surprising that half the country, on opposing sides, wants to tear the house down. What they appear not to realize is that demolishing the shreds of Democracy we have left will give even more power to the powerful, the rich, the exploiters, and the looters.
However, since community, civilization, and a livable climate are forbidden in the new Republican hegemony, we'll all go down together.
Tragic, but in the history of humankind, the owners of power have always tried to degrade the rest, to demean and disempower. Few of history's era treated the slave class as real people. I'm afraid we are going down that dark and destructive road.
Kochs and Roves, Becks and Limbaughs, Moranos and Cruzs, will likely live to regret being wrong. But they have the reins, and they'd prefer to steer us all to smash that give them up.
7
Religious principles? Give me a break.
Clearly a good bit of the Republican party doesn't care about other people's sex lives.
If they did, they wouldn't have chosen Trump.
There's no end to the pretzels Republicans will twist themselves into to justify their power grabs.
Clearly a good bit of the Republican party doesn't care about other people's sex lives.
If they did, they wouldn't have chosen Trump.
There's no end to the pretzels Republicans will twist themselves into to justify their power grabs.
3
Combine your description of the Republican Party with the fact that in the last election over 1000 offices nationwide went from Democrat to Republican, and then consider what that tells you about the extreme nature of the Democrats.
1
Quite to the contrary. The Editorial Board of the NY Times has established themselves as God, and all of us heathen MUST bow to their wisdom and occasional pronouncements from on high.
4
The Court did not "fail to reach a decision." It decided, unanimously, to remand with instructions. That is a decision -- and not even an unusual one. This editorial is misleading. Now, any number of Times readers have been misinformed and will repeat their misinformation to friends, family, and colleagues. The Times really ought to issue a correction.
9
It is very rare for the court to abdicate its duty to make a decision on a fundamental constitutional issue with instructions to settle. It typically remands "with instructions" in cases where an important issue wasn't addressed below or there is a need to have a better record.
1
For openers, you have no way of knowing by what vote the Court chose to remand in this "unsigned," opinion.
obviously you have not studied SCOTUS case law very closely. Do you know how many times they have simply refused to issue a ruling by determining that the person bringing the suit lacked standing? Especially in the first 50 years of the court?
1
One of the problems with a failing ideological newspaper going bankrupt is that as it hemorrhages readers, the remainders are increasingly ideologically concentrated. Thus the embarrassing reader comments.
7
The Times is failing?
Not as long as it has critical "thinkers" such as yourself Billy.
Not as long as it has critical "thinkers" such as yourself Billy.
2
I believe that I may assure you that the Times will be around long after Trump is forgotten, and we have moved on to new forms of braying stupidity.
2
"...the act of notification itself made them complicit in the provision of birth control."
This argument makes no sense. Do Little Sisters of the Poor and these other entities also consider their collection of payroll taxes an act of complicity in evil? They surely know that the money they send to the government via payroll deductions can be used by the government to fund military operations that may be considered morally wrong. For example, when Pope John Paul II protested the invasion of Iraq as not meeting the Just War moral criteria, did the Little Sisters of the Poor insist that they should stop collecting payroll taxes from their employees because they would be complicit in the evil being opposed by the Pope and other religious leaders?
This argument makes no sense. Do Little Sisters of the Poor and these other entities also consider their collection of payroll taxes an act of complicity in evil? They surely know that the money they send to the government via payroll deductions can be used by the government to fund military operations that may be considered morally wrong. For example, when Pope John Paul II protested the invasion of Iraq as not meeting the Just War moral criteria, did the Little Sisters of the Poor insist that they should stop collecting payroll taxes from their employees because they would be complicit in the evil being opposed by the Pope and other religious leaders?
18
Don't ask, don't tell, take two!
2
As an aside, it should be noted that over the years Republicans Justices have repeatedly proven their willingness and ability to think outside their narrow partisan box, while Democrat Justices mostly rule in lockstep with their progressive ideology. Roberts, Kennedy, even Scalia and Thomas have all issued rulings that don't necessarily conform with their assumed partisan political beliefs. Democrats just rule the party line. How about a simple acknowledgement of this fact?
5
SCOTUS has been a mistake for over 100-years.
Monarchs, dictators, and Popes.
Monarchs, dictators, and Popes.
Would it take politics off the front burner at the Supreme Court if a pool of prospective jurists was selected - approved and maintained - and left in place on their other court benches until an opening occurred?
then, the next in line could either agree to take that seat on SCOTUS or choose not to for whatever reasons, such as health.
then, the next in line could either agree to take that seat on SCOTUS or choose not to for whatever reasons, such as health.
1. No.
2. There's this thingie called, wossname, oh yes, the "Constitution." And this, ah, "Constitution," spells out how the process is spozed to work.
3. Yes, we understand that you figure to cook the books.
2. There's this thingie called, wossname, oh yes, the "Constitution." And this, ah, "Constitution," spells out how the process is spozed to work.
3. Yes, we understand that you figure to cook the books.
"if a pool of prospective jurists was selected.." Well, that's an intriguing idea, but more appropriate for Cervantes than our current government's predicament.
We can't get ONE jurist "selected". Any discussion of Constitutional amendments is hardly appropriate.
We can't get ONE jurist "selected". Any discussion of Constitutional amendments is hardly appropriate.
This Is Not A Democrat vs. Republican Issue
I have essentially come to the conclusion that my being interested in the manner in which Americans govern themselves is a remarkable waste of time (at least for me). I would love to go into great detail about this subject, but that would be a great waste of time for us all.
I will say, however, that the combination of a mediocre -- and often downright absurd -- "United" States Constitution, governing procedures that are truly bizarre (like our outlandishly Gerrymandered congressional districts, our very dysfunctional electoral college, our highly politicized Supreme Court, our truly outrageous electoral process), an improperly regulated "capitalism" that enables wealthy benefactors and large corporations to essentially own the majority of our mostly incompetent congressmen and congresswomen, an electorate of which the vast majority are ignorant (albeit not stupid), especially given our rather laughable claim to be a democracy ... constitute just a tiny tip of the iceberg of absurdities of a country that thinks it's the greatest that ever existed. Whew!
I (and many of my friends) have been alive for more than 30% of the life of this country. In my opinion and during my lifetime, we have had only two presidents whose experience, intelligence, knowledge, courage, maturity, leadership, and demeanor qualified them for the job ... and, no, Ronald Reagan is not one of them. A dysfunctional Supreme Court is the least of our problems.
I have essentially come to the conclusion that my being interested in the manner in which Americans govern themselves is a remarkable waste of time (at least for me). I would love to go into great detail about this subject, but that would be a great waste of time for us all.
I will say, however, that the combination of a mediocre -- and often downright absurd -- "United" States Constitution, governing procedures that are truly bizarre (like our outlandishly Gerrymandered congressional districts, our very dysfunctional electoral college, our highly politicized Supreme Court, our truly outrageous electoral process), an improperly regulated "capitalism" that enables wealthy benefactors and large corporations to essentially own the majority of our mostly incompetent congressmen and congresswomen, an electorate of which the vast majority are ignorant (albeit not stupid), especially given our rather laughable claim to be a democracy ... constitute just a tiny tip of the iceberg of absurdities of a country that thinks it's the greatest that ever existed. Whew!
I (and many of my friends) have been alive for more than 30% of the life of this country. In my opinion and during my lifetime, we have had only two presidents whose experience, intelligence, knowledge, courage, maturity, leadership, and demeanor qualified them for the job ... and, no, Ronald Reagan is not one of them. A dysfunctional Supreme Court is the least of our problems.
6
Spot on!!
Unfortunately, Mr Manley, to paraphrase an old saying ... Democracy is the WORST form of government, except compared to every other one.
To William MacDonald
Of course, Mr. MacDonald, we all love that old Churchhillian canard. I just hope you're not confusing the U.S.A.'s plutocracy with democracy.
Of course, Mr. MacDonald, we all love that old Churchhillian canard. I just hope you're not confusing the U.S.A.'s plutocracy with democracy.
This is about as hypocritical and disingenuous as editorials at the NYT get. And that's saying a lot. They don't care about the functionality of the Supreme Court. And they don't care about the need for legal clarity and decisiveness. They are upset that the Court doesn't have a 5th liberal justice to decide cases the way they want them decided. This editorial totally ignores the fact that this decision to send it back to the lower court to see if a workable compromise can be reached was UNANIMOUS. It was not a split court decision. That looks like a Court that is functioning to me. But that's not what the NYT editorial board cares about. If this case were decided by any manner, split or not, for the Little Sisters the NYT editors would have been just as outraged and critical. The NYT should just be more straight forward and honest. Go ahead and write the following in your next editorial, "We believe all SCOTUS rulings should uphold liberal/ progressive political stances and policies and we will berate Republicans and conservatives for any actions, constitutional or not, that thwart that end." Stop the silly charade and quit pretending to care about anything other than imposing extreme left wing policies and goals.
5
Judge Garland, a Republican, "extreme left wing"? You are joking, right?
Obama is centrist, Clinton even more so.
Refusing to repair infrastructure, starting wars without paying for them, refusing health care, cutting taxes for the rich, imposing regressive taxes on the poor (sales, social security, cutoff just about at a comfortable wage, above which you don't pay any more, and the egregious value-added suggestions).
Voter suppression masquerading as preventing almost nonexistent voter fraud, pollution your air, water and earth ...
All very radical, don't you think?
Sharing, such a leftist idea?
Obama is centrist, Clinton even more so.
Refusing to repair infrastructure, starting wars without paying for them, refusing health care, cutting taxes for the rich, imposing regressive taxes on the poor (sales, social security, cutoff just about at a comfortable wage, above which you don't pay any more, and the egregious value-added suggestions).
Voter suppression masquerading as preventing almost nonexistent voter fraud, pollution your air, water and earth ...
All very radical, don't you think?
Sharing, such a leftist idea?
9
I'm not certain the author of this comment disagrees with the sentiment that a liberal court would be a good thing. I think he disagrees with the way this editorial made it seem like the court was unable to make a decision instead if the decision they made to send this back down. I think he is write that any decision short of the liberal one would draw ire from this editorial board.
I agree with the commentor, and I also want the liberal decision.
I agree with the commentor, and I also want the liberal decision.
1
Why need a "full bench" to make decisions? Does that mean that only a majority of liberals on the SC can function?
2
Because 4-4 splits fail to resolve cases of importance. If you're afraid of a justices appointed by Democrats get over it.
With all the usual due respect, this SC0TUS problem began when there were 9 justices and they took the case to begin with.
Just like when at a crowded family dinner one kid pouts and whines because someone "is looking at me!", the court should become much more selective in taking a case.
The adults should dispatch with such non issues, like the Little Sisters et al, with a polite, "deal with it" and move on to important issues, as if there aren't plenty.
The tail should not wag the dog, but congress and the courts seem determined to obsess with gizmo issues like bathrooms and women's uteri. Another justice won't solve that.
Just like when at a crowded family dinner one kid pouts and whines because someone "is looking at me!", the court should become much more selective in taking a case.
The adults should dispatch with such non issues, like the Little Sisters et al, with a polite, "deal with it" and move on to important issues, as if there aren't plenty.
The tail should not wag the dog, but congress and the courts seem determined to obsess with gizmo issues like bathrooms and women's uteri. Another justice won't solve that.
5
The court doesn't need a full bench; what it needs is an odd-numbered bench. As long as it's going to take the Presidency and 60 Senators in the President's party to get anyone onto the court, it's more likely we'll have a Court of 7 before we have a Court of 9.
The Republicans have responded to their voters' demands by politicizing Supreme Court appointment. Unless and until they capitulate and apologize (highly unlikely, since their supporters love their intransigence), Democrats can't respect a Republican president's appointment power without outraging their supporters.
Republicans have broken the system and precipitated a constitutional crisis, and only the end of the Republican party or a Constitutional amendment will ever solve it.
The Republicans have responded to their voters' demands by politicizing Supreme Court appointment. Unless and until they capitulate and apologize (highly unlikely, since their supporters love their intransigence), Democrats can't respect a Republican president's appointment power without outraging their supporters.
Republicans have broken the system and precipitated a constitutional crisis, and only the end of the Republican party or a Constitutional amendment will ever solve it.
5
NYT only claims the Supreme Court is crippled because it's not getting the rulings it wants, and they are facing the reality that a President Trump may get to make the next appointment. Beyond that there is no imminent crisis. The Republic will not fall because the Supreme Court only had 8 members in the time it takes to see who wins the next election.
3
Recently one of the three certified cripples sitting on the court died.
The others remain at large while hope is holding court.
The others remain at large while hope is holding court.
2
Thank you, Republican Senators, who will not do their Constitutional duty. Seditious.
6
Remember that Mitch McConnell said that his only responsibility for handling the Supreme Court vacancy is to the NRA. Not the citizens of the United States. Not the citizens of Kentucky. To the NRA. By voting for Republican senators, the American people have turned control of the U.S. Senate to the NRA.. The American voters should be ashamed of themselves.
9
Having a Court with only eight justices would not in and of itself handicap the court. What cripples the court are hacks like Alito and Thomas and the highly political Chief Justice Roberts. Their decisions, almost uniformly reflect Republican (not conservative) ideology and for the political benefit of the Republican Party. For this reason alone I will not vote for any Republican candidate for the Presidency and the Senate.
5
a quick question, was there ever any chance at all that you would have considered voting Republican for president or senate? When was the last time that you voted for a Republican, any Republican? It's easy to state "this is why i will not support this party" especially when you had absolutely no intention of ever supporting them anyway.
1
Forcing someone else to cater to one's own choice
NOT to reproduce is not the same thing as exercising a
right that is very easily implemented without getting
employers or Government involved.
A very little education, and at very little expense -- even zero
expense -- allows for sexual gratification without pregnancy.
This is a completely phony issue. Information is power. Use it.
NOT to reproduce is not the same thing as exercising a
right that is very easily implemented without getting
employers or Government involved.
A very little education, and at very little expense -- even zero
expense -- allows for sexual gratification without pregnancy.
This is a completely phony issue. Information is power. Use it.
It's about control over other people's bodies and personal decisions, period. Imagine if all the money spend in these endless lawsuits were funneled instead to some actual good use; how many thousands of people could be feed, clothed, sheltered? Isn't the point of religion to help your fellow human? Do these people ever question why they believe what they believe, and what the point of it all is? To make the world better or to waste time and money with petty lawsuits?
8
This is a new low for NY Times editorial page. The Court's 8-0 per curiam opinion does not show that the open seat is hindering the Court's work. Quite the contrary. What is more, it is a well-settled, sound, and important part of federal law that judges do not reach out to decide constitutional questions unnecessarily. It was unusual for the Court to propose a new compromise to the parties. But it is most sensible -- good judging, plain and simple -- for the Court to order remand, given the parties' positions. In short, this decision is Exhibit A for "the Court is doing just fine with 8", not the opposite. Very disappointing editorial.
2
Really? Consider: what if we have a replay of the 2000 presidential election?
What then? This editorial, while maybe not prescient in the case of the general election, is most relevant and on point regarding the ideological stranglehold that's been allowed to continue in the Congress and SCOTUS.
What then? This editorial, while maybe not prescient in the case of the general election, is most relevant and on point regarding the ideological stranglehold that's been allowed to continue in the Congress and SCOTUS.
1
Every time there is a 4-4 split we will remember its cause: the never-ending obstructionism of the Republicans. They deserve everything that's coming their way this Fall, including being weighed down with a jerk like Trump as their nominee, and losing the majorities in both houses of Congress. The people should not forget the GOP's reign of terror's cause is rooted in the complete collapse of their party. The party's over, in more ways then they can imagine. And rightly so.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
5
This was not a 4-4 split, Dennis. It was 8-0...
1
McConnell and his colleagues should be charged with delinquency of duty.
They are an embarrassment to their profession.
They are an embarrassment to their profession.
11
Congress refusing to do its job is a constitutional issue which should be decided by the supreme court. Have the justice department fast-track a suit for the current eight member court to decide what should be done about it. Why no one has done this yet is beyond me.
3
The Democratic money cannon - give them a dollar and they'll spend three.
under what standing would DoJ have to sue the court to add a member? I'm actually very curious on how you think this would work and on what grounds DoJ would have to sue SCOTUS/US Government generally.
If these "businesses" are truly religious, I assume they make no profit at all, to begin with. If these "businesses" wish to use the Commons I provide with my taxes—a court system, like the one to which they brought this lawsuit, police, fire, roads, educated workers, records, weather service, defense—then they must also follow the laws of the land. If they choose not to, then they cannot use the Commons gratuit—tax them. These institutions should also provide pregnancy insurance, paid leave, and stipends to support the resulting "life" they so champion. And they ought to fire any divorced employees as well.
Hypocrisy. Parasites.
It would seem the greatest threats to the survival of this race are climate change, clean water, and overpopulation. To argue about birth control as we make our way to eight billion humans and ever fewer animals is simply Neanderthal. Is that what the deity wished for? Eradication of the species? Abraham interpreted g-d as demanding the sacrifice of his son, but g-d was only testing him. G-d never spoke to Abraham again after Abraham offered Isaac. Note well that lesson in overinterpretation, fanatics.
Hypocrisy. Parasites.
It would seem the greatest threats to the survival of this race are climate change, clean water, and overpopulation. To argue about birth control as we make our way to eight billion humans and ever fewer animals is simply Neanderthal. Is that what the deity wished for? Eradication of the species? Abraham interpreted g-d as demanding the sacrifice of his son, but g-d was only testing him. G-d never spoke to Abraham again after Abraham offered Isaac. Note well that lesson in overinterpretation, fanatics.
13
"Every day that passes without a ninth justice undermines the Supreme Court’s ability to function"
This is true ONLY because Republicans and Democrats both have turned the selection of Supreme Court justices into a political process that is an insult to the scales of justice. Instead of selecting the best and brightest in the legal profession, they select based on a checklist of wedge issues, like their stance on abortion. Only when political allegiance is ascertained will the candidate for SCOTUS justice be affirmed.
Were it not for the ideological chasm, which was engineered into SCOTUS by congress, we should be able to function quite reasonably with 8 justices, with only an occasional split decision.
This is true ONLY because Republicans and Democrats both have turned the selection of Supreme Court justices into a political process that is an insult to the scales of justice. Instead of selecting the best and brightest in the legal profession, they select based on a checklist of wedge issues, like their stance on abortion. Only when political allegiance is ascertained will the candidate for SCOTUS justice be affirmed.
Were it not for the ideological chasm, which was engineered into SCOTUS by congress, we should be able to function quite reasonably with 8 justices, with only an occasional split decision.
6
Is the politicization of the Supreme Court a result of President Roosevelt's effort to increase the number of justices to 15 with the addition of six dedicated socialists and collectivists?
3
The US oligarchs want the US government tied up in knots. No additional regulations or tax increases can be put in place in the current political climate. Now, it seems, they've turned to the US Supreme Court. The next many justices will be appointed by a democrat, I believe, and they simply will not allow it. If a republican congress does not govern, no one will govern. If a republican-appointed Supreme Court does not decide cases at the highest court, no one will decide those cases.
Absolute tyranny by a small number of wealthy oligarchs will bring anarchy to American government. But be very careful, you .01% who wield such power. When you play these high-stakes games, terrible forces can be unleashed. 20+% of America's total wealth isn't a big enough share? I fear that frightening times are ahead.
Absolute tyranny by a small number of wealthy oligarchs will bring anarchy to American government. But be very careful, you .01% who wield such power. When you play these high-stakes games, terrible forces can be unleashed. 20+% of America's total wealth isn't a big enough share? I fear that frightening times are ahead.
18
Regulations are the form of spending that kills jobs. You appear to love regulating jobs out of the country, but there are tweenty or more regulations who have EACH destroyed 100,000 American jobs.
You can't complain about jobs sent overseas when your politics demands that nothing you disagree with be made here. Over-regulation is the statist's War on Women and Jobs, and it is one of the great shames against the Democratic Party.
The oligarchs living it big are the Tom Steyers today.
You can't complain about jobs sent overseas when your politics demands that nothing you disagree with be made here. Over-regulation is the statist's War on Women and Jobs, and it is one of the great shames against the Democratic Party.
The oligarchs living it big are the Tom Steyers today.
3
The Supreme Court is not crippled, it's polarized. That's what you get when judges are appointed based on ideology rather than judgement. Politicians have turned the Supreme Court into a shambles of what it's supposed to be. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement for an odd-numbered court and there have been even-numbered courts in the past. Get rid of politics in the court and return to its original intent - to interpret the Constitution and law and decide cases based solely on legal intent instead of political philosophy.`
90
God Bless You Sam McGowan.
Sincerely,
A Black lawyer in Washington DC.
Sincerely,
A Black lawyer in Washington DC.
1
Precisely. It seems the NY Times isn't aware of what the Constitution says about the number of Justices on the SCOTUS - nothing. An even number of Justices would force them to work together on rulings. As it is now, we know exactly how the liberal and conservative members of the Court are going to vote in 80% of the cases. Let's leave it the way it is and force them to play nice in the sandbox.
2
Mr. Black Barrister from DC, if that is who you really are, would you please explain the need to always identify yourself as Black?
Just curious....perhaps others are as well.
Many thanks.
Just curious....perhaps others are as well.
Many thanks.
This must be a dream come true for many. The many in Congress that prefer to do nothing.
4
we conservatives fight to uphold the constitution. Except when the Koch brothers tell us not to.
5
The above ''we'' is there only for satirical and comedic value.
1
I would not be surprised to learn that the health insurance lobby is battling on the side of these "religiously affiliated nonprofit employers."
2
A.B., read actual news sites. The health insurers are bleeding money and pulling out of states.
It's better to shrink than engage in business where the rules are stacked against you. The money at risk can just sit in a bank until you can tell what's coming.
It's better to shrink than engage in business where the rules are stacked against you. The money at risk can just sit in a bank until you can tell what's coming.
3
If the supreme court is crippled, it is not because of eight members, but rather, it is because even when there were nine members, it was relatively easy to predict how each justice will vote on many issues, and especially when those issues have clear ideological components.
A five-to-four decision when there were nine justices is not substantially different in force from a 4-to-4 now. If four-to-four, the ruling from the lower court stands, and a five-to-four would also have upheld or reversed.
A well-functioning court should issue most of its opinions at 7-2 or better.
A five-to-four decision when there were nine justices is not substantially different in force from a 4-to-4 now. If four-to-four, the ruling from the lower court stands, and a five-to-four would also have upheld or reversed.
A well-functioning court should issue most of its opinions at 7-2 or better.
2
Most of the people on this page need to go back to high school civics. Pathetic.
4
As a law professor of mine used to say, "You have the pig by the wrong ear." The problem isn't that the court is one justice down. It has been in that place many times and functioned well, almost without notice by the popular press. If the court has so politicized itself that the decision in case after case comes down to a single tie-splitting vote, the court has failed itself and the nation. That has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats or anyone else but the justices. If all of this indeed points to mismanagement, let the Supreme Court hold itself accountable for how it governs itself, not the legislative branch or the executive branch.
61
Perhaps what is needed is a change in the composition of the elected legislators. When some legislators choose to not do their assigned duties they should be recalled. You can start with McConnell who has been acting like a spoiled brat who finally gets his chance to rule and starts to act like a King instead of as an elected member of a legislative body.
Unfortunately McConnell must face election by only one state.
Unfortunately McConnell must face election by only one state.
4
> "If the court has so politicized itself that the decision in case after case comes down to a single tie-splitting vote, the court has failed itself and the nation.:
REALITY-CHECK: It is not "the court" that has politicized itself, it is our electorate/political system that is to blame
We no longer seek honest, impartial judges, almost everyone involved wants to pack the courts with rubber-stamp authoritarians of either the left or right
As in most things political, I am inclined to ascribe by far, the most blame on the rightwingers, but I also have a great disdain for leftwing activists as well
REALITY-CHECK: It is not "the court" that has politicized itself, it is our electorate/political system that is to blame
We no longer seek honest, impartial judges, almost everyone involved wants to pack the courts with rubber-stamp authoritarians of either the left or right
As in most things political, I am inclined to ascribe by far, the most blame on the rightwingers, but I also have a great disdain for leftwing activists as well
"Having led a pig by the wrong ear to a butcher does not bother the flavor of the bacon."
.
The United States failed and any worrying we do now about failure is irrelevant except perhaps repeal of the Apportionment Act of 1929 to make Congress more representative of the people and therefore infinitely more intelligent.
.
The United States failed and any worrying we do now about failure is irrelevant except perhaps repeal of the Apportionment Act of 1929 to make Congress more representative of the people and therefore infinitely more intelligent.
This decision raises the question of why we need a Supreme Court. If the members of the court believe that those opposing the law will be willing to compromise despite the efforts of the administration to bend over backward to let the law fit their consciousnesses, why do they not think that all similar issues that come before the court, many of which are less contentious, can't simply be resolved by compromise.
And if the members of the court, whom we are led to believe are all filled with good feelings toward each other, can't figure out a compromise, then why should they think others can?
Considering that Congress is refusing to do its job and now the court is refusing to do its, perhaps we have the perfect answer to cutting government: let's close down those two branches and stop paying their salaries until they decide to do what they are being paid for.
And if the members of the court, whom we are led to believe are all filled with good feelings toward each other, can't figure out a compromise, then why should they think others can?
Considering that Congress is refusing to do its job and now the court is refusing to do its, perhaps we have the perfect answer to cutting government: let's close down those two branches and stop paying their salaries until they decide to do what they are being paid for.
1
King Obama. Wonderful. Just the ticket.
2
And the so called experts and pundits and columnists here at the NYT's write article after article wondering why, oh why, is Donald Trump happening? It's because everything, and I do mean everything in this country that used to work (even if it didn't work well) no longer works. Like the US Supreme Court. Everything is broken and the same elites who wring their hands and bemoan the rise of Trump won't admit that they are the ones who broke it.
6
The NYT isn't calling for judicial clarity but for decisions that support its leftist ideology by a rigid block of five Democrats voting in lockstep. Republican appointees have often been swing votes against conservative interests, but Democratic appointees, never, in recent memory. Eric Gardner would undoubtedly be a predictable block voter, so Republicans have zero reason to confirm him or any other Democrat appointment who is other than a swing voter on important issues.
2
"The NYT isn't calling for judicial clarity but for decisions that support its leftist ideology by a rigid block of five Democrats voting in lockstep."
Spot on, Dr. Paul.
In fact, the only real four-justice “bloc” is the left leftist bloc.
A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. (So, the SCOTUS is now in in its 2015 term.) In all, the Court released 74 merits opinions during the 2014 Term. Thirty cases were unanimous 9-0 decisions and 19 cases were 5-4 decisions; 15 of the 5-4 decisions were swing-vote splits between the so-called “liberal” and “conservative” justices, defined by the political party of the President who appointed them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in 13 cases. In eight cases, Kennedy, appointed in 1988 by Ronald Reagan, sided with the bloc of justices appointed by a Democratic President: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Bill Clinton), Stephen Breyer (Bill Clinton), Sonia Sotomayor (Barack Obama), and Elena Kagan (Barack Obama).
In five cases, Kennedy sided with the justices appointed by a Republican President: Chief Justice John Roberts (George W. Bush) and Justices Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan), Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush) and Samuel Alito (George W. Bush). In two others cases, Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts were the swing voters, siding with the liberal bloc that is Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Spot on, Dr. Paul.
In fact, the only real four-justice “bloc” is the left leftist bloc.
A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. (So, the SCOTUS is now in in its 2015 term.) In all, the Court released 74 merits opinions during the 2014 Term. Thirty cases were unanimous 9-0 decisions and 19 cases were 5-4 decisions; 15 of the 5-4 decisions were swing-vote splits between the so-called “liberal” and “conservative” justices, defined by the political party of the President who appointed them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in 13 cases. In eight cases, Kennedy, appointed in 1988 by Ronald Reagan, sided with the bloc of justices appointed by a Democratic President: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Bill Clinton), Stephen Breyer (Bill Clinton), Sonia Sotomayor (Barack Obama), and Elena Kagan (Barack Obama).
In five cases, Kennedy sided with the justices appointed by a Republican President: Chief Justice John Roberts (George W. Bush) and Justices Antonin Scalia (Ronald Reagan), Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush) and Samuel Alito (George W. Bush). In two others cases, Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts were the swing voters, siding with the liberal bloc that is Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
3
Yeah, there is a reason that the Constitution provides for an odd number of justices on the Supreme Court. Maybe Congress will catch on eventually.
1
Clark, the constitution is silent regarding the number of justices on the supreme court. This is a fact, not an opinion, that Clark could have easily and quickly verified before commenting. Why does the N Y Times continue to post this type of erroneous comment? It serves no purpose and wastes our time.
No, it doesn't.
no where in the constitution does it state the number or even/odd numbers to comprise the court. You also ignore that the court has had many instances of even number of members, some by congressional action.
You write "The court could have avoided this by affirming the appellate decisions that correctly ruled in the government’s favor. " The bias of the article is about moving the agenda of the country, the authors claim to know what is right in a disputed legal case, what is right for the country and for their readers. Playing politics, sounding self righteous, pushing their own agenda.
4
Because the issue is ideological, no compromise will be found and the issue will once again come before the Court when the 9th slot is filled.
Pat, all issues are ideological. Even so, that doesn't mean compromise won't be found. In fact, it sounds like it's already happening in this case.
Employer power compromises the U.S. Constitution and right there-in. The result is subjection of the individual citizen's rights to the rights of a group that in effect Trump the Supreme Court.
1
In all fairness, the government wrote into the ACA a reasonable accommodation for those that might object on religious or philosophical grounds to making contraceptives available to their employees. Little could the law's drafters have imagined that anyone would possibly object to the simple act of signing the form because it would make them feel 'complicit' in their employees access to contraceptives. In retrospect, knowing what we know now, the government should have offered PLAN A and PLAN B versions of the ACA. Plan A includes contraceptive coverage to your employees, Plan B does not. Take your pick.
2
Why isn't the SCOTUS ruling on the obstruction of the Senate? Failing to consider the usurpation of the Executive Branch duties by the Senate may prevent government from working at all. This is not a political issue. This is democracy on the chopping block. The Court has a responsibility to interpret the Constitution. Does the Constitution provide for the deliberate dismantling of the division of powers?
Perhaps the Executive Branch should retaliate? What should the White House do about a Senate that just refuses to work?
Perhaps the Executive Branch should retaliate? What should the White House do about a Senate that just refuses to work?
1
"Failing to consider the usurpation of the Executive Branch duties by the Senate may prevent government from working at all."
Usurpation, you say? Nonsense. Usurp what?
The power to “nominate” a proposed appointee belongs solely to the President. And he may do that, if he wishes. But the power to “appoint” is joint, since it cannot be exercised without the advice and consent of the Senate, except in the case of a recess appointment, which is not at issue now and which, in any event, is nonpermanent in nature.
So what you term “obstruction” may seem to others to be nothing more that the discharge by the Senate of its Constitutional duty to check and balance the other parts of the federal government – in this instance, the Executive branch.
Like it or not, the Senate has no duty to bend its knee and bow to the Executive branch...
Usurpation, you say? Nonsense. Usurp what?
The power to “nominate” a proposed appointee belongs solely to the President. And he may do that, if he wishes. But the power to “appoint” is joint, since it cannot be exercised without the advice and consent of the Senate, except in the case of a recess appointment, which is not at issue now and which, in any event, is nonpermanent in nature.
So what you term “obstruction” may seem to others to be nothing more that the discharge by the Senate of its Constitutional duty to check and balance the other parts of the federal government – in this instance, the Executive branch.
Like it or not, the Senate has no duty to bend its knee and bow to the Executive branch...
3
The Senate is refusing a hearing. It is not doing it's duty. No one is asking the Senate to bend it's knee, just do it's job.
The Senate is supposed to work with the Executive and has refused. The President should make a recess appointment and throw the matter to the Court.
The Senate is supposed to work with the Executive and has refused. The President should make a recess appointment and throw the matter to the Court.
The current state of the court truly reflects the state of the the country. It is clear something is broken when major decisions are decided by one vote. The court is not impartial but it is balanced.
The Times advocates for a liberal jurist to reflect a socialist presidency. Let us not pretend otherwise. Perhaps Hillary's first move could be to appoint Bernie.
The Times advocates for a liberal jurist to reflect a socialist presidency. Let us not pretend otherwise. Perhaps Hillary's first move could be to appoint Bernie.
The GOP has taken the politics of obstruction to an entirely new level. If We the People do not vote them ALL out of office, we are saying that we agree with this tactic that puts the next election ahead of the good of the people. On Election Day, We the People take our power back. Politicians have got to know that the power they hold is on loan. THE POWER BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.
It is way past time that we stop accepting nonsense as the norm.
It is way past time that we stop accepting nonsense as the norm.
3
Better no job, then the job they were doing with a full bench.
Harry Reid rightly referred to Republicans these days as "anarchists." Ted Cruz and his friends wanted to "shut down the government." (And they actually managed to at least temporarily, comically, close the federal parks). Now Mitch McConnell is perfectly happy to partially knock out an entire branch of our government: the US Supreme Court.
Given their willingness to disable one part of the US government after another, and their frequently-repeated desire to destroy or shut down the government, why don't we just call these right-wingers anarchists. Or even more exactly, why don't we call them treasonous traitors, seeking to overthrow the government of the United States of America?
Right-wing Republicans don't like Democracy, the government, when it goes against them. And so they're trying to overthrow it. By at best quasi-legal means. But if so, then why don't we just call them seditious traitors?
Given their willingness to disable one part of the US government after another, and their frequently-repeated desire to destroy or shut down the government, why don't we just call these right-wingers anarchists. Or even more exactly, why don't we call them treasonous traitors, seeking to overthrow the government of the United States of America?
Right-wing Republicans don't like Democracy, the government, when it goes against them. And so they're trying to overthrow it. By at best quasi-legal means. But if so, then why don't we just call them seditious traitors?
2
It's time for Obama to put Garland on the court and let SCOTUS put a structure to keep this type of political gerrymandering from continuing. The reasoning in which congress refuses to do their job has hurt the nation. Mitch and Grassley are two crooked politicians who are been dishonest. Time to fix this.
1
You will get the civil war you obviously want if you try this.
2
I'm not sure what the Times is carping about. If Justice Scalia were still quick, in both this case and Friedrich, he would have decided for justice by his lights, a.k.a. injustice for unions and natal choice.
1
This will all be resolved soon enough. If Trump wins the election, he'll name a replacement for Scalia. If Hillary wins, the Senate will quickly confirm Garland before the inauguration. It's a win for Republicans either way.
1
You think Garland is going to hang around waiting for the right to grow up?
Guess again.
Very soon Garland with withdraw his name for cobsideration seeing the right's refusal to consider him as the insult it is.
Then President Clinton will tap a true Liberal and since the right will lose control on Congress due to Trump's idiocy and the down ticket losses it will cause that liberal will be confirmed.
Maybe there is a God after all.
Guess again.
Very soon Garland with withdraw his name for cobsideration seeing the right's refusal to consider him as the insult it is.
Then President Clinton will tap a true Liberal and since the right will lose control on Congress due to Trump's idiocy and the down ticket losses it will cause that liberal will be confirmed.
Maybe there is a God after all.
2
President Obama has vowed to support Garland throughout the process, unless he is lying again. Why would Garland withdraw? He really doesn't have to do anything until his number is called and being on the SCOTUS is the dream of most judges. I'm sure this already been spelled out to him by Mitch McConnell.
I can agree that President Obama, who has many positive attributes, has spent valuable time and political capital appeasing Republicans, who have in every instance, simply thrown up on his shoes and proceeded to tie up every function of the government, not to govern, but to simply gum up the works and then blame him.
The current issue with the SCOTUS is more of the same. Can anyone is the media call the Republicans out?
I mean this cannot go on...the country is more important than Mitch McConnell staying is office....Enough Already!
The current issue with the SCOTUS is more of the same. Can anyone is the media call the Republicans out?
I mean this cannot go on...the country is more important than Mitch McConnell staying is office....Enough Already!
3
The hypocrisy found here is remarkable. Where were the editorials when Sen. Schumer, Sen. Biden, and even Sen. Obama called for rejecting the notion of late term Republic supreme court appointments?
Here is Biden on calling for Bush I not to nominate a Justice, and if he does for the Senate not to consider the nominee, during the final year of a presidency.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacan...
Here is Schumer calling for blanket rejection of any nominee put forward by Bush II in 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY
And here is Sen. Obama calling for a filibuster (i.e. don't vote) of Republican appointment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqkcTQWQVgY
Here is Biden on calling for Bush I not to nominate a Justice, and if he does for the Senate not to consider the nominee, during the final year of a presidency.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581754/biden-senate-hearings-scotus-vacan...
Here is Schumer calling for blanket rejection of any nominee put forward by Bush II in 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY
And here is Sen. Obama calling for a filibuster (i.e. don't vote) of Republican appointment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqkcTQWQVgY
6
Except, in your example, there are three Senators making a statement. Not a Congressional leader refusing to do his job AND preventing the rest of Congress from doing their job.
Your example is a massive FAIL.
Your example is a massive FAIL.
7
No Stephen, the three examples are three prominent Democratic Senators urging their Democratic colleagues to not vote on prospective Republican nominees--just as the Senate Republicans are doing now.
So JG is right and your comment is wrong. And hypocritical. At least Obama expressed regrets for his actions in this case.
So JG is right and your comment is wrong. And hypocritical. At least Obama expressed regrets for his actions in this case.
2
I find it appropriate that the Supreme Court is the one branch of government that still observes its constitutional obligations. Even though there are many justices with whom I disagree; they are the one branch that carries itself with proper decorum, and continues to follow the rule of law.
1
The Republican Party is a failed political entity...corrupted by those in Congress who are being DICTATED to by their campaign financers....those who control
the congressmen and congresswomen ....are in fact ...breaking the law...
by stopping laws from being passed.
So...when will the NEW YORK TIMES....expose those who really do control
our nation....those who use Citizens United to SuperPac their ways and means
to ruin our democracy...Well Editors...name the Oligarchs who use Citizens
United to dictate as Dictators doe in countries which have been run and are
now being run by dictators...who control our lawmakers.......
Expose the crooked dictators who would abuse our right for representation.
This is what needs to be exposed...
And there is no wonder that so many are funding Bernie Sanders...
and there is no wonder that so many hate the candidates offered up to us
by $$$$ from corporate US and Wall Street...and phonies like Trump.
I hope you get the message Editors...simply do some ...muckraking !!!
the congressmen and congresswomen ....are in fact ...breaking the law...
by stopping laws from being passed.
So...when will the NEW YORK TIMES....expose those who really do control
our nation....those who use Citizens United to SuperPac their ways and means
to ruin our democracy...Well Editors...name the Oligarchs who use Citizens
United to dictate as Dictators doe in countries which have been run and are
now being run by dictators...who control our lawmakers.......
Expose the crooked dictators who would abuse our right for representation.
This is what needs to be exposed...
And there is no wonder that so many are funding Bernie Sanders...
and there is no wonder that so many hate the candidates offered up to us
by $$$$ from corporate US and Wall Street...and phonies like Trump.
I hope you get the message Editors...simply do some ...muckraking !!!
3
I don't remember any such concerns when you helped bork Bork and howl down Doug Ginsburg because he once smoked weed.
2
Ginsburg withdrew himself from consideration. Seems that dems didn't care so much about the weed use as some others. With regard to Bork, you might review his involvement in Richard Nixon"s saturday night massacre, in addition to some of his other history. That not withstanding, even Robert Bork was voted on by the Senate.
2
Just think, Dr. Kevorkian might have stayed out of jail if had argued that a consensual assisted death ritual is a constitutionally protected religious service.
2
Keep your pants on and wait. The SCOTUS has already been shaped into a purely political arm of whichever party has the majority of Justices for the past several decades and I don’t expect it to return to their original purpose which was is to be the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution. All the NYT Board supports is getting more left wing Justices on the court so it can support the left's agenda and let the real purpose of SCOTUS be forever buried amidst the corruption of politics.
3
Ah, it appears though that you were happy with a court with more right wing Justices that supported the right's agenda and "let the real purpose of SCOTUS be forever buried amidst the corruption of politics?" And therein lies the current problem -- the political right refuses to let the pendulum swing the other way. McConnell is happy to abrogate the Senate's Constitutional duty in a final bid to de-legitimize President Obama.
1
To be perfectly clear- What I want is for the Court to be the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution. That is not what the Democrat party wants. The GOP wants the Supreme court to get back to it's original purpose. Judge Scalia was a judge who firmly believed in the original purpose and that is not what the left wants to happen. Regarding Obama, he is the most deliberately divisive President I have had the displeasure of seeing in my 72 years and certainly hope that Donald trump replaces him next January.
1
Scalia's "Originalism" somehow managed to include giving corporations the rights of citizens, among other abominations. And how is one supposed to accept the "original" enshrinement of slavery into the Constitution. As for Obama, I would certainly submit that the obstructionism and disrespect exhibited by the GOP towards him is far more displeasing than any of the executive orders he's issued in an attempt to benefit this country, which still haven't reached the level of his predecessor.
Republicans have crippled Congress and obstructed the executive branch at every turn. They've shut down the federal government on multiple occasions and caused an unnecessary downgrade in US debt ratings. Now they've hamstrung the Supreme Court for what will probably be a year, yet another act without precedence in modern times.
America, if you think the country is headed in the wrong direction, STOP electing these people to Congress and STOP thinking about handing them the executive branch again. Enough! Either that or stop complaining because the root of this problem rests entirely with American voters, including those who don't participate and those who allow emotion and misinformation to guide their votes. You can't blame our messes on corporations or campaign finance or anything else: just STOP electing Republicans. They've squandered all trust and confidence as a party. Dump them all!
America, if you think the country is headed in the wrong direction, STOP electing these people to Congress and STOP thinking about handing them the executive branch again. Enough! Either that or stop complaining because the root of this problem rests entirely with American voters, including those who don't participate and those who allow emotion and misinformation to guide their votes. You can't blame our messes on corporations or campaign finance or anything else: just STOP electing Republicans. They've squandered all trust and confidence as a party. Dump them all!
10
The Court cannot do its job because it is politicized, not because it lacks the "full bench"
The Justices who dissent are in fact puppets to ideology which is the last thing any person in a position of impartial judgement should consider. Accepting politics as a given in making Court decisions is the antithesis of freedom and provides the spot where facism sticks its' nose under the edge of the tent.
The Justices who dissent are in fact puppets to ideology which is the last thing any person in a position of impartial judgement should consider. Accepting politics as a given in making Court decisions is the antithesis of freedom and provides the spot where facism sticks its' nose under the edge of the tent.
1
And imagine if now US voters reward Republicans by electing DT! Bad behavior in all iterations carries the day...truly the "Reign of the Witches"
2
One thing that goes unmentioned is that this will not just affect this year's term but next year also. Under the Republican obstruction a nominee will not be considered until January of next year. Even with smooth sailing, an unlikely prospect, a justice will not take the seat until at least the middle of March or later, too late to participate in most of the term. Obstruction is likely to beget obstruction
3
I am glad this is an opinion piece because it certainly carries a the Times' liberal bias. "This sensible arrangement" is similar to the death penalty drug companies taking the position that "we only manufacture the drugs", how buyers use the drugs are not our responsibility; how the government uses the information we provide is not our responsibility. If you kick the process off, which the government is asking these groups to do, then you certainly contribute to the end result. Why didn't the Obama administration design their plan such that plan participants (employees who want these services) are burdened with the responsibility of reporting the "deficiency"? We have to assume it is because the liberals want to introduce some participation.
1
Could any employee notify with absolutely no confirmation from an employer, C & C? Then we are back to square one.
As you interpret the Bible so very literally, in the face of overpopulation, and despite all the benefits these companies are provided by the Commons taxes give us all—courts, roads, police, fire, sewage, records, and so forth—I do hope you also don't eat shell fish, believe in stoning adulterers to death, Dueteronomy, 22:21, and I hope you never interact with anyone who has had a divorce.
If these "businesses" —which, being religious, I assume make no profit at all—do not want to follow the laws of this land, they also should be charged for using what I provide them with my tax monies.
As you interpret the Bible so very literally, in the face of overpopulation, and despite all the benefits these companies are provided by the Commons taxes give us all—courts, roads, police, fire, sewage, records, and so forth—I do hope you also don't eat shell fish, believe in stoning adulterers to death, Dueteronomy, 22:21, and I hope you never interact with anyone who has had a divorce.
If these "businesses" —which, being religious, I assume make no profit at all—do not want to follow the laws of this land, they also should be charged for using what I provide them with my tax monies.
4
How does it demonstrate "liberal bias" when the editorial argues that we should have a fully staffed and functioning Supreme court...?
You have no idea what the adjudication would have been - the point of the editorial is that with a full 9-member panel, a decision would most likely have been issued providing guidance, predictability and clarification for all regardless of their position on this one issue.
You are the one demonstrating conservative bias when you dip into the arcana of health plan design, simply to use it as a brickbat to bash the Affordable Care Act.
Which do you think Jesus is more concerned about: millions receiving quality dependable healthcare for the first time, or the wounded consciences of a few organizations forced to pay for something they disagree with...?
You have no idea what the adjudication would have been - the point of the editorial is that with a full 9-member panel, a decision would most likely have been issued providing guidance, predictability and clarification for all regardless of their position on this one issue.
You are the one demonstrating conservative bias when you dip into the arcana of health plan design, simply to use it as a brickbat to bash the Affordable Care Act.
Which do you think Jesus is more concerned about: millions receiving quality dependable healthcare for the first time, or the wounded consciences of a few organizations forced to pay for something they disagree with...?
3
"How does it demonstrate "liberal bias" when the editorial argues that we should have a fully staffed and functioning Supreme court...?"
The decision was 8-0... What difference would another vote have made? The editorial is nothing but partisan blather, and deliberately misleading at that.
The decision was 8-0... What difference would another vote have made? The editorial is nothing but partisan blather, and deliberately misleading at that.
1
What I see in the religious objection is complete lack of compassion; and religion is use as an excuse to deny the rights of others who think different. These people need to listen to Francis. There are many valid reasons for contraception (which is much better than abortion) which is particularly Important for those who are at the lower economic end. As always, these attitudes don't affect the wealthy and always hurt those who are most in need of help. That cannot be Christian.
9
How many on the Supreme Court does it take to cripple it?
Would that number be seven, six, five, four, three or less?
Or, has the Supreme Court already been crippled a long time ago by the greedy and corrupted process of those leaders of America's political establishment who advise and consent and appoint?
Democrats and Republicans are using circular reasoning that it requires does not require a certain number is nonsense and many are so emotionally charged that they will accept what they are told as long as it supports what they have been lead to believe believe and parrot.
It does not require a set number, but using that argument against Republicans is to get support and votes for the Democrats. It is a strategy no matter which side of the issue is to get more support and votes for the gluttonous and self-centered politicians. None it has anything to do with serving and protecting the people who elected them. There should be little doubt, it is time to throw them out, throw them all out
Would that number be seven, six, five, four, three or less?
Or, has the Supreme Court already been crippled a long time ago by the greedy and corrupted process of those leaders of America's political establishment who advise and consent and appoint?
Democrats and Republicans are using circular reasoning that it requires does not require a certain number is nonsense and many are so emotionally charged that they will accept what they are told as long as it supports what they have been lead to believe believe and parrot.
It does not require a set number, but using that argument against Republicans is to get support and votes for the Democrats. It is a strategy no matter which side of the issue is to get more support and votes for the gluttonous and self-centered politicians. None it has anything to do with serving and protecting the people who elected them. There should be little doubt, it is time to throw them out, throw them all out
1
It has been said an intelligent person doesn't take long to inspect a hot horseshoe. Assuming a certain minimum standard of intelligence for these eight individuals, this matter received the attention it was due.
Religion is not based on science or verifiable and re-verifiable fact. Its origins are in myth. And myth, while it holds powerful sway over many is best not incorporated into law.
This case is only a few steps removed from a mandatory ban on birth control at some point in the future. Soon to be followed by mandatory baptism for all. Will it be sprinkling or dunking? Or will that require Supreme Court deliberation as well?
Religion is not based on science or verifiable and re-verifiable fact. Its origins are in myth. And myth, while it holds powerful sway over many is best not incorporated into law.
This case is only a few steps removed from a mandatory ban on birth control at some point in the future. Soon to be followed by mandatory baptism for all. Will it be sprinkling or dunking? Or will that require Supreme Court deliberation as well?
4
Glen,
You figured out if the horse shoe is hot yet?
You figured out if the horse shoe is hot yet?
Still workin' on it, JJ. You wanna hold it for awhile?
1
"Will it be sprinkling or dunking?"
Sprinkling wouldn't do it for everyone; a little dunking would be good...
Sprinkling wouldn't do it for everyone; a little dunking would be good...
1
Only a cynic would observe that conflict on remand could be anticipated, but was invited nonetheless, because disarray can be seen as less problematic than making a few for-the-ages determinations concerning two less than beloved statutory schemes: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Affordable Care Act. This does not mean that the Court is crippled: it does mean that the Court is not inclined to issue opinions having long-term consequences unrelated to the contraception controversy if they do not have to do so.
More interesting in this matter is the Court's determination to engage in eliciting settlement positions in a manner prevalent in the trial courts. This new venture may or may not prove salutary, but it is now a possibility that parties can no longer avoid in planning litigation strategies. This bit of ingenuity likewise fails to suggest that the Court is crippled. All concerned to be actively engaged in charting new territory, for better or worse.
More interesting in this matter is the Court's determination to engage in eliciting settlement positions in a manner prevalent in the trial courts. This new venture may or may not prove salutary, but it is now a possibility that parties can no longer avoid in planning litigation strategies. This bit of ingenuity likewise fails to suggest that the Court is crippled. All concerned to be actively engaged in charting new territory, for better or worse.
3
The Court voted unanimously to remand this case for consideration of a compromise that both sides view as a potentially feasible option to respect the plaintiffs' sincerely-held religious beliefs while seamlessly providing contraceptive insurance coverage for their employees. Of course, the litigation will resume if the proposed compromise does not pan out. By any objective measure, this outcome should be praised rather than condemned--particularly since reaching such accommodations is the key goal of the statute involved here. Indeed, even White House has endorsed it. Only someone blinded by ideological zealotry would oppose this practical outcome And prefer a 4-4 deadlock, which would continue conflict among the federal circuits on this issue and guarantee further litigation and legal chaos.
2
Given the Conservative bias the court has held for most of my adult life and it's tendency to legislate from the Bench, anything that blunts it's impact is not necessarily a bad thing.
Scalia may be gone, but Thomas, Alito and Roberts still are. A study of Roberts' work prior to the Supreme Court showed him to favor Corporations over Government or individuals, and government over people. That is a very poor record for someone entrusted with the highest court in our land. Alito is a blind ideologue and Thomas was a shameful replacement for Thurgood Marshall.
The candidate President Obama has proposed is way too conservative for the court and will not likely be confirmed.
Our Constitution has been trampled by secret law, the appointment of Presidents, a joke FISA court, the proclamation that corporations are people and that money is speech, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act along party lines. We need men and women of good will that are less ideologues who are strongly committed to little d democracy, protection of civil liberties and equity for regular citizens in the face of corporate and government power.
Scalia may be gone, but Thomas, Alito and Roberts still are. A study of Roberts' work prior to the Supreme Court showed him to favor Corporations over Government or individuals, and government over people. That is a very poor record for someone entrusted with the highest court in our land. Alito is a blind ideologue and Thomas was a shameful replacement for Thurgood Marshall.
The candidate President Obama has proposed is way too conservative for the court and will not likely be confirmed.
Our Constitution has been trampled by secret law, the appointment of Presidents, a joke FISA court, the proclamation that corporations are people and that money is speech, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act along party lines. We need men and women of good will that are less ideologues who are strongly committed to little d democracy, protection of civil liberties and equity for regular citizens in the face of corporate and government power.
8
Grand Old Psychopaths
19
Crippled for decades now by ignorance and religion.
20
Supreme? Corporations United.
11
If it is so very important to the left that the Supreme Court have nine justices, why doesn't the left ask Obama to ask the Senate its advice on who it would like to see appointed and appoint him. If is so important to you, why don't you find another Scalia to replace Scalia. But of course it is not that important.
You guys prove that you are a bunch of liars and hypocrites almost every day.
You guys prove that you are a bunch of liars and hypocrites almost every day.
10
That's exactly what Obama did. Senate Republicans had nothing but praise for Merrick Garland before Scalia died, even Grassley and McConnell, but suddenly they are now vehemently opposed. This is nothing more than a temper tantrum over not being in power. If you recall, Republicans vowed not to consider ANY Obama nominee the day after Scalia died, no matter who it might be. McConnell made that statement immediately, saying that it would have to wait until after the election. Republicans don't care who Obama picks. They don't want to work with him or give him anything that's considered positive for the country. They're a complete disgrace.
7
Bob Richards, that has to be the most extreme rationalization ever. Mitch McConnell has said NO Obama nominee will be considered, regardless of ideology. You are suggesting that he would reverse that, meaning HE would be the liar and hypocrite. Can you be honest for once and admit that?
Second, many Senate Republicans agree that Obama made a very reasonable, moderate, accommodating nomination. Are you demanding that Obama become the first president in history to nominate a Justice whose views are completely opposed to his own. Please tell me of any time a Republican President has done something similar. Or do you think there should be different rules for your side and the other side?
Second, many Senate Republicans agree that Obama made a very reasonable, moderate, accommodating nomination. Are you demanding that Obama become the first president in history to nominate a Justice whose views are completely opposed to his own. Please tell me of any time a Republican President has done something similar. Or do you think there should be different rules for your side and the other side?
Because, of course, George H.W. Bush asked the Democrats who to nominate to fill Justice Marshall's seat, and they suggested Clarence Thomas? That's not how it works. Unfortunately, Republicans will never get over the fact that they lost two landslide elections to Barack Obama.
1
Judge Garland submitted his Judicial Committee questionnaire only last week, it would take months more of meetings, arguments, and votes for him to be confirmed, even if the Republicans were interested in proceeding on his nomination. This case would have been deferred no matter what the Senate did at this time.
3
Sometimes it's hard for death to be not proud.
1
And if I write that when Jimmy Carter passes, or Justice Breyer, I wonder if it would get printed?
1
Meanwhile this issue slips quietly into the background while Donald Trump continues to rule the headlines.
15
looks like to me, things are working fine. The court is to able to make law in is current configuration.
5
Actually, I will be happy not to get any more 5-4 decisions. Now it takes at least 5-3, much better. As for this case, the Supreme Court seems to have crafted a sensible compromise. Too many liberals want to shove their policy down the throat of their opponents, as in "We're right, you're wrong, tough!"
Crippled? Not al all.
Crippled? Not al all.
10
Well, no. The question is whether the employer's rights trumps those of the employees. I don't believe that the employer's rights should hold sway over those of its employees. Freedom of religion isn't meant to be one-sided, belonging only to the side that has the most money.
For the GOP, self interest always carries the weight against the nation's interest. They prove it everyday.
19
The Republicans crippled the Congress, the Executive branch and have finally neutralized the Supreme Court. And they say Obama is anti-American.
34
So, Obama pushed his SCOTUS nominee for, what, like 5 minutes? Now, he's moved back to being the wallflower-in-chief.
My biggest disappointment with Obama has been that he's ineffective, nee absent, when it comes to publicly pushing important agenda items. It's like a college professor who gave his lecture and then thinks, well, I already said what I have to say; I shouldn't have to say it again.
Unfortunately, Professor Obama, that's not the way things get done.
My biggest disappointment with Obama has been that he's ineffective, nee absent, when it comes to publicly pushing important agenda items. It's like a college professor who gave his lecture and then thinks, well, I already said what I have to say; I shouldn't have to say it again.
Unfortunately, Professor Obama, that's not the way things get done.
2
Then what is the way to get things done when faced with opponents who don't want to get things done? Do you really think publicly pushing will do it? Mr. Obama has been pushing; you just haven't heard about it in the Donald Trump din..
10
I remember something about health care being addessed.
3
So, these religiously-affiliated employers want to deny contraception to their employees in secret?
Very spiritual.
Very spiritual.
16
Hal, any of us can buy our own contraceptives and don't need to force our employer or our insurance to buy it for us. Do they really need mommy state to buy it for them?
1
The point really was the secrecy--they don't want their employees to be informed of their options to disagree about religious issues and requirements. Kind of like, oh I don't know, ISIS.
As for buying it themselves (and not through the "mommy [sic] state," insurance is a risk-spreading device, not a give-away.
As for buying it themselves (and not through the "mommy [sic] state," insurance is a risk-spreading device, not a give-away.
One wonders if the Supreme Court's decision not to decide this case is an understated way of protesting the failure to fill the vacant seat.
2
I think there might be a silver lining to the Supreme Court situation. We, the people, have looked to the Court to "settle" via 5 votes too many polarizing issues. Since one side or the other can't "win" maybe there will be more acceptance of lower court decisions.
2
The Supreme Court did reach a decision—a unanimous one—in Zubik v. Burwell. It decided to send the case back to the lower court with instructions to work out a compromise, which both petitioners and the government told the justices is feasible. The New York Times editorial board obviously hoped the court would issue a ruling that would have undermined the First Amendment by forcing the petitioners to compromise their religious tenants, but its assertion that court reached no decision is inaccurate. If the editorial board thinks the First Amendment is too much of a burden on federal powers, it should push for its repeal.
7
Sorry, but how does allowing an individual to make a choice on the use of birth control impinge on religious freedom? Companies or government should never make that decision; individuals should.
1
"Crippled"? Unable to function? Really?
How is the current status any different from when a Justice recuses themselves from a case? Elena Kagan has done this for cases she was involved in as Solicitor General; others have done so in the past. The verdict rendered in the most recent case was unanimous - there must have been some ability to function if all eight Justices agreed with this course of action.
Just because the Court does not reach a decision (or more precisely, the decision the left would prefer) does not mean the court is crippled, only that the process is still working.
I am in favor of hearings, a vote, and confirmation of the current nominee (and I tend to lean to the right politically) - but a little less hyperbole and drama from the NYT would also be appropriate.
How is the current status any different from when a Justice recuses themselves from a case? Elena Kagan has done this for cases she was involved in as Solicitor General; others have done so in the past. The verdict rendered in the most recent case was unanimous - there must have been some ability to function if all eight Justices agreed with this course of action.
Just because the Court does not reach a decision (or more precisely, the decision the left would prefer) does not mean the court is crippled, only that the process is still working.
I am in favor of hearings, a vote, and confirmation of the current nominee (and I tend to lean to the right politically) - but a little less hyperbole and drama from the NYT would also be appropriate.
7
The Republican party seems to be putting all their eggs in the Trump basket hoping that he'll win the presidency and thus choose the next Supreme Court justices rather than going with the solid choice that Obama is putting forward. In the mean time important issues are at a halt due to the 8 member court.
This is exactly why the Republican party is in decline. They can't see past their immediate political positions and act for the good of this country. If they continue down this path they just may find out that their political future ends with this coming November.
This is exactly why the Republican party is in decline. They can't see past their immediate political positions and act for the good of this country. If they continue down this path they just may find out that their political future ends with this coming November.
5
One limit on religious freedom is my right to impose my religion on others. Thus no employers can force their staff to pray, even during office hours. And no employer should have a voice in constraining employees health provisions. The idea of enabling an opt out is itself the problem. The Supreme Court should be considering whether that is constitutional.
11
"The eight justices have again declined to rule on a major legal issue. They cannot do their job without a full bench."
Precisely. The Supreme Court cannot function. And that is how the Republican Congress defines "success." Look at how the Republicans have "governed" over the last seven years. Look at their "successes" in Wisconsin, Kansas, Louisiana. "Success" for Republicans is government dysfunction.
This is why Trump is truly the ultimate Republican Presidential candidate. Trump can truly drive government into the ditch. This is the true conservative dream.
Precisely. The Supreme Court cannot function. And that is how the Republican Congress defines "success." Look at how the Republicans have "governed" over the last seven years. Look at their "successes" in Wisconsin, Kansas, Louisiana. "Success" for Republicans is government dysfunction.
This is why Trump is truly the ultimate Republican Presidential candidate. Trump can truly drive government into the ditch. This is the true conservative dream.
13
Chief Justice Roberts is missing in action in this judicial crisis. Both as chief justice and as the president of the Judicial Conference, he is responsible for the smooth running of the U.S. justice system. He should be advocating for normal constitutional practices regarding the filling of a vacancy. His negligence is upsetting the balance of power, and ceding power to one part and one party within the legislative branch. He should call an emergency meeting of the Judicial Conference and make a recommendation to Congress that a normal process of hearings for the president's nominee take place.
The Supreme Court is in Republican conservative limbo now, and the rights of many Americans along with it. This is the dead zone left by Sen. McConnell's racist obstruction of the first black president since his inaugural night. The unprecedented refusal to have hearings for a Supreme Court justice will go down in history books as part of the larger Republican pattern of non-governance.
And honestly, filling out a form was too much for these organizations? They should not get any government tax breaks when they are breaking the law.
The Supreme Court is in Republican conservative limbo now, and the rights of many Americans along with it. This is the dead zone left by Sen. McConnell's racist obstruction of the first black president since his inaugural night. The unprecedented refusal to have hearings for a Supreme Court justice will go down in history books as part of the larger Republican pattern of non-governance.
And honestly, filling out a form was too much for these organizations? They should not get any government tax breaks when they are breaking the law.
19
In the absence of good faith negotiations and compromise our Founding Fathers expected, planned and hoped for gridlock in our divided limited power democratic republic. A crippled Supreme Court by doing nothing can do no harm while avoiding the appearance of impropriety and exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of the law.
Law is gender, race, color, ethnic, sectarian, socioeconomic, political, educational history plus arithmetic. Law is not just nor fair nor moral nor objective. Slavery and Jim Crow were both legal. The "rule of law" is an agreed upon group of "principles" that purports to "logically" and "consistently" express an "opinion."
As the least democratic branch of government in our tripartite structure the judiciary despite it's nominal lack of effective power presents a potentially grave danger to any governing prevailing political power. That is why a Republican controlled Congress has refused to hold any hearings on President Obama's Democratic nominee to fill the vacancy on the Court. Strict construction of the meaning of the Constitution, like being an originalist or a liberal, merely means what type of sophistry and nonsensical game you will play in getting to the legal conclusion that agrees with your political bias.
Thankfully the Supreme Court is crippled. As it always is even when at full strength. Usually missing a head for objective reason or a heart for human empathy and humility.
Law is gender, race, color, ethnic, sectarian, socioeconomic, political, educational history plus arithmetic. Law is not just nor fair nor moral nor objective. Slavery and Jim Crow were both legal. The "rule of law" is an agreed upon group of "principles" that purports to "logically" and "consistently" express an "opinion."
As the least democratic branch of government in our tripartite structure the judiciary despite it's nominal lack of effective power presents a potentially grave danger to any governing prevailing political power. That is why a Republican controlled Congress has refused to hold any hearings on President Obama's Democratic nominee to fill the vacancy on the Court. Strict construction of the meaning of the Constitution, like being an originalist or a liberal, merely means what type of sophistry and nonsensical game you will play in getting to the legal conclusion that agrees with your political bias.
Thankfully the Supreme Court is crippled. As it always is even when at full strength. Usually missing a head for objective reason or a heart for human empathy and humility.
2
After 213 years, the GOP Senate unilaterally decided that the Republic is better off with its Judicial branch of government unable to carry its constitutional role. These are the same US Senators who profess their constitutional duty and profound respect for the rule of law and precedent. The same Senators who decry "judicial activism" as an usurpation of their legislative power.
How do these stalwarts of constitutionality explain their position? They can't. Except by concluding that not holding Judiciary confirmation hearings on Judge Garland is an expedient political act. A decision not to act that, although it clearly betrays their constitutional duty, they deem worth pursuing. In other words, to defend their view of the Constitution, the Constitution must be ignored.
And some fellow citizens still wonder why a demagogue is the presumptive nominee of the Republican party.
In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall explained, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison (1803). And so was born the power of "judicial review" and integral element of our government. Now the 2016 GOP-controlled US Senate needs to explain to all of us, why Justice Marshall's dictum no longer holds true.
How do these stalwarts of constitutionality explain their position? They can't. Except by concluding that not holding Judiciary confirmation hearings on Judge Garland is an expedient political act. A decision not to act that, although it clearly betrays their constitutional duty, they deem worth pursuing. In other words, to defend their view of the Constitution, the Constitution must be ignored.
And some fellow citizens still wonder why a demagogue is the presumptive nominee of the Republican party.
In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall explained, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison (1803). And so was born the power of "judicial review" and integral element of our government. Now the 2016 GOP-controlled US Senate needs to explain to all of us, why Justice Marshall's dictum no longer holds true.
6
Assuming they would hear the case if they had 1 more justice....This editorial board is pretty pathetic.
1
...And still America the stupid will support the GOP even when it is a threat to the principals of this country. It is that traitor Senator McConnell and his band of tyrants that have done so much damage to this country while America the uneducated can't get beyond its hatred and bigotry to tolerate a balck man in the white house. The SENATE is NOT DOING ITS JOB. That in itself should be grounds for immediate impeachment of the senators and begin the process and installation of TERM LIMUTS.
6
Dear churches,
If you want a say in the way this country and government work then PAY TAXES.
Otherwise back down on your knees before your God thinks you weren't telling him how awesome he is.
If you want a say in the way this country and government work then PAY TAXES.
Otherwise back down on your knees before your God thinks you weren't telling him how awesome he is.
6
Yeah, yeah. It's all Biden's fault for threatening to do the same thing way back before Mitch McConnell got out of diapers.
Fact: Biden DIDN'T do it.
"So Leave It To Mitch the Beave" to have absolutely no imagination and do something unique himself: bleep the entire United States of America.
THE Beave has to copy a long ago threat of nuclear war and actually drop His senatorial stink bomb!
Come on, Mitch. Find your inner self! Be creative! Change the world!
Do something GOOD, KIND, LOVING for this nation...
Here, practice this God-like pose:
"Let there be life, liberty, and a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HEARING!"
Fact: Biden DIDN'T do it.
"So Leave It To Mitch the Beave" to have absolutely no imagination and do something unique himself: bleep the entire United States of America.
THE Beave has to copy a long ago threat of nuclear war and actually drop His senatorial stink bomb!
Come on, Mitch. Find your inner self! Be creative! Change the world!
Do something GOOD, KIND, LOVING for this nation...
Here, practice this God-like pose:
"Let there be life, liberty, and a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HEARING!"
2
Let's call them Modernist Republicans, because the Republic that I grew up as was fiscally conservative, socially liberal and understood that the government's purpose was to act on behalf of the "good of the people." (Needless to say at this point in my life—GO HILARY.) Blocking our government from functioning as a true governing body seems to be all that they are intent on doing. To leave the highest court in the land unable to do its job should be considered treason and a breach of the oath that they took upon taking office. I think there just might be a penalty for treason. Oh, but we probably need a functioning court to enforce that .
9
It seems the GOP has completed the anti-Constitutional hat trick; they have now managed to effectively undermine all three branches of government.
4
What is the actual cost of congress not doing it's job per day is what I want to hear. We have seen the effects but not the cost. Please gives a dollar figure.
3
This is silly. We need nine justices so you need to confirm a liberal? This is not a serious argument.
2
No, we need 9 justices, so we should be following the processes set down for presidents and congressional leaders; we have never not followed that process, Dem or Repub administration. In terms of deaths and new nominations, the chips fall where they will, as they have for over 200 years--why would this be different? Obama offered the most moderate nomination the GOP is likely to see, which led them to further dig in? *That* is not a serious argument. Just because you don't like where the rules lead you, you don't ignore the rules.
The GOP's failure to hold hearings for a new member of the Supreme Court amounts to anarchy and those running for office are oddly quiet on this matter. The current GOP does not want three branches of government, unless of course, they lose their majority in Congress.
2
Hurrah!! The Republicans have now achieved a trifecta. They have paralyzed Congress. They have disabled the Supreme Court. They have checkmated the Presidency. If the disordered foreshadowed by the Trump candidacy is realized, they will have a good shot at total collapse. But don't forget...it's all for the good of the country because this way we will have the government out of our lives.
7
I teach a high school course about current Supreme Court cases. Zubik v. Burwell was among the cases examined this year. 15 high school students read the briefs, examined the lower court rulings, considered the Constitution, and had no problem affirming the lower court ruling.
When trying to explain the plaintiffs' position, one student struggled for an apt phrase and finally said, "I guess it's just intellectually silly."
When trying to explain the plaintiffs' position, one student struggled for an apt phrase and finally said, "I guess it's just intellectually silly."
5
I'm looking forward to the day soon when President Hillary Clinton appoints Barack Obama to the SCOTUS. What's Mitch McConnell going to do then? Wait another 8 years?
1
If the SCOTUS cannot decide on whether or not these issues are "constitutional" doesn't that demonstrate a major problem? How can 8 justices have such differing views of what the Constitution allows? It shows that the SCOTUS is (and always has been) a very political institution. It is not the "independent" arbiter of the law, but rather a group of politically and ideologically motivated individuals with agendas. Not impartial. Let us not pretend the SCOTUS decisions are based on anything other than politics.
2
The "religious" organizations have not changed in 2,000 years. This is about preserving power, and promoting growth in their congregations and coffers. Their lawyers can twist any common sense approach into an affront to X brand religious doctrine. The U.S. was once to be a nation of laws, not men. Now hiding behind the often "gibberish" of biblical writings dating hundreds and hundreds of years A.D. is nonsense, which is exactly what the GOP has become.
3
Just think! If Scalia had been alive, there WOULD have been a clear decision.
Would your dreams of a non-divided Supreme Court have come true in that case?
Why do I think that you would not have been happy?
Let us face it, no one wants war. But many do want victory and they want it more than they want peace.
Would your dreams of a non-divided Supreme Court have come true in that case?
Why do I think that you would not have been happy?
Let us face it, no one wants war. But many do want victory and they want it more than they want peace.
2
Yesterday was one of those few days where both sides of an issue felt like they had won. I am told that back in the days of the Vietnam War, those people who objected to the war on the grounds of conscience were granted accommodations. In this particular issue and being a deeply religious person myself, I feel relieved that indeed there was a compromise and neither side felt betrayed by the government which is supposed to represent them. In the land of the free I do not see a reason why we should not accommodate someone on the grounds of conscience. Be it the Sikhs looking to wear the turban and keep their beard, or a Muslim or Christian opposed to gay marriage, or a pacifist protesting war (regardless of how justified the war may be), or an atheist objecting to let's swear on a bible upon taking an oath of public office. I feel like regardless of legal decisions or public debates, at the end of the day we will still be here and we still need to go about days.
Your ideas work quite well providing these religious entities only hire religious employees. When you hire lay people, these people have a right to their own beliefs and that may include the use of birth control.
2
The Supreme Court has always been contentious. And especially liberal Presidents who attempt radical legislation like FDR and Obama have ran into conservative justices appointed by previous Republican Presidents which left them frustrated. The court has been politicized and polarized for a long time. Republicans refusing to confirm Garland, who they think is more liberal than they would like is totally understandable in an election year. The Democrats did the same when the roles were reversed in 1987 and 1992 and no doubt would so again in the future.
1
You can't just invent 'facts.' There was no vacancy in 1992; 1987 was not an election year, and the Senate took a vote, rather than refusing to consider a nominee.
3
The NYT is way off base here. The Little Sisters had a major victory in the Court yesterday. A unanimous Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the lower court against the Little Sisters and directed the parties back to compromise before the lower court. What happened here was the liberal wing of the court avoided ruling in for the Little Sisters while acknowledging they had an open and shut case by joining in vacating the order of the lower court.
3
Having to go back to a lower court is not a victory. And the battle continues to be expensive. And why should nuns who work with the elderly, deny other women's rights?
3
The Court cannot do its work because of the composition of the Court. Eight would be enough if the four right wingers were not so blatantly political.
The Court is hampered, but in truth it is the Republican Controlled Congress that is "crippled".
The GOP kowtows to an ideology that supplants service to the nation, and their insistence on trying to besmirch the President comes before all else...including doing their elected jobs.
The GOP kowtows to an ideology that supplants service to the nation, and their insistence on trying to besmirch the President comes before all else...including doing their elected jobs.
9
The Times' editorial staff are in danger of embarrassing themselves for want of some basic American history and political science. A U.S. Supreme Court with eight justices is not a "crippled" institution. The Court was originally designed with six justices, and its present-day quorum is four justices. There are a few reasons for these even-number distributions. First and foremost, the American republic and its national institutions were designed to accommodate the functions of a federated republic with limited powers, not for today's hyper-nationalized bureaucratic regime. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court was not designed for a hyper-litigious society in a hyper-nationalized bureaucratic regime. Third, the notion that the Court ought to establish itself as the sole authority on matters pertaining to constitutional interpretation was a controversial one during the first quarter-century of the nation's history. James Madison himself argued that the Court ought to issue its opinion in seriatim rather than as a majority bloc, precisely because doing so would dilute the power of precedent and hamper any effort to convert the Court into a monolithic indisputable oracle.
One immediate benefit deriving from this last argument is the preservation of the principle of federalism, which helps to guarantee the varieties of life that liberals, like those who staff the NYT editorial page, so often claim is essential to democratic pluralism.
One immediate benefit deriving from this last argument is the preservation of the principle of federalism, which helps to guarantee the varieties of life that liberals, like those who staff the NYT editorial page, so often claim is essential to democratic pluralism.
2
The Day the Supreme Court Went On Strike. That is what the article title should have read. Its embarrassing that the rest of the world is watching the US implode due to the extremists in Congress that would rather see the country grind to a halt than compromise. Congress' actions (or rather, inaction) are also setting us up for a potentially disasterous presidential election cycle.
Our country was set up with three branches of government to ensure that we wouldn't be ruled by a dictator. No one anticipated that it might be taken over in a coup by right wing extremists within Congress.
Our country was set up with three branches of government to ensure that we wouldn't be ruled by a dictator. No one anticipated that it might be taken over in a coup by right wing extremists within Congress.
4
Justice Scalia believed in the work of the court and its value. With both our President and Court now held hostage by the Congress, our democracy is threatened. The Senate should move on the President's selection for the Supreme Court. It is their Constitutional duty. Scalia would be ashamed of his party and their politics on this issue.
12
I disagree.
Scalia would have been one of the ring leaders.
I know it's bad form to speak ill of the dead but when you consider all the SWAG Scalia got from Fox-Kids you have to see him as a compromised Justice.
His neutrality was gone long before he passed.
He was essentially a Fox-Kids sponsored hack whose reputation was a joke by the end.
Scalia would have been one of the ring leaders.
I know it's bad form to speak ill of the dead but when you consider all the SWAG Scalia got from Fox-Kids you have to see him as a compromised Justice.
His neutrality was gone long before he passed.
He was essentially a Fox-Kids sponsored hack whose reputation was a joke by the end.
4
The Editorial Board is whining because the Supreme Court forced the Obama administration to negotiate a compromise with a bunch of Nuns who take a vow of poverty. How do I know that? Because the justices ruled EIGHT TO ZERO to overturn the prior decisions, while also preventing the government from imposing fines.
That is not a "crippled" court; it is court that values freedom over the Obama agenda.
This editorial merely calls for greater government power to crush people who disagree with all-reaching liberal orthodoxy. In the end, the NY Times editors are the ones denying freedom and abusing power. And even the liberal members of the court disagree with them!
That is not a "crippled" court; it is court that values freedom over the Obama agenda.
This editorial merely calls for greater government power to crush people who disagree with all-reaching liberal orthodoxy. In the end, the NY Times editors are the ones denying freedom and abusing power. And even the liberal members of the court disagree with them!
9
You're gonna' wish the Kentucky turtle had confirmed President Obama's choice to replace the hack with Merrit Garland.
If you rightist thought you were going to put another Koch Justice like Scalia on the bench, think again.
I hope President Clinton's choices are far more liberal.
And considering you rightists are going to lose many down the ticket races by putting Trump on your ticket, that liberal replacement is going to be confirmed in a New York second so we Americans can finally make this country great again after 30 years of Reagan's idiocy.
The word you'll be looking for is D'OH!
If you rightist thought you were going to put another Koch Justice like Scalia on the bench, think again.
I hope President Clinton's choices are far more liberal.
And considering you rightists are going to lose many down the ticket races by putting Trump on your ticket, that liberal replacement is going to be confirmed in a New York second so we Americans can finally make this country great again after 30 years of Reagan's idiocy.
The word you'll be looking for is D'OH!
1
Looks like your the one guilty of whining. The court is made up of 9 justices....9!
It's the republican agenda that is negating due process and holding the Judicial Branch hostage. Your partisan ramblings make little sense.
It's the republican agenda that is negating due process and holding the Judicial Branch hostage. Your partisan ramblings make little sense.
1
Dude, get a grip.
I wish that the democrats and the President would talk about this and many other issues 24x7 until the election. The media would have to cover some of it. This would tap into the angst the country is feeling and hopefully change the balance of power in the next election.
9
I agree with Mike. The more the Democrats talk about how they want to run their constituents' live for them, how they know what is best for us, the better the chances are we will see real change in our political leadership. The President and his ultra liberal agenda need to go and a new standard bearer cannot be allowed to take his place.
What a mess! The Supreme Court can't do its job and Congress hasn't done its own in the last five years. Why not elect Trump and make all three branches of the government completely useless.
32
Careful for what you ask for, neighbor...
In Denver, thanks to our enlightened views on cannabis, we have many new people driving on our roads than we are used to. Many of them don't know how to drive in the mountains and some seem kind of rude...newcomers.
If T rump is elected you folks in Canada, O Canada, might see an invasion of newcomers from down South. US.
In Denver, thanks to our enlightened views on cannabis, we have many new people driving on our roads than we are used to. Many of them don't know how to drive in the mountains and some seem kind of rude...newcomers.
If T rump is elected you folks in Canada, O Canada, might see an invasion of newcomers from down South. US.
1
Duly noted and expected, Bob. Google searches of "How to move to Canada" have gone up 350% after Super Tuesday. They'll go through the roof if Trump takes the lead in the polls leading up to the election. I think the rules here say a Canadian can sponsor up to five people into the country, for anyone interested.
1
"Unfortunately, the justices appear to be evenly split on this issue..."
To me, this is as appalling as the failure to fill that 9th seat.
How can even FOUR of the Justices take seriously the argument that the government's generous compromise constitues an "undue burden" on religious freedom??
To me, this is as appalling as the failure to fill that 9th seat.
How can even FOUR of the Justices take seriously the argument that the government's generous compromise constitues an "undue burden" on religious freedom??
64
Republicans are going for an "absolute" victory, in its true term........
On this day in 1954 the SCOTUS ruled in Brown V Board of Education that segregated schools were inherently unequal. Nothing was kicked back to lower courts and nobody declined to pick a side or pretend to wait " for the American people to have a voice" .The twice elected President has put forth an eminently qualified jurist who under any parameters would make for an honorable Court Justice acceptable to all but the most radical. The Republican Senate majority has no reason to suppose that whomever is elected in November will give them an option this good, that naked partisanship is being allowed to so damage the civic body is an utter shame and worse even on their own terms to those responsible self defeating.
51
it is so sad to see where we are today as a country. Congress, please do your job! Citizens, please vote.
25
Judging from the comments, a lot of conservatives don't appear to understand what the issue is.
They seem to think it is simply a partisan issue. This is false.
The issue is that Senate Republicans are violating the Constitution by not ruling on the President's nominee.
According to the Constitution - which Republicans pretend to care about - the President is to nominate someone, and the Senate is to confirm or reject the nomination. The President has done his job. Senate Republicans are refusing to do theirs.
We are not asking that the Senate approve the President's nominee. We are simply asking that they perform their Constitutional duty to hold a hearing on the nominee and confirm or reject him.
If you care about the Constitution, you should call upon Senate Republicans to perform their Constitutional duty of holding a hearing on the President's nominee.
If you do not do this, please stop pretending that you care about the Constitution.
They seem to think it is simply a partisan issue. This is false.
The issue is that Senate Republicans are violating the Constitution by not ruling on the President's nominee.
According to the Constitution - which Republicans pretend to care about - the President is to nominate someone, and the Senate is to confirm or reject the nomination. The President has done his job. Senate Republicans are refusing to do theirs.
We are not asking that the Senate approve the President's nominee. We are simply asking that they perform their Constitutional duty to hold a hearing on the nominee and confirm or reject him.
If you care about the Constitution, you should call upon Senate Republicans to perform their Constitutional duty of holding a hearing on the President's nominee.
If you do not do this, please stop pretending that you care about the Constitution.
79
Well said John T
The majority of these "palin" republicans who rant on about the constitution couldn't even summarize the first article.
1
How the Court can be split on this non-issue is laughable. If religious employers want purity, they need to stop employing human beings. I hope this and other lawsuits leads to a backlash against them and a revocation of their tax exempt status.
58
I find it sad that the GOP will allow its ideology to cripple the nation. The Senators who refuse to consider the nomination President Obama has put forth were elected to govern. People that voted for them expected the government to run and accomplish things. They really have no regard for the electorate. I hope the voters remember this in November.
28
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the disinterested third party of federal government, yet the modern extreme GOP has no interest in disinterest. It is willing to cheat to get its policies passed and not play by the rules the founders set forth for this country.
8
Religious zealots are perpetually offended and indignant. They cannot be satisfied and are not open to compromise. That is why most religious zealots in this country are also "conservatives".
The Republican anarchists in Congress do not want the Supreme Court to function, unless it is likely to issue rulings agreeable to them. They are saboteurs of the Constitution, pure and simple.
The Republican anarchists in Congress do not want the Supreme Court to function, unless it is likely to issue rulings agreeable to them. They are saboteurs of the Constitution, pure and simple.
44
The religious right won't stop attempting to impose their own religious views upon the rest of us. Soon, by the Supremes edict or by tie, we'll have the religious right's church in every one of our living rooms, in the US. The first amendment should apply to the rest of us and our beliefs too, and not just them and theirs. Our founders would turn over in their graves.
59
They are not imposing anything on you. You are trying to impose YOUR beliefs on them. It is no different from forcing a Kosher restaurant to serve pork on the grounds that by not serving pork they are violating the civil rights of non-Jews.
The Kosher restaurant could say, "If you want to eat pork there are plenty of other places." And the nuns could say, "If you want contraceptives, there are plenty of drug stores."
It is too bad that a rude and sexist man is the only wall, blocking a total triumph of PC folk who will try to dictate what we can say and what we cannot and who will accuse us of racism if we say "All lives matter."
The Kosher restaurant could say, "If you want to eat pork there are plenty of other places." And the nuns could say, "If you want contraceptives, there are plenty of drug stores."
It is too bad that a rude and sexist man is the only wall, blocking a total triumph of PC folk who will try to dictate what we can say and what we cannot and who will accuse us of racism if we say "All lives matter."
1
Our form of government is in deep dysfunction(da). We have a congress which has crippled the nation. The anger and resentment of which has given us Trump for the GOP, and a Supreme Court which is no longer supreme.
This "By the People, and for the people" is now a cliche. The passion of our for fathers is simply hot air escaping The backsides of the GOP.
We need a new form of the House and Senate. We do not need a HOUSE majority speaker, or SENATE Majority, and minority leader. We need a congress with functional members who are removed by a representitive referendum, when they behave as they are now. Legislate or get out.
Who said working on the hill was a career occupation in the first place.Who in their right mind thinks we have checks and balances. What significant purpose does the congress and Senate provide , if can't even choose a new Supreme Court nominee. How can they violate the constitution and profess to represent it.Congressional and Senate members on average make $180,000.00
A year. Whatever happened firing elected officials for breach contract for not upholding the oath they swore during their installment.We have a congress and senate which schemes, rather than legislates. We have two racially bias bodies of government who can't handle a black Man as president. I'm a white Catholic, and I don't need a weatherman to know which way the Hypocracy is blowing!
This "By the People, and for the people" is now a cliche. The passion of our for fathers is simply hot air escaping The backsides of the GOP.
We need a new form of the House and Senate. We do not need a HOUSE majority speaker, or SENATE Majority, and minority leader. We need a congress with functional members who are removed by a representitive referendum, when they behave as they are now. Legislate or get out.
Who said working on the hill was a career occupation in the first place.Who in their right mind thinks we have checks and balances. What significant purpose does the congress and Senate provide , if can't even choose a new Supreme Court nominee. How can they violate the constitution and profess to represent it.Congressional and Senate members on average make $180,000.00
A year. Whatever happened firing elected officials for breach contract for not upholding the oath they swore during their installment.We have a congress and senate which schemes, rather than legislates. We have two racially bias bodies of government who can't handle a black Man as president. I'm a white Catholic, and I don't need a weatherman to know which way the Hypocracy is blowing!
100
I've often wondered: Is the current Congress better or worse than what would happen if we simply selected a registered voter at random from each congressional district? Because I think it's at least an open question, and maybe those Athenians were onto something when they ran significant portions of their government by picking names out of a hat.
1
Trite but true: Government reflects the people.
2
I don't think anyone - republican or democrat - wants their government to NOT function. Sen. Grassley is getting an earful from his constituents - conservative republicans - about his and his party's refusal to do their jobs. While I do believe we get a crappy govt because people refuse to be involved (an average of 30% voter turnout for each election equates to political dysfunction), it the establishments of BOTH parties that refuse to listen to the voters this election cycle. And why should they? When only 30% on average will turn out, is it any wonder that politicians don't pay attention to what people want? I have no idea who will win this election because both candidate are alienating wide swaths of their traditional voting bases this time around. The winner will be the one who alienates fewer voters. My what a wonderful election system we have!
1
No, Ajs3.
THIS government reflects the will of those who are bought and sold by the rich; the republicans who control the levers of power dare not anger their masters lest they be 'primarieds' by those more willing to kiss the boots of the oligarchy.
THIS government reflects the will of those who are bought and sold by the rich; the republicans who control the levers of power dare not anger their masters lest they be 'primarieds' by those more willing to kiss the boots of the oligarchy.
2
This is my point. To use your phrase, a "crappy" electorate which, through ignorance or apathy, fails to hold its government to account, will get a "crappy" government which will rule in its own interest rather than in the interest of people.
How did these plaintiffs file this suit? Did not the filing of the suit itself constitute a kind of complicity in the birth control provisions of the Affordable Care Act? If they can't notify the government of their objections, how can they notify the government that they're filing suit to object to the notification requirement? Doesn't the suit itself make them complicit in helping the ACA succeed -- even though it supposedly violates their beliefs? Explain, please.
12
The veil the writer uses to hide her ideology is so thin as to be non-existent. "Despite what Senate Republicans may say about the lack of harm in the delay in filling the vacancy, the court cannot do its job without a full bench."
The perception that liberals want people to believe is that they are not ideological and instead simply high-minded and want a 9th Justice to "clarity as major legal questions are unresolved".
By their own words, if a future Republican President put a 9th Justice on the Court, then the writer should be thrilled, right ? This would meet their objections and provide "clarity", right ?
And if they wouldn't be so happy with that result, then can they please just stop with the false modesty !! They want a 5th liberal on the court because in a number of cases, the Supreme Court has been the only force strong enough to resist the liberal onslaught. Our system of checks and balances is supposed to require the President to deal with Congress to resolve issues. But Obama has decided that this is inconvenient and since he has a "pen and a phone", he can rule as he pleases.
Well, in cases like Noel v Canning (Presidential appointments), US v Texas (Immigration) and the Clean Power Plan, the Supreme Court has been the final bulwark to say "Wait a minute ... Not so fast." But liberals want to remove even this speed bump on their way to turning the United States into France.
The perception that liberals want people to believe is that they are not ideological and instead simply high-minded and want a 9th Justice to "clarity as major legal questions are unresolved".
By their own words, if a future Republican President put a 9th Justice on the Court, then the writer should be thrilled, right ? This would meet their objections and provide "clarity", right ?
And if they wouldn't be so happy with that result, then can they please just stop with the false modesty !! They want a 5th liberal on the court because in a number of cases, the Supreme Court has been the only force strong enough to resist the liberal onslaught. Our system of checks and balances is supposed to require the President to deal with Congress to resolve issues. But Obama has decided that this is inconvenient and since he has a "pen and a phone", he can rule as he pleases.
Well, in cases like Noel v Canning (Presidential appointments), US v Texas (Immigration) and the Clean Power Plan, the Supreme Court has been the final bulwark to say "Wait a minute ... Not so fast." But liberals want to remove even this speed bump on their way to turning the United States into France.
9
Well, yes. I'm a liberal and I certainly do hope for a liberal president to appoint a justice for the vacancy. And thank you for not using the politically correct term "progressive". I am old now and still call myself a liberal, from the days when liberals were at in the lead in civil rights, Medicare, etc etc. Liberal Pride!
Anyway, you can believe me or not, but I really do care about the tradition we had all my life up to now, and all the life of the nation till now. The sitting president was authorized by the Constitution to nominate justices. The choice of nominee would of course be to the liking of the president and presumably most of his party. The Senate would confirm or not, and up to now it pretty much did if the nominee was qualified, regardless of which party was in control. How many conservative justices have been confirmed, like Scalia, by unanimous votes, Democrats and all? There was an expectation of, if not a respect for, doing that, on both sides. It was the way the nation worked. But starting oh, 20 years ago or so, things began to unravel. Groups in Congress began to look for ways to do new and astonishing things. "Hey, ya know, we could shut down the government, create a real crisis standoff. Bet we could get our way by trying that!!" We began to see Congress thinking and then doing unthinkable things.
When Scalia died, yes I thought "Obama gets an appointment!" I was and am stunned that it is being blocked.
Anyway, you can believe me or not, but I really do care about the tradition we had all my life up to now, and all the life of the nation till now. The sitting president was authorized by the Constitution to nominate justices. The choice of nominee would of course be to the liking of the president and presumably most of his party. The Senate would confirm or not, and up to now it pretty much did if the nominee was qualified, regardless of which party was in control. How many conservative justices have been confirmed, like Scalia, by unanimous votes, Democrats and all? There was an expectation of, if not a respect for, doing that, on both sides. It was the way the nation worked. But starting oh, 20 years ago or so, things began to unravel. Groups in Congress began to look for ways to do new and astonishing things. "Hey, ya know, we could shut down the government, create a real crisis standoff. Bet we could get our way by trying that!!" We began to see Congress thinking and then doing unthinkable things.
When Scalia died, yes I thought "Obama gets an appointment!" I was and am stunned that it is being blocked.
20
You are obviously not aware of the obstructionist nature of this congress.They would rather shut down the government than legislate. Wake up and open your eyes.
9
Princeton 2015,
After 7 1/2 years of the GOP's use of 'thinly veiled' attacks on the President (at the expense of the Nation) you have zero room to talk; your 'side' is beyond complicit in this activity.
After 7 1/2 years of the GOP's use of 'thinly veiled' attacks on the President (at the expense of the Nation) you have zero room to talk; your 'side' is beyond complicit in this activity.
2
A well functioning government is the last thing conservatives wants since it is a direct attack on their worldview - that government is broken, inefficient, does not work for the people.
If the government is not dysfunctional, then conservatives will make it dysfunctional and then proclaim, "We told you so. Government does not work."
If the government is not dysfunctional, then conservatives will make it dysfunctional and then proclaim, "We told you so. Government does not work."
67
Well, when a man born in Hawaii who grew up in Indonesia and whose base is Chicago, wants to make decisions about restrooms in Texas (has he ever even been there?) then that is not a "functioning" government.
It is nothing other than bullying other people into following YOUR values (values which HE did not have in 2008) and using the power of the federal purse to finance this bullying.
This is NOT a diatribe against transgender people. They are people and they do have rights including a right to perform their natural functions in a convenient way.
But Mr. Obama wants these rights to be exercised in a way which causes the maximum possible offense to conservatives (and a lot of non-conservatives).
It is nothing other than bullying other people into following YOUR values (values which HE did not have in 2008) and using the power of the federal purse to finance this bullying.
This is NOT a diatribe against transgender people. They are people and they do have rights including a right to perform their natural functions in a convenient way.
But Mr. Obama wants these rights to be exercised in a way which causes the maximum possible offense to conservatives (and a lot of non-conservatives).
1
In this case, the church officials sued the government. Nobody claimed that employees were not entitled to birth control and I believe that no one who wanted birth control was deprived of it. The case concerned how employees could be provided birth control without involving the church officials. The rights of women were not directly at issue in the dispute. The government never suggested it would deprive anyone of birth control. And the church officials did not contest that. This was an important case for the church officials. It had next to no effect on birth control access. Women's rights groups made a lot of noise but no one was seeking to deprive women of any rights.
8
Said a (presumably) man. Do you actually believe that denying coverage or even telling anyone that the company would deny coverage ie paid (to prevent it being covered elsewhere) would have next to no effect on getting birth control. Do you even know how much birth control costs? and catholics far and wide are using BC while the hierarchy (priests, bishops, cardinals, popes) are calling brimstone on the evil of BC use. In their ideology its a mortal sin no matter how those women sitting the pews justify their using it while piously supporting the denial to others. Oh and the nuns are sworn to be caste. Hypocrisy
1
The failure of the Republican Congress to consider the nominee of the president is equivalent to a high crime. They cannot be impeached so it is not in that sense a crime because there is no punishment available for it. But it is a wrong under our constitutional system in that it shuts the government down and the constitution does not authorize nor anticipate this kind of phenomenon.
Republicans: you are in a class by yourself; I call it the dirt demos.
Republicans: you are in a class by yourself; I call it the dirt demos.
19
"Republicans: you are in a class by yourself; I call it the dirt demos. "
And you wonder why Republicans are not always cooperative.
You may not have noticed this but when you insult people, their desire to work with you suddenly vanishes.
Look, I know lots of people who do not have dental insurance. A toothache can be very painful and treatment can be very expensive. Why include contraception in the ACA and not dental care?
Answer: conservatives do not oppose dental care and the whole goal is to make them eat crow. Contraceptives serve this purpose and dental care does not. That is why ACA does not include dental care.
And you wonder why Republicans are not always cooperative.
You may not have noticed this but when you insult people, their desire to work with you suddenly vanishes.
Look, I know lots of people who do not have dental insurance. A toothache can be very painful and treatment can be very expensive. Why include contraception in the ACA and not dental care?
Answer: conservatives do not oppose dental care and the whole goal is to make them eat crow. Contraceptives serve this purpose and dental care does not. That is why ACA does not include dental care.
1
Historians will look back on this time and point out that when Americans most needed their government to work to help our nation move past the trauma of the 2008 great recession our political leaders chose instead to behave like children. Imagine how much farther ahead with the recovery we could be if they had chosen compromise instead of tyranny for the sake of the nation.
Our founders intended our nation to be ruled by law. Having lifelong appointments to the Supreme Court allows each generation to have stability without worrying about the laws of the land constantly changing depending on who has political power. The Republicans need to stop acting like children and put nation before party and end this gridlock. American's have been through enough this last decade.
Our founders intended our nation to be ruled by law. Having lifelong appointments to the Supreme Court allows each generation to have stability without worrying about the laws of the land constantly changing depending on who has political power. The Republicans need to stop acting like children and put nation before party and end this gridlock. American's have been through enough this last decade.
349
Those who call for cooperation and then blame one party or the other violate the spirit of cooperation and are nothing more than unprincipled hypocrites.
3
If the Republicans were acting like children, how did the massive Republican waves happen in 2010 and 2014? The GOP was given the House and Senate majorities by the American people who wanted to slow down the liberal agenda of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Elections have consequences people.
2
Another explanation is that the GOP began pandering to a vast number of semiliterate, uneducated, racists and religious zealots to cobble together a coalition designed from the outset to transfer wealth upwards. That's been great for some (an increasingly few) of us. Hope it was good for you.
But you really need to review your notions about this liberal bogy man.
In short - the GOP "wave" was the result of adults, with the reasoning ability of children, voting. That's not going to stop anytime soon, so get used to it.
But you really need to review your notions about this liberal bogy man.
In short - the GOP "wave" was the result of adults, with the reasoning ability of children, voting. That's not going to stop anytime soon, so get used to it.
2
The court can be reduced by one, also.
Get rid of a liberal justice.
Problem solved.
Wait, you mean it's a partisan issue? Not an American issue? I get it now.
Get rid of a liberal justice.
Problem solved.
Wait, you mean it's a partisan issue? Not an American issue? I get it now.
9
That's not the issue, Randy.
The US Constitution has a well-defined process for achieving a full court. The President is to nominate someone, and the Senate is to confirm or reject that person.
The President has fulfilled his requirement under the Constitution. The Senate (led by Republicans) is refusing to perform its Constitutional duty. So much for Republicans caring about the Constitution.
We are not asking that the Senate confirm the nominee. We are simply asking that they perform their Constitutional duty of deciding whether to confirm or reject the nominee. But they won't even do that.
This demonstrates that Republicans only care about the Constitution when it serves their interests. Otherwise they are happy to throw America under the bus.
Get it now?
The US Constitution has a well-defined process for achieving a full court. The President is to nominate someone, and the Senate is to confirm or reject that person.
The President has fulfilled his requirement under the Constitution. The Senate (led by Republicans) is refusing to perform its Constitutional duty. So much for Republicans caring about the Constitution.
We are not asking that the Senate confirm the nominee. We are simply asking that they perform their Constitutional duty of deciding whether to confirm or reject the nominee. But they won't even do that.
This demonstrates that Republicans only care about the Constitution when it serves their interests. Otherwise they are happy to throw America under the bus.
Get it now?
24
Spoken like a true Republican, with the expectation that the Supreme Court is somehow pre-ordained to have a conservative majority. Isn't it much simpler and just plain logical for the Republicans in the Senate to do its job, i.e. consider and vote on the President's nominee as is required by law?
6
"Get it now?"
Since you are offering us all an education with these words you will perhaps explain why both Biden and Obama, when THEY were senators, acted pretty much the same way that Republican senators are acting now.
Since you are offering us all an education with these words you will perhaps explain why both Biden and Obama, when THEY were senators, acted pretty much the same way that Republican senators are acting now.
Again I say, shame on Mitch McConnell Who has led the fight to block everything President Obama has proposed over the past eight years. And shame on him and his fellow Republicans in the Senate for ignoring the nomination of Judge Garland. By refusing to meet with him and in the end I have a vote on the nomination, we come to a pass where important cases cannot be resolved.
Politicizing a Supreme Court justice and holding it up for almost a full year of important cases has set a dangerous precedent. What's to stop the senate from doing this over and over again if they dislike who becomes President?
The country is suffering from a lack of clarity on the Supreme Court and decisions affecting the lives of Americans. The Supreme Court was devised to insure justice can be done no matter who is president. That Mitch McConnell would take it upon himself to almost act like a president by denying a sitting president the ability to nominate a Supreme Court justice that the Senate can confirm is more than outrageous, it is anti-constitutional.
Politicizing a Supreme Court justice and holding it up for almost a full year of important cases has set a dangerous precedent. What's to stop the senate from doing this over and over again if they dislike who becomes President?
The country is suffering from a lack of clarity on the Supreme Court and decisions affecting the lives of Americans. The Supreme Court was devised to insure justice can be done no matter who is president. That Mitch McConnell would take it upon himself to almost act like a president by denying a sitting president the ability to nominate a Supreme Court justice that the Senate can confirm is more than outrageous, it is anti-constitutional.
83
The constitution says nothing about holding hearings and votes for Presidential Appointments. It talks about 'Advice and Consent'. And the Senate's advise to President Obama is to wait until the next President is elected. It may be outrageous to Democrats and liberals who want to replace Scalia with a liberal justice, but this is not unconstitutional.
Mitch McConnell should be impeached.
6
@Sal: it may not specifically say "nominate, hold hearings, and vote" but the "advise and consent" part has historical meaning and precedent. This is the very first time in our nation's history that a president in his final year is unable to nominate and have a vote on a SCOTUS nominee. It has never been done--even in partisan rancor, senate Democrats have done their job for Republican administrations in the last year (eg, Reagan, Bush, and I'm sure many others). Mitch McConnell has made this one up: and it sets terrible precedent, because then every single party can say, we will wait for the voters to speak (again!) when they don't like the administration in power. Eventually, taken to extreme, there would nobody on the court.
2
Te USA Supreme Court is not only crippled but had actually debased itself by meddling in such foreign affairs issues as the recent bruhaha with Saudi Arabia and the question of compensations for the victims of so called Terrorist acts.
All goes to show that it is increasingly becoming a tool, an arm, of the American executive following its political leads.
A grave loss for the USA
All goes to show that it is increasingly becoming a tool, an arm, of the American executive following its political leads.
A grave loss for the USA
1
If the Saudis were complicit in 9/11, then it is our business.
There is no loss. Just a loss from a foreign perspective.
There is no loss. Just a loss from a foreign perspective.
2
The Supreme Court did not "meddle" in the question of compensation for victims of terrorism. The Supreme Court did not weigh in on this issue at all.
You are mistaken: you are thinking of the U.S. Congress.
You are mistaken: you are thinking of the U.S. Congress.
9
And not for nothing, Omar, but flying airplanes full of people into buildings is only "so called" terrorism if you are a terrorist.
My only hope is that there doesn't come a time when the Democrats play tit-for-tat and refuse to give a vote during an election year to a conservative nominee.
3
Uh, that has happened numerous times under Reagan and Bush 43.
4
The application of the word "conservative" to these obsessive compulsive body snatching narcissists is beyond a stretch.
3
The Democrats threatened to do this, and both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer are on record as playing "tit-for-tat."
1
How many people believe that if the sitting President were a Republican, McConnell be saying the same thing?
Not even McConnell believes that.
Power at any cost? Sounds like King John to me....
Not even McConnell believes that.
Power at any cost? Sounds like King John to me....
25
they don't need a full bench, they just need to stop focusing on ideology and party and start focusing on constitutionality. Neither party seems to mention this because neither party wants it, they both want activist judges for their own purposes, so stop condemning Republicans, there are other more legitimate reasons to condemn them for if you want to, the Democrats are just as partisan, they attempted a similar act before
5
All the Republicans do is cheat us of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Show me a "constitutionalist" and I will show you a bald-faced liar and oath-breaker.
4
Dude, if you are going to partially quote a portion of the text of the Constitution, at least show some semblance of intellectual honesty and remind us of the next concept in the first amendment. "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". That " prohibiting the free exercise thereof" piece makes this a question for the court and thus a significant inconvenience for all of the leftists here in the echo chamber.
Congress cannot pass any laws about religion either pro or con. Gee you people are crooked. Your drug bust of the Hopis for consuming mescaline violated the second clause of the first amendment without any other law. Your stupid "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" beyond stupid too.
Belief that nature has a personality runs higher the lower an IQ gets.
Belief that nature has a personality runs higher the lower an IQ gets.
Easy solution -- Obama pulls the Garland nomination, then submits a rock-solid conservative the Republicans would love. They would confirm him/her and no more ties! But of course the Editorial Board doesn't want that -- they would prefer an evenly divided court rather than give conservatives a majority on the Court. That's fine, but then don't complain that the Republicans would prefer an evenly divided court rather than give liberals a majority.
5
Yes, sure, give the Republican children their way and they'll play nice. Offer a middle-of-the-road Justice -- fair-minded, from what I've read -- and Republicans refuse to hold hearings or vote on this nominee. So the precedent they're setting is to block, block, block any consideration of a candidate who does not pass their litmus test. Watch out, Republicans -- this one is going to come back and bite you! Obstructionism is a no-way street for the future of our country.
22
Actually, Alan, all we are asking is for the Republicans in the Senate to decide on the President's nominee. That's their Constitutional duty. They are violating the Constitution by refusing to do their duty.
This isn't about right or left, conservative or liberal. The Constitution is clear about this. The President nominates someone, and the Senate approves or rejects that person. The President has done his job, now it's time for the Senate to do theirs. But the Senate Republicans are refusing to do their Constitutionally mandated job. So much for their love of the Constitution.
This demonstrates objectively that Republicans only care about the Constitution when it serves their interests.
This isn't about right or left, conservative or liberal. The Constitution is clear about this. The President nominates someone, and the Senate approves or rejects that person. The President has done his job, now it's time for the Senate to do theirs. But the Senate Republicans are refusing to do their Constitutionally mandated job. So much for their love of the Constitution.
This demonstrates objectively that Republicans only care about the Constitution when it serves their interests.
9
Republicans in Congress have refused to vote on many nominations for lower level federal courts, even judges recommended by Republican officials in their own states. They are crippling the entire federal judicial system, not just the Supreme Court. Their only motivation is to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything. This is so unprecedented that it seems to go beyond partisanship -- one has to wonder whether it can only be ascribed to racism, particularly on the part of a senator from the southern state of Kentucky.
4
One wishes the Republicans would set a better example and act like leaders.
But then, one looks at Bernie Sanders' sore-head backers in Las Vegas and you think - is there anybody left to lead?
But then, one looks at Bernie Sanders' sore-head backers in Las Vegas and you think - is there anybody left to lead?
3
I think the Senate is behaving disgracefully and unconstitutionally by not scheduling timely hearings and a timely vote for Judge Merrick Garland, an eminently qualified and widely respected jurist whose nomination should not be controversial. That said, even if he were to be elevated to the Court, how could he vote on cases argued earlier this term, while Justice Scalia was still alive and seated (however regrettably and disastrously) on the bench? The justices hold their conferences in the very same weeks that cases are argued. At these conferences, they also vote; then one justice is assigned to write the majority opinion, another to write a dissent, if need be. Of course, a newly seated "Justice Garland" could read the briefs, but so can you and I. But a crucial part of the job is to be present at oral arguments and conferences. In a controversial case like Zubik v. Burwell, the present Court with a new "Justice Garland" would need to schedule a reargument, which is, of course, possible. Think Brown v. Board of Education (argued in 1952 & 1953; decision in 1954), Roe v. Wade (argued in 1971 & 1972; decision in 1973), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (argued twice in 2009; decision in 2010).
I repeat, though: What the Senate is presently not doing is disgraceful and unconstitutional. Hearings for Judge Garland should be scheduled forthwith, and he should be given an up or down vote soon thereafter. "Advice and consent" flow from activity, not inactivity.
I repeat, though: What the Senate is presently not doing is disgraceful and unconstitutional. Hearings for Judge Garland should be scheduled forthwith, and he should be given an up or down vote soon thereafter. "Advice and consent" flow from activity, not inactivity.
10
It's familiar to see that once again, the top legal minds can be split right down the middle on a major issue. Adding one more expert to make a majority possible doesn't mean they'll get the most important questions of our time right, it just means they'll get a finding. The arc of justice bends slowly, and irregularly, but thank God it keeps moving in the right direction, more often than not.
3
It is still a long way from making this imaginary personage called "God" irrelevant to reality.
3
The "compromise" will be rejected on the exact same grounds as having to "notify" an insurer of their religious objections. That by agreeing to ANY compromise that allows ANY other person or group , insurer or employee to sneak around their religious objections to birth control, will also involve them consciously in the act of birth control. It is the same as having put their seal of approval, their signature showing they are aware of each and every iteration of the objectionable act of "controlling", or allowing another to prevent their"god" from acting and using his will to decide when a women should become impregnated.
That the court does not see this shows that they miss the very reason why such absurd and religious based objections are being thrown in the way of any agreement. Clearly, one party, the religiously protected employers, are not acting in good faith but are just burning up the court's and their employees time; secretly snickering behind their veils at how cleverly they have the managed the justices and how they taken control of the docket of the court as they await the eventual second coming of their god.
That the court does not see this shows that they miss the very reason why such absurd and religious based objections are being thrown in the way of any agreement. Clearly, one party, the religiously protected employers, are not acting in good faith but are just burning up the court's and their employees time; secretly snickering behind their veils at how cleverly they have the managed the justices and how they taken control of the docket of the court as they await the eventual second coming of their god.
3
Most farcically of all, they say they will be damaged after death when God punishes them for acquiescing to legal abortion.
This case is nothing but the bawling of spoiled children throwing a monkey wrench into the engine of reason.
This case is nothing but the bawling of spoiled children throwing a monkey wrench into the engine of reason.
2
"instructions to try to craft a compromise that would be acceptable to everyone."
A "compromise" was already reached but the nuns refused to opt out, trying to impose its will on the nation.
A "compromise" was already reached but the nuns refused to opt out, trying to impose its will on the nation.
4
What compromise is allowed by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
3
The pandering of the Republican Party since Reagan to the frightened religious right for their votes has so far worked mightily in both the GOP and uber-religion's favor. It has led to filling the statehouses and governors, Congress and the Supreme Court with their fellow panderers. While lapping up all the votes, the party has never failed to mention that people were really voting for smaller government, less taxes for the 1%, huge military expenditures, anti-people of color, and scolding the populace every single day for being so lazy in their hammocks (see: Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand).
This has worked, yes! The icing on the cake is Donald Trump. And my vote for the most corrupt, angry, despicable politician goes to Mitch McConnell. His hatred of his fellow man has led to the epitome of what could bring our government to its knees, which is the blocking of any Supreme Court Justice that doesn't fit Antonin Scalia's sick worldview and isn't selected by a black man or a woman of any color.
This has worked, yes! The icing on the cake is Donald Trump. And my vote for the most corrupt, angry, despicable politician goes to Mitch McConnell. His hatred of his fellow man has led to the epitome of what could bring our government to its knees, which is the blocking of any Supreme Court Justice that doesn't fit Antonin Scalia's sick worldview and isn't selected by a black man or a woman of any color.
14
Antonin Scalia was the most interest conflicted justice to insult intelligence in modern times.
2
This hobbled Supreme Court, one of three branches of our government, is due entirely to the seditious activity of one political party in another branch of the government. Were the Republican controlled Senate to perform its Constitutional duty, hold hearings, and hold a vote on the eminently qualified judge nominated to hold the ninth seat, this problem would be solved in a month or two, as has previously been the case for 225 years or so of our history. That the Republican Senators refusing to even hold hearings, refusing to even hold a vote (though they could hold the vote and just vote 'no' for no reason other than partisan mendacity) is unconscionable. Their mealy weasel-words attempting to mask this purely political terrorist activity in a haze of 'the other guys did it first' smoke is entirely false. Its time and past time for the Senate to perform its Constitutional duty and 'advise and consent' (or not). To take no action for purely political motives is sedition, and the Senators guilty of this should be indicted and tried accordingly.
34
The Senate Republicans are waiting until Hillary and the newly minted Democratic Senate majority appoints someone just left of Castro to the court.
1
The court has indeed ruled. All pro-OCare appellate court decisions have been vacated. OCare's "sensible" "accommodation" has been rejected on the grounds it's not a compromise.
So, the bag of hot potatoes is now firmly back in the hands of the OCare administration, who must now work exclusively with insurance companies and leave religious groups alone. Essentially it's a restraining order on OCare, a stinging one at that. They've been asked to keep their wares firmly out of the religious group grounds. And that's all religious groups ever sought.
Far from crippled, SCOTUS are actively ruling, even working extra time inserting soothing language to pacify sore losers, who, going by this opinion and reporting here, surely appreciate the gesture, using mostly only the soothing part to (mis)inform their readers.
But for all practical purposes, this case is over, done, dusted, the religious organizations deserving victors. Game, set, match. Time to move on.
So, the bag of hot potatoes is now firmly back in the hands of the OCare administration, who must now work exclusively with insurance companies and leave religious groups alone. Essentially it's a restraining order on OCare, a stinging one at that. They've been asked to keep their wares firmly out of the religious group grounds. And that's all religious groups ever sought.
Far from crippled, SCOTUS are actively ruling, even working extra time inserting soothing language to pacify sore losers, who, going by this opinion and reporting here, surely appreciate the gesture, using mostly only the soothing part to (mis)inform their readers.
But for all practical purposes, this case is over, done, dusted, the religious organizations deserving victors. Game, set, match. Time to move on.
2
Yes, we have another stupid law contrived to give legal respect to pure made up fantasy. Quite unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS vacated all circuit court decisions, pro and con. It ordered that they provide equality of handling for all religious organizations and clients.
Most importantly, it failed to rule on the religious freedom arguments (i.e., substantial burden on free exercise of religion) that the RFRA statute had artificially created. So it declined the opportunity to either uphold or quash RFRA. By pushing a compromise the litigants claimed to accept, it upheld both the 14th and 1st Amendments -- the very issues that were most in contention.
This case is a defeat for those who wanted RFRA to govern ACA, and a likely defeat for many future RFRA claims that don't involve Obamacare.
Most importantly, it failed to rule on the religious freedom arguments (i.e., substantial burden on free exercise of religion) that the RFRA statute had artificially created. So it declined the opportunity to either uphold or quash RFRA. By pushing a compromise the litigants claimed to accept, it upheld both the 14th and 1st Amendments -- the very issues that were most in contention.
This case is a defeat for those who wanted RFRA to govern ACA, and a likely defeat for many future RFRA claims that don't involve Obamacare.
@Sequel
Complete nonsense. They have ruled that the accommodation in current form is not one that's satisfactory. Therefore they've agreed further accommodation above and beyond what Obamacare had offered must be provided. Meaning burdens exist beyond what the Obamacare had accommodated.
All full validation of RFRA over ACA. Move on please, this case is over.
Complete nonsense. They have ruled that the accommodation in current form is not one that's satisfactory. Therefore they've agreed further accommodation above and beyond what Obamacare had offered must be provided. Meaning burdens exist beyond what the Obamacare had accommodated.
All full validation of RFRA over ACA. Move on please, this case is over.
1
Dear Republicans, I'm sorry Antonin Scalia has the temerity to die with almost a year left in the Obama administration, but for the sake of the country, lose this battle with some dignity. It is unpatriotic to the nth degree to hijack the process like this. If you had any shame left, THIS is what you should feel ashamed of. You turned a whole party into the kid who takes his ball home when he starts to lose. Shameful.
4
It pains me to say this, but a 4-4 court might actually be a good model. Clearly, the founders were wrong thinking that a lifetime appointment would free the court of partisanship. Perhaps the best formula is one in which 4 judges are appointed by each party and it is their job to find a way to achieve a compromise. Otherwise, lower courts which may be closer to the public sentiment will make the decision for them. Being appointed for life and knowing neither side could ever gain a majority, they might actually be encouraged to do what the Congress fails to (aka the right thing).
4
The delusions of US founders regarding partisanship led them to invent an idiotic replacement for the parliamentary system.
Of course the GOP are obstructing...it was their one seat on the court that was ultra conservative and they are not going to give up easily. However, I wouldn't give you 2 cents either for Garland....another pro corporate justice nominated by the corporate Democratic Party. As for Scalia, the country is much better off without him...too bad it took 30 years.
When it comes to the reproductive rights of women the SC is caught again in an avoidable compromising position.
The disingenuousness of the NY Times never ceases to amaze me. By all means, let's hurry to get Obama's Republican nominee confirmed. After all, this was the only way he had any hope of getting anyone through the nomination process. Not. All this is nothing more than the usual poor scripting by the banking cartel, their corporations, and their lackeys. Let's hope the plan gets mucked up and the task falls to Sanders to nominate someone with some modicum of progressive values. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-view-from-top-of-p...
Republicans don't want the Court to do their job with an additional "Democrat". That's the whole point, and they are succeeding because the media, writ large, supports Republicans and keeps them in the game.
Instructions to craft a compromise is not a non-decision.
2
vacating the order of the lower court and ordering the parties to find compromise is a decision. That's what happened.
1
Republicans are damaging our country by sabotaging our Supreme Court.
1
The republicans have made a mockery of democracy. Anything and everything is fair game for political football. The democrats have rolled over waiting for a tummy rub. The best thins America could do to abolish gridlock is leave the parties and become unaffiliated. The next best thing would be for states to follow the leads of Washington and Colorado and start legislating change at the state level.
The NYT Editorial Board seems to be upset because Congress has no intent to approve a nominee put forth by an ultra radical leftist President. How does it feel to get Borked?
4
"ultra radical leftist" Really? Bork deserved it.
2
Bork got hearings and a vote
3
Bork's nomination got a vote. Period. It's not even close to the same thing.
3
And Trump demands that congress delay, delay, delay on the president's nominee when he isn't boasting how he's going to put litmus tested conservatives on the highest court as soon as he becomes president. When pigs fly, Donald.
Im Australian. My country's public healthcare system and insurance system is far superior to what you have in the USA. I have access to the public system for emergencies and for everything else, although the latter sometimes involves waiting 6 months or more for surgeries which are not deemed as urgent.
I also have health insurance which covers me for everything I want to be covered for (I dont bother with coverage for every type of treatment). But for anything serious I am covered and can pretty much walk straight into a hospital for treatment.
That costs me - a 48 year old male professional - about A$1500 per year through a private insurer and 1.5% of my annual income for my public costs.
What I dont understand with the US system is why employers are involved. Healthcare is a personal matter - its not something your employer should be involved with. Im used to hearing the nonsensical claims from Americans that my country's system is "socialist" - but what do you call a system where employers are involved in your healthcare decisions? Patronising, for a start, Id say.
Secondly, free contraceptives under healthcare insurance is ridiculous. Under my country's prescription system medicines are a fraction of the price that you Americans pay for them and anyone can pay a small amount for contraceptive pills. The price of that is so low there is no need to insure for it.
You guys are having absurd debates over an absurd healthcare system.
I also have health insurance which covers me for everything I want to be covered for (I dont bother with coverage for every type of treatment). But for anything serious I am covered and can pretty much walk straight into a hospital for treatment.
That costs me - a 48 year old male professional - about A$1500 per year through a private insurer and 1.5% of my annual income for my public costs.
What I dont understand with the US system is why employers are involved. Healthcare is a personal matter - its not something your employer should be involved with. Im used to hearing the nonsensical claims from Americans that my country's system is "socialist" - but what do you call a system where employers are involved in your healthcare decisions? Patronising, for a start, Id say.
Secondly, free contraceptives under healthcare insurance is ridiculous. Under my country's prescription system medicines are a fraction of the price that you Americans pay for them and anyone can pay a small amount for contraceptive pills. The price of that is so low there is no need to insure for it.
You guys are having absurd debates over an absurd healthcare system.
167
Employers are involved because during World War II when there were strict price and wage controls, companies had no way to attract workers by offering higher pay. They began to look for non-wage benefits to offer, and this was a big one. "Come work for us, we will give you a group health insurance plan." It started from there and never stopped getting bigger and more complicated. Now our whole medical system is a rat's nest of complex insurance policies and hospital billing nightmares and all the mess you see.
After WWII, Germany started its government over from scratch, and built a national health care system from the get-go. I have friends in Germany who have said to me just what you said, "What are you in America doing? Your system is crazy. Yes, we all pay into it, young and old, sick and healthy, and everyone gets taken care of."
Sure, there are government rules, but I have lived with insurance company rules all this time and have had to become something of an expert in the game. I spend so much time watching carefully, calling to get things straightened out, appealiing things that were done to me wrongfully.
I cant wait for the American public to rise up and finally demand a good health care system. Australia can do it, Germany and Canada can do it, We cant?
Sigh***!!!
After WWII, Germany started its government over from scratch, and built a national health care system from the get-go. I have friends in Germany who have said to me just what you said, "What are you in America doing? Your system is crazy. Yes, we all pay into it, young and old, sick and healthy, and everyone gets taken care of."
Sure, there are government rules, but I have lived with insurance company rules all this time and have had to become something of an expert in the game. I spend so much time watching carefully, calling to get things straightened out, appealiing things that were done to me wrongfully.
I cant wait for the American public to rise up and finally demand a good health care system. Australia can do it, Germany and Canada can do it, We cant?
Sigh***!!!
4
I was on birth control that cost me $75 per month on insurance. I wasn't taking it just to avoid babies - I was taking it for hormonal stability and amelioration of the effects of my body's sub-par performance on this front. The fact that it prevented pregnancy was more like a side-effect to me, honestly. And yet, though medically necessary, I was paying through the nose as a college student. Yes, there were cheaper options. Yes, those options gave me problems and undesirable side effects, so I sucked it up and went back to the expensive one.
I agree that our system is faulty - but don't assume that free contraceptive coverage is unnecessary. Even if all I wanted was to not get pregnant, to be in complete control of my own reproductive life, I should be able to do that. And it's in society's interest for women to control their reproductive rights, as well, regardless of resources. That's why it should be free.
I agree that our system is faulty - but don't assume that free contraceptive coverage is unnecessary. Even if all I wanted was to not get pregnant, to be in complete control of my own reproductive life, I should be able to do that. And it's in society's interest for women to control their reproductive rights, as well, regardless of resources. That's why it should be free.
1
Our Australian friend says, "What I dont understand with the US system is why employers are involved."
Answer: It is historical and dates back to wage and price controls imposed during World War II. Companies were having a hard time employing the best employers from amongst the reduced pool of workers (many of them serving in uniform). They couldn't raise salaries/wages to attract them because those were frozen. But the government allowed them to offer health insurance and did not count them as part of the compensation that was under wage and salary freeze rules. So many companies began offering these benefits, and the system remained in effect after the war and to this day. Part of the rationale, I think, is that the employer's share of the insurance cost was not taxable to the employee and therefore "not a wage or salary".
HTH.
Answer: It is historical and dates back to wage and price controls imposed during World War II. Companies were having a hard time employing the best employers from amongst the reduced pool of workers (many of them serving in uniform). They couldn't raise salaries/wages to attract them because those were frozen. But the government allowed them to offer health insurance and did not count them as part of the compensation that was under wage and salary freeze rules. So many companies began offering these benefits, and the system remained in effect after the war and to this day. Part of the rationale, I think, is that the employer's share of the insurance cost was not taxable to the employee and therefore "not a wage or salary".
HTH.
The Republican Party has done exactly what it wants: paralyzed all three branches of government. If they could continue this forever, they'd happily do it.
5
Frankly, that employers must cover for contraception (for employees to use it, if it is their choice, or to not use it if it is instead their choice) is a no-brainer, and is no imposition on anybody's religion. In fact freedom from religion is equivalent to religious freedom, and virtue can only exist if it is a choice.
That the Court cannot discern this and have the guts to enforce religious *freedom* and contradict overbearing Christian employers who want to force their brand of religious interpretation on their employees... that is not a result of an empty seat. It is the result of a Court profoundly poisoned by political considerations.
That the Court cannot discern this and have the guts to enforce religious *freedom* and contradict overbearing Christian employers who want to force their brand of religious interpretation on their employees... that is not a result of an empty seat. It is the result of a Court profoundly poisoned by political considerations.
1
A Supreme Court that can't even understand and enforce "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is too stupid and dishonest to breathe.
1
If the Republican traitorous obstructionists in the Senate were anything but old white males, obstructing an African American president, they wouldn't get away with this garbage. Of course, being what they are, gives them an automatic pass. Disgraceful.
1
This editorial reasonable implies that the Republicans in the Senate should do their jobs according to the Constitution they periodically claim to revere. However, the Senate Republicans are not reasonable and don't think their job is to do anything that would keep their oligarch sponsors from continuing to rule. So they will do nothing - nothing - to confirm any nominee put forth by President Obama unless they see a significant downside to not doing so. In fact, look for them to not confirm any nominee put forth by the new president, if he or she is a Democrat.
On the other hand, I've watched a number of conservative cases completely without merit go through this Supreme Court to become the law of the land. If Scalia had died before Citizens United, this would be a whole different election. I'm sure there are quite a few equally meritless cases that were being moved towards the Court just so the five (Now four.) conservative hacks could turn them into law.
It's clear from the conduct of Congressional Republicans over the last sixteen years that our democracy has been hijacked. It's also clear who has done the hijacking. Short of an angry mob with torches and pitchforks, however, I don't see anything changing.
On the other hand, I've watched a number of conservative cases completely without merit go through this Supreme Court to become the law of the land. If Scalia had died before Citizens United, this would be a whole different election. I'm sure there are quite a few equally meritless cases that were being moved towards the Court just so the five (Now four.) conservative hacks could turn them into law.
It's clear from the conduct of Congressional Republicans over the last sixteen years that our democracy has been hijacked. It's also clear who has done the hijacking. Short of an angry mob with torches and pitchforks, however, I don't see anything changing.
3
The Republican senators who are refusing to provide advice and consent for the duly nominated Supreme Court candidate are acting in opposition to the Constitution and their oath of office in a reprehensible and disrespectful way.
However, the current Supreme Court has acted responsibly for this particular case. There is a good compromise where those with religious convictions simply choose "plan with contraceptives or plan without contraceptives," and the insurance company makes sure the law is met by providing contraceptive coverage for employees regardless. This both accommodates the religious objection and centralizes the administration of record keeping so it is a more efficient solution. While I'd prefer not to support the religious zealots who wish to force their underpaid female employees to bring unwanted children into the world, the law does say their religious bigotry should be accommodated within reason, so we should do so as long as no harm comes to the employees as a result of that accommodation.
However, the current Supreme Court has acted responsibly for this particular case. There is a good compromise where those with religious convictions simply choose "plan with contraceptives or plan without contraceptives," and the insurance company makes sure the law is met by providing contraceptive coverage for employees regardless. This both accommodates the religious objection and centralizes the administration of record keeping so it is a more efficient solution. While I'd prefer not to support the religious zealots who wish to force their underpaid female employees to bring unwanted children into the world, the law does say their religious bigotry should be accommodated within reason, so we should do so as long as no harm comes to the employees as a result of that accommodation.
The Senate Republican Advice has been pretty clear from the start. Wait until the next President is inaugurated and let him or her nominate the 9th justice. It is the President who has ignored the advice and is instead waging a PR battle to appeal to his base.
Republicans are stalling for time and throwing the dice that they will get a Republican president to nominate judicial clones in Scalia's mold.
Of course, the macabre irony is that their only hope for such luck in this chancy game is now in the person of a failed casino operator. This surpasses metaphor and presides in the realm of 3-D reality that in turn looks more like surrealist nightmare. Think of Charles Munch's "The Scream" for a preview of the Republican convention in July.
I wish we could get a quasi-rational colloquy from any Republican why they are demonically driven to hurl the entire nation with a death-dive into the abyss. Is it something we said?
Of course, the macabre irony is that their only hope for such luck in this chancy game is now in the person of a failed casino operator. This surpasses metaphor and presides in the realm of 3-D reality that in turn looks more like surrealist nightmare. Think of Charles Munch's "The Scream" for a preview of the Republican convention in July.
I wish we could get a quasi-rational colloquy from any Republican why they are demonically driven to hurl the entire nation with a death-dive into the abyss. Is it something we said?
3
Spot on, JB; and as the Republican convention approaches, it's clear that the whole affair will be a raucous carnival of misanthropy and soul-less surrender. Sadly, the ugliest parts will take place behind closed doors, but even the public deliria will present a great show.
1
The Republican reactionaries are traitors to this nation. They signed an oath to the Constitution and we pay them a very fine salary but they won't do their duty. It's all obstruction 100% of the time and it's been that way since President Obama's first election. They don't care about this country. They care about holding onto power and hold allegiance to their party, not the Constitution which they supposedly hold so dear.
McConnell and Grassley and all the rest - I call them traitors.
McConnell and Grassley and all the rest - I call them traitors.
3
The collective IQ of the US Senate is lower than the number of senators.
1
Senate Republicans have held the country hostage, fanatically opposing anything President Obama proposes, regardless of the consequences. Their folly with the supreme court is just another example of their rabid mania. They have convinced the country that they are incapable of governing and their relentless inbreeding has led to the likes of Trump and Cruz. It's time to Make America Great Again and sweep these incompetents from office.
3
Whatever your doubts about Hillary, there are two OVERWHELMING reasons to vote for her.
1. Her choice for the Supreme Court vacancy...whoever it is.
2. Her opposition to the NRA.
1. Her choice for the Supreme Court vacancy...whoever it is.
2. Her opposition to the NRA.
3
Here are some of my semi-heretical perceptions of SOCUS and of law phenomena.
The nine (presently eight) Justices must function as secular gods & goddesses.
They are political appointees,
There is a reluctance to characterize the Justices as being biased politically & socially, which imho is perfectly normal.
Justices are subjective, acculturated humans, neither ideological virgins nor empty vessels, despite black robed veneer.
We are a nation of law, but Justices interpret and determine what law to apply.
Their majority decision authoritatively decides/defines case law.
Law is constructed and interpreted in legalistic jargon which actually alienates average-mind layman me & perhaps a few others whom also aren't amused by the art of mumbo-jumbo.
By-the-way: Whatever happened to the Safeco Insurance Company which laudably "dumbed-down" policy wording?
The nine (presently eight) Justices must function as secular gods & goddesses.
They are political appointees,
There is a reluctance to characterize the Justices as being biased politically & socially, which imho is perfectly normal.
Justices are subjective, acculturated humans, neither ideological virgins nor empty vessels, despite black robed veneer.
We are a nation of law, but Justices interpret and determine what law to apply.
Their majority decision authoritatively decides/defines case law.
Law is constructed and interpreted in legalistic jargon which actually alienates average-mind layman me & perhaps a few others whom also aren't amused by the art of mumbo-jumbo.
By-the-way: Whatever happened to the Safeco Insurance Company which laudably "dumbed-down" policy wording?
Please change "acculturated" to "enculturated."
The fact that the Court is so split suggests what the stakes are--and why a lame duck president with an agenda grossly out of tune with many Americans should not be filling it.
4
A President voted for TWICE by the people of this country, not just the people who watch FOX news.
4
Precisely my thoughts upon reading about the remand back to the appellate court. Its a sad day when the "world's greatest deliberative body" is actively engaged in handicapping one branch of government because it fears the consequences (of voters? Horrors!) of an election, still 11months away when this nonsense started. When will the rank and file Republicans realize they're being conned, first by the Party, and now again by Trump, promising them things that will never happen...because they just don't have the votes...in a democracy...where we count votes. What part of this can't be understood as rank sabotage, and cheating the system, and voters, of their constitutional ability to affect change? Of course, for some, its not the 'change' that they want. But in the absence of votes, when has the opposition EVER (not counting the Civil War) denied the majority its right to function when all parliamentary options have been exhausted? Wake up, folks! Koch Industries (with an assist from the Religious Right) are unveiling a long-term legal strategy to redefine the First Amendment, like they did with the 2nd Amendment as a 'personal' right, from 'free speech' to 'protected speech'. When enough religious 'exemptions' are codified into law, the federal government will no longer be able to function as we know it. And that's just fine for the fundamentalists, be they libertarian or religious. We have an enemy within. It's time we recognized it.
2
The Senate Republicans are in a serious quandary. When they impulsively decided to consider no nominee by President Obama, they imagined that they were likely to have a Republican president next January who would send them a like-minded Scalia successor. However, they covered up this motivation by saying they simply want the next president, and the American people via the ballot, to make the decision. But now that it appears likely that another Democrat will become president, and possibly nominate someone even more liberal than Merrick Garland, they cannot back down without admitting their true motivation. Their solution will probably consist, next year, of filibustering anyone a new President Clinton nominates. That would be no more radical than what they are already doing. But it would continue the paralysis of the court into a second year. At that point, the political repercussions would begin to be severe, and the justices themselves, notably the chief, would begin to speak up about the damage to the court and the entire federal judicial system.
1
The employees of religious institutions have the right to be free of the religious restrictions of their employer. There is also a constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion. These groups are using the government to enforce the religion's precepts against their employees. That violates the establishment prohibition.
Evil in the name of god is the worst kind of evil.
Evil in the name of god is the worst kind of evil.
3
An "establishment of religion" is any faith-based belief. No law giving credibility or respect to faith based beliefs is constitutional. No law!
1
During the 16 years that Democrats have controlled the White House between 1994 and 2016, the Democrats have only controlled Congress for a small fraction of that time because the American people consistently vote for crippling gridlock time and time again.
So usually the Times gripes about a lack of compromise in Washington.
Here the justices see an opportunity to get the parties to work this out on their own. Sounds highly preferable to have the parties compromise rather than having the Court boss them around just because one justice sees things a certain way.
I don't see the problem here and if anything this makes me think the Court would be more temperate and more measured if it always had to operate with eight rather than relying on a single justice to break ties and thus to emphasize and create division.
Here the justices see an opportunity to get the parties to work this out on their own. Sounds highly preferable to have the parties compromise rather than having the Court boss them around just because one justice sees things a certain way.
I don't see the problem here and if anything this makes me think the Court would be more temperate and more measured if it always had to operate with eight rather than relying on a single justice to break ties and thus to emphasize and create division.
1
Thank you Mitch. 6 years of obstruction and delegitimization. 6 years of no progress. A cynical fraud called the Biden Rule And now we get Trump.
Joe Biden, the gift that keeps on giving, on this very same subject during the election of 1992:
“Others may fret that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost the nominee, the President, the Senate and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President if that nomination is to take place in the next several weeks.”
“Others may fret that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost the nominee, the President, the Senate and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President if that nomination is to take place in the next several weeks.”
2
But elsewhere in the speech he made it clear that he was only saying any nomination would be better to defer till after the election. And by the way, it was a hypothetical - there was no nomination at that time, just the anticipation that one of the justices might retire. He said that IF there were to be a nomination in the heat of an election season, "... the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
That is pretty clear - let the nomination avoid the election season when the election histrionics would surely spill over into the nomination process, which should be a time of serious debate and consideration, a time when the respect for Constitutional process should be uncluttered by the heat of campaigning.
That is pretty clear - let the nomination avoid the election season when the election histrionics would surely spill over into the nomination process, which should be a time of serious debate and consideration, a time when the respect for Constitutional process should be uncluttered by the heat of campaigning.
Because I have a strong stomach and too much time on my hands, I listened to the whole speech, which lasted for over an hour and he was still pressed for time in the end. Here's what he was saying in so many words. "George: The presidential race is really tightening up so you best tend to your re-election. Now, don't you be sending any nominee for the SCOTUS up here because we won't give him a hearing at least until after the election and if our guy Clinton wins, we won't be able to find the time even after the election, understand? You sent us up a real stinker last time in Thomas and because we have an overwhelming majority here in the Senate, we are not going to let that happen again. And don't worry if there is a vacancy for over a year. It's happened before and it's no big deal."
That is precisely what he was saying. And he was saying it the whole time with that cheshire cat grin on his face like he'd just caught a mouse.
That is precisely what he was saying. And he was saying it the whole time with that cheshire cat grin on his face like he'd just caught a mouse.
As it should be.
When judges cannot rise above partisanship divides to make fair an honest judgements, we really don't need their "services."
When judges cannot rise above partisanship divides to make fair an honest judgements, we really don't need their "services."
I am a Democrat and I agree with the substantive position of the editorial (that the right to religious freedom does not allow an employer the right to deny its employees a health benefit that is available to anybody else).
That having been said, the whining about the lack of a ninth justice is no better than the childlike, intellectually dishonest garbage that they play on Fox News: there would be no such whining if it was a Republican President who was currently empowered to make the nomination.
That having been said, the whining about the lack of a ninth justice is no better than the childlike, intellectually dishonest garbage that they play on Fox News: there would be no such whining if it was a Republican President who was currently empowered to make the nomination.
2
Now they are as efficient as congress... and sadly just as divided.
The Republicans are about to taste some serious defeat.
1
The Republicans have virtually eviscerated one of the three major branches of our federal government. Those responsible should be charged with treason.
1
Here in Pennsylvania, Senator Pat Toomey has used the logic of "let the voters decide" in hopes of not allowing Obama another Supreme pick. Then Toomey voted for Ted Cruz in the primary.
The last thing in the world that Mr. Toomey and his ilk want is another Clinton, make that a pair of Clintons, in the White House again. Yet, Toomey doesn't know if he supports Trump or not, perhaps he'll evolve to the Trump thing.
Toomey's conflicting stances and inability to do his job should be of grave concern to his campaign.
The last thing in the world that Mr. Toomey and his ilk want is another Clinton, make that a pair of Clintons, in the White House again. Yet, Toomey doesn't know if he supports Trump or not, perhaps he'll evolve to the Trump thing.
Toomey's conflicting stances and inability to do his job should be of grave concern to his campaign.
1
If the court is undecided 4-4 on whether a law is constitutional or not ,
then the law should stand. It was passed by the deliberations of many people in congress and it is absurd that a ninth judge should have the power to overturn the democratic process. To be unconstitutional a law should appear so to the vast majority of Supreme Court Judges. Five to four is not vast.
With 8 judges it should take at least 6 to 2 to overturn a law.Declaring
a law unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority is a joke. That would be as absurd
as allowing a jury to sentence a person to life in prison by a 7-5 majority.
then the law should stand. It was passed by the deliberations of many people in congress and it is absurd that a ninth judge should have the power to overturn the democratic process. To be unconstitutional a law should appear so to the vast majority of Supreme Court Judges. Five to four is not vast.
With 8 judges it should take at least 6 to 2 to overturn a law.Declaring
a law unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority is a joke. That would be as absurd
as allowing a jury to sentence a person to life in prison by a 7-5 majority.
2
Somehow I think the NYT is more concerned about getting a liberal or moderately liberal justice on the court than they are about a "crippled" Supreme Court. Would the NYT settle for an arrangement whereby Justice Scalia's vote was transferred to Alito or Thomas and they got to exercise his vote by proxy until a new justice was confirmed?
That would solve the problem the NYT identifies, but I don't think that's their objective.
That would solve the problem the NYT identifies, but I don't think that's their objective.
1
So ...one man, two votes.
That's an absurdity (not unlike gerrymandering in its essence) that any conservative could love.
That's an absurdity (not unlike gerrymandering in its essence) that any conservative could love.
1
But that is not a legal possibility. It doesnt work that way. This is all about wanting it to WORK.
It's supposed to work like this - the president nominates someone. Of course he will nominate someone he likes. Then if he has the legal qualifications, the Senate would be expected to confirm. There might be serious debate, and many might take a deep breath before voting to confirm, but they did it. The respect for how it should work would be there. That is what has gone off the rails.
The single greatest strength of our system, the nation's greatest and most sustaining strength, our defining principle, is the "rule of law." The law is the law, for you and me and the President. One of our great moments was when Nixon, the President himself, was called before the law and found to have broken it. What a statement to the world of our determination to live this way together. Clinton, of course, was charged and impeached, but not convicted. Again, rule of law was followed - procedures were respected, he had to come to trial, even though he was President.
The law, in this case the Constitution, says the president appoints, the Senate advises and consents. Now we have a Congress that says "Well, we dont like the way that would work out, let's wait for a new president."
That doesnt actually break the law, there is nothing illegal about it. But it bends it so badly that it seriously damages the nation.
It's supposed to work like this - the president nominates someone. Of course he will nominate someone he likes. Then if he has the legal qualifications, the Senate would be expected to confirm. There might be serious debate, and many might take a deep breath before voting to confirm, but they did it. The respect for how it should work would be there. That is what has gone off the rails.
The single greatest strength of our system, the nation's greatest and most sustaining strength, our defining principle, is the "rule of law." The law is the law, for you and me and the President. One of our great moments was when Nixon, the President himself, was called before the law and found to have broken it. What a statement to the world of our determination to live this way together. Clinton, of course, was charged and impeached, but not convicted. Again, rule of law was followed - procedures were respected, he had to come to trial, even though he was President.
The law, in this case the Constitution, says the president appoints, the Senate advises and consents. Now we have a Congress that says "Well, we dont like the way that would work out, let's wait for a new president."
That doesnt actually break the law, there is nothing illegal about it. But it bends it so badly that it seriously damages the nation.
1
This case should have never been seen by the court. Basic birth control could have been provided by the authors of Obama care as a separate entitlement. doing so would go a long way to reducing teen pregnancy and reducing poverty. I am convinced the liberals who authored the Obama care wanted to put the screws to those who hold religious beliefs they find silly. But that is not the point when it comes to the dynamics of a -1 Supreme Court.
What is even more clearly shown by the current court (contrary to founding fathers' intent): it is a political institution. For that reason, the supreme court justices should have term limits. That we should be shackled for generations by a blatantly conservative OR liberal court makes it impossible for a truly constitution or even logical driven judicial process. There is no way a 9 member court could have adjudicated this case without violating someone's constitutional rights. Logical thinking is required. The lower courts should have done that. The 8 justices are asking the lower courts to do their job.
What is even more clearly shown by the current court (contrary to founding fathers' intent): it is a political institution. For that reason, the supreme court justices should have term limits. That we should be shackled for generations by a blatantly conservative OR liberal court makes it impossible for a truly constitution or even logical driven judicial process. There is no way a 9 member court could have adjudicated this case without violating someone's constitutional rights. Logical thinking is required. The lower courts should have done that. The 8 justices are asking the lower courts to do their job.
1
This is not a defect but part of the plan. If you hate government then why make it work. This is drowning it in the bathtub.
4
Crippled Supreme Court = Crippled Country
Courtesy of Congressional Republican obstructionism & lies to us all about approving an appointment during a President's last year in office
Courtesy of Congressional Republican obstructionism & lies to us all about approving an appointment during a President's last year in office
2
As much as I am in agreement with the Times Editorial Board can I ask what is the fundamental benefit of a nine member court? In my opinion a 4-4 decision more obviously exposes the political nature of the court. Of course 5-4 means we have a much more substantial judgement. If most decisions were 7-2 or 8-1 I would believe we really had a Supreme Court; otherwise we have a Supreme Political Body.
1
From The History Channel...
There haven't always been 9 Supreme Court Justices....
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.
There haven't always been 9 Supreme Court Justices....
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.
1
Having rendered the House dysfunctional and impaired the Senate, the cancer that has aggressively invaded the Republican Party has now begun to shred the judiciary and mount an assault on the Presidency. Republicans have been very vocal in challenging moderate, rational Muslims to stand up to the terrorists and violent Islamic fundamentalists who have brought their states to the brink of failure. Where are the moderate, rational Republicans who, at a much lower risk, will stand up to the lunatics, opportunists, and fundamentalists in their own party who seem determined to do the same to the US?
5
So this religious employer objects to notifying the government that it objects to providing contraceptive coverage. Apparently they don't have the courage of their convictions either if they can't speak them out loud. This is a specious argument and I'm speechless that apparently 4 justices don't see that.
That we need a ninth justice goes without saying. That we need a ninth justice to uphold the ruling of the lower court on this particular case shows how dysfunctional the court has become due to its conservative faction.
That we need a ninth justice goes without saying. That we need a ninth justice to uphold the ruling of the lower court on this particular case shows how dysfunctional the court has become due to its conservative faction.
246
Both you and the NYT are missing the obvious, either on purpose or inadvertently. The obvious is this: the supreme court ruling is a stalemate in words only, but not in action. Don't forget the ruling has vacated all Obamacare-favoring appellate court decisions. Each and every one of them vacated in this so-called stalemate. The NYT is skimming over this fact entirely, both in their opinions and also their reporting.
Why? Because the dismantling of appeals court decisions happened with concurrence of at least one, probably more liberal justices. The NYT may not say so, but it is so. Never mind conservative judges, never mind Mitch, never mind the unfilled seat, the court has made it clear that Obamacare, the NYT, and followers like yourself, don't have unqualified support for this so-called "cause" even within the four liberal justices. Maybe even skepticism, contempt, ridicule all of which the so-called “accommodation” thoroughly deserves.
The ruling, however, is intended to disguise as best as possible. Unlike the NYT, SCOTUS will not thankfully take the bait to incite. To the contrary, they've dressed-up the ruling for folks like yourself, to keep it as neutral as possible. In other words, they are behaving like adults to the children in this room, asking them to be adults. Any takers?
Why? Because the dismantling of appeals court decisions happened with concurrence of at least one, probably more liberal justices. The NYT may not say so, but it is so. Never mind conservative judges, never mind Mitch, never mind the unfilled seat, the court has made it clear that Obamacare, the NYT, and followers like yourself, don't have unqualified support for this so-called "cause" even within the four liberal justices. Maybe even skepticism, contempt, ridicule all of which the so-called “accommodation” thoroughly deserves.
The ruling, however, is intended to disguise as best as possible. Unlike the NYT, SCOTUS will not thankfully take the bait to incite. To the contrary, they've dressed-up the ruling for folks like yourself, to keep it as neutral as possible. In other words, they are behaving like adults to the children in this room, asking them to be adults. Any takers?
2
If you read anything about this case and had any common sense, you would know that the church is not afraid to speak out. As usual, the problem is that the church is speaking out too much about its supposed rights.
1
If only the nuns had been consistent about this. Any female employee should have proved that she was a practicing Catholic including in the bedroom. Any employment agreement would have required the employee to produce her baptismal certificate, her Confirmation certificate, and an affidavit from her parish priest that she took all sacraments regularly including Communion and Confession.A record of 12 births, alive or dead, would be helpful also. Only then would the female employee be pure enough to work for the nuns.
But then, that would have required discrimination against anyone of another religion, of no religion, or of practicing her religion and would have been illegal.
But then, that would have required discrimination against anyone of another religion, of no religion, or of practicing her religion and would have been illegal.
2
For the GOP it is mission accomplished.
It seems like the government already made all the compromises- exemptions, etc. - while these religious entities looking to impose their values did not want to give an inch.
They are likely tax exempt organizations using the legal process they do not pay for and that the tax payer pays a lot for - how is that fair?
It seems like the government already made all the compromises- exemptions, etc. - while these religious entities looking to impose their values did not want to give an inch.
They are likely tax exempt organizations using the legal process they do not pay for and that the tax payer pays a lot for - how is that fair?
1
Coequal branches of government and now equally dysfunctional; the Congress through self-inflicted Republican irrationality, the Supreme Court, as a direct dependent result of that, and soon to be the presidency by a dangerously unprepaired hyper-narcissist. Journalists need to start covering this X% more per week and the people need to start protesting... on the street, not just with our vote. Impeach McConnell, if it's possible for simple failure to perform his sworn duties. For negligence on behalf of the American people, akd our Republic for which it stands.
All of this handwringing about conflict. The entire government was built around conflict .... its called the balance of power. The "balance" is not by panzy kumbaya but by conflict..checks and balances. OF course the agenda here is for the NYT to goad the republicans into approving Obama's nominee, but it is, after all, the Biden rule that punts the issue until after the election. It is also a structural of the political system that leaves it to the Senate to exercise that discretion. I for one am thankful that Congress and the president are hampered from pursuing their collective will. The Institutional School of economics teaches us that institutions, structures that constraint control the choices available to the public, tells us that government tends towards creating and tweaking those institutions not to benefit the public at large but are conflicted by their self interest. Given enough freedom, the economy and individual effort works and emergent behavior work things out. And I am mindful of Keynes' observation that "in the long run we will all be dead", which was his justification for government intervention, he apparently never considered the more likely scenario today that ill advised government action could kill us all in the short run.
Churches will simply require a pledge from employees that they will not use contraceptives, or they will hire men only or only old ladies. No problem avoiding the conception issue.
The gridlock reflects the fact that many decisive issues are 50/50 in the public at large. These issues must be resolved in the court of public opinion and not by one additional appointed jurist.
I for one am thankful for the gridlock. Maybe it will get people to vote on these issues.
I for one am thankful for the gridlock. Maybe it will get people to vote on these issues.
I think it should be 101 members. Then a vote of 51 to 50 will be meaningful? Tied votes only reflect what the nation stands for. Right now,it is nothing!
While the Supreme Court is not "functioning" as we are accustomed, it is nevertheless functioning well within the meaning of our Constitution. While Article II, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution demands the President "nominate" "judges of the supreme Court," his "Power" to "appoint" them is expressly limited. He must obtain "the Advice and Consent of the Senate."
The Framers limited the President's power for significant reasons. They feared a tyrannical Executive, and an unbridled power to appoint judges to the Court - who serve for life and may declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional - threatens to undermine the Legislatives of both our National and State governments. While only judges "nominate[d]" by the President may become Supreme Court Justices, Senate approval serves as a necessary protection for the People.
Of course, the sincere frustrations today over Senator McConnell and his Republican cronies are valid. But that is not to say their actions are unconstitutional. Whether wise or absurd, the Republicans view President Obama as a tyrant. As such, they may deny their "Advice and Consent" as they choose. That the Supreme Court fails to "function" as normal is the necessary outcome of this constitutional practice.
What should be done is not to cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rather, we must resort to the ballot box. We must be more vigilant, and more involved in our politics, and vote more carefully in the future.
The Framers limited the President's power for significant reasons. They feared a tyrannical Executive, and an unbridled power to appoint judges to the Court - who serve for life and may declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional - threatens to undermine the Legislatives of both our National and State governments. While only judges "nominate[d]" by the President may become Supreme Court Justices, Senate approval serves as a necessary protection for the People.
Of course, the sincere frustrations today over Senator McConnell and his Republican cronies are valid. But that is not to say their actions are unconstitutional. Whether wise or absurd, the Republicans view President Obama as a tyrant. As such, they may deny their "Advice and Consent" as they choose. That the Supreme Court fails to "function" as normal is the necessary outcome of this constitutional practice.
What should be done is not to cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rather, we must resort to the ballot box. We must be more vigilant, and more involved in our politics, and vote more carefully in the future.
49
Um, the Constitution says "Advice and consent", not "DENY advice and consent".
5
In a democracy, government is by consent. The majority is ruled by its consent, but the minority is also ruled by its consent. The minority, throughout the Obama administration, has refused to be ruled by its own consent. This sure sounds like a constitutional issue to me.
1
You have failed to point out, however, that Senators swear an oath to faithfully execute those powers expressly given to them under the Constitution, one of which is to confirm (or reject) Presidential nominees to the SCOTUS.
Seems to me and many others, including the majority of citizens, that the failure of the Senate to act on Judge Garland is a clear and distinct violation of their duty under the Constitution.
Seems to me and many others, including the majority of citizens, that the failure of the Senate to act on Judge Garland is a clear and distinct violation of their duty under the Constitution.
6
Polling has indicated that either Clinton or Sanders would defeat Trump in a general election. They are likely to either re-nominate Garland or nominate someone more liberal. Hopefully, Republicans will see the folly of their obstructionism this November.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016! Clear out the republicans and religious and corporations and their ilk this November and all will be fine after all. With the passing of Scalia and Pres. Obama's pick AND Pres. Hillary Clinton this fall and her future SCOTUS picks as well as a minimum 300 Democrats in the US House and minimum 70 Democrats US Senate and take back large majorities in state and local legislatures and govern for Democrats, imagine what can and will happen for the first time in over 50yrs. LIBERALS UNITE! Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016.
1
The issue at stake here strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Religious belief -- and it varies vastly -- resides in the realm of personal opinion which is resolved through the Constitution, legislatio, executive action and the courts. Religious dogma is not law. If it were there would be no secular laws because competitive sectarianism could never come to agreement on all matters of public policy.
What we have in Congress is a legislature that refuses to do its job resulting in a judiciary that cannot perform its constitutional duty. We cannot fire the Supreme Court. We can fire a deadbeat Congress in November, replacing it with one that respects and observes its constitutionally sanctioned job description.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
What we have in Congress is a legislature that refuses to do its job resulting in a judiciary that cannot perform its constitutional duty. We cannot fire the Supreme Court. We can fire a deadbeat Congress in November, replacing it with one that respects and observes its constitutionally sanctioned job description.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Mitch McConnell is doing everything that he can to insure the failure of the judicial branch of government. His hatred of President Obama knows no bounds. He will be remembered for his egregious lack of statesmanship that crossed the line into treason and de facto secession, urging the Senate's abdication of its Constitutional duty--in this regard--simply because a black man is the president. There's nothing more too it.
However, he has company on the Court; the Chief Justice, John Roberts, has cowardly failed to rebuke the Majority Leader from Kentucky. It would be impolitic for the other seven justices, whether they agree with McConnell or no, to put forward their thoughts on this matter while their Chief remains mute.
Mr. Roberts's silence on this matter is a shining reflection of his complete lack not only of patriotism, but also of judicial propriety. President Obama's election and re-election have pried open the manhole cover over the sewer that is the hypocrisy that dresses itself before the world as the eminent nation of achievement, distinction, accomplishment, and magnamiity.
However, he has company on the Court; the Chief Justice, John Roberts, has cowardly failed to rebuke the Majority Leader from Kentucky. It would be impolitic for the other seven justices, whether they agree with McConnell or no, to put forward their thoughts on this matter while their Chief remains mute.
Mr. Roberts's silence on this matter is a shining reflection of his complete lack not only of patriotism, but also of judicial propriety. President Obama's election and re-election have pried open the manhole cover over the sewer that is the hypocrisy that dresses itself before the world as the eminent nation of achievement, distinction, accomplishment, and magnamiity.
4
The death of Justice Scalia has indeed left the Court crippled and crippled it should stay until the election returns come in. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next generation is on the ballet in November and the people must speak. The lame duck Obama will not get to appoint the next Supreme Judge as he has his executive over reach to the point of lawlessness. He got his two appointments and it is enough. If the people want a judiciary that rewrites social laws and usurps the role of the legislative branch ...so be it. Vote for Mrs. Clinton and you will have transexual bathroom laws. If the people want a restrained Judiciary that will interpret the laws instead of inventing rights to appease the liberal elites, vote for Trump and the states will decide if only men must use the men's bathrooms and showers. Game on. We get the government we deserve.
1
I will only say "See Citizen's United".
1
There is no desire on the parts of Republican legislators in Congress or the conservative (Republican backed) Justices on the Supreme Court to have another Justice to complete the bench unless that Justice will follow the party's line... They do not want an open-minded Justice with great legal insight. They want someone who will put the 5th vote in to win majority decisions and steer social policies through legal measures.
1
This dysfunction provides a stark enlightenment, regarding the 'intellectual study of constitutional law': as with so much of the current practice of macroeconomics, it is entirely political, with its practitioners contorting their analysis to produce the desired political result. If this practice of law at the stratospheric level had any intellectual rigor, we wouldn't have had so many 5-4 decisions and currently so many 4-4 ties. Eight eminent engineers or scientists or actuaries or statisticians or chemists, biologists, mathematicians and physicists would argue their way to a consensus on most issues. Those are subjects where nature decrees that their is a right answer and one needs to seek it out. Sometimes there are multiple acceptable solutions to a problem, but the professional experts in these fields will generally agree that each is workable, though they may disagree on which solution is best. Not so economics and constitutional law, where the answer that each 'expert' arrives at is determined not by the actual documents, data, or what he learned at university about logical interpretation, but by his personal political and religious believes and by his personal prejudices. For quite a while now, the Supreme Court has just been unelected politics by a different name.
The failure of the Republicans to move forward with the President nomination to fill Justice Scalia's seat is a new low point in American politics.
This nation's bedrock is the concept of justice. Since the GOP has now endorsed lying, deception and dishonesty it should come as no surprise that they have decided to turn their attention to impairing the firmest pillar of our society.
I believe that this action will have a very negative impact on all Republican candidates this year. They are going to reap what they sow.
This nation's bedrock is the concept of justice. Since the GOP has now endorsed lying, deception and dishonesty it should come as no surprise that they have decided to turn their attention to impairing the firmest pillar of our society.
I believe that this action will have a very negative impact on all Republican candidates this year. They are going to reap what they sow.
SCOTUS can and has done its job w/o nine justices.
SCOTUS can NOT do its job (well) with an even number of justices.
There is a difference...
SCOTUS can NOT do its job (well) with an even number of justices.
There is a difference...
Does The Times believe that the 7-2 decision in Roe v. Wade "solved" the abortion issue?
Today's announcement appears likely to result in the goals of both sides in Burwell being met. That's good and should be celebrated. Also to be celebrated is the Court's avoidance in being caught up in yet another minor skirmish in our nation's endless culture war. (Trans bathrooms are the newest front.)
Of course this editorial has nothing to do with Burwell. It's about haranguing legislators to act on President Obama's nominee to the court. That's fine. Harangue away. But next time try harder to find an apt excuse.
Today's announcement appears likely to result in the goals of both sides in Burwell being met. That's good and should be celebrated. Also to be celebrated is the Court's avoidance in being caught up in yet another minor skirmish in our nation's endless culture war. (Trans bathrooms are the newest front.)
Of course this editorial has nothing to do with Burwell. It's about haranguing legislators to act on President Obama's nominee to the court. That's fine. Harangue away. But next time try harder to find an apt excuse.
1
Is a 4-4 split a bad thing? Even when there are an odd number of justices - they send a lot of cases back to lower courts. I don't know whether the statistics show that the number of cases remanded has increased or not - and the author of this piece has done nothing to enlighten us; so - yeah - thanks for the good work NYT Editorial Board. Perhaps an even number on the court is even better - there will be fewer close calls called into question later on. A 5-3 decision or better might have more moral authority down the road.
Yet one more reason to support Medicare for ALL. Businesses should not be involved in employee health care (and they don't want to be--why should American businesses be forced to pay for an administrator for something outside of their core businesses--makes it difficult to compete overseas, since every other major country has some kind of single payer or national health system that does not require employer involvement).
1
Something is wrong when the Supreme Court is continually divided in 4 to 4 decisions. This tells us that the decisions are either political or religious. Why not make decisions that follow the Constitution? Most people understand right from wrong even it is not covered in the Constitution. I would like to see more 6 to 3 decisions or in the present situation, 5 to 3 decisions. Can you imagine a jury of 12 convicting a person on a 7 to 5 decision? A judge would lock them up until they came to their senses. Let us face it, nothing will happen as long as we appoint justices that are politically biased. I would also bet they would do a better job if they could be fired for incompetence.
In 1832, President Andrew Jackson famously stated, in response to the Worcester v. Georgia case, "John Marshall has made his decision.... now let him enforce it!". This immature nature prevented the people from getting what they rightfully deserved, and put Marshall in a position in which he had to perform duties that were not his own. Mitch McConnell is doing the same thing to the current Supreme Court; in avoiding the appointment of a ninth justice, the court is forced to propose compromises instead of doing its job: interpreting the Constitution. If people in Congress can monopolize this system in such a way, why even have a Supreme Court?
1
If Congress is bought and paid for by multinational corporations, why have a Congress.
In case you aren't aware we haven't had a functional government for several years. Though this is an improvement over the Bush years.
In case you aren't aware we haven't had a functional government for several years. Though this is an improvement over the Bush years.
2
The Democratic Congress left the Supreme Court at eight justices for eight months after Powell resigned in 1987. Isn't it a little early to be hitting the panic button now seeing Scalia has only been dead three months?
Proof to me that the Supreme Court, despite other pretensions, is nothing more than an appointed rather than elected partisan political, third chamber of Cpngress!
A split court is better than a court with Scalia.
If all of those "Bernie or Bust"ers and Hillary haters with their false equivalencies can't see how important a Dem vote is this November for SCOTUS reasons alone, they deserve the regressive, conservative, uterus-invading hell that will accompany a Trump Presidency.
Why are the Republican senators receiving paychecks when they refuse to do their jobs?
If all of those "Bernie or Bust"ers and Hillary haters with their false equivalencies can't see how important a Dem vote is this November for SCOTUS reasons alone, they deserve the regressive, conservative, uterus-invading hell that will accompany a Trump Presidency.
Why are the Republican senators receiving paychecks when they refuse to do their jobs?
1
Their employer is corporate America. They are doing what their bosses dictate.
If you’re from Pennsylvania, Senator Patrick Toomey is one of the Republican Senators in favor of preventing hearings on any Supreme Court Justice before the Presidential election. If you find this behavior unacceptable, you have the power to vote accordingly in the general election.
1
Today's opinion by SCOTUS was unanimous. The 9th seat being vacant was irrelevant. The court is hardly crippled.
2
Scalia's neo-conservative presence on SCOTUS's bench inspired frivolous cases in search of advantageous, neo-conservative decisions. Republicans hoping to shield Citizens United from SCOTUS's scrutiny prefer destroying their own legacy rather than yielding their lifeblood's teat in the name of Justice
Once more, US citizens suffer at the current GOP's unwillingness to perform their duty. Their refusal to even consider Merrick Garland's nomination - or any other to fill the SCOTUS bench - is a fitting encore to Ted Cruz' 2013 $20B shutdown of the Federal Govt, to Grover Norquist's dream of drowning it in a bathtub, to Mitch McConnell's pledge to oppose any Obama initiative (including SCOTUS nominees). However you may feel about traditional Republican values, the current GOP has succumbed, and is addicted to, wildly destructive urges. Meanwhile, Trump has seized the reins of that wild horse, while subscribing to hardly any traditional Republican values. I can't identify any interest group who is benefitting from the tornado that has swept the right.
Perhaps they should simply do like the TSA does - make folks just wait outside in a long line, until they get all the people they say they need...
I'm not seriously suggesting this...
But I'm sure that policymakers and consultants like Gruber are...
Instead - how about, for each case, the associate justices all draw straws, and the one with the short straw sits things out...
I am seriously suggesting this...
I'm not seriously suggesting this...
But I'm sure that policymakers and consultants like Gruber are...
Instead - how about, for each case, the associate justices all draw straws, and the one with the short straw sits things out...
I am seriously suggesting this...
1
I am a retired lawyer, and have spent decades parsing legal language. But for the life of me I can't figure out what the Court thinks the difference is between the current law being challenged and its proposed alternative.
The Supreme Court is theater. Public opinion is what dictates laws, period. The court may lead or trail, but public opinion makes laws. Think they were channeling the founders when the ruled for gay rights/same sex marriage? If you do I have a bridge for you.
Change public opinion to change laws, it's that simple.
Change public opinion to change laws, it's that simple.
"Eight federal courts of appeals have already rejected this claim, finding that such a minor requirement did not place a substantial burden on the objectors’ religious freedom. " Sounds like there isn't disagreement except on the Supreme Court. Isn't the Supreme Court's role to issue rulings when lower courts disagree? Oh well, I guess having an activist court is what way intended by the founding fathers......
1
I notice that when the New York Times makes a blunder with language, it tends to be in the headline (e.g. "The Crippled Supreme Court" and "Trump Rivals Brace for a Crippling Loss in Indiana") and not in the article itself. Using the term "crippled" to indicate a deficit or shortcoming by making a comparison to people with disabilities is ableist. Please take greater care in crafting headlines that do not use language that disparages disability.
Not content with shutting down the Legislative Branch and crippling the Executive Branch the Republicans have gone to work on the Judicial Branch.
2
The Republicans refusal to allow the Court to be whole is pathetically partisan, but so are 4-4 and 5-4 splits. What an embarrassment this court has become. It's no different than Congress. Some of these justices just seem to be religious zealots and others, like Thomas, seem to be just vacant and vapid.
and some are liberal oligarchs who make laws from the bench rather than the Democratic process.
If the mere act of notification makes the plaintiffs complicit in the provision of birth control, weren’t they complicit before the ACA by paying their employees? The employees that needed birth control were undoubtedly using money from their employer to buy the birth control, thus involving the employer (by their logic).
The simple fact is that in the U.S. health care is part of the compensation package that many employees receive from their employer. Employers should have no say over how employees spend their compensation. Trying to prevent employees from obtaining birth control is an unconstitutional effort to force their religious beliefs on employees.
The simple fact is that in the U.S. health care is part of the compensation package that many employees receive from their employer. Employers should have no say over how employees spend their compensation. Trying to prevent employees from obtaining birth control is an unconstitutional effort to force their religious beliefs on employees.
3
Republican scorched earth policy. They don't care. Shut down the government. Better people die from lack of health care than they accept the Affordable Care Act or improve it. Try to prevent any Obama accomplishments, regardless of the damage to the country. Don't debate war powers- you'd have to go on the record. Better the next President, even Trump, have no restraints. If they can't get a radical Justice that will overturn all regulation and social programs, then let the court be short. We can only hope that the Democrats win the Senate.
1
Correct. As soon as we possibly can after the election we need to place a Justice that represents the will of the electorate
Let the chips fall as they may.
Let the chips fall as they may.
though can you say that it is the will of the people of barely over half make up the "majority"? I'm pretty sure with trump hillary will get 60 or something, but in terms of Republican and democrat it is 50/50 ish. why can't we be honest and say everyone fights tooth and nail for their own beliefs not the will of the people rather than be hypocrites or liars? Anyway, I'd rather fight for the truth than the current emotions, vices, and misinformed beliefs of the public.
I have mixed feelings about the 8 justice court. To the extent a 9th justice would help expand individual rights, the absence of an appointment adversely affects millions. But the inability of the 8 justice court to resolve controversial issues tends to deter overly litigious litigants and thereby encourages cooperative resolutions. We are in bad need of a cooperative spirit. Today's opinion forces the government and fundamentalists to negotiate. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
1
Where's the Chief? Why isn't John Roberts standing up for his branch of government? He should be railing at Congress for obstructing the Constitutional process and for holding the Court hostage to an irregular election, still many months away.
2
I miss Justice Scalia. I don't miss his originalism (the idea that once you say something, its meaning is somehow "fixed" forever). I won't miss his misguided claims that his decisions were never affected by his political and social values. "Objectivity?" I'm not sure I even know what that word means...
But I miss him nevertheless. His candor, his willingness to at consider other perspectives (something very lacking in our society today), and yes, his humor.
So, I wonder what he would say about all of this. If he was true to his originalism, it would seem that he would see Congress' refusal to even
consider the President's nominee as obstructionism.
If he was true to his values, he would support the candidate who would have the best chance of nominating someone who held those same values.
So I wonder. Would Scalia vote for Trump?
But I miss him nevertheless. His candor, his willingness to at consider other perspectives (something very lacking in our society today), and yes, his humor.
So, I wonder what he would say about all of this. If he was true to his originalism, it would seem that he would see Congress' refusal to even
consider the President's nominee as obstructionism.
If he was true to his values, he would support the candidate who would have the best chance of nominating someone who held those same values.
So I wonder. Would Scalia vote for Trump?
1
The obstinate obstructionism, by now 'legendary', of the republican party, is like a cancer that begs to be eradicated, so the 'patient' (government) not only survives but is able to function as prescribed. Their capriciousness is, indeed, injurious to the functioning of the supreme court, as intended. In the case noted, how can a secular government abide by any given religious dogma, based on ignorance and prejudice, to tell the people what to do, and decide not to pay for any given treatment, if in the business of offering health care? If religion wants freedom of secular intervention, wouldn't it be just to demand reciprocity, have religion out of secular affairs?
1
Hillary will make an informed and intelligent choice. Trump? Intelligent? Informed? Please.
VOTE!
VOTE!
1
The GOPs have now shut down the government in October 2013, and essentially shut down the Supreme Court for the last few months by withholding a vote on Judge Merrick Garland. What's next? Shut down the Executive Branch by electing an ignorant know-nothing bully to the White House and watch the country rot and decay, while at the same time our allies will need to reassess their relationship with US due to the US morphing into a county taken over by radical extremists?
America will never be great again.
America will never be great again.
1
Nope. We need a new world leader. This will be China by default. It'll be ok guys. We desperately need a rest. The world would be better off.
In a few decades we could recover and might again make a meaningful contribution to humanity.One can only hope.
In a few decades we could recover and might again make a meaningful contribution to humanity.One can only hope.
And if Justice Scalia had not died and the vote had been 5/4 supporting the
right of Religious Organisation to refuse to co-operate would the NY Times
Editorial Board be approving this "Final Word in interpreting the Constitution
and Nations's Laws." ?
Compromise can be better than Judicial Fiat and may be in this case.
right of Religious Organisation to refuse to co-operate would the NY Times
Editorial Board be approving this "Final Word in interpreting the Constitution
and Nations's Laws." ?
Compromise can be better than Judicial Fiat and may be in this case.
1
The Supreme Court is in now dysfunctional.
From a republican perspective -- so what ?
- With 4-4 ties, the cases get kicked back to lower courts. This favors the states and the republicans.
- The republican congress has been dysfunctional the past 6 years. That doesn't appear to impact the presidential race.
- With a weak democratic candidate, the republicans might just win the presidency.
The DNC does not have to wait till November to analyze where it went wrong.
From a republican perspective -- so what ?
- With 4-4 ties, the cases get kicked back to lower courts. This favors the states and the republicans.
- The republican congress has been dysfunctional the past 6 years. That doesn't appear to impact the presidential race.
- With a weak democratic candidate, the republicans might just win the presidency.
The DNC does not have to wait till November to analyze where it went wrong.
The DNC is incapable of self-analysis, and absolutely blind and deaf to the real problems and concerns of average citizens (who they despise, as "low information rednecks").
Hillary stood up in West Virginia and told coal miners, she was kicking them out of work -- and if they starved, so what? she doesn't care.
Hillary stood up in West Virginia and told coal miners, she was kicking them out of work -- and if they starved, so what? she doesn't care.
1
I find the offered compromise interesting in that it asks the taxpayers to foot the bill for the religious freedom of these non profits who do not want to pay for contraceptives. While I believe in the concept of religious freedom, I don't understand why taxpayers are paying for it. We are external to the case which involves two parties - non profits and their employees. How did the rest of us get involved?
the question I have is why contraceptives should be provided by an employer at all, they aren't health necessities, they are items used only when one chooses to have sex, don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex or pay for it yourself, why should the employer be forced to pay for it? it's a stupid part of the ACA which I hope is eliminated if we ever get another health care reform, though without sanders I doubt it
There are no excuses for this. The press ought to be lighting a fire, daily, under the feet of McConnell and the other members of his do-nothing caucus who are undermining the judicial branch of government. Perhaps of Mr Grassley of Iowa had a law degree, he would better understand how the Supreme Court is supposed to work. Undermining the government's functions is not a matter of expressing one's opinion, it is a matter of sedition. The smug members of Congress like McConnell ought to be shamed, and not treated as if they are serious participants in governance. They are not. They are saboteurs.
If the purpose of this editorial is to shame the GOP Senate into action, it is a waste of time. As for the rest of the country that sees an eight-member court as an affront to justice, the GOP couldn't care less. Had any Obama nominee been in the ninth seat, this case would have been decided against Zubik. To that extent, the GOP must be satisfied.
The damage is being done every day....thank you Republicans!
1
Deciding this in favor of the government would be a no-brainer under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. It's the unconstitutional RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration [sic] Act that is causing all the problems.
As long as RFRA lawsuits are brought by religious institutions, there will never be a party to argue the RFRA's unconstitutionality. Only those actually harmed by religious entities exercising their RFRA-bestowed religious privileges will have standing and opportunity to argue the statute's unconstitutionality under the First Amendment.
Whenever that happens, and it will, it can't come soon enough.
As long as RFRA lawsuits are brought by religious institutions, there will never be a party to argue the RFRA's unconstitutionality. Only those actually harmed by religious entities exercising their RFRA-bestowed religious privileges will have standing and opportunity to argue the statute's unconstitutionality under the First Amendment.
Whenever that happens, and it will, it can't come soon enough.
1
And who signed RFRA into LAW?
Bill Clinton, hubby of Hillary.
Bill Clinton, hubby of Hillary.
I believe the Senate owes the country a fully functioning Supreme Court. Their precedent setting refusal to deny hearings on any nominee is an abnegation of their responsibilities and slap in the face to the American public. If they get away with it once, it becomes a future tool for political malfeasance.
Republicans in the House and Senate have effectively crippled the Legislative and Executive branches of government. Now they have crippled the Judicial.
They must be very pleased, having done their best to destroy government.
One can only hope that come November the voters will be of a different mind than the mindless, thoughtless and frankly cruel people that have done this to them.
They must be very pleased, having done their best to destroy government.
One can only hope that come November the voters will be of a different mind than the mindless, thoughtless and frankly cruel people that have done this to them.
1
What the right wing justices fail to acknowledge is that the right to whether or not to reproduce outweighs the right of a person to force their beliefs onto others. To reproduce or not to reproduce transcends religion/belief systems, for it doesn't require someone to believe in anything in order to make the decision whether to reproduce or not. Whether an agnostic, or a fundamentalist christian, it's not a requirement. I wonder if the lawyers arguing the case ever used these arguments of fact. For these justices on the right to say that faith trumps reproduction rights is absurd.
59
Allowing people the right to choose one thing or another is not the same as mandating that the same person must choose one particular way.
Here, the health care law states that coverage for birth control be included in all policies. This does not mean that all individuals who are capable of reproducing must reproduce if they enjoy sex with their spouse. Including coverage for birth control in the insurance policy means that those who choose to limit the number of children they have may do so easily.
Here, the health care law states that coverage for birth control be included in all policies. This does not mean that all individuals who are capable of reproducing must reproduce if they enjoy sex with their spouse. Including coverage for birth control in the insurance policy means that those who choose to limit the number of children they have may do so easily.
1
For the religious right, these women already have a reliable source of birth control - abstinence. And if they're married, it's their duty to "be fruitful and multiply". That is why they oppose birth control. They view it as enabling women to have premarital sex, which they should not be having in their opinion, consequence-free.
1
It seems that the government has no right encouraging or discouraging pregnancy. After all, the condition is not a disease.
2
The case was remanded with instructions. An unusual, but by no means unprecedented move. Everyone should relax. This is reasonable under the circumstances. The Per Curiam opinion was without decent.
1
Can I sue the Congress to force them to act? I'm serious. I don't mind if they vote along party lines to deny Merrick Garland the position. At least they would be fulfilling their duty to advise and consent. But this obstructionism for obstructionism sake should not be allowed to infect the other branches of government. Help me out here, is this treason, dereliction of duty, government malfeasance? I know we can vote them out but, while their in, isn't there something in the constitution that prohibits this kind of juvenile, petty, dangerous anarchy? If the Supreme Court can decide our elections, why can't they make those elected do their jobs?
1
Better crippled than conservative!
1
Just more damage caused by the Republican Party to the overall health of this country. When will America start paying attention to the things that they do, or don't do, and not the things that they say? Which, by the way, are two completely different animals.
Just last week Paul Ryan was talking about how important upholding the Constitution is to Republican principles when he was referring to Donald Trump. But in the case of constitutional checks and balances to political power in this country, the Republican Party is perfectly able to look the other way. And even make lame excuses why.
Just last week Paul Ryan was talking about how important upholding the Constitution is to Republican principles when he was referring to Donald Trump. But in the case of constitutional checks and balances to political power in this country, the Republican Party is perfectly able to look the other way. And even make lame excuses why.
83
Talk about constitutional checks and balance, the Obama administration is perfectly content to by-pass the constitution and hand down arrogant edicts (see: Obama Administration warns every public school in America, https://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/obama-administration-warns-e... )
Well, Obama has not picked anyone. The duty to advise and consent once did not include the press battles. Appoint whoever and then its the GOP's fault.
.
.
This legislative stagnation is a symptom of having a Republican-majority Senate. Turning the Senate Blue is within striking distance this November. Our next President's capabilities are going to be either hampered or helped by having Senators who believe in governance. Please remember to vote all the way down the ticket!
1
What of the employee who does not choose birth control for herself, who has religious objection over paying into an insurance plan that provides these devices to others?
Why don't we respect the religious objections of individuals to refuse to pay premiums into a plan that provides birth control for others? The Affordable Care Act has to be adjusted to provide choice for all Americans, or else the mandate to participate or be taxed/penalized needs to fall...
Make America Great Again!
Let the American people choose to spend their dollars on their own healthcare needs as they see fit, with religious objections available to individuals as well as religious employers.
Why don't we respect the religious objections of individuals to refuse to pay premiums into a plan that provides birth control for others? The Affordable Care Act has to be adjusted to provide choice for all Americans, or else the mandate to participate or be taxed/penalized needs to fall...
Make America Great Again!
Let the American people choose to spend their dollars on their own healthcare needs as they see fit, with religious objections available to individuals as well as religious employers.
1
The Times seems to believe that there is a magic number of justices without which the Supreme Court cannot function.
That is not backed by any convincing evidence. Indeed, the decision in Zubik may mark the beginning of some creative re-imagination of the role of the Court that gets it out of the left-right rut it has been stuck in for almost a century.
Nor is history on the Times's side. The Constitution does not fix a definite number of justices. In 1801, Congress set the number of justices at 5. Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863. In the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, Congress reduced the number from 10 to seven. By 1869, there were eight justices. That year, Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices.
Let's see where the experiment takes us.
That is not backed by any convincing evidence. Indeed, the decision in Zubik may mark the beginning of some creative re-imagination of the role of the Court that gets it out of the left-right rut it has been stuck in for almost a century.
Nor is history on the Times's side. The Constitution does not fix a definite number of justices. In 1801, Congress set the number of justices at 5. Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863. In the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, Congress reduced the number from 10 to seven. By 1869, there were eight justices. That year, Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices.
Let's see where the experiment takes us.
2
It's disappointing, in view of the 'sturm und drang' conservatives evinced to tar the more progressive decisions of the Court as "judicial activism", that Roberts and his cohort are absolutely mute now. He and his regressives are duty-bound, as far as I can see, to call on Congress to do its job, advise and consent on a new nominee, and avoid all of these contortions that 4-4 votes entail.
Roberts, Alito and Thomas must figure that their silence on this issue represents impartiality (there's a Federalist Society bubble also informing their self-satisfaction) when in fact it represents a purely partisan abrogation of responsibility -catering to Republican intransigents. Shame on Roberts and his conservative mugs for failing their obligations to the judicial branch and to the American polity.
Roberts, Alito and Thomas must figure that their silence on this issue represents impartiality (there's a Federalist Society bubble also informing their self-satisfaction) when in fact it represents a purely partisan abrogation of responsibility -catering to Republican intransigents. Shame on Roberts and his conservative mugs for failing their obligations to the judicial branch and to the American polity.
The Republican obstructionism towards filling the Supreme Court is indefensible. The obstinance is doubly galling because he has nominated a qualified, non-ideologue in Merrick Garland, who has been met only with limited perfunctory niceties, not the serious considerations he deserves.
And the "principal," as Paul Ryan put it, that President Obama should not set forth a Justice is bankrupt. President Obama went to work today as the current, not former, President. He just gave the commencement address at Rutgers as the current, not former, President.
And imagine that someone like Marco Rubio would use that line! Rubio is himself at the end of his Senatorial term (well, at least allegedly, he will lick his wounds rather than run again). Does Rubio likewise believe that he should recuse himself from any further legislation at this late term?
And the "principal," as Paul Ryan put it, that President Obama should not set forth a Justice is bankrupt. President Obama went to work today as the current, not former, President. He just gave the commencement address at Rutgers as the current, not former, President.
And imagine that someone like Marco Rubio would use that line! Rubio is himself at the end of his Senatorial term (well, at least allegedly, he will lick his wounds rather than run again). Does Rubio likewise believe that he should recuse himself from any further legislation at this late term?
3
I do not know much about Merrick Garland, but I know this: the other two Justices that Obama appointed are intransigent, hard lefty liberals who NEVER deviate from taking hard left decisions.
If Obama gets to nominate Garland....he will have appointed THREE of nine Justices....that is way too many for any POTUS.
If Obama gets to nominate Garland....he will have appointed THREE of nine Justices....that is way too many for any POTUS.
The Republican appointees feel an affinity for helping the Republican Party remain in power, so they will not respect the most basic principle of freedom of religion, that the government will not take sides in conflicts over matters of conscience and of faith.
In 1948, President Harry Truman called a Republican Congress back into special session, invoking a provision in the Constitution that allows the president "on extraordinary occasions" to convene one or both houses of Congress.
At the Democratic Party convention, President Truman called upon the Republican majority in Congress to live up to its party platform by passing laws that bolstered civil rights, extended Social Security and created a national health care program saying, "They can do this job in 15 days if they want to do it,"
When Republican Robert Taft, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the accused President Truman of abusing his presidential prerogatives and blocked all votes, President Truman was able to overcome a sizable deficit in the polls to defeat his Republican opponent, Governor Thomas Dewey.
This is an example of the political courage which we so desperately need.
So, Mr. President, follow the example of President Truman and call a special session of Congress.
Force the "Do Nothings," as President Truman called them, to crawl from under their rocks and vote - up or down - on your nominee to the Supreme Court.
Or, like Senator Taft, officially block a vote so that the choice our country will be making in November can be made even more abundantly clear.
At the Democratic Party convention, President Truman called upon the Republican majority in Congress to live up to its party platform by passing laws that bolstered civil rights, extended Social Security and created a national health care program saying, "They can do this job in 15 days if they want to do it,"
When Republican Robert Taft, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the accused President Truman of abusing his presidential prerogatives and blocked all votes, President Truman was able to overcome a sizable deficit in the polls to defeat his Republican opponent, Governor Thomas Dewey.
This is an example of the political courage which we so desperately need.
So, Mr. President, follow the example of President Truman and call a special session of Congress.
Force the "Do Nothings," as President Truman called them, to crawl from under their rocks and vote - up or down - on your nominee to the Supreme Court.
Or, like Senator Taft, officially block a vote so that the choice our country will be making in November can be made even more abundantly clear.
3
Ever since the Democrats Borked Bork the appointment of judges to SCOTUS has been a heavily partisan process.
Then there is the "Biden Rule" and the pitiful denials and "out of context" arguments.
The Dems are reaping what they have sown, and they find the crop very bitter indeed.
Then there is the "Biden Rule" and the pitiful denials and "out of context" arguments.
The Dems are reaping what they have sown, and they find the crop very bitter indeed.
2
Trying to make the case for letting the current administration nominate the next Supreme Court Justice falls short for two reasons. Making it appear that these cases are not getting the full attention due each of them belies that fact that:
1. The Democrats were the ones' to determine the Biden Rule for last year nominations when Bush was in office.
2. Any one of these cases that are receiving the Punt it Back ruling to the lower courts decision can be re submitted to the high court for any number of reasons, when there is a ninth justice in place.
So the real thrust of the article isn't the woe's of not having justice dispensed, but the fact that the Republicans will be in the drivers seat when the next nomination is made.
1. The Democrats were the ones' to determine the Biden Rule for last year nominations when Bush was in office.
2. Any one of these cases that are receiving the Punt it Back ruling to the lower courts decision can be re submitted to the high court for any number of reasons, when there is a ninth justice in place.
So the real thrust of the article isn't the woe's of not having justice dispensed, but the fact that the Republicans will be in the drivers seat when the next nomination is made.
1
The Supreme Court did not fail to reach a decision. It decided to send the case back to the lower court with instruction to work out a compromise. It’s a victory for the plaintiffs who have suggested all along that a compromise was possible. In April, the Little Sisters indicated a willingness to purchase plans that do not include contraceptive coverage, and they raised objection to the government requiring insurance companies that provide those plans to cover contraception for their employees.
1
Seems like the Republicans are getting exactly what they want, this is overthrow of our governing system. I don't understand why the Obama administration doesn't press harder on the confirmation issue. How about a recess appointment? Is that possible?
1
The statutes give them a pass on including contraception in the group health care plans to which the contribute but that it not good enough. The plaintiffs are trying to eradicate the separation of church and state under the simple minded conviction that they are obligated by their faith to use their participation in the public institutions of this land to make anyone who deals with them be obliged to live according to the beliefs of their faith rather than to the commonly held beliefs of the civil society. It's time to make it clear that while they have the right to follow their consciences, they have no right to try to make others abandon their freedom of conscience because they willfully expect it as a price for employment.
2
There would be no comeuppance more delicious, poetic, or righteous than if President Sanders or Clinton nominates Obama to the Supreme Court next year. As he is sworn into the highest court of the land, Senate Republicans can wallow in the folly of their ridiculous claim that "the voters should have a voice on the new nominee" after passing up on the much-lauded, moderate Merrick Garland. And don't expect Senate Republicans to have the numbers to block the Democrats' nominee after an election with The Donald at the top of their ticket.
I know that the election is a long ways away, likely nominee Clinton is a deeply flawed politician who will face stiff competition from Trump, and the political climate may shift in that time....but after the merciless obstruction these Republican demagogues have given Obama, the fairy tale ending I outlined is only justice after what our President has endured.
I know that the election is a long ways away, likely nominee Clinton is a deeply flawed politician who will face stiff competition from Trump, and the political climate may shift in that time....but after the merciless obstruction these Republican demagogues have given Obama, the fairy tale ending I outlined is only justice after what our President has endured.
1
Whoever is holding up Garland's confirmation process needs to stop. No need to name names or shame people. Just do the right thing now. The country is more important than petty partisanship.
2
Don't bother the court with this minor stuff.
Appoint a Scalia type justice and that person will get approved asap. It's that simple. You need to have conservative Judges since they listen to the cases and make up their minds based on the facts as oppose to the liberal Justices who vote as a single block reflecting left-leaning ideology usually to the detriment of America and it's rule of law.
1
"You need to have conservative Judges since they listen to the cases and make up their minds based on the facts"
Facts... like corporations are people.
Facts... like corporations are people.
6
Republicans: defending the Constitution, one unconstitutional seditious act at a time.
5
But to the Republicans in the Senate, no decision from the Court is better than one that goes against their "principles".
Same with the Democrats -- otherwise, Obama would have nominated a conservative that the Republicans would have confirmed.
1
He did.
11
@Alan, several republican senators did state earlier that they would be happy to confirm someone like Garland if the president nominated him. they were for him before scalia died and then they were against him.
2
Asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision on this matter is unreasonable. Even WITH Scalia, the decision almost certainly would have gone with the plaintiffs 5-4. Confirmation of a ninth justice even if a liberal wouldn't at all be a guarantee that the Court would find that secular will must trump religious freedom.
What's wrong with requiring the lower courts to seek a manageable compromise on a subject that so divides us? The cause of our frozen politics is that both sides simply don't WANT to compromise -- it's like listening to a devout Jew and a devout Muslim argue about the nature of God and the rules S(He) imposes on humans when not out there pondering the innerds of black holes.
As it happens, I agree with those eight federal courts that have told the "Little Sisters" (et al) to go fish. But my conviction that there must be limits to the extent religion may trump secular will of the people as expressed by elected representatives doesn't gainsay the disagreement of millions of Americans who feel passionately otherwise.
Compromise is the means by which we resolve such apparently irresolvable disagreements. It's either that or, as Lincoln proposed to the short man who challenged him to a duel, we must have at it with clubs in six feet of water.
What's wrong with requiring the lower courts to seek a manageable compromise on a subject that so divides us? The cause of our frozen politics is that both sides simply don't WANT to compromise -- it's like listening to a devout Jew and a devout Muslim argue about the nature of God and the rules S(He) imposes on humans when not out there pondering the innerds of black holes.
As it happens, I agree with those eight federal courts that have told the "Little Sisters" (et al) to go fish. But my conviction that there must be limits to the extent religion may trump secular will of the people as expressed by elected representatives doesn't gainsay the disagreement of millions of Americans who feel passionately otherwise.
Compromise is the means by which we resolve such apparently irresolvable disagreements. It's either that or, as Lincoln proposed to the short man who challenged him to a duel, we must have at it with clubs in six feet of water.
5
The GOP’s abandonment of its advice and consent responsibility over the Garland nomination is a clear example of what has been occurring for nearly all of Obama’s term: GOP near-total obstruction of Obama and Democratic proposals and refusal to compromise or negotiate over disagreements. It may be the most indicting example of GOP hypocrisy and mendacity. Garland is not a partisan or controversial figure. At Scalia’s death, the GOP made clear they would not “consent” to any Obama nominee. The near-tongue in cheek excuse being that their concern was about following the will of the people. Since when? Note that they did not announce an intent to seek a compromise or even a meeting with Obama. Fulfilling their responsibility to safeguard the people’s right to an unhindered unhampered judiciary seems not to have occurred to them.
Repeating patently false and disproved claims that “both sides simply don't WANT to compromise” does not make them less false, does not absolve the GOP of its strategy of obstruction, and does not transmute their delusional aspect into reality. The pick of examples is near-endless: filibusters, the Hastert rule, shutdowns, nominee inaction, refusal to participate in ACA negotiations, refusal to meet with Obama officials, on and on. If “Compromise is the means by which we resolve such apparently irresolvable disagreements,” it needs repeating over and over to the GOP. What they have sought instead is capitulation. There’s no gainsaying that.
Repeating patently false and disproved claims that “both sides simply don't WANT to compromise” does not make them less false, does not absolve the GOP of its strategy of obstruction, and does not transmute their delusional aspect into reality. The pick of examples is near-endless: filibusters, the Hastert rule, shutdowns, nominee inaction, refusal to participate in ACA negotiations, refusal to meet with Obama officials, on and on. If “Compromise is the means by which we resolve such apparently irresolvable disagreements,” it needs repeating over and over to the GOP. What they have sought instead is capitulation. There’s no gainsaying that.
3
I, too, agree with those eight federal courts. I am skeptical, however, about the motivations of those "Little Sisters" (et al) as being truly based in a sincerely perceived threat to their religious freedom. I believe these court actions are a smokescreen to attack the ACA and President Obama from any and all fronts possible. They are just another play in the playbook, and so is the Republican refusal to act on the nomination. Enough, already.
4
Jim:
You don't obstruct what does not have a prima facia right to be imposed. Neither Mr. Obama nor congressional Democrats have any business thinking that they have a mandate to transform us if they can't convince congressional Republicans, the majority after all, to go along. It's not obstruction -- you just don't get to impose your agenda.
Well, it's HARD to convince people. Boo-hoo.
You don't obstruct what does not have a prima facia right to be imposed. Neither Mr. Obama nor congressional Democrats have any business thinking that they have a mandate to transform us if they can't convince congressional Republicans, the majority after all, to go along. It's not obstruction -- you just don't get to impose your agenda.
Well, it's HARD to convince people. Boo-hoo.
George Bush's selection to the Presidency amounted to a right wing coup. Fortunately our democracy has been resilient enough (barely) to survive the attempts of the Christofascists to completely take over the country and the government.
Now the tide is turning. We can't start a war in the Middle East because we're already at war in the Middle East. The Republican coalition is breaking up over foreign "interventions," among other things. The people who support both Trump and Sanders are highly suspicious of Wall Street. Hispanic and other minorities will soon make up the majority of the electorate. We've got a black president and will probably have a woman president next.
And the old guard is freaking out. They are loosing their handle, they know it, and they are trying every trick in the book to hold on to power.
But you know what? If you grasp something too tightly you crush it, kill it or it slips out of your hand. Soon we'll have a Democratic woman president-elect, the GOP will be forced to confirm Garland, and Clinton will make the next couple of SCOTUS picks.
A liberal court for the next 25 years or so will be a good start on taking the people's country back.
Now the tide is turning. We can't start a war in the Middle East because we're already at war in the Middle East. The Republican coalition is breaking up over foreign "interventions," among other things. The people who support both Trump and Sanders are highly suspicious of Wall Street. Hispanic and other minorities will soon make up the majority of the electorate. We've got a black president and will probably have a woman president next.
And the old guard is freaking out. They are loosing their handle, they know it, and they are trying every trick in the book to hold on to power.
But you know what? If you grasp something too tightly you crush it, kill it or it slips out of your hand. Soon we'll have a Democratic woman president-elect, the GOP will be forced to confirm Garland, and Clinton will make the next couple of SCOTUS picks.
A liberal court for the next 25 years or so will be a good start on taking the people's country back.
41
Are you the guy who announced Dewey's victory over Truman?
1
The Constitution is clear:
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint radical, retorgrade, right-wing, Randian, religious Republican judges of the Supreme Court".
Clearly the founders of this nation wanted to collapse the wall of separation between church and state, foster right-wing tyranny, ensconce a permanent, puritanical rule of law, maintain an oligarchy and repress all efforts geared toward modernity and progress.
Why is it so hard for for people to appreciate the unbalanced delusions and psychopathy of the independent republic of Republistan ?
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint radical, retorgrade, right-wing, Randian, religious Republican judges of the Supreme Court".
Clearly the founders of this nation wanted to collapse the wall of separation between church and state, foster right-wing tyranny, ensconce a permanent, puritanical rule of law, maintain an oligarchy and repress all efforts geared toward modernity and progress.
Why is it so hard for for people to appreciate the unbalanced delusions and psychopathy of the independent republic of Republistan ?
392
It's the cost of getting the diagnosis that makes appreciation hard. And then there's the practicing of that psychopathy that is particularly annoying. It might be better if they moved to the Andromeda Galaxy in order to confine their contagion of stupidity to themselves. Perhaps they'll find another Antonin Scalia there.
20
I'm not sure Andromeda is far enough.
4
Since the Senate refuses to give its advice in this case, it has abandoned its responsibility and in essence told the President, "We don't want to say anything about the nominee." So it has given its advice, which is none, and by abandoning the case, its consent.
The President should just go ahead and make the appointment, and let the manure fly.
The President should just go ahead and make the appointment, and let the manure fly.
6
Yes, Good People of America. It is time for grassroots synergy to tell obstructionist republican senators that WE DEMAND that they CONFIRM JUDGE GARLAND NOW! This has already gone too far. Every senator's phone number is listed in the link below. Starting with your senators, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio please call and/or e-mail them right now and tell them to do their job - CONFIRM JUDGE GARLAND. It's time to use the tactics of religious and gun organizations and put the heat on these democracy obstructionists so WE have a functioning United States Supreme Court. Please post this link on twitter, facebook and other social media. Let's Do It!
http://www.democratichub.com/senate-list?t=ds
http://www.democratichub.com/senate-list?t=ds
72
You misunderstand what a Senators job is. Please show me where it says a Senator is to confirm anyone the President nominates? You can't because it's not their job and incidentally the Supreme Court is functioning just fine right now.
1
Thanks for your suggestion - it got me off my butt this morning. Here's my letter to our Republican senator:
Senator Portman
I read Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage" in high school. I've always find it refreshing when a politician emancipates himself from party machinery and votes on personal principle - as for example, you did on same-sex marriage.
There is no respectable principle that prevents Senate consideration of Judge Garland's nomination for the Supreme Court. Not all of us registered Republicans drink tea-flavored Kool-Aid. Surely the Republican party isn't so weak and nihilistic that it can never be anything more than the party of obstruction. As has been so obvious in recent years, representative democracy does not function well without good-faith negotiation and compromise.
I think Judge Garland would be an excellent Supreme Court justice.
Senator Portman
I read Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage" in high school. I've always find it refreshing when a politician emancipates himself from party machinery and votes on personal principle - as for example, you did on same-sex marriage.
There is no respectable principle that prevents Senate consideration of Judge Garland's nomination for the Supreme Court. Not all of us registered Republicans drink tea-flavored Kool-Aid. Surely the Republican party isn't so weak and nihilistic that it can never be anything more than the party of obstruction. As has been so obvious in recent years, representative democracy does not function well without good-faith negotiation and compromise.
I think Judge Garland would be an excellent Supreme Court justice.
As a continuation of their 2008 temper tantrum, the Generally Obstructionist Party decided that we don't deserve a functioning Supreme Court unless we elect a president that they, the Great Obstructionists, like or agree with. This is not how a democracy works. We elected President Obama twice. Therefore, whether the GOP likes it or not, he is entitled to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. The senators who are refusing to allow this ought to be held in contempt or, at the very least, subject to recall elections on the grounds that they are obstructing the lawful work of the President, the Supreme Court and, by extension, the country at large.
The GOP is not entitled to tell the American people that they have to wait for a full court if there is an nominee the president finds suitable. Judge Garland has been selected, is ready to answer questions and should be given a fair hearing. The disrespect of the GOP for all Americans is a disgrace. President Obama has been doing his job to the best of his ability in spite of the constant stream of disrespectful remarks, deliberate undermining, and idiotic tantrums by the GOP in an effort to pay us back for electing him. Any candidate or party that refuses to accept the people's choice to the point where they don't allow the government to function ought to be thrown out of office. It's time for the constipated prunes to get over Watergate and accept Obama as president. We did elect him.
The GOP is not entitled to tell the American people that they have to wait for a full court if there is an nominee the president finds suitable. Judge Garland has been selected, is ready to answer questions and should be given a fair hearing. The disrespect of the GOP for all Americans is a disgrace. President Obama has been doing his job to the best of his ability in spite of the constant stream of disrespectful remarks, deliberate undermining, and idiotic tantrums by the GOP in an effort to pay us back for electing him. Any candidate or party that refuses to accept the people's choice to the point where they don't allow the government to function ought to be thrown out of office. It's time for the constipated prunes to get over Watergate and accept Obama as president. We did elect him.
310
The current members of Congress ARE the peoples' choice!
1
When the Republicans believe that the Dems have acted illegally, they sue. When the Dems believe the GOP has acted illegally they whine. Dems have plenty of money. Why don 't they put it where their mouths are? If the law is in their favor, they'd have to be stupid not to use it.
3
Excepting voter suppression, gerrymandering, and that persnickety 5-4 diktat for president, Harry, you couldn't be more right.
2
For myself, the lesson to be learned differs from the the NYtimes editorial board. This pulls back the curtain hiding the destructive effect of absolutism in religion, which enables even nuns to be contemptuous of the reproductive needs of female employees. This so-called compromise should not be satisfactory to the nun because, by consenting, they enable the women to obtain birth control coverage which was the issue all along for the sisters. I, for one, am relieved that we do not still have the 5-4 conservative edge.
158
The indulgence of people who claim to know what God thinks is the single most psychopathologically defective feature of US public policy.
3
The compromise does not require the order to consent. The would simply purchase a policy that does not cover contraceptives and abortion. The federal government would require the insurance company to provide this coverage to employees who request it.
2
If the church had its way, there would be no birth control, no abortion, no divorce and no sex other than for procreation. The church has lost in court or at the ballot box on all these preferences. We are, on the whole, a secular country. This birth control case is obscure and reflects how little power the church clings to. Those depicting this lawsuit as oppression of women are making a mountain out of a molehill. The courts have marginalized religious authority for decades now. Those who can't remember the time before Roe v Wade seem like hysterics to me. They have no idea how far we've come.
5
Years from now, historians will document the Age of the Great Awakening, when when in 2017, the United States once again became a functioning democratic republic after the Senate was back in Democratic control. They will celebrate the restoration of the courts, the filling of appointments, and the resumption of the passage of legislation. Their monumental book will feature the face of Mitch McConnell on the cover. The back cover will feature the face of Paul Ryan with the caption, ...To Be Continued.
143
In case you missed the rise of Sanders, thre is little difference between the elected Democrats and the Republican Party, they all serve corporations. Giving anything back to either of them won't solve the problems.
3
Bruce Rozenblit: God, I hope you're right!
3
I can't understand how the GOP really thinks it will keep control of Congress, the judicial, legislative and executive branches .They don't believe in separation of powers, they want it all. They have cast the constitution behind their backs.
The Republicans on Capitol Hill are not concerned with the Court doing its job. They are concerned that the Court give them the answers they want. They would rather have nothing settled than have it settled in a way they do not like. After Justice Scalia died, there were abundant statements indicating that they believe that they have a right to a conservative Court into eternity, so they are holding the line until they can put Donald Trump in the White House. Likely they're hoping he'll appoint Ted Cruze to fill Scalia's seat. Think of the advantages - they get Cruze out of their day-to-day lives and out of the Senate AND Cruze would likely make Scalia look like a roaring liberal. All of that is IF Trump is elected and IF they can get him to do what they want.
427
Brilliant observation. Appointing Cruz not only removes him from the Senate but also from future presidential consideration. As an added bonus he would make life utterly miserable for the liberal justices. A grand slam for the Republican Senate.
1
Then it is up to all of us to see to it that Trump is not elected.
The last thing this country needs is Ted Cruz in a Supreme Court seat.
The last thing this country needs is Ted Cruz in a Supreme Court seat.
3
You are so right. All the institutions across all countries are being taken over by bullies on all sides. Once an individual or group has too much power, they don't feel they need fair institutions any longer.
1
Clearly, it is the opinion of Republicans in the Senate that they would prefer to live with a weak Court than deal with a decisive court whose actions would be unpredictable.
121
And whose actions might be more humane than the solutions the GOP advocates. This strain of the GOP seems to suffer from the delusion that they are the only party of record in the country and that no one else is allowed to do anything unless they approve. Furthermore, if they don't approve they want to be able to have things both ways: we weren't consulted or, we'll go along until it becomes public that we did and we'll back away. They have given a perfect example of how not to run a country unless it is to run it into the ground. This voter hopes every one of them gets voted out of office, cannot find jobs, and wind up going through at least half of the agonies the American people have lived through: job loss, loss of a home, medical bankruptcy, inability to get needed medical care, inability to find a job, loss of health, etc. Perhaps then they'd understand why a functioning government is needed.
147
Actually, that's no delusion. That's the way things have been in Washington through most of last eight years. No one can do anything unless the Republicans approve.
On the other hand, we would probably cheer for Democratic Obstructionism if there were a Cruz living in the White House attempting to put a regressive program into effect.
On the other hand, we would probably cheer for Democratic Obstructionism if there were a Cruz living in the White House attempting to put a regressive program into effect.
5
Actually, it's abundantly clear that they'd rather live with a dysfunctional court than a liberal court. Just like they'd rather have a dysfunctional executive than a liberal executive.
What's particularly convenient is that they're constantly arguing about how government can't get anything right. And once in office, they work very hard to ensure that they're correct!
What's particularly convenient is that they're constantly arguing about how government can't get anything right. And once in office, they work very hard to ensure that they're correct!
7
Yes, it would have been better if Obama's nominee to the Court had been confirmed and could have been the fifth vote to reach the right decision in Zubik. But he wasn't and probably won't be. In the labor case, if Scalia hadn't died, the union would have lost. So, in both cases, a 4-4 split means that unions will not be weakened even more anytime soon and that religious groups can't deny women employees contraceptive health coverage, thereby harming Obamacare. Hard to see why a 4-4 split is necessarily bad, or why a full Court is always preferable. As for the Zubik decision, by the time it makes it back to the Court, if it does, there should be the fifth vote to remind religious groups that their religion does not "trump" the Constitution.
136
We'll get our 5th vote and we'll crush those nuns!
1
Your statement that "In the labor case, if Scalia hadn't died, the union would have lost," says it all. We shouldn't know what the court would have ruled. Unfortunately, with Justice Scalia, you are probably correct, and isn't that the biggest travesty of all.
The refusal of the Senate to accept the will of the people, twice I might add, is what this is about, as are all the cases that will be undecided. This is about Congressional Republicans defying the will of the people for eight years, and doing to without consequence. This is political and it stinks.
The refusal of the Senate to accept the will of the people, twice I might add, is what this is about, as are all the cases that will be undecided. This is about Congressional Republicans defying the will of the people for eight years, and doing to without consequence. This is political and it stinks.
3
And what happens when Trump wins and the Senate (Republican? Democrat?) doesn't care for his nominee to the court? And then what happens when Trump pulls off some stunt that any rational judge would deem to be unconstitutional?
The GOP has already destroyed the representative branch of government through gerrymandering and the outsized influence of those underpopulated states not to mention their insistence that money is speech. Now that they've crippled the Supreme Court all that is necessary for the fascist takeover is the election of someone without a clue about separation of powers or a basic understanding of our Constitution. It only took the GOP 52 years to avenge the defeat of Barry Goldwater. Nice job, guys. I'll drop you a card when I get to Vancouver.
The GOP has already destroyed the representative branch of government through gerrymandering and the outsized influence of those underpopulated states not to mention their insistence that money is speech. Now that they've crippled the Supreme Court all that is necessary for the fascist takeover is the election of someone without a clue about separation of powers or a basic understanding of our Constitution. It only took the GOP 52 years to avenge the defeat of Barry Goldwater. Nice job, guys. I'll drop you a card when I get to Vancouver.
2
A good court often tells parties to difficult facts to work out a compromise "or else" there will be a ruling, and whoever was uncooperative won't like it.
These particular facts lend themselves to that approach. Make them work harder on it is a good next step.
Yes, the 4-4 divisions are a bad thing, but 5-4 divisions are also bad things. An important case truly ripe for decision ought best be decisive. The big ones were.
An example is Brown vs Board of Education ending separate but equal schooling, which was 9-0. It left no question of the future rulings of the Court. That was not a Court of like-minded Justices, but it had leadership and they worked hard to come together.
The assault on Obamacare needs that sort of decisive end, and it needs it after every effort to work out what can be worked out, every effort to clarify what is ripe for the Court to settle.
While I'd like to see a full Court, I would not like to see this case or the important ones like it decided by the one missing justice on a 5-4 basis. The Court owes the country a better job of it.
These particular facts lend themselves to that approach. Make them work harder on it is a good next step.
Yes, the 4-4 divisions are a bad thing, but 5-4 divisions are also bad things. An important case truly ripe for decision ought best be decisive. The big ones were.
An example is Brown vs Board of Education ending separate but equal schooling, which was 9-0. It left no question of the future rulings of the Court. That was not a Court of like-minded Justices, but it had leadership and they worked hard to come together.
The assault on Obamacare needs that sort of decisive end, and it needs it after every effort to work out what can be worked out, every effort to clarify what is ripe for the Court to settle.
While I'd like to see a full Court, I would not like to see this case or the important ones like it decided by the one missing justice on a 5-4 basis. The Court owes the country a better job of it.
257
What would you like to see?? A SCOTUS which only renders unanimous decisions?? Absurd. We are a nation of people. People who hold different opinions, including about matters of Constitutional law. There will almost always be split decisions unless we choose to have a monarchy. The "assault on Obamacare" continues only because one Party refuses to accept the decision of Congress, as enacted by this President, and refuses to accept the decision of SCOTUS saying the law passes Constitutional muster. If parts of the law are appropriate for appeal, a full Court should make the necessary decision, not a Party who refuses to accept anything it does not agree with.
3
Stephen Breyer once mentioned (as a call-in guest to a radio show) that the cases that make it to the Supreme Court are, almost by definition, difficult cases. I'm sympathetic to the spirit of your comment but I think that's asking and expecting too much of the Court. Our system, like it or not, works by a mechanism that allows for even a single vote's margin to make all the difference. Don't like the outcome? Change the Court (or courts) by changing the officeholders who appoint them.
3
The answer is clear, but given Hobby Lobby, and down one justice, they can't do it, even with Scalia gone. The compromise was already in place; the nuns refused to submit to the accommodation. I think this ruling essentially says, go away, and come back when we have a full court, which still could come down 5-4.
3