Judges who are not partisan are seldom punching bags.
Check into ALEC. I’ll bet this is high on their agenda...and they provide blueprints for Legislatures to use to implement their policies. If it all seems “coordinated”...it’s because it is.
6
There is a selective amnesia in many commenters concerning Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch.
Mitch McConnell was following the Biden Rule. At the time Mr. Biden enunciated it, he was a senior senator and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He articulated it in mid 1992, when the prospect of a Democratic president was increasingly likely. There was a very high chance that he would employ it. That he did not get a chance to implement his own rule is of no consequence.
Republicans have long memories--of Teddy Kennedy and Robert Bork, of Clarence Thomas and of the Biden Rule. They do know how to return fire and this is what infuriates the left, which prefers a "that was then, this is now" approach to matters of judicial combat.
Who knows? The next time a liberal state court judge issues a ruling cramping the Second Amendment, or upholding affirmative action quotas, and the Republicans start a furious recall movement, a la the Stanford swimmer, perhaps the left will join them.
3
Yes, judges should not be partisan punching bags. On the other hand, judges should not be politically partisan. Unfortunately from the SC on down, they now are. Gorsuch is a perfect example: He instantly grabbed at a post that he did not deserve, and should never have been offered under the circumstances. He, above all, knows perfectly well that his appointment was purely political and by accepting it he agreed with that purpose and wholeheartedly accepted it. Now all his "decisions" will be understood to be those of a pure political hack, not of a non-partisan judge. The fact he was quite willing to take a stolen seat demonstrates all we need to know about his lack of any ethics at all.
6
The Republican Party has committed itself to opposing representation by population, the right to vote, the rule of law, the importance of a free press, and the primacy of truth over fantasy. It has reduced itself to the White People's Party at Prayer on Wall Street.
The day will come when prospective candidates will be asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?"
I hope.
5
In effect, Republican lawmakers are saying the Al Gore should have refused to honor the Supreme Court's decision that gave the election to Bush. He should have just shown up to be sworn in on inauguration day. After all they shut down the vote count. They wouldn't let the people speak. Just a tad ironic.
5
Trump, plus Republicans at the state and federal level, show a lack of respect by disparaging the Judicial branches of government. Those that have no regard for the separation between branches of government should be voted out.
5
In Connecticut, the assembly just refused to confirm the governor's nominee for chief justice - on political grounds.
1
The editorial board bemoaning the politicization of judges? When a Supreme Court judge can replace 200 yrs of precedent with what a self proclaimed" wise Latina" can conjure up.. we have a problem.
6
The rule of money is steadily putting the nails in the coffin of the rule of law.
5
Neither should judges be partisan.
4
We here in Dallas elect 59 judges - state all the way down to J.P. Few, if any, voters can name more than one of them. The most important qualification in the primary is gender; and partisanship in the general. Merit has no impact on selection.
Dallas County re-elected a judge who told a rape victim in court that she was just asking for it. We defeated another judge only after his fourth public sanction for incompetence. We had a civil district judge employing prostitutes; another bad-mouthing the D.A. to his employees at a Subway; and another assault a fellow judge in a parking garage.
The Brennan Center can cry crocodile tears all they like. But it is not the evil Republicans who are discrediting the judiciary. The judiciary has done it to themselves. The Reps are simply taking advantage of an opportunity. Like so many of our other social institutions, the legal profession has become sclerotic: plagued by low professional standards and poor legal education.
The NYT ran a series of articles a few months back detailing the criminal justice crisis in the Bronx. It came down to persistent, rank incompetence on the part of the judiciary. Is it any wonder most Americans have lost confidence in the justice system?
7
In 1913 the American Judiciary Society was founded to help keep judges neutral. For a century one of its main points was to end partisan judicial elections. It was dissolved in 2014: another failed attempt to reform our dysfunctional legal system.
3
sadly, it was President Obama who politcized the DOJ which went after folks with different views, and the IRS that blocked conservative groups from getting the appropriate tax status. the media ignored these, at the time, despite their undermining the rule of law. we must all stand for rule of law, whichever party is in office.
6
"In Kansas, lawmakers are seeking to amend the state Constitution to strip the courts there of all power to rule on cases involving education funding. The push follows a ruling last year by the Kansas Supreme Court ordering the Legislature to find the money to fund the school system adequately by the end of this month or face a statewide school shutdown."
If the courts, legislature, and executive are co-equal branches of government, what are courts doing ordering the legislature to "find" (ie. raise taxes or cut some other expenditure) money for particular purposes? In the past, an amendment prohibiting courts from doing this would not have even been thinkable, since court-ordered spending decisions would have been unthinkable. Sigh. Times have changed. As a Democrat, I must admit Kansas Republicans (who are wrong about an awfully lot of things) are right on this one.
3
It depends what is in the state constitution. If the state constitution requires fully funded schools then the courts can rule on whether the state is fulfilling it's constitutionally required function.
1
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is foolhardy to opine about the validity of a judicial decision without knowing the facts.
The fact is that the Kansas Supreme Court found that the legislature failed to comply with the Kansas Constitution’s requirements to adequately fund education.
The constitution is the highest state law in Kansas. Since the U.S. Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, courts have been authorized to determine the constitutionality of actions by the legislative branch.
If the people of the State of Kansas want to change this, then they need to amend their constitution so that it no longer requires the legislature to fund education adequately.
4
If judges shouldn't be partisan punching bags, then they probably shouldn't be directly elected, or indirectly appointed by directly elected politicians. Maybe judges should be selected by a panel of their piers after serving at least 20 years (10 years in the DA's and 10 years in the Public Defenders office). And disqualified if they ever worked in a corporate law office, or any sort of (corporate owned) arbitration proceedings.
If judges are to be beyond the pale, then let them compete with their service to 'We the People'.
3
Mitch McConnell single handily prevented an Obama appointment to the Supreme Court. President Trump openly displays contempt for judges. So two branches of our government led by the GOP are willing to throw our Judiciary under the bus for their political gains. Today we need the Judicial branch to rule whenever and wherever possible in favor of saving our democracy in a effort to stave the rise of fascism.
8
I really fear our country is falling apart.
4
If judges don't want to be treated a partisan punching bags then they should do their job - and only their job; interpreting existing law, NOT choosing a socially desirable outcome and then reasoning their way backwards to that outcome. That's how we ended up with Citizens United, Roe v Wade, Obergfell and Burwell.
5
Better 40 years late noticing this problem, than never.
1
Judges shouldn't be elected at state level. The rot starts right there.
1
Providence has been murdered by those who espouse it!
1
You use "democracy" as a magic word. Judicial partisanship violates democracy, therefore, you think that judicial partisanship is evil.
Do we all have to agree with you? Or can we question democracy?
Did democracy prevent slavery or did democracy enforce it?
Did democracy pay full compensation to the slaves?
Did democracy steal land from American Indians?
Did democracy return the stolen land?
Did democracy prevent the Vietnam War?
Did democracy pay full compensation to its victims in Southeast Asia?
Did democracy prevent the atomic bombings of cities?
Did democracy pay full compensation to the victims?
Did democracy harm actors careers with House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)?
Did democracy pay full compensation to these actors?
Did democracy prevent the war against Iraq?
Did democracy pay full compensation to the victims?
If you would be wrong to victimize these people, isn't democracy also wrong to victimize them?
You worship democracy and suppose that everyone else should also. Why? Do you think democracy has stopped victimizing people?
Do you think we forget all the victims of democracy?
How do you forget? Are your writers prevented from reading the NY Times?
Outside your minds, the word "democracy" has no magical power.
12
muhammad, how are human rights in non democratic countries?
how are womens rights in Arab countries? I'm curious. thanks.
8
Trump has shown the way on this. And the slope of disrespect for important government institutions is indeed slippery. Trump is destroying this country from the inside out. In the immortal words of Pogo, "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."
7
What an insipid editorial. Yes there is a problem with (mostly) Republicans to undermine the authority of the judiciary and dismantle the system of checks and balances guaranteed by the constitution.
And yes, Republicans seem willing to cheat to win a majority of legislative seats on a minority vote.
But what do you propose? How do we stop this autocratic move to undermine the media and decimate the authority of the courts?
4
The myth of an independent judiciary was proven false with the Bush v. Gore decision. With conservative justices on the Supreme Court acting as nothing more than Republican Party hacks, the respect Americans once had for the judiciary has been replaced, and deservedly so, with contempt. That they are now being treated like any other political organization is hardly surprising.
8
Many judges are not reluctant to express their opinion on policy so I guess it goes both ways.
4
I once read a military paper that discussed how to now quickly overwhelm an enemy by attacking all aspects of their political-economy at the same time. If you attack only their military, it can be slowly degraded, but it can be reinforced by a the underlying economy. Rommel told Patton, one of our tracks can beat five of yours, but you always have a sixth.
Attacking any one of a government's institutions will degrade that institution slowly.
But if you attack all of a government's institutions, it's political system, courts, economy, education system, etc., each will slowly degrade until they can no longer support each other. At that point there are no reinforcements and the whole system degrades quickly.
Trump, Fox, other billionaires, and their allies are attacking all of our institutions of governance at the same time.
When Trump puts billionaires who oppose government in charge of our institutions, those are attacks on those institutions. When he attacks his own appointees in the justice department, the is attacking the only agency that can hold him accountable. When they attack the judiciary, the FBI, the press, minorities, science and science funding, education, blue states (with massive tax increases), etc. all at the same time, so of the time, they are trying to degrade all of our defenses and the ability of one institution to come to the aid of another institution, so they can degrade the entire constitutional governance system we have created.
Compromise?
6
The courts have been increasingly legislating from the bench for several decades. Now you see the reaction. Legislatures reigning in the courts. It is not a good development, but the answer is not greater judicial activism, but allowing the compromises to develop that houses of representatives move toward
5
If judges wish to be insulated from a politically charged electorate--or from state legislatures, they need to stop acting like politicians--and stop legislating from the bench.
We ask judges to interpret our laws--as written, and in a broader sense, our U.S. Constitution as well as the various state constitutions. The problem is, judges feel compelled to go beyond what is actually written, and beyond the intent of the law--and substitute their own views--typically Progressive ones. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is perhaps the body most famous do engaging in this practice. Because this court is primarily comprised of liberal justices, and because they often substitute their views in place of law--they are the court most often overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And speaking of the U.S Supreme Court, it has it's own challenge with this very issue. Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer are Liberals and invariably vote as a block. They seem to show no reverence for the U.S. Constitution, certainly do not respect it--or use it as a guide to their decision making. Fortunately, there have often been enough originalists on the court, who do use the Constitution as their guide--and who blunt the legislative tendencies of the other four.
Bottom line for judges? If you don't want to be treated like a politician, stop acting like one. Stick to interpreting the law.
9
Oh please !!
Citizens United is destroying the country.
That is not progressive.
Pro-corporate decisions are hardly in the best interest of the United States.
5
@Grove. It's an odd thing for those who bemoan the Citizens United decision. They are always from the "anti-corporate crowd"...and love to spout the phrase, "Corporations are not People". Yet when it come to unions...they change their tune. Unions are not people either--and despite the fact they claim to represent groups of people, not all members agree with seeing their hard-earned contribution of dues--being donated always to liberal candidates.
I tried to press Bernie Sanders on this issue at a town meeting. I asked him, "why won't you admit, that if corporations be prohibited from contributing to political campaigns, so too should unions?". He simply wouldn't answer the question. No surprise--at that time, his 20 largest campaign contributors were unions. So much for ideological purity.
1
If courts are going to make political decisions, there isn't any recourse but to hold them accountable. A conservative judiciary that seeks to apply the law even handedly, and demurs on political questions, is the best result for everyone.
4
Trump set this in motion by pardoning Arpaio for his criminal contempt of court conviction for violating a federal judge's order. Trump sent the message that his contempt for judges is bigger than everybody else's. Is it any wonder that GOP lawmakers jumped on that circus train?
4
Would it her asking the Times too much to fix their site so I can print up the editorials? I pay good money for this service. I don't have any trouble getting every targeted advertisement from the Times so why not fix this site?!
1
Reading these comments... If these people truly are Americans (and not Russian trolls), then I say let the southern and middle states form their own union. Why should progressive states continue to finance these regressive red states. If they want to live in a dictatorship third-world nation -- let them! But they won't be getting any more money from the taxpayers of the democratic states. The sooner we get rid of the red parasites the better.
4
What a horrible, cruel joke the USA has become.
6
In their desire to guarantee white values, the GOP will do anything, anything, to make it happen.
Fascists do this and unless we fight, it will Make America White Again.
3
"The country's going to hell in a handbasket." [timeless trope]
I'm closer to 80 than to 50...and, for once, am glad about it.
2
"But public officials must not treat the judiciary as if it were just another political branch."
Monkey see, monkey do . . .
Let's not forget Mitch McConnell's refusal to hold hearings on President Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Judge Merrick Garland, placing politics above judicial independence. Mitch violated the Constitution to get a "more favorable" conservative Supreme Court Justice, damaging the credibility of all three branches of government in one fell swoop: the Executive, Legislative and, of course, the Judicial Branch.
Maurice F. Baggiano, Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
4
The Republican party is a disgrace. Saying NOTHING at all while this oaf, the president is in office. They deserve to lose power, and I hope they lose big time.
4
Correction: The headline for this op-ed piece should read "America's State Courts Are Under Republican Attack."
Let's be accurate here and call a spade a spade.
5
How did America become a fascist state? Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly...
1. Infiltrate the courts. Replace judges with unqualified party sychophants.
2. Dismantle government institutions that protect and serve the people. Remove rights for individuals. Make corporations people.
3. Replace patriotism with nationalism. Party over people.
4. Consolidate and dismantle journalism, replace news with propaganda and disinformation disguised as news.
5. Mix religion and politics to disguise your actions and certify your authoritarian moral superiority, which extends only to those who fall in line. (Blue eyes vs brown eyes.)
6. Gaslight your opponents. Accuse everyone of doing the things you are actually doing. Lie and deny. Deflect and blame. Fire, imprison, and poison anyone who opposes you.
7. Pit citizens against each other on emotional issues (guns, abortion, immigration). Keep the masses occupied with hatred to draw attention away from your treasonous activities.
8. Rewrite laws. Change the Constitution. Create a police state. Hold military parades in your honor.
9. Control elections. Sham elections. Gerrymander opponent districts.
10. Remove presidential term limits and become ruler for life. Make your dictatorship a family affair where nepotism, cronyism and corruption become rule of the land.
2
Democrats started this in 1991:
Clarence Thomas
5
And then they doubled down when President Obama called out the Supreme Court at the State of the Union. And not a word from the NY Times then.
5
The NYT is correct that Judges should not be Partisan Punching bags. But the only way to do this is through the basic principal of JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. We may ask judges to assume roles properly assigned to the legislative and executive branches when those branches do not respond in the way we consider to be correct or in our interests. But it is the duty of the Judiciary to restrain itself from being that alternative no matter how much the Judge may agree with the petitioner.
Once the Judge abandons that Judicial Restraint she or he has assumed the partisan role that belongs to the other branches of government and becomes subject to the same partisan criticism of the other branches of government.
4
We're supposed to have three separate branches of government. One of them is the judiciary. The Republicans have systematically targeted all levels of government, from local to state to federal, & their objective is to crush all three branches of government & all fifty states under their boot.
We see it in operation daily here in Texas, where the Republican governor & his cronies in the state legislature are taking a hammer to smash all of the attempts of citizens to maintain local control of their local governments.
Republicans are dismayed because millions of Texans in urban areas don't want to be ruled by radical Christian theocrats (here, there is an unholy coalition between conservative Catholics & Protestant evangelicals). These so-called proponents of "small government" are happy to sue the federal government every day over the issue of "local control," but, like the gigantic hypocrites they are, the minute cities try to assert their right to local legislation, they become apoplectic & start passing draconian state laws preventing cities from governing themselves.
What it comes down to is that they only approve of local control when the control is being exercised by them.
Now the judiciary is their target, because the only way they can continue to maintain their undemocratic hold over the people is to ensure that only conservative judges who will uphold their undemocratic theocracy are installed in office. It's a three-pronged strategy to take over the country.
3
Question: does this apply to any/all outside groups who try to remove a judge when they don’t like a particular verdict or sentencing? I’m thinking of Judge Aaron Persky in the Brock Turner case. Stanford Law professor Michelle Dauber is spearheading a group trying to remove Persky. I’m not advocating either way but I cannot see the difference.
4
Remember how during the Obama years conservative pundits basically invented this concept of "activist judges" as a way to cast any law they didn't like as illegitimate? It's really wild how despite the idea that the courts were partisan was pure fiction, it's now being regarded as true, which effectually turns court appointments into partisan races. Conservatives have an uncanny knack for forcing reality to accord with paranoia and falsehood.
Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court with expanded number of seats, nothing new.
3
Just a few days ago, in this very paper, a former Supreme Court justice advocated repealing one of the key items in the Bill of Rights, because his liberal side of the dispute can’t get what it wants, not so long as the constitution remains intact.
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment https://nyti.ms/2pIaPuh
But now the editorial board complains of the politicization of the judiciary?
That horse left the barn long ago, kicked over a lantern and burned down the city on a hill.
The Republican blowback against the judiciary has been 50 years in the making as the liberals in the judiciary, both state and federal, conjured up one inalienable “right” after another out of thin air and liberal ideology, and then sought to make the other side finance their leftist dreams.
Somehow they never seemed to understand the right to be left alone. Just leave folks alone. Stop attacking them, stop demanding that they finance your fantasies of a socialist paradise. And start acknowledging that many people’s woes are, in fact, self-inflicted.
With that one simple change of approach, you’d see the conservative attacks on the judiciary greatly diminish in both magnitude and frequency.
7
We all know that judges make biased decisions based on their politics. So they are therefore subject to be criticized when they make outrageous decisions based solely on politics. The Mueller probe is the best example of a man with the ability to judge a situation but using extreme political bias to create an outcome - THIS IS VERY WRONG!
3
Before anybody runs for political office, a refresher course in separation of powers should be administered to them. This is getting atrocious! We shall end up like Venezuela, or some of those dictatorships we abhor.
1
I’m sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding PA. The PA judges didn’t set themselves up as above the other branches of government. The PA court complied with the state constitution and drew a bi-partisan map after the Republican controlled legislature refused to do so. PA Republicans are appalled that they are finally being told no in their quest to control PA forever and ever, amen. Follow the money to the truth.
1
I, for one, am not experiencing vapors as a result of these practices, and I do not think anyone else should.
First, is what the Republicans doing legal? If not, challenge it. If it is, then resort to moral and political suasion, as long as your own house is in order.
Second, realize that the left's histrionics about Trump undermines its ability to use moral suasion. If the President must be resisted "by all means necessary", as the Resistance argues, to the point of actively interfering with federal immigration law efforts, per Mayor Schaff in Oakland (her acts bordered on obstruction of justice, for which she was sanctified by the left)--what problem with Republican legislators and executives pursuing wholly legal procedures to change or override the courts?
7
I agree that the legislatures and executives should respect the independence of the judiciary. However, I also believe that the judiciary should respect the independence of the legislatures and executives.
By creating a district map, as they did in PA, or telling a president that he does not have the right to cancel an executive order that a previous president had the power to issue, as in the DACA injunction, the judiciary has set themselves up as above the other two branches. This is not what I believe was the obvious intent of the framers of the Constitution, nor was it the practice for the most part of the history of the United States.
We need for the executive to stop ruling by decrees, even if they are called executive orders. We need for the courts to stop making laws by judicial fiat and rule on the laws as they are written, not how they wish they were. We need the legislature to stop punishing the courts and the executives for doing their jobs. In other words, we need basic respect for one another.
When I took civics, something that should never have been removed from the high school curriculum, I was taught that the legislature made the laws, the courts interpreted the laws passed by the legislature, and the executive enforced them. These days, all three branches want to take over all the functions of the others, and we can see the lack of respect they have for each other reflected in the lack of respect that the citizens have for them all.
4
Pa judges drew up a map because the Republican controlled legislature refused to do so. The Pa judges complied with the state constitution. They did not place themselves
Wasn't this once called 'building a legacy'?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/us/politics/building-legacy-obama-res...
2
And yet, when Democratic politicians, like NYS Assemblyman Abinanti seek to legislate decisions of courts, the NY Times does not care. Abinanti seeks to prevent a vote which NYS Judge Cacace has ordered. Too bad he is a Democrat.
4
"When highly committed parties strongly believe [in] things that they cannot achieve democratically, they don’t give up on their beliefs — they give up on democracy." David Frum
1
I hereby jump-in where angels fear to tread.
I realize that few if any would concur with my cynicism's sense of doom.
So I apologize for expressing the truths as I interpret hard reality.
The judiciary--as the editorial infers to me btw--is also a political institution.
Our nation is too torn and divisive to pretend judges are a-political.
Of course I wish this nastiness weren't so.
Goodwill apparently, to me at least, is bye bye.
Otherwise another fine and idealistic editorial.
Judges are political appointees and some are elected.
Let's not be braggarts to ourselves.
Subjectivity isn't fair, but human judges can't be otherwise, can we?
These vicious Republicans are using our government in a cruel game to win---because they know Americans themselves do not want the cruel, draconian world that the Republicans want.
No longer do they play "fair"--they need to bribe and/or fire the umpires, hobble their opponents, and twist the rules in ways never intended by the original, good-faith founders.
Dem's are horribly naive to think they just need to "play by the rules" and they will win---because these despicable Republicans are poisoning the game itself.
1
Thank you for this editorial.
1
It is basically dishonest to talk about "politicians" in this context. It is Republicans who are trying to eliminate any constraints on their control of power.
3
Seems the pattern is that Republicans are doing something bad and the NYT board says it's "lawmakers" and a "partisan" problem.
1
Oh, how wonderfully ironic. The NY Times editorial board is suddenly concerned about the consequences of “brute tribal warfare.” Wouldn’t want to engage in that, would we.
4
Typical unamerican acts of a, what should now be recognized as a subversive organization. If any part of our three equal branches needs reining in its the lunatic fringe in the executive branch. The courts and constitution are our protection from conservative dictatorship.
The Constitution requires the separation of Church and State. It never expected nor intended that politics becomes a religion and like all fundamental movements, reason no longer prevails. Self perpetuation of the politician and political appointees is the only thing that matters, no matter the amount of harm done. For the People by the People ... no longer makes up the fabric of government. All parties are guilty, all those on the right and left are wrong.
To this 69 year old who firmly believes our country is in the grips of ruination the only answer, a third political, maybe and fourth poltical party is beeded, one's whose aim is to restore sanity and common sense to government.
2
This article is the height of hypocrisy. Let's consider a few points that the Times ignores. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, lionized by the left, frequently spouts her political philosophies in public. Where is the criticism for that? What about Obama castigating the supreme court for the Citizens United decision in his state of the union address? Recently deceased Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th circuit bragged that his every decision was made with progressive goals in mind. If the Times wants the criticism of court rulings to cease, perhaps it should encourage the courts to make decisions based on law.
6
The courts are making their decisions on the law . The problem is conservatives are not capable of understanding this fact,or the laws that bring about these decisions.
3
This excellent comment is very much on the mark!
1
If we had good sense, which we evidently don't, we should work toward electing and appointing judges who are intelligent, thoughtful and fair. We should not be looking for raving ideologues, of any flavor, but I guess that horse is out of the barn. The way we are proceeding, we wind up with incompetent judges who do not have the right temperament for the job they are called to do. But hey, we can count on them to rule the right way on our pet issue.
It makes me think of the judge in the Dennis Hastert trial, who excoriated him from the bench about Mr. Hastert being a child molester. The problem was that the trial in question was over his financial dealings, not his purported sexual assault. I noticed that most of the commenters here at the time didn't seem to see any problem with a judge letting fly with as-yet unproven accusations from his very powerful perch, and, arguably, letting those hot, irrelevant (but popular) feelings influence his ruling. (BTW, I'm a Democrat.)
3
Thirty years of activist juciaries and you on the left are surprised there is finally pushback?
5
It's fascinating how an article defending the independence of the judiciary immediately leads you to attribute it to "the left".
1
Seriously? That ship has sailed the day President Obama called out the Supreme Court Justices in the State of the Union of all places. Talk about politicizing the judicial branch --- see the video of the State of the Union ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU
As stated in the editorial paragraph highlighted here ----
Are we the only ones sensing a pattern here? Across the country, state judges are under increasing fire from lawmakers and outside groups angered by their rulings, their power, their tenure or simply their independence. That independence is, of course, central to the separation of powers, which defines American government, and to the legitimacy of the judicial branch in the eyes of the public. Going after judges for partisan reasons may not be a particularly new pastime, but it has become more popular as America’s politics have become more polarized and as brute tribal warfare replaces a respect for basic democratic values.
Where was the OUTRAGE in the NY Times when Obama did what he did in the State of the Union?
Turn in your Dditorial Opinion Press Credentials NOW New York Times.
6
The NYT definition of "independent" state judges seems to be judges who side with democrats and have little respect for the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
4
Not as much concern when Gov. Brown made a slew of openly admitted partisan judicial appointments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/us/politics/jerry-brown-governor-of-c...
3
I agree that political attacks on the courts (from any side) are terrible for our democracy. However, this editorial glosses over the left's attack on the separation of powers over the last 50+ years. The courts are not legislatures. Judges decide what the law says, not what they want it to say.
Here are some examples of liberal judicial overreach, all of which are supported by this publication:
1) Roe vs Wade: This is the most obvious example. You might support abortion, or you might not, but that should be completely irrelevant to the Supreme Court. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and this fact was recognized for almost 200 years. Therefore, it is left up to the people, through elected legislatures. Some states legalized abortion, some did not. This is a healthy democracy at work, but the Supreme Court ended all debate by inventing a right to abortion.
2) Gay marriage decision: Once again, the Constitution leaves this up to state legislatures, but 5 Ivy League lawyers decided to unilaterally declare that gay marriage must be legal.
Currently, there is a case about whether religious freedom and free speech (Constitutional rights) outweigh the right to be served by a private business (not a Constitutional right). The answers is clearly yes, but liberal judges, supported by this publication, have decided otherwise. We'll see what the Supreme Court says.
8
In this hyper-partisan era of big money in politics (to wit, the Koch bros) it is difficult to believe that the assaults on the independence of the state judiciaries are separate, home-grown phenomena.
It's not unreasonable to think that the concept comes from a central source, perhaps a right-wing think tank or a Steve-Bannon-like strategist.
Whatever the source, if these initiatives are successful, they will amount to a Republican coup d'état that merges the legislative and executive powers and turns the state supreme courts into potted plants or, worse yet, star chambers to persecute political opponents.
In the same vein, let's not overlook the way Republicans are packing the federal judiciary with carefully groomed superstars such as John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch. These thoroughbreds are far too subtle to resort to the sort of crude measures being cooked up at the state level.
However, vulgarian-in-chief Donald Trump let the cat out of the bag recently when he bragged about how the Republicans have taken the U.S. Supreme Court. Is there any doubt that Trump was referring to the Federalist Society's favorite sons, Roberts and Gorsuch?
2
I see few legislators here in Kansas that understand the importance of an independent judiciary to the function of a democracy. All these hyper-partisans want is their policy to pass and to be re-elected. They have no interest in protecting Kansas and America from fascism. It is truly disgusting.
36
In my vision the job of judges is to implement the law, not to "interpret" it, nor to guard the constitution.
Some people may like it when the courts strike down some outrageous decision. But in the end the consequence is that the politicians who made the decision are never held accountable for it - what increases their chances of being re-elected.
1
Seriously? That ship has sailed the day President Obama called out the Supreme Court Justices in the State of the Union of all places. Talk about politicizing the judicial branch --- see the video of the State of the Union ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU
As stated in the editorial paragraph highlighted here ----
Are we the only ones sensing a pattern here? Across the country, state judges are under increasing fire from lawmakers and outside groups angered by their rulings, their power, their tenure or simply their independence. That independence is, of course, central to the separation of powers, which defines American government, and to the legitimacy of the judicial branch in the eyes of the public. Going after judges for partisan reasons may not be a particularly new pastime, but it has become more popular as America’s politics have become more polarized and as brute tribal warfare replaces a respect for basic democratic values.
Where was the OUTRAGE in the NY Times when Obama did what he did in the State of the Union?
Turn in your Editorial Opinion Press Credentials NOW New York Times.
5
Adly, this has become the standard in American politics, scream loudly and trash the other guy, even if their job is to settle these types of disputes.
2
This is an excellent treatise on how successful the Koch cabal is dismantling the foundations of our democracy, and building their feudal empire.
4
The right is waging a war against the US Constitution, and has been at least since there has been a "Tea Party". This war is cloaked as the simplification and reduction of government, but the actual, underlying objective is to replace democracy with oligarchy. The wealthy conservatives want to rule with their money, and they are willing to partner with foreign enemies, lie, cheat, steal and subvert to reach their objective.
4
One of the biggest problems that we face is the fact that the judges being appointed are ideologues who push a political agrnda.
Judges are supposed to be impartial.
See Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
He is pro 1%, pro corporation, and strongly anti average American citizen.
Judges like this can’t be let off the hook.
3
You left out the movement in California to remove Judge Persky over the Brock Turner sentence. Surely as egregious an example as any.
3
Absolutely correct!
not to mention Mitch McConnel stole the supreme court or that John Roberts has never ruled against business
2
Sadly, this all started with Bush v Gore. When the supreme court subverted and politicized the most sacred of all democratic rights - of the citizen to elect their President democratically - they started the ruinous slide into partisanship in the judiciary.
4
Why not note these are R actions.
1
This is what authoritarian regimes do.
5
President Trump leads on attacks on judges.
4
The legacy of Bush v. Gore.
4
The Editorial Board of the Times should have run this editorial at the time President Trump was a candidate trashing a federal judge only because of the judges apparent ethnicity.
Rather, the Times over and over harped on Hillary's emails. The CJR documented how the Times focused during the campaign much more frequently on Hillary's emails that it did on her policies.
Because of the Time's deafness to what is real news and its preoccupation with spectacle, it contributed to the ascendancy, singularly to the US presidency, of profanity, vulgarity, impetuous conduct, calumny of other politicians and notable citizens, and of the courts to the status of a punching bag.
The Times has no moral authority to speak of how the judicial system should be beyond political fights, or to lecture anyone on how a political system should work. When it had some moral authority, it worked to deliver Trump to the White House.
3
When you don't get basic facts correct, your Editorial is discredited: "And in Pennsylvania, a dozen Republican lawmakers have moved to impeach four justices of the state’s Supreme Court — all of them Democrats — for their majority vote in January to strike down a congressional district map..."
No one is trying to impeach PA Supreme Court Justices because they struck down the Congressional map -- that is and was well within their power. The only reason impeachment is being discussed is because the Court decided to usurp powers explicitly and solely reserved to the Legislative Branch under both the US and PA constitutions. When the Court decided to act as a Super-Legislature and draw their own map, rather than sending the Legislature back to the drawing board, they clearly violated our constitutions and their oaths to defend and protect them.
15
Really, what about the oath that elected legislators are supposed to uphold. those in power want to cheery pick what is or isn't fair or justified. Forget the fact that's what judges are for, they are put there as the independent interpreter of what is or isn't constitutional or within statutory limits.
This is a very slippery slope, it's sword that cuts both way's. The GOP won't be in power long, eventually as it always happens, people will see that this is a party that's willing to do anything to stay in power, that is to rule, not to govern. To take from me to give to the rich and corporations There in lies the difference. The ability to govern, to live with a court ruling whether you like it or not. It's odd how the GOP is so desperate that they have to resort to tactics like these. Since this is still a government by and for the people not a single ideology, the people in these states including Washington state, need to stand up and vote out those who wish to poison the judiciary by getting rid of those who don't think like them, theses are also traits that dictators use to stay in power.
13
But you forgot to mention that the Republican controlled legislature was given the first opportunity to redraw the voting districts map. They submitted a map that pretty much produced the same results as the one struck down.
There is a citizen based movement called Fair Districts PA that has been fighting for these changes and that is how this fight ended up before the Court.
No one paying attention was deceived by the Republican revision. The state Supreme Court redrew the map to represent the districts in a fairer way after that happened.
The SCOTUS refused to hear the case then brought by the Republicans from the state legislature, so the map that was redrawn by the PA Supreme Court was allowed to stand.
Not ones to be deterred however, we now have this ridiculous attempt by them to impeach those State S C justices who were elected fairly by the voters of Pennsylvania and who happen to be Democrats.
15
Does your discrediting rule apply to you as well? Since you are misrepresenting the facts. The court asked the legislature to redraw the map and they couldn't. THEN the court redrew the map.
14
I dont see conservatives trying to legislate through the judiciary.. That is a progressive tactic..
10
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Here you go, this covers more than the Supreme Court but gives you the overall picture. "The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court
With the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo has reared a generation of originalist élites. The selection of Neil Gorsuch is just his latest achievement" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/the-conservative-pipeline-...
Meanwhile, you cannot say that the election of Bush II was not political. His brother was governor, the state Secretary of State was on his campaign, and the voting machines executives were many of them staunch Republicans. Nor is Citizens United apolitical.
14
Then what is exactly is are the republicans in those states doing. By attempting to get those judges out who clearly don't agree with the interpretations by judges in their states. Conservatives, by getting rid of judges that don't agree with them, that is legislating via the judiciary.
And by the way, since when have the democrats ever tried to get rid of a judge because he or she ruled against them. Never, that's the short answer. As I've said, this is a slippery slope, it erodes the rights due all of us guaranteed by the constitution. At what point do conservatives start writing laws that negatively effect their constituency you for example. I for one won't stand by and let the state I live in become a place where republicans try to undermine the judiciary, because they are losing respect for our democracy, because that's all they have left, their racist platform only carries them so far.
And maybe conservatives, the GOP, whatever you wish to call them, should try doing things on the up and up, and not try and gerrymander their way into office, or try and suppress votes, oh, but that would require a real platform that doesn't degenerate everyone and everything.
10
Answer Justice Rose Bird. She was removed from office in a coalition of Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, my father, a life-long liberal Democrat and member of the John F Kennedy Civil Rights Commission was crucial in seeing Bird removed from the California Supreme Court. Why? Because time and again she legislated from the bench. As my father noted at the time. Act like a legislator and you will be treated like one: voted out.
The people of KS are considering a move to evict the judiciary from making taxing and spending decisions? Do tell. Is not the definition of the word “adequately”, when applied to school funding, necessarily a matter of legislative discretion, not judicial “interpretation”? What could be truer than the sentiment expressed in NC: “If you’re going to act like a legislator, perhaps you should run like one”?
“Judicial independence” means the obligation to apply the law, regardless of the views of transient political majorities. It does NOT imply the power to make up the law to suit the whim of black-robed leftist politicians.
So, e.g., the assertion that judges possess the power to “legalize same sex marriage” is absurd, and the politicians who so ruled deserved to get bounced for abuse of their office.
Judicial orders depend for their legitimacy upon the perception that judges aren’t politicians, and leftist “judges” ARE politicians. So, for instance, in PA, it was absolutely justifiable to rule that bizarrely shaped districts violate the PA Constitution. But to impose a remedy which resolved EVERY boundary question in favor of the Democrats makes a mockery of “judicial independence”. If elected Democratic judges choose to act like elected Democrats rather than judges, they can hardly object when they’re treated as such.
If the judiciary dislikes being treated “as if it were just another political branch”, it would behoove it to act like judges rather than partisans.
2
The New York Times is just reaping what it has sown. How dare it pretend that the courts are above politics when there has been no more vigorous champion for politicizing our courts. Time and again, this paper has urged that the courts should usurp the rights of the people to make their own choices through their elected representatives. * Most Americans support the death penalty but the Times has urged that the Supreme Court should declare it unconstitutional. *A majority of Americans oppose race and gender-based preferences in college admissions and employment. * Many if not most states had already voted to recognized a right to same-sex marriage, and others were moving in that direction, when the Supreme Court, in an act of Supreme arrogance, pre-empted the people's right to decide the issue. * The same-sex marriage case was a replay of the Court's power grab in Roe v. Wade. The list goes on. No wonder courts are under partisan attack! That is where laws are made in America. Wipe the crocodile tears from your face!
24
The shame is that I cannot recommend this comment more than once!!
TNYT unabashedly advocates for a blatantly political judiciary, and evaluates rulings NOT based upon whether they comport with the law as it happens to be, but on whether they advance leftist policy goals. Consider the absolute absurdity of averring that the Constitution protects abortion. One can believe, passionately – if irrationally – that “choice” is crucial to women’s equality, but it’s simply impossible to argue that it’s actually in the document itself. Ditto gay marriage.
To a leftist, the Constitution requires leftist policy. RBG has never, not once, ever cast a vote which deviated from her political leanings. Ditto SS, EK, and, usually, SB. These folks are NOT judges; they are politicians, who make no pretense to obeying the law, as they believe they possess the power to write the law.
And this paper is down with that. Arrive at the Politically Correct result; that’s all that matters. Is it any surprise that the nuttier the decision by a USCA or USDC, the more likely that WJC or BHO appointed its author?
We conservatives admit: the Constitution does NOT require that we win the debate on the law, however persuasive the evidence on the policy. When a leftist admits that Roe is great policy, but is simply not law, she can be taken seriously.
6
Ah, they sow and they reap. You are spot on in regard to Roe v. Wade. It is crass judicial legislating. Regardless of how one views on abortion, locating it within the penumbra of a constitutional right to privacy is a huge mistake. This was a matter properly left to the legislature, 49 of which prohibited abortion in 1973. Once the Court began to engage in legislating, there could be no principled way back to its judicial function. They wanted to be politicians - careful what you wish for.
Right. Can you say Merrick Garland (a moderate Republican) with a straight face? Gore v. Bush 2000, with Jeb Bush, governor, FL Sec of State in Bush's campaign, red states using voter suppression, intimidation, and unverifiable machines from companies whose CEOs were also tied to Bush? Can you say Citizens United with a straight face? Kris Kobach with a straight face? Trump's lies with a straight face?
The takeover of the courts and local authorities by Republicans in local and state venues has been going on for several decades, as detailed with more than adequate documentation by Jane Mayer in Dark Money.
Fake is not an alternative, it is a lie. Promoting lies is dishonest, pure and simple.
The NYTimes has tried, in the face of bullying, to stand up for the truth, and it has done its best to be fair, evidenced by your "pick" here. Unlike Fox/Breitbart/4chan/trolls, they have steadfastly advocated for the truth.
Hitlers' people also criminalized opposition.
"Trump’s Real Personnel Victory: More Conservative Judges" https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victo...
The increasingly extreme Republican regimes of this decade ... have tended to act as if narrow electoral majorities were a mandate for vast political change, and as if those groups who supported their opponents should have no voice at all. For the past decade, these politics have redesigned actual towns and cities"
https://tinyurl.com/ydd3zrj6 (WaPo)
8
Your partisan views are on display here, and it seems it comes with a clouded view of our system of government. Yes judges should be insulated against political pressure and independent of partisan pressure. But they should not be politically unaccountable. Politics is how a democacy governs itself. It is a necessary function for administering policy. The legislature at both the federal and state levels created the judiciary. Not the other way around. Legislatures can abolish what they create, and they can punish what they create, and remove judges if necessary. If the President can be impeached, surely judges can be also. Legislatures should impeach judges who step outside the bounds and create laws themselves. It is a good reminder to them that they too are not above the law and not above the people who create laws through their legislatures.
1
Should we consider/can we have our entire judicial system be nominated vs. voted in? By politicizing the choice of judges, aren't we already making a bad decision?
What people often fail to realize is that thousands of judges go to work every day simply doing the business of the courts -- trying all kinds of routine cases (criminal, divorce, civil lawsuits, juvenile proceedings), managing dockets, sentencing offenders, etc. And these are the types of cases appellate judges are called upon to review. Rarely do they handle matters of political significance, and, when they do, they must set aside their own political beliefs and rule according to the law. We don't want politicians on the bench. Rather, we want smart, fair, hardworking, efficient judges who take their jobs seriously. If we politicize the courts, we'll get what we deserve.
1
When the motivation for everything has become a game of partisan gain, why wouldn't the GOP (let's be honest about the authoritarian leaning of the party) view judges as pawns. The GOP more than ever today is anti-democratic. And I would further say, unAmerican. Do we really need more evidence than the subversion of the foundations of our governing institutions as proof of their sedition?
2
Democrats are the authoritarians. Who else tells people what size of soda they are allowed to buy?
1
The essence of our government used to be that there were constraints which mitigated popular rule, thus preventing tyranny of the majority. In 2016 "light and transient" reasons, along with cynical manipulation by foreign powers and reactionary billionaires gave us the regime we have today.
A nation gets the government it deserves and the United States we knew no longer exists.
1
It's not bad to remove judges, who legislate, from the bench, particularly when their actions serve elites and corporations, rather than citizens. It's not bad to remove judges who have been bought.
1
Well, you parroted the Fox News talking points, but are you actually familiar with any of these cases? I can tell that here in Pennsylvania, the redrawing of voting districts was long overdue and would have been seen as such by any impartial judge. I love how its OK for conservatives when the Scalias and Thomas's of the world impose their conservative viewpoint on court rulings but when more liberal judges cast differing opinions they are all of a sudden "legislating from the bench".
1
@ChesBay
Yes, it is "bad" (actually worse than bad) to remove judges for something other than actual crimes or judicial malfeasance. There would be no Civil Rights for black people in the U.S. if the South had been able to impeach Warren Burger (as they advertised their desire to do on billboards) when his court ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional.
This is the problem in a nutshell. This is a quote from an Oil exec regarding the 2018 elections. "If I had to bet right now, I’d say we lose the House,” said Dan Eberhart, a wealthy oil industry executive and major GOP fundraiser raising cash for several Senate contenders." "We" are not the oil industry. "We" are the people of the United States and until big money is taken out of politics, "We" are going to be at the mercy of "their" choices. VOTE
4
Hillary raised twice as much money as Trump. You ought to check your premises.
2
I have been a regular to pay attention to NY Times editorials, as it is informative and intelligent. However, during the last three weeks I read some superior quality editorials like the one today, which were really eye opening for all news hounds. Thanks. Keep up the good work!
4
I have been a regular to pay attention to NY Times editorials, as it is informative and intelligent. However, during the last three weeks I read some superior quality editorials like the one today, which were really eye opening for a news hounds. Thanks. Keep up the good work!
2
It's been creeping that way for a long time. Republicans weaponized it, and now Democrats are following suit.
Dallet, the person who won in Wisconsin technically ran a non-partisan campaign, but her primary opponent ran openly as a liberal, and she inherited the energy he stirred up.
It is going to be really, really hard to walk back toward non-partisanship (a goal never entirely realized even in the best of times).
I think we are going to have to look either for new ways to insulate the judiciary, or ways to make partisan judges function better.
Neither is going to be easy.
3
This editorial notes
“Especially dangerous are efforts to impeach justices over specific rulings”.
And asks
“Are we the only ones sensing a pattern here?”
To answer the above question: no, the editorial board of the Times is not the only one to have noticed. But you are surely highly selective in the cases you choose to describe in this editorial, in which Republicans are almost uniformly the bad guys.
Surely you should have mentioned one of the best known examples of all, the ongoing effort by liberals in California, led by Stanford law professor Michelle Dauber, to recall respected and generally well regarding state judge Aaron Persky, because liberals feel he issued a sentence that was too lenient in a single sexual assault case. Thanks to Prof. Dauber, Judge Persky’s career has already been upended, all over his single sentencing; according the Mercury news, he is now assigned to night court. Many feel Prof. Dauber’s campaign to recall him will be successful. This will likely be disastrous for an impartial judiciary.
This editorial makes valid points, but although it is an opinion piece, it is yet another example of highly selective, biased reporting in the Times.
7
@Alex
What a difference between an effort to recall a single judge, and pass laws to restrict the entire judiciary. Most of the bad acts are in fact due to Republican-led legislatures. Intellectually honest people who agree with this editorial do not desire Judge Persky to be removed, and there is zero evidence that the NYT Editorial Board wants him to be removed either.
Could you please state what that sentence was, and the crime for which it was pronounced?
What the NYTs means is that the Courts are the subject of political actions.
This is how they have always been and the NYTs loved it when it was going their way. Just read up on Roosevelt's threat to pack the Supreme Court.
5
@Larry
"Roosevelt's threat" is not the same as actually packing the court. Roosevelt's attempt was even opposed by his own party (even his Vice-Pesident). And is today's editorial board the same as that of 1937?
We now have a 60 year history of litmus test judicial appointments. Even as the Republicans and their rich backers have cheated, lied and spent billions to load the court with religious gun crazy shills for the rich, the Republicans still don't get their way all the time so they want to utterly destroy the entire credibility of the one institution which is tasked with interpreting laws vis a vis the actual constitution. I've seen someone here bring up Bork, who was the single most unqualified and horrible candidate for the SCOTUS that was ever presented in my lifetime to that point. There have been many worse since, all from Republicans, all pro rich and pro hot button for the Republican causes of racism, misogyny, anti immigration, pro gun, anti LGBT, anti environment and pro plutocracy. This last bit of trickery, the utter refusal to even vote on a SCOTUS candidate and subsequent theft of the seat, is a crime against the American people and should be immediately reversed upon taking back power from the Republicans and their Russian mole Trump. These Republicans "think tanks" are unamerican in their purpose. They have been bankrolled by the few rich in an attempt to rule the many. A few rich control the media and create a completely different universe in which truth can no longer be questioned. The lies you are fed are the truth you must believe. The dismantling of the education system over these 60 years is part of the plan, as education is the enemy of false "truth".
8
If judges weren't partisan hacks then they wouldn't be partisan punching bags.
On any controversial issue is there any doubt as to which way most of the SC justices will rule?
3
Correct. And though your comment applies to most or all of the Justices, surely Justice Ginsberg stands out.
3
Not to put too fine of a line on it - if judges don't want to be engaged like they are politicians then maybe they should quit acting and ruling like they are duly elected politicians.
4
The most insidious attacks on the judiciary undermines the independent agencies that investigate unethical and rogue judges. In my state last year, Georgia Republicans, without shame, nullified the independence of the Judicial Qualifications Committee by passing a law giving the governor the authority to appoint five members of the seven member committee, instead of the constitutional two. And worse, they stopped all ongoing investigations by finding the evidence gathered against them to be invalid.
What could be more anti-democratic and disquieting than one political party controlling all three branches of government?
56
Unless, of course, it was the Democratic Party that was in total control.
2
What do you expect when from almost Day One of his administration, Trump began dissing the judges who ruled against his travel ban, calling them names and saying their judgments didn't matter? Did you think the GOP was not going to pick that banner up and run with it? The Republicans know that they are a minority party even though they hold all the Federal power today. They are going to do everything they can to consolidate that minority power. The question is--are the rest of us going to let them?
65
I think "we'll let them".
Since something radical should have happened after the denial of Merrick Garland's chance for a Supreme Court seat.
Then we have the apparent perjurer, Jeff Sessions,
and again, let it slide.
It looks like it's time for a revolution.
8
Any time you think you're ready.
This is purely a Conservative thing not a general partisan thing.
8
Thank you for this eye opening article that sets the table on where our courts are headed, and most likely a direction that cannot be stopped.
The attack on and reshaping of the courts is not tactical, it is strategic. Ultimately, this strategy will turn our Democracy into a Fascist Reign that cannot be defeated, and they are well underway. Ultimately, the tactic of turning neighbor against neighbor will support the court politicization as the least educated will unwittingly support the most educated in stealing our democracy.
Editorial Board, "Are we the only ones sensing a pattern here? Across the country, state judges are under increasing fire from lawmakers and outside groups angered by their rulings, their power, their tenure or simply their independence."
I am alarmed at the growing partisanship of the courts by the Republican party, the party of "get govt. out of your business."
I am also alarmed that an entire layer of lifetime judicial appointments is being filled by the GOP with unqualified GOP sycophants. Democrats are silent. Will Democrats start to rail against their decisions as political decisions?
But what alarms me the most is that the media, MSM, spends more time on trump tweets than on issues that drive our everyday lives, like courts. In part, the media is at fault for not covering this issue (or healthcare, or education, or EPA, or CFPB) just as meticulously as it covers trump tweets.
10
Our system of government is broken and getting worse. Hopefully the kids wii help fix things.
1
The activist judges are ruling according to political ideology instead of the law or the Constitution.
3
One of the most influential "judicial activists" was Anton Scalia.
2
The common thread in this article is "Republican". They will do anything to get what they want. Cheating and manipulating the system is second nature to them. The joke is that they consider themselves patriots.
13
Surveys indicate that liberals readily admit they are less patriotic than conservatives.
Your right - the common thread in this editorial is "Republican." But that's due to selective reporting by the Times, not because only the Republicans are at fault.
1
Senator Toomey is not by any stretch of the imagination a moderate. He is Club for Growth, he is a member of the gang of 13 stale, pale, males who deem women do not require health care, and he is calling for a partisan judiciary.
8
This otherwise excellent opinion piece chose not to mention that all of these efforts come from just one of the two national political parties: the Republicans. This is a crucial distinction. The Koch Brothers and their many politically despotic friends and associates understand that their view are not supported by most Americans, therefore they must resort to what needs to be seen as cheating. A level playing field favors most Americans and that is unacceptable to these corporate despots. It feels like America is following the models of China and Russia; rule by the rich and for the rich. The script has been around for a long time: attack the press, attack the judiciary and attack the educated elites. Attack and lie and cheat often enough and you'll get the dictatorship we have always feared was waiting in the wings of the Republican Party.
10
Treating judges as you describe is part of the creeping fascism in this country and if it continues, the future will not turn out well.
8
And where is the Dem party? All I hear about is what the R's are doing? Can you please tell me why we do not hear from the Dem's? Is it that the paper chooses no to ask or that the Dems are not saying anything? All I see is a power grab by the right with no response from the left in these stories.
8
Yes, has anyone seen Chuck Schumer on TV explaining exactly why the Republican agenda is an attack on the constitution?
By now every Democrat should be on a soap box in from of their office trying to alert the local population to the blatant attacks on our Republic.
But as usual they hide, more worried about angering Republican voters who will NEVER for for them than about creating a true resistance to the corporate coup that is destroying our country.
The Democratic Party Leadership is a bunch of Republicans pretending to be Democrats, just like Trump pretends to care about the USA.
To win elections, demand legislation that supports what the constitution actually says, and promise workers that you will provide for their "general welfare."
It's not complicated, but Democrats keep doing the opposite.
Retreat is the opposite of winning. Stop retreating and attack, not by emulating Republican dishonesty, but by actually trying to make the lives of working people better.
Wrong again, Editorial Board. It's the Neo-Marxists--i.e., the attack is, and has been, from the clerics sitting on Lenin's Bay Area 9th Circuit bench.
1
The Red Scare was in the 1950s. Your a little late.
The courts are our only protection for a functioning democracy. Without the courts there would still be segregation. The courts are often the protector of the minority . These legislators say they represent their constituents, but they often only represent the people who have the most money and access. Which of course is the irony of Citizens United. The Roberts court and the stolen Supreme Court seat will lead to more marginalized courts , both federal and state. When the Nazis came to power, the first thing they did was marginalize the German courts.
There are three branches of government in the US , so far........
4
More like the "Brennen Center For Social Justice" I'd say...you lost all credibility with any conservative when you cited this blatently partisan liberal advocacy organization.
3
There are no moderate republicans. The mainstream media including the NYTimes need to stop legitimizing these fascists. Your so-called moderate toomey voted for every McConnell obstruction of obama and the constitution (think gorsuch) and had and will vote for every unqualified demagogic hack the jack boot federalist society tells them to appoint to the federal judiciary.
8
The key word is tribalism. If the two tribes can no longer live together, and are spending all their time and energy fighting a never ending winner takes all game, better they go their separate ways. Calexit has got it right.
2
Republicans are treating judges who rule against them like any other politician.
Fixed that for you
The government's reach has expanded to nearly all facets of life. Of course there will be partisan battles to control the outcomes. I do not believe judges should be asked to put their partisan preferences aside (an impossible feat), but I believe the issues before judges should have fewer consequences. A smaller, less powerful government would be an excellent step toward finding unity in a divisive world. Live and let live.
2
When you write "lawmakers" you mean republican lawmakers. There isn't any equivalence here between the two parties. Man up!
6
Since 20 January 2017, we have been racing headlong at an ever-increasing speed toward that point past which the answer to the question, "What do you think of the United States?" will be, "It was a nice idea."
Perhaps at no time in our nation's history has it been more imperative that every citizen eligible to vote make certain that they are registered, know their polling place (if voting in person), then exercise their franchise — and strongly encourage their family and friends to do the same.
Sic transit gloria mundi — or at least that of the United States of America.
4
People often say that it is terribly important that every eligible citizen votes and, while I understand their desire for an engaged electorate, I really cannot agree. Many people don't follow politics, have no idea what the issues currently are nor where politicians stand on those issues -- to say nothing of knowing those politician's track records if they aren't new to politics. People will only become educated about such things when they are motivated to do so. If they vote without knowing any of the pertinent information then they are either voting the way someone else told them they should or they are making the decisions based on foolish reason's like familiarity with a candidate's name and other irrelevant things. The republic really doesn't benefit from increased participation by people who are ignorant of the information needed to make a wise choice. Therefore, as I see it, when someone chooses not to exercise his or her right to vote it is often something for which we should be thankful.
What a grave error to politicize the judicial courts, rendering decisions not for justice but loyalty to party. How to stop this grossly corrupt practice, a trampling on reason, common sense, the truth? Machiavelli would be stumped to see the mediocre means used nowadays, so to achieve a despicable goal, the abuse of power?
2
I see no mention of the California judge in the Stanford swimmer case who is subject to recall over his sentencing decision, surely because the Times agrees with the recall and believes the judge should be gone. "That's different", the Times says.
7
Is that a political issue?
"Political" when the Left wants it to be, "judicial" when they don't (i.e., they like the ruling). They even become ersatz conservatives, demanding "stare decisis" adherence to anything coined by the Warren Court or later.
Of course it is.
The real pattern is that Republicans are playing street ball, and Democrats are whining about the rules instead of sharpening their elbows.
4
This is another clear and present danger looming here, in the "Age of Trump." PA's Pat Toomey, by the way, has never been a "moderate" senator, but instead a rabid extremist, and a longtime shill for Wall Street, where he used to work. His engineering of the tax bill is an absolute disgrace. He has always put the wealthy way before his constituents. In PA we wish he'd go back to Rhode Island, where he's from. He's done enough damage here and nationally, as well as ignoring #45's disgraceful presidency. Toomey and the GOP have NO respect for the rue of law, as evidenced in this telling article.
6
Once again the Times’s framing of the thing it deplores in fact is enabling it. Your editorial makes it very clear that the attack on state judiciaries is coming from Republicans, not “partisans.” It’s true that the Republicans behaving in this destructive way are partisan, and it is also true that there are Democratic partisans, so to that extent your terminology could be defended as accurate. But that’s precisely the sort of rationalization for their ill deeds Republicans would offer. In short, by framing this as a “partisan” issue, and not as part of a much larger trend—which you describe in the pages of the Times almost every day—by which the Republican party is and has been now for years turning against any and all norms of political civility, and attacking the constitutional order itself, the Times continues to act as an ex officio PR agent for the Republican party.
It is an appalling thing to watch.
2
First the Republicans fought to destroy trust in government under Reagan; then they fought to destroy Trust in the news; and now they fight to destroy trust in the judiciary. The fact is the only thing they really Trust is the dollar.
7
Thank you, Donald Trump. You gave us Judge Dallet, in a blue wave, as Scott Walker calls it in Wisconsin.
All your Republican money did not matter in this one. Your stinking Republican candidate that had worked for Walker’s Act 10 to decimate teachers and government workers in Wisconsin got stood up.
We weathered a foot of snow in some areas to get to the polls.
We shall overcome. Republican Supreme Courts are on their way out.
4
In essence McConnell and his cronies reduced the size of the Supreme Court to eight while Obama was finishing his term and expanded it back to nine when Trump took office. Does it get worse than than that. Unfortunately the Neo liberal faction of the Democratic Party stands for it. You can't bring a knife to a gun fight
3
Republicans every time, or only 90% of the time?
1
Republican believe more in THEIR rule than the rule of law.
3
It all started with Marbury versus Madison. Judicial review is not in the constitution. But politicizing it was greatly accelerated by the "Borking" of Robert Bork. It will be difficult to go back. Both sides are to blame.
9
Judicial review is not in the Constitution probably because the Founders did not imagine that the legislative and executive branch would disrespect the Constitution by not just walking up to the line of unConstiutionality, but would joyously gallop over it and go down the very path the Constitution sought to avoid for the country. Right now, the blame is all one sided, and the only way to 'go back' is to reduce that side's belief in its own omnipotence.
4
Bork proved himself to be a radical political partisan hack who fired Watergate special prosecutor under Nixon's order as a bribe to be nominated to Supreme Court. Bork sullied himself and had no business ever being considered to the Supreme Court.
6
False equivalence. The man allowed to sit in the Oval Office by the Electoral College, but not by the votes of the people, was ranting about "unfair" judges, calling them names, tweeting horrible things when they ruled against him before he was even moved in to the WH. What has "the other side" done, other than rule that all Americans deserve the same civil rights as their neighbors, and women deserve the same health care standards as men? Bork was unfit then and remains unfit to be on the SC. Wish they had been as stringent when they were evaluating Thomas.
3
Perhaps we just need Artificial Intelligence machines as Judges. Just enter all the evidence and arguments, etc. into the machine and out comes the judgement without predjudice.
The suggestion that courts and judges are not political is ludicrous. Pilgrims and utopians ought to refer to their history books. By the by we are talking about lawyers.
1
So a perfect world to Republicans is one where everyone is Republican, all branches of government see the world through a right-wing lens, no compromises necessary, no need to respect or take other people’s priorities or values into account. What country do we live in again? China? North Korea? Cuba?
5
Meanwhile, Democrats fight to implement policies regarding speech and actions that would be looked upon with envy in China, North Korea, and Cuba.
2
What are these mainly White, mostly men, afraid of? Being a minority? Too late. Being treated as a minority, as they have historically treated minorities? Not if we maintain American idealism, but they are working tirelessly to demolish those ideals. Politicizing everything in society never ends well, just ask the Germans.
3
As they constantly demonstrate, conservatism is the antithesis of republicanism.
1
They are not under "partisan attack", they are under Republican attack.
4
This is a problem largely created by the GOP. The GOP has become a Greedy Oppositional Party. It stands for the one percenters, corporate interest, and the Christian right movement and that's it. It has proven to be amoral and anti-democracy. It rails against anyone that doesn't stand with them, flat out lies and distorts facts, is anti-media, anti-women, anti-children, anti-diversity, anti-education, anti-the environment, anti-regulatory protections, anti-worker rights, anti-the will of the people, anti-law, anti-respect for any viewpoint but theirs, anti-the constitution except for the second amendment and so on. ANTI is their answer to just about anything that made America a great nation. The answer is to vote the GOP out for many years to come on all levels of government - state, local and federal. If we don't, we won't have America for much longer.
3
More examples of Republicans' belief in their own inherent legitimacy – voters, the courts, certainly the truth, they all get in the way of Republicans' God-given right to rule. When you believe that winning is the only thing, you can justify anything.
4
This Op-ed seems odd. As a foreigner watching the SCOTUS for many years it is nonsense to suggest that the court acts in a non-partisan manner.
It is not unusual to see Justices openly invite issues to be brought before them, because they want an opportunity to change the constitution to their way of thinking. That is now happening (again) because there is a republican majority on the SCOTUS.
Maybe Americans want to pretend they live in a country that is ruled by unbiased Justices; they don’t, and I suppose editorial writers must join the pretence.
I am not sure I could find a country in the world in which the legislature is more gerrymandered than the USA.
5
When you have the country's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, openly disrespecting our democratic processes, it's not a big leap to get where we are now. It starts from the top down. His "leadership" has set the tone, and he's getting away with it.
2
For as long as I have had a political consciousness, which runs back into the late '60s, Republicans have been running against the courts. The bottom line is that they don't want people to have the rights, privileges and protections that the law, expecially the Fourteenth Amendment, gives them, which the courts have a nasty habit of enforcing. The Second Amendment seems to be the only right that moves them. Everything else seems to be poison to them. That, at least, is how it looks to me after fifty years of observing it.
2
This is a reasonable push back against judicial arrogance and injection into the political system. Two examples: funding is always the province of the legislature as is redistricting. Courts do not have jurisdiction. Independence corrupts, since everyone needs supervision, including judges. Our judicial system, federal and state, is a major factor in the general dysfunction of our society.
1
the united states of hysteria continues its slide toward banana republic status--albeit with the power and increasing temperament to blow up the world.
it's too bad it's impossible to have a system where there is enough sanity to have non partisan panels or committees appoint or select competent judges.
it is possible. other countries do it.
problem seems to be the inherent viciousness of people on the right wing.
3
A big part of the problem is the courts themselves. In tough, hard cases, there is no way to decide cases except based on internal values, including political values. This predictably comes down to political beliefs. Just ask yourself, why do so many people obsess over US Supreme Court picks and why did Democrats, and the NYT, rail against the Republicans stealing Obama’s Garland pick? How can we so accurately guess the outcome of important cases based solely on the Supreme Court’s composition? It is because we all know that politics matter in the judiciary — and we all like it when it works out for our side. The reality is that there is no mechanical way to judge cases, and politics is always going to be a part of the judicial branch.
Worse yet, this sort of ideological judging extends all the way to the lower court’s. The Ninth Circuit is notorious for bending over backwards to avoid applying Supreme Court law it does not like in favor of liberal rulings. It has even been specifically chastised by name in Supreme Court rulings.
The same goes for the state courts. In any socially important case, ideology gets injected into the mix, and unavoidably so. Liberal courts find ways to squelch popular laws and referenda they don’t like and conservatives do the same.
Let’s not kid ourselves about there being some “neutral” non-partisan state of the courts. They have always been political actors and people are just finally refusing to pretend otherwise.
The Republican Party has been attacking government for decades, and with Trump as president are stepping up the attacks.
And the Democratic response is mostly to beg for compromise.
When someone says a "criminal got off on a technicality," that technicality is in the Bill of Rights, part of the U.S. Constitution and was put there to prevent government from violating the rights of citizens. The Bill of Rights is still regularly and blatantly violated every day, using excuses from crime to drugs to terrorism.
And it is judges who are supposed to protect the rights of individuals in a fear driven political system.
According to the Constitution, the government is how democracy gets things done in our Republic. Specific criticisms of specific problems should be welcomed to improve the system. But the constant general attacks on "government" are actually attacks on democracy.
With Trump leading the way, and the Democratic Leadership failing to RESIST! in any meaningful way, our constitution is under direct attack.
Trump and Fox and their allies attack ALL of the institutions of our Republic daily.
They attack the judiciary, with personal attacks on judges, completely unqualified appointments, and Trump even calling the entire judiciary "broken."
Republicans attack Republicans in the Justice Department, which is actually an attack on the only agency that can hold Trump accountable.
They attack the separation of powers, the press, and Trump demands personal loyalty.
2
As a Democratic Socialist, I have no viable party and so voted for Clinton even though I'm no fan. Nevertheless, Clinton was more right than she has ever been given credit for when she said in the 90s that the relentless attacks on her, her husband and his administration came from a vast right wing conspiracy. This "conspiracy" traces at least to the infamous 1971 Lewis Powell memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce (i.e. the American way of life and business interests are under attack etc.) and took clear shape under Reagan. It is now far more organized and entrenched thanks to the timidity of Obama, and the lousy political strategy and weird drift right of Democrats since 2008. Mainstream media, such as this paper, have also played their part by giving the spokespersons for this conspiracy a platform and patina of legitimacy. Funded and controlled by rapture obsessed Christian fundamentalists, fossil fuel magnates, the weapons industry, gambling kings, nativists/racists, and pro-Israel hawks etc., the conspiracy is bearing fruit with retrograde/stupid immigration policies, forever war, predatory economic policies, destructive environmental policies, illegal shootings of citizens with impunity, insane gun laws, private prisons for profit, demonizing of the "other", disinformation campaigns, attacks on centrist media and a well orchestrated effort to build an extreme right wing judiciary. These things are hallmarks of fascism. We are becoming Hungary, Turkey or worse.
3
If politicians are attacking judges or the courts in general you have a vivid sign that a State is on decline. To force or to influence the "Third Power" is such an incredible act that it is turning one's stomach.
American beware, this is much worse than the disgraced in the White House.
2
And this on top of Trump's attempt to pack the judiciary, nationwide, with unqualified, ultraconservative judges. Manipulating Democracy to one's own end is not just ruthless but evil.
Do Republican politicians have any morals or ethics at all?
1
This has been the plan of the rich right wing libertarians forever. They have manipulated our government with so called think tanks, PACs, and university programs. Put enough money into it and you get something out of it. Look at rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court there is no way Citizens United ruling should have been made in a government of the people. Corporations are not people! Resist ! Vote!
2
Democrats have attacked the courts for decades, most notably when President Obama went after the Supreme Court in one of his SOTU speeches. Don’t recall an editorial calling him out for that.
1
I'll bet that if you follow the money on this you will find the Kochs the Mercers and other malefactors of great wealth supplying the funding for this assault on democracy.
1
Of course many judges have political agendas. The emergence of a poorly informed, highly biased judiciary is nothing new, but it has intensified under the tutelage of the minions of Charles Koch. The formation of Cato, the Federalist Society, The Institute for Humane Studies and its sister organization, The Mercatus Center, both funded by Koch at George Mason U mark a careful, decades-long agenda to subvert the law to the service of extreme libertarians. It does no service to the Republic to pretend that all judges are decent servants of the people. They are not. We must not leave it to the Right, the enemies of the freedoms of the People, to be the sole critics of activist judges. Witness the vacancies on the bench, from the SCOTUS on down, nurtured by McConnell for the benefit of Trump and his extremist agenda.
In my humble opinion court judges should remain as independent as humanly possible, including, being appointed for a specific time period rather than being elected. What is being done to and the state legislature proposals for judges is a threat to Democracy.
1
With respect to politicizing the judicial branch, what a poor example was set by McConnell when he refused to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court after his nomination by a Democratic President. The Republican Party is at fault here. One can argue both parties are guilty, but by far it is Republicans who are disrespectful of judicial rulings. My solution is to never vote for a Republican.
2
It's fine to have elections - unless big money runs the elections...
1
The GOP Supreme Court could overturn Marbury v Madison, putting an end to the rule of law.
2
GOP knows that they can't win for their oligarch, unless they change the rules and umpires.
They will cheat no matter what; I hope all American's realize it once and for all.
GOP belongs in dustbin not in Washington.
1
Once again, the republicans knowing they cannot win on their ideas and actions turn to cheating. The question everyone must ask themselves in every single election these days is, ‘why do republicans want to destroy democracy to keep power?’
2
Pennsylvania resident, here. Thank you, PA Supreme Court. My rep, Scott Perry, proclaims that the new map is gerrymandered. I guess it’s because he is no longer guaranteed a victory.
The Republican reactions to laws that are in their favor, such as their gerrymandering, are the signs of a party that cares not a whit for fair elections or "the American way."
The fact that the Republicans are getting away with it begs the question, "How can it be stopped?" North Carolina, for instance, is blatantly denying voters their rights.
Worse, they are getting away with it and the law doesn't apply to them.
What will it take to save the courts (and America) from this disregard for the law and itspartican destruction?
1
When Leftist courts attempt to achieve by fiat what has been soundly rejected by the people, what do you expect? Half the people this country--or more--are tired unto death of government interference in their lives and we're fighting back with every means available.
The Great American Dichotomy is one of the collective versus the individual, and we individualists are tired of the efforts of the Left to herd us about and corral us as suits their pleasures.
There truly is only one way to heal the dichotomy, and that's for the Left to back off and accept that their suzerainty can never be any more than local, that most of the vast spaces between America's cities will never tolerate being forced to live by city rules. Don't like guns? Ban them--within your city limits. Want others to be forced to pay your medical bills? Enact that law--within your city limits. Personally, I suspect that the "tragedy of the commons" will wreck any "collective" society--see Venezuela--but if you want to try it, for the nth failed time, go right ahead. But leave the rest of us out of it.
1
It has become a true farce with the meddling of such Koch Bros. puppets as Walker in Wisconsin and the home boys in Kansas and Oklahoma that have used , or are contemplating using legislation to destroy the balance of power by eliminating an impartial court system.
The same is being achieved on the Federal level what with the hijacking of the Constitution and the installation of an imposter on the Supreme Court by a Republican party who will kowtow to both the corporations and the extreme religious right by casting the decisive vote that will gut the vast public unions in this country ala Wisconsin and destroy their rights to collective bargaining. On the religious side , and despite the Obergefell ruling , Gorsuch will vote for the personal beliefs of the baker over due process and the right to equal protection under the law.
And , with a Republican Congress , Trump is seeing to it that the impartiality of the courts is being further buried by the installation of a stream of Federal judges , many deemed unqualified by the ABA , whom will reflect the same values as the McConnell appointee , Neil Gorsuch , to a tee.
This is what has happened under Trump , a man seeming to be dead set upon destroying not only the balance of powers , but upon eradicating the very government that was established to protect the country and its commonwealth.
There is no longer a State Department , EPA , or Depts. of Education or Energy
Some 100,000 ,000 voters failed to show up on 11/8/16.
1
The American Midwest will become a series of failed states as these know-nothing legislators systematically disassemble their state governments in favor of a feudal oligarchy. Only then, maybe, will the inhabitants of these states realize the wool pulled over their eyes. More likely they will blame the “Others” again for their own failures.
1
"The Republican Party has a platform that can’t prevail in democratic competition. This is one of the big themes of this book, and why I think this situation is so dangerous. When highly committed parties strongly believe [in] things that they cannot achieve democratically, they don’t give up on their beliefs — they give up on democracy." (David Frum)
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/18/16880524/donald-trump-democracy-republican...
This is not surprising. The 21st Century Republican party has demonstrated that it is much easier to rule as a fascist or authoritarian rather than have to convince voters to vote against their own interest. The PA case should be interesting as I understand that impeachment is ONLY reserved for ethical or criminal violations of the law but again, no assault against democratic institutions is too grievous as long as the GOP stays in power. Can we really call ourselves the Land of the Free anymore?
1
Today’s GOP senses their incessant gerrymandering and voter suppression measures no longer are working to maintain power in many swing states. They are that unpopular. Now, desperate GOP politicians want to destroy the independent judiciary to continue to rule as a minority regime.
Voters are increasingly fed up with these thuggish tactics and the flailing about of the GOP isn’t endearing them with most voters. Indeed, we are firmer than ever in our resolve to kick them out of office.
November can’t come soon enough.
1
Of course judges shouldn't be partisan punching bags. But my two cents are: (1) when was the last time the Democrats in Congress did the punching, even after disasters like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby (I'm not talking about disagreements with rulings, I'm talking about personal attacks such as Trump's on Judge Curiel); and (2) the biggest problem isn't partisan attacks on judges, it's the fact that Trump has been appointing the farthest of far right judges to the bench, who reason backwards from the result they want to reach.
1
With the extreme politicization of the Judiciary at any level of American government, any pretense to judicial integrity is made absurd. The Pennsylvania case is particularly noteworthy.
Republican legislators are basically proposing impeachment for judges simply doing their jobs. This entire charade makes Bill Clinton's little chat with Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac look like chicken scratch by comparison.
By any absurdity measure, Pat Toomey's complaint is off the charts. It was Republican political malfeasance that prompted the gerrymandering court case in the first place.
Impeaching judges for politically undesirable decisions is analogous to impeaching legislators for passing laws that the other side doesn't like.
38
The "pattern" is not simply that of interference by lawmakers in general but almost exclusively from Republican lawmakers and the right-wing. This is part and parcel of the GOP's ongoing assault on our democracy. Too many still believe that this undermining of our democratic institutions is driven only by Trump but it is clear that it is the Republican Party, at both the state and federal levels, that is the danger here not merely our lamentable White House incumbent.
4
Yet more evidence that America desperately needs to adopt majority voting, as Maine is currently doing*. Only majority voting will end this bitter partisan divide, and result in centrist candidates who are beholden to their constituents, not to the party elite that gatekeep the primaries.
*Or, more accurately, that Maine is TRYING to do. The reform was passed by referendum, but sleezy party hacks are desperately trying every trick they can think of, including not funding the law, to prevent it from happening.
So much for unbiased judicial power. McConnell, flying in the face of the Constitution that clearly states three branches of government independent of one another, publicly said it was more important than ever to have a "conservative" judicial in place - and by blocking Merrill's consideration, I believe broke the back of our judicial system, perhaps forever. Some of the cases where I have heard the judges statements go way out of bounds with personal ideology and political bent. I don't know how or when we lost the blindfold on Lady Justice, but I am not sure we will ever have it back again until we become a more rational and educated society.
2
The 2016 election produced a gradually expanding crack in the back of our 200-plus year experiment in representative democracy. We may technically survive trump, and the near future will ebb and flow with signs of healing and exacerbations of pain, but I believe we've crossed a line, taken a path to our ultimate demise, however long that will take. The republicans are obsessed with winning, blind to the cost of manipulating democracy, and they likely won't stop until they've pulled us under to drown with them. Republicans have so successfully married themselves to the symbols of patriotism, religion, economic strength, military security -it doesn't matter that there's little truth to any of that for a just large enough percentage of the electorate for republicans to maintain power at all levels. I would love to be wrong about that view of our future, but have great difficulty seeing it any other way.
2
The Republican lawmakers from Pennsylvania who defied their state's order on gerrymandering need to be charged with contempt of court and thrown in jail. Simple. Why this has not happened is a mystery.
9
Thank you for writing this editorial - something has changed in the republican party - they no longer believe in democracy. Removing judges who disagree with them and replacing them with ones who will rule only in their favor is a true threat to our democracy.
Just look at the recent history of countries like Venezuela as an example.
8
The ethical obligation of the legal profession including judges and lawyers is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Electing local and state judges who raise money to run collides with a negative appearance about bias.
While 'merit selection' by nomination via an executive with or without the advice and consent of a legislature nominally avoids that appearance the reality of political and socioeconomic influence is self-evident. Federal judicial appointments for life are inherently political.
The nature of the law is gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, faith, socioeconomics, politics and history plus arithmetic. Law is not fair nor just nor moral nor objective. The judiciary is inherently the least democratic branch of our preferred divided limited power constitutional republic form of government.
4
"Of course, judges have political beliefs and ideological persuasions. Everyone does. But public officials must not treat the judiciary as if it were just another political branch."
It's long past time to give up the ghost that our judicial system is above partisanship. It's not and to argue otherwise is mainly a public relations exercise supporting judges whose ideology aligns with your own. The symbol of judicial review is supposed to be a statue of a woman wearing a blindfold. But does anyone really believe that the decisions cited here - such as the Democrats on the PA court ruling on party lines to redraw districts to favor Democrats - would have been the same regardless of the political bent of the politician or voters who chose the decider ?
You do not need to listen to me to hear that judges are political actors. Just listen to liberal Justice Sotomayor. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." That sounds like Lady Justice has decided to remove her blindfold and judge by skin color and all the other biases that we all have. Why not recognize this ?
8
You are taking judge Sotomayor's comment out of context. SHe was referring to a discrimination case involving Latina women.
The PA supreme court hired a third-party research firm to draw the lines according to fairness criteria that the court set. It was done by a computer, and largely followed county boundaries. It was not partisan. Republicans still have more safe districts in PA than Democrats. But now the proportion aligns closer to actual voter affiliations. The math clearly shows it is a better map.
A "political actor" is not the same as a politician. Judges are supposed to hold themselves and their colleagues to a higher standard. Yes, everyone has political views, and no one can keep their political views completely separate from their work, but politicians are supposed to fight for their political views, judges are not.
I personally don't think that it is likely that the PA judges who ruled against Republican gerrymandering were doing it for political reasons. I think they waited far longer than they should have to stop politicians who had created obviously twisted and bizarre political boundaries from manipulating the voting system.
And going so far as to impeach numerous judges based on one ruling shows you how out of control many politicians have gotten.
Your typical Republican argument that the problems Republicans create means we have to blow up the system and, in this case, now treat judges just like any other politician, will make things worse not better.
Your solution is to make judges into politicians and let them behave in a purely partisan fashion, and punish them politically off it hurts the ruling party.
That is unconstitutional, illogical, and would completely destroy the rule of law that we have been working to build since the Magna Carta, 500 years ago.
The constant attacks by Republicans (while Democrats beg for compromise) on "government" are attacks on our Republic.
The judiciary has many problems, but making judges into politicians is wrong
History will repeat itself. The wealthy have promoted and supported the Republican Party in a vain effort to avoid sharing anything with the rest of humanity. They are going to greater and greater lengths to preserve their money at the expense of our democracy. Revolution is the end game.
3
The article is a bit disingenuous. State courts have become increasingly partisan. One need look no further than the democratic appointees voting as a block to change vote counting rules after the election--only in three democratic strongholds in Florida--in what became the Bush v. Gore case.
Follow that with Pennsylvania's elected supreme court voting along party lines to re-write Congressional districts, or the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which overturned two centuries of established law to grant gay marriage and a) order the legislature how to write the law and by when, and b) order the governor to approve it.
When courts act like legislatures and governors, they become partisan politicians themselves, and therefore open themselves up to partisan attack.
BTW: I haven't seen any crocodile tears for the courts when anti-gun and pro-abortion groups go after them.
3
There are no anti-gun or pro-abortion groups trying to impeach state court members. This has gone way past protesting a decision.
Please come specific instances of anti-gun and pro-abortion politicians trunking to impeach judges for political reasons.
Independence and qualification are critical to the role of the judiciary in a democracy. Take politics completely out of it.
State court judges should not be elected. Lawyers interested in becoming judges should submit background information to commission of lawyers and judges (formed by the state bar), who should interview candidates and place qualified candidates on a list. Judges should be selected at random from the list.
State judges interested in serving on appellate courts after 8 years of service on the trial bench should be reviewed by a panel of judges (selected by the state bar) and, again, the qualified ones put on a list, and, again, the openings filled randomly.
10
Since the republicans hold the legislature in the states you mention, meaning they write the laws, and the judiciary is meant to uphold the(ir) laws, what is the point of these attacks ? the question is a rhetorical one. The wisdom of Scalia is as timely as ever.
3
The states also have constitutions, have some responsibility to the federal constitution, have laws not with by the current politicians, and there is (I know it's hard to believe with the lock step talking points) some disagreement between Republic politicians on how to interpret the laws.
Legislatures write laws. Judges interpret the laws. The executive enforces the laws. The constant Republican attempts to break down these boundaries (the separation of powers) is a blatant attack on the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions.
Stop trying to destroy the Constitution. The flag and the Anthem mean nothing without the Constitution, which is the DNA, the operating instructions of our system.
And Democrats, stop helping them!
Its not "lawmakers" who have the judiciary under attack. Its Republicans, as in the entire Republican party. In addition to the examples given in this editorial who can forget what Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell did? Held a vacant Supreme Court seat open for a full year in order to get a deeply troubling Justice, Neil Gorsuch, appointed to the court. And he got away with it with barely a peep from the media. Its very clear that the Republican party has declared war on the US Constitution and on the political norms we have been working under since the nation's founding. The NY Times and the entire US media needs to awaken from their slumber, open their eyes and start informing the public about the danger we are facing from within.
25
The courts are the last piece of the puzzle in the right wing coup happening before our eyes.
16
I dislike this phenomenon, too, but cannot stomach the surprise and horror of both the editorial and many of the comments. The politicization of our courts started decades ago, when their mission shifted from interpreting the law in a true conservative sense (with due regard both to precedent and the limited role they are designed to play in our democracy) to effectively legislating their vision of what society should be. Roe v. Wade was only the most glaring example.
The status and deference afforded the courts by society depended on their remaining essentially above the political fray. When they descend into the political arena, there should be no surprise that they become subject to the arena's rules.
7
Sounds like you disagree with courts getting involved in political issues.
You missed the best example of political interference--Brown v Board. The Supreme Court stuck down laws forcing blacks to go to separate schools.
The founders intended the courts to take unpopular votes. that's why they are insulated from politics (the 2 least democratic parts of gov at the time, Prez & Senate, pick them). The Constitution trumps arbitrary laws, such as forced segregation.
The constitution lays out specific powers for the government and reserves all other rights for the People.
The constitution specifically reserves the interpretation of religion to the people. Your religious demands for government to attack a woman's right to decide her own personal morality are not supported by the Constitution, even if previous judges failed to uphold women's rights.
On the other hand, the constitution specifically gives the government the power to tax and regulate trade, which Republicans are against.
The entire Republican program to regulate person morality while refusing to regulate and tax trade is against the plain text of the constitution, despite the propaganda coming from hypocritical "originalist" judges.
And the constitution also demands that the government "provide for the general welfare," not give specific tax breaks to industries controlled by the mega rich, in the vain hope that it will trickle down to the general population.
And the mostly ignored first clause of the second amendment calls for a will regulated militia to DEFEND the U.S., not the world's largest standing army, (now growing another 25% with the help of centrist Democrats) in a constant state of aggressive war, with troops stationed all over the world.
Everything the Republicans want to do is exactly against what the constitution says, and the fact that Democrats refuse to point this out shows that both parties are bought and paid for by global corporations.
"Of course, judges have political beliefs and ideological persuasions. Everyone does. But public officials must not treat the judiciary as if it were just another political branch. Doing so undermines public respect for state courts — which provide most Americans with their only experiences with the judiciary — and debases their hard-won independence, for nothing but partisan gain."
The courts must limit themselves to seeing that the law, which begins with the constitution, is followed as intended, and nothing else. Legislating through judicial activism (willfully misinterpreting the law) should be publically exposed.
Respect is earned as is shame. Courts that act whithin the law should be respected. Those which usurp legislative power contrary to the law should be exposed.
4
That is the whole method of the Common Law. Of course mistakes are made. Other judges don't follow them.
3
The Kansas state constitution requires that the legislature "adequately" fund public schools. Once school funding was slashed so much that some schools had to close six weeks early, and others went to 4 day weeks, the state Supreme Court ruled that the legislature was in violation of the state constitution. That's their job. But some of the Republican legislators (not all of them), in their effort to even further starve the schools, are determined to eviscerate the court's ability to rule on the constitutionality of the legislature's actions.
3
Republicans know they can't win on an even playing field, so they try to tilt it any way they can. Voters must resist their attacks on the third, still independent, pillar of our democracy or live with the consequences.
21
Riiight. That is why President Obama stacked the Fourth Circuit Court and the DC Circuit Court, courtesy of Harry Reid's "nuclear option." Because the Republicans can't with on an even playing field.
1
Republicans?
How about Roe v. Wade? or gay marriage?
Neither of which are explicitly mentioned in law. Rather than changing the law through the legislative process, liberals pushed these changes through the courts.
1
I would agree that if these judges are elected, then the election is the consequence if their rulings are questionable. Impeachment seems a bit knee-jerky. Regardless, a very low percentage of citizens participated in any of these elections. These have simply become auctions going to the highest bidder to serve the winner. Like auctioning a head of school to cook dinner.
1
It's very simple: Republicans do not like democracy.
It needs to be said, and often, until everyone understands it. Then maybe we can get a second party that actually provides a sane alternative.
25
See, e.g., Paul Weyrich:
"So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
3
Elections have consequences except if Republicans lose. Then Republicans do an end run around the Constitution.
In 1968 Nixon sabotaged the Paris attempt to end the Vietnam War to win an election. Reagan did the same in 1980, with the hostages held in Iran. A special prosecutor to investigate George H W Bush's complicity in the Iran contra affair, was squashed by Republicans.
There are many more instances of Republicans fighting justice and now they are fighting judges.
20
"Elections have consequences except if Republicans lose."
Oh my, this from someone who does not seem to accept losing any better.
I don't like what the Republicans are doing, but I don't imagine my side is perfect either. They all must be watched and guarded against. It is the nature of the beast.
3
It's not a question of not liking it when one side doesn't win. More, what that side then does to try to tilt the playing field in their favor from then on.
When it benefits them, special prosecutors are great, especially when a fishing expedition in a real estate deal lands them a Presidential impeachment. When that President is gone, the special prosecutor role is no longer needed. And then you have the 2000 vote. And Crosscheck etc.
Sure, "both sides" "do" "it". But one side does it without any kind of shame and is a ground breaker in all new slimy ways to gain power.
I’m glad the Times is discussing this disturbing phenomenon. But I’m distressed that this piece does not identify the real culprit here - the Republican Party - and instead takes issue with “lawmakers” in general, as if it were not important which side is undermining the judiciary and the rule of law.
We must have the courage to call out the Republicans for what they are doing to our country. These attacks on the independence and authority of state judges is just another manifestation of the Republicans’ embrace of authoritarian politics. They will happily undermine and destroy the foundations of our constitutional order - crucial democratic norms, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, etc. - in order to stay in power and advance their partisan agenda. We have seen this also in their unwavering support of President Trump, their outrageous gerrymandering, their attacks on nonpartisan media, their affinity for using the authority of congressional committees and investigations to score political points, their refusal to compromise with opposing views, etc. Their brand of politics poses a serious threat to our country.
41
And Democrats keep letting them do it while they hide in a fake "center" defined by a corporate media owned by the mega rich who make 90% of political donations.
Republicans attack the constitution and Democrats stand by and watch.
What did they do when McConnell stole their Supreme Court seat? NOTHING! No government shut down, no call for mass protests, no chaining themselves to the Senate podium, or occupying the Supreme Court. Just roll over and play dead.
All mass media and both parties are under the control of global billionaires and their global conglomerates. Bernie Sanders was the first presidential candidate (with any chance of winning) since at least Eisenhower to point that out, but the Democrats picked the candidate whose "plan" was to "have drinks with Republicans" to "find common ground" with "the Greater Evil."
Almost all of the "bipartisan legislation" passed and signed over the last 25 years has been bad for the country. Deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, war authorizations based on lies, bail outs for banks instead of their customers (who would have paid the banks), massive military increases, etc.
And the Democrats can't get their platform done because Republicans won't let them, but can't stop the Republicans from doing anything, and even supply votes for them to do it.
Now Trump is attacking EVERY check on presidential CONSTANTLY, and Democrats are nearly silent.
If you want you constitution to survive, only We The People can save it.
Those Pennsylvania Republicans should themselves be called to resign, strongly ridiculed and banished by the political system. American politics today is an ever expanding pocket of amorality and corruption. How could they target the judiciary in that way? We have become so divided that the basic tenants of government like separation of powers are being forgotten? I think it should be illegal for any politician to even comment on judicial elections, judicial elections (like all elections) should be publicly funded to avoid outside influence and some sort of independent counsel or office (through the executive or judiciary) should be left to monitor gerrymandering within states. It has become more clear that gerrymandering is injustice and because of it people lose equal access to their rights and protections provided by the constitution. Reading the news these days makes me feel so helpless. I am a student studying science and I am progressively losing faith that research and medicine can help people in a meaningful way if our political, economic and social systems lack fairness and reliability.
15
It is a fine line.
Electing judges carries with it many harms. Consider also the lawyer and client who did not just give the judge thousands of dollars for his re-election, knowing that opposing counsel just did, and so did his many partners. We all know that the judge knows that. Some rulings are really an exercise of judgment and discretion -- how are those going to go? What will the loser believe?
Yet appointment by a dominant political party carries its own risks, somewhat similar.
Add to that some judges really do behave as if they are politicians in the political process. This is its own fine line.
An example of this line is Earl Warren's Court as it began the end of segregation, a deeply political act. He was a former governor carrying a burden close to his heart (Japanese internment, in which he felt he had played a shameful role). He certainly was making a political choice, and he knew it, and we all needed that at the time. It was the only way it would get done.
Yet not all political acts are of that quality. They are just politics.
On that, some judges grow into their proper role after making a bad job of it for awhile. Earl Warren made his bad job, in his own mind, as a governor. One of my favorite Federal judges was also one I had despised until he'd grown. He lost his son in a horrible accident, and never again had the same hateful arrogance, replaced with deep empathy. I can't wish that price on anyone, but personal growth can come hard.
3
Judges are more and more, especially Federal judges, issuing opinions in line with their political affiliations. Judges who make decisions based upon their political beliefs should be treated as if they are politicians because that is what they are regardless of their job titles.
10
The press now commonly identifies a Federal judge by the President who appointed that judge. That is not just because Republican judges are bad and Democratic judges are good.
2
The scariest line in this editorial is the one about Kansas lawmakers' effort to strip the state courts of the constitutional power to rule on matters of education funding.
Kansas is the home of Koch Industries and Charles Koch, the most politically active of the Koch brothers--who together are worth billions more than Jeff Bezos and apparently for whom no amount of money is ever enough. The Kochs were responsible for the Kansas tax law that deprived the state of so much revenue it could not perform basic functions and that essentially flushed the state's economy down the toilet. This latest effort has "Koch" all over it--an end run around the earlier judicial ruling that would, as a state constitutional matter, have required them to pay the taxes they previously strong-armed the legislature to reduce to nothing.
And because money is speech and the Kochs have more of it than everybody else, they are now apparently trying to gut the power of the judiciary to operate as as a check and balance on the legislature--which their money controls. And this is on top of their decades-long effort to elect state favorable judges In every state they do business and their $400 million effort to "educate" the American public in advance of the midterms on the benefits of the federal tax bill--one that would increase their wealth by billions.
As frightening as our president is, the Kochs' efforts to institutionlize money as ultimate arbiter of American power is even scarier.
28
I feel just the opposite: the scariest line in the editorial is that judges in Kansas are overriding the elected representatives and raising taxes without the consent of the governed.
1
Judges are to rule on the constitutionality of our laws if that law is challenged in court. The KS state constitution says the legislature is required to "adequately" fund the public schools. The legislature has done just the opposite, starving the schools to the point that some have had to close six weeks early and others have had to go to 4 day weeks. The State Supreme court did its job. The legislators did not.
The courts in Kansas are following the state constitution. The legislators are following the Koch brothers.
Which should prevail: the rule of law or money?
3
"Are we sensing a pattern?" Yes: when courts decide to act like unelected legislatures, ordering appropriations, redefining the Constitution, and similar things, the political branches can and should resist. Donning a judicial robe does not make one immune from the temptations of power, and the unaccountability of judges has exacerbated those temptations, even as we claim it to be part of the "protections" of checks and balances. A legislator swears to uphold the Constitution, NOT the Constitution as a judge thinks it is: if the branches of government are truly equal, the Legislature and the executive certainly have a right to push back on an overweening judiciary. So, yes, if the courts are trespassing, for example, on the appropriations role of the Legislature -- which is an exclusive legislative prerogative -- their prying little fingers need to be whacked, and if that requires a Constitutional amendment, so be it.
6
Why are US judges elected? How can this reflect their status as a separate arm of government? How impartial can we expect our judges to be, when they go through the same electoral process as any politician to arrive on the bench? Maybe that's why jury trials seem to be ubiquitous here. When even judges are blatantly partisan, the jury of our peers may be our only recourse.
5
I dislike the election of judges. However, I am also very aware of the weaknesses of appointment by politicians of their friends and relatives of friends.
The best system I've encountered has layers, of recommendation and review, and periodic re-consideration.
2
A jury trial is far from ubiquitous here. Republicans refuse to fully find the justice system, so 98% of defendants are pressured by overworked public defendants (required by the Constitution) to plead guilty without going to trial.
1
Judges are under increasing fire from Republicans because courts generally rule against their efforts to thwart democracy and bend our nation's laws to their will. The next step will be to attack the constitution itself. Governors are following the lead of Trump, who has been laying the groundwork with his attacks, so that his followers will accept his attempt to suspend the constitution, or certain provisions of it, so he has nothing to stop him. Attacks on the judiciary, the media and any who oppose them are the way political parties and politicians create dictatorships.
11
Every person comes to his or her job with certain beliefs and biases. Judges aren’t any different, and those beliefs and biases will creep into the job they do, whether they—or we—like it are not. Add to that they have to be elected, and the issue becomes so much more complicated. An election for a government post is by its nature a political action. Moreover, in the US running for office has come to require enormous sums of money, funds that those running for office generally don't have. So they have to get that from one or more—generally, more—donors. Chances are that one or more—generally, more—of those donors will come knocking on the door of the official whose campaign they helped finance, either asking for favors or putting pressure on the official to rule in favor of or against an issue. So it shouldn’t surprise is that the judicial system is just as partisan as the nation as a whole. I’d even argue that today the judicial system in the US is, in fact, more an extension of the legislative branch rather than an independent body.
5
There are forces at work that would try to dismantle our government. The only way to ensure going forward is to have the three independent branches our government set forth in our constitution by people who were smarter and more fair=minded than anyone serving in government today.
It is reprehensible that the legislative branch attempts to adjudicate law and obstruct holding constitutionally mandating hearings on judicial appointees. These government is and has been appalling at best.
We need to step up and change this status quo before we become like Hungary.
8
For years the GOP has pursued dominance at every level of federal, state and local government, and they have reaped the rewards. Gerrymandering, partisan attacks on judges and the judiciary, and budgets designed to benefit contributors are all natural consequences.
16
This article has inspired me to run for the state legislature. I will work towards passage of a law putting myself and my friends above the law.
8
Sorry Donald (aka bill) you can only hold one elective office at a time, at least until you put yourself above the law.
Writing as an attorney who has practiced for 45 years, actively in three different states, the problem is more complex. This is largely due to the eradication of the civil jury trial. Preemption, no evidence summary judgments and the unrelenting issue of "question of law, not fact" makes the position of judges much more important. The people, and many litigation attorneys, believe they have lost control, or even direction, of the process. If it is a question of law, follow the law. There is equal complaining on both sides of the political spectrum. From liberals, voiced in this NYT editorial, to conservatives on concerns about the "Deep State".
7
I have to agree that I've seen many changes over many years, and few of them were for the better. We are in a spiral, that resembles an aircraft in a stall.
I think you have given it a good try. But let’s face it, the fact that they are elected makes them a political branch of government – end of story. The more insidious thing is that even when they aren’t elected – aka SCOTUS – they are de facto a political branch of government. Witness the fact that almost invariably news articles about controversial court decisions take a moment to explain to the reader whether the Judge in question was a Democrat or Republican. Or at a minimum, whether they were appointed by one. So for me, the cry to protect judges, once elected, from becoming politicized rings very hollow. I think it’s high time we drop the pretense and call it what it is. And in doing so, either fully embrace the Judiciary as a third form of elected/political body, or go the other direction of a much more neutral, depoliticized appointments process. Which seems highly unlikely. In any event, how would a bumper sticker saying “Gorsuch for SCOTUS in 2024” be any weirder or less appropriate than what we have now? At least we might not be stuck with him for life.
4
"Across the country, state judges are under increasing fire from lawmakers and outside groups." False equivalency strikes again as the Times phrases the issue as lawmakers versus courts instead of acknowledging the reality that it is Republicans versus courts. Republicans are prepared to destroy any institution that gets in the way of their radical power grabs.
18
Are the federal courts and even the Supreme Court any different after Trump's outpourings against several judges?
2
I agree entirely with your editorial. An independent judiciary is essential to out nation.
But the accompanying illustration makes it appear that the attack on an independent judiciary is a bipartisan issue. It's not.
The GOP is a minority party in terms of popular support. So, it has increasingly turned to voter suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of our judicial system to power.
The GOP has not only attacked the courts in Pennsylvania, Kansas, and North Carolina, Neil Gorsuch sits on our highest court because the GOP has taken the unprecedented position that so long as it controls the Senate a Democratic President may not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court.
This may soon pay big political dividends if the Supreme Court, as expected, rules against public sector unions, which are generally a major supporter of the Democratic Party.
The GOP not only opposes Democrats, it opposes democracy. The attack on the judiciary is just one dangerous manifestation of its strategy to retain power against the will of the people.
113
Not bipartisan? FDR tried to increase the number of SCOTUS justices and then pack the Court. Bork? Biden? And, Garland/Gorsuch was not the first episode in US history. Lastly, the Dimocrat/Republicant cabal combined is not a majority of the People.
Bork was terrifying in his views that there wasn't a right to privacy.
Let's quit calling the country "polarized." That seems to be a fairly benign term which attempts to equate those who serve a radical conservative agenda with the rest of America. There is no equivalency. We are not "polarized." We are being subjected to the whims of a very vocal and well-funded minority attempting to take over all branches of state and federal governments. That is called by another name altogether: oligarchy, dictatorship or authoritarian. Take your pick.
61
They are polarized but I am not? A magnet always has two ends, or it isn't a magnet.
Who is to blame for the polarization, who puts the charge into that magnet, that we can debate. But we are all polarized now.
It is essential to see reality for what it is, even more essential when it is ugly.
1
"State judges are under increasing fire from lawmakers and outside groups"?
No, state judges are under increasing fire from Republicans. It's pretty simple, don't see why you can't just say so.
74
The pervasiveness of the Republican strategy continues to impress, to sicken, and to terrify.
The independence of the judiciary is vital. If a judge must look over the shoulder for political consequences, the rendering of impartial judgments is compromised.
In NC judicial races have been made non-partisan for good reasons, but now our veto-proof GOP legislature is attacking non-partisanship at all levels of our courts - not just at the appellate level, but the Superior and District courts as well. In addition to the moves mentioned in the editorial, they are seeking to re-draw local judicial districts so that they may be gerrymandered. For our District courts we have countywide elections. By breaking up the counties into districts drawn the legislature in Raleigh, they can draw districts such that 2 or 3 sitting judges will reside in the same new district and only 1 of them can be re-elected. A clever way to get rid of some judges and open opportunities for others. It doesn't seem to matter that judges rule countywide, not for a particular part.
And the GOP are using all levels of the media to sell this glorious coup as patriotic.
All levels of our government seem in jeopardy.
27
The US separation between politicians and judges, or between politics and law, is nominal at best.
In most democracies, judges are never elected, and neither are they chosen by presidents or elected officials. They are chosen by their peers based on their capability as judges.
Likewise, in other democracies, judges' work as judges, deciding cases based on what the law says. They do not waste their time inventing legal gobbledygook to support or oppose questions like abortion, positive-discrimination, gun-rights or other matters that, they recognize, are matters of morality or opinion. When there is a difficult moral question like this, the electorate decides.
And so the judges just judge. And because of this, they are respected and their opinions, while not always infallible, are at least trusted as being impartial and well-intentioned.
Totally unlike in the US, where we all know that if Justice Thomas say A, then Justice Ginsburg will say B, regardless of the legal details.
It may seem somehow "right" that judges should be elected - but it's fair to conclude from the US experience that this is just a bad idea.
9
Their peers then have an internal politics of their own. See the British bar for its self sorting in favor of the politics of class among attorneys.
2
True, Britain isn't a great example either! No system is perfect.
Maybe my point is more that the US has moved too far towards choice of judges by popular vote, directly or indirectly.
"Across the country, state judges are under increasing fire from lawmakers and outside groups angered by their rulings, their power, their tenure or simply their independence. "
I wonder how much these disturbing power grabs by elected officials angered by a court decision have been affected by the changes in Washington?
I know all politics are local, but when you have a leader who has politicized the judiciary and acts like it exists only to protect his presidency, it gives states cover for their own partisan over-reach.
The rule of law is under increasing attack in Washington, and now, in the states. The more the law is disrespected and politicized, the weaker it becomes as an guardian of civil freedoms.
The way things are going, it almost seems as if states are becoming mini-dictatorships where temporal power is weakening the independence of its judiciary.
It's odd to see the tactics used to destroy judicial independence--occurring in increasingly autocratic countries like Hungry and Poland--invading state capitols.
In the long run, it means the party who curbed judicial power is ensuring its own power will survive any election where power ostensibly changes hands.
19
Once again, who is fomenting this problem? It is not the independent voters, it is not the Democratic party. Luckily, in our state, intelligence prevailed and the supreme court justice openly backed by the Republican party was not elected and what was more interesting, is the fact the candidate that won also won in counties that voted for Trump and Walker in the 2016 election. You can push the voting public just so much until they recoil and push back against blatant partisanship to try to control all of government
33
The GOP has effectively outlawed the Democratic Party, in all but name, in 33 States nationwide by use of gerrymandering and other underhanded methods, and will continue to do so if left unabated. Being that "all politics are local," this is one of the most disturbing and dangerous trends in American politics today. If we continue to keep our eyes closed and allow this to happen, we will one day awaken to an one party system, with little to no ability to affect progressive change, and a majority of Americans will have little to no voice in the political process. Given the sacrifices millions of Americans, of all races and creeds, made during the 20th century to defeat totalitarian countries with one party rule, the irony is rich, indeed. Careful of what you wish for people, you just may get it.
44
When courts preempt law created by elected officials for ideological reasons, a firm response is called for.
The Courts are not elected, they should not be deciding things based on what they would like to have the law to say.
7
State courts, in most states are in fact elected. The system of government in this country and states, call for a tripartite system. Each is suppose the check the other. Apparently, law makers simply want to do away with the court system.
20
Judges do not say what the law should be. They say what laws are wrong or right based on the state and federal constitutions legislators are supposed to follow.
21
The law is interpreted by judges who study the law...THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO COW-TOW to the left or right. The founders deliberately made these positions long term and their decisions unimpeachable. If you are looking to how this all started, blame McConnell for blocking Merrit Garland a moderate when Obama nominated him. The Republicans now feel that gave them license to do anything they wanted in terms of force-fitting their views on the judiciary. Sounds a bit like China, Russia or any banana republic.
"Are we the only ones sensing a pattern here?" Of course not. The pattern is clear and approved by 50% of our nation.
The gerrymander was not an accident. It was a deliberate strategy to nullify the influence of half the citizenry, by taking over the state houses. The push to nullify votes in areas that are mostly poor and minority - by requiring IDs that are harder to come by for people without cash and transportation, or time off work; by making lines longer and making voting more expensive in terms of missed hours; by eliminating early voting.
So why would we miss that the same forces want to own the courts as part of the legislative branch? The only way that goal will change is when ultimately party dominance shifts and all the GOP judges are the ones facing impeachment.
We stopped believing in both democracy and a two party system. "My way or the highway" is no way to run a free nation.
85
Only 40% so really the minority is trying to jam their unpopular views down the majority's throat. Think 'Sunni' and 'Shiite'....
2
And when your negotiating partner greets every compromise by moving to a more extreme position, continuing to beg for compromise encourages them to get worse.
You must punish Republicans by blocking everything they try to do, or they will not change.
Once they start to behave like they will actually honestly compromise, then you attempt forgiveness once. If they behave responsibly then you can try it one more time. But as soon as they go back to cheating, they must be punished.
The Democrat's appeasement of Republican cheating led directly to Trump.
When Democrats abandoned unions and workers in general to court big money donors they left the high ground and the natural advantages of that strategic location, to fight in the big money gutter where Republicans have the advantage. It led to Democrats losing 2/3 of all elections.
Democrats need to stop worrying about what Republicans think about anything and start pushing for policies that will actually help workers. Then workers (60% of the population) will vote for you, and you will win. Then you can force Republicans to compromise.
1
Local, state and federal courts have favored big business over working people and local taxpaying homeowners for decades. Both parties are guilty.
12
This isn't a matter of "both sides do it too" but, rather a matter of one side (republican, regressive and pseudo-conservative crypto-Fascist) asserting, in their own coded language that obfuscates and subterfuges, that a judge, who happens to be a member of the "other" party, cannot issue rulings that don't jive with their political affiliation. And that is not true.
To assert so negates faith in any independent judiciary by claiming only those judges who agree with your political affiliation are suited to judge you.
2
In Britain we find it quite irrational to have judges appointed on the basis of their political convictions. When a vacancy occurs it is filled by an applicant selected by a committee of more senior judges.
Though most judges are slightly conservative they see their duty as applying the law as written to all who appear before them. That they have given judgments that displeased governments of both parties is indicative of their freedom from bias.
121
Your highest court is the Law Lords, and they are the most political.
There is no easy answer to finding good people, just by using a fool proof process.
3
The state amendment being proposed in Missouri is fanciful, or more bluntly, forbidden by Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which makes federal law superior to any provision of state laws or constitutions and compels state judges to be so bound.
Article VI, Section 3 requires all state executive, legislative, and judicial officers to support the U.S. Constitution.
62
Now only if California and “sanctuary cities” followed federal immigration law where the constitution explicitly makes Congress the lawgiver.
And now, if only Congress would act after many years of dithering, to bring immigration law substantially into line with the huge super majorities of public opinion that have persisted on the issue.
I wrote a hurried response to this earlier, I found it difficult to express the concern I feel about the future of the country. I have kids, Grand Kids, Great grand kids, will they survive this assault on our country, this attack on their future? How about you fellow readers?
I fear I will not be around to guide them through what appears to me to be an emerging totalitarian episode, I am doing what I can to educate them about our political movements, but like most kids, they do not see the relevance.
I do see some future in those young people, survivors of the Florida High School murders. Several of the survivors are well spoken, and David Hogg looks like a future leader. That he gets hate mail says just how mentally unbalanced those tRump followers are.
It is no different than the bigotry this segment of the population expresses toward ethnicity's other than their own perceived kinds; it is a tribal mentality Today we have the Republican Tribe, dismissive of anyone with a different ideology.
The GOP has become a purveyor of lies, alternative facts, racial purity, a party that considers their interpretation of the Constitution the only one worth considering. Even compromise is a liberal word to them, their vision of the country is more authoritarian than most of us thought possible.
I dearly hope the majority of the citizenry will evict this scourge from their haughty perch in their undeserved halls of power.
We must all unite to defeat this affliction.
236
As a millennial, i appreciate your comment
Personally I think Emma Gonzalez has emerged as the leader who will go down in history, it was her speech that initially went viral after all.
Let’s not only project our visions of leadership onto whatever straight white men are in our virtual vicinity (lest we forget, that’s what got us into this orange catastrophe of a situation in the first place)
HOWEVER I like David Hogg as well :)
18
We can put our bets on young people to improve our situation, but the bleak fact is they just can't seem to get themselves to the polls. The 18-29 age group has one of the worst voting rates, less than 1/3 vote. Lots of noise, no action.
6
There are lots more young people like David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez. My hope (I am 74) is in them.
5
While I don't know all the data points that the author was using, it seems like nearly all cases were situations where the GOP was attacking the judiciary. Unless there are more data points not cited, the title was very misleading and should have been "America’s State Courts Are Under Attack by the GOP"
132
The article is partisan, so it does not mention the cases where the courts are under attack by Democrats.
1
The selection of data points was limited but NYT is smart enough to not make this as a pure GOP issue. There is ample evidence of the left attacking conservative judges. Look at all the bike vented at Scalia, Thomas and Gorsuch at the federal level.
1
ebmem, pleasea look at the response from s K. That should tell you all you need to know about the purity mongering on the left enabling the crimes of the right. (By the way, I am close to 100% in support of Bernie's ideals, I just don't like his enabling circular firing squads and cannibalizing allies.)
I don't doubt that Republican legislators are going overboard in partisan management of state courts. But one example seemed suspicious. "In Missouri, a proposed amendment would let voters decide whether a federal law is constitutional. If they say no, state courts will be barred from enforcing that law or hearing disputes involving it or any similar state law."
The description suggests to me an improper delegation of power to voters in determining constitutionality. That's especially true in context, because all the other examples evidence abuse of partisan power. But the Missouri proposal merely refers to a standard vote to amend the state constitution, the sort of vote that is common practice throughout the country and is entirely proper.
I bring this up not to suggest that the point of the article is invalid. To the contrary, it appears valid. But the Missouri example, which seemed questionable on its face, is not questionable.
When you write an editorial read by many, I hold you to a high standard. I believe it is not just your premises that must be right but also the supporting examples. You may be more comfortable with inaccuracy than me. That's your choice.
2
michjas appears to be confused. The voters would not be deciding whether a state law is in accordance with the state constitution. They would be deciding whether a federal law is in accordance with, presumably (or it makes no sense) the federal constitution. That is not a state prerogative in any form.
Besides, constitutionality of any kind has always been accepted as a judicial, not a legislative or executive, function. Surely michjas would agree that voters are not judicial.
33
State officials are legally bound to follow federal law, and that applies to courts. Missouri's proposed law is a legitimate example of partisan overreach, since it is on its face unconstitutional. A state may grant voters the right to vote on state law, but cannot extend that power to federal law. Yet another waste of time and money by the Republican legislature, which has shown less concern for Missouri roads, schools, health care and workers than on partisan wedge issues.
47
I found this to be the most disturbing part of the article also. The fact that state lawmakers, people who are charged with knowing the law and making it would blatantly ignore it because it doesn’t suite them is unimaginable and un-American. The scariest part is there will be supporters in Missouri who are so uneducated or so indoctrinated with their parties views that they will think this is perfectly fine. The constitution expressly states federal law supersedes state law and only the judiciary can deem it unconstitutional not you’re state voters. If this is allowed to happen, which it won’t, then the “United” States of America is dead and all we will have is a few blocks of sometimes affiliated states that will be fighting each other all time because the fringe groups of the party were allowed to take over and compromise is dead and the war for the country will start all over again. All the while the true threats to the world and United States continue to consolidate power and further influence the world. If I were Europe and Asia I would be coming up with plan b because plan a, The USA, is looking a little unreliable right now.
2
This is an incredibly important topic, but an incredibly naive or disingenuous treatment of it. Courts are supposed to have independence yes, but they're also supposed to decide "cases and controversies." In many states—and certainly at the federal level—ordinary political issues are being recast as constitutional questions so as to remove them from public debate and place them in the hands of judges.
"Pennsylvania’s Republican lawmakers have also openly defied an order from the state’s high court in the gerrymandering case, a sign of disrespect for the judiciary and an infringement of the separation of powers."
Why is it not infringement of separation of powers for the judiciary to be giving the legislature "orders"? The legislature is supposed to be the preeminent branch of a republican government.
Let me sum up the NYT's position. "Judges can do whatever they want, and it can be never political or partisan because it's by definition being done by judges. And no one is allowed to object to it, because that would be political."
7
@SuperNova: Who decides whether actions of the legislature are incompatible with the fundamental law of the state or nation, that law known as the "constitution"? If it is judges, your argument is without merit; if it is the voters, executive, or the legislature, then the Bill of Rights is null and void.
Are judges there to protect arbitrary actions of the legislature? If not, your argument is without merit.
28
Each state has procedures to amend its constitution, as does the federal government.
If a state passes an amendment in response to the belief of the voters in the state that the courts have exceeded their authority, the constitutional amendment overrides the judges decision.
At the federal level, that is why slavery is now unconstitutional.
Legislatures and voters are there to protect against arbitrary actions of the judiciary.
Juggling the power between the three branches of government is democracy in action.
The authors of this editorial are resentful of any changes to the status quo. they do not approve of democracy.
"The legislature is supposed to be the preeminent branch of a republican government." -- In the American constitutional system, none of the three branches is "preeminent." The executive, judicial, and legislative are three co-equal branches operating as checks and balances, each upon the others.
32
The judicial activism that is increasingly practiced by many judges throughout the country has eroded the public’s faith in the judiciary, and rightly so.
I’ve noticed that most folks only respect a judge’s ruling when it produces a person’s desired outcome (see SCOTUS’ ruling on Obamacare), and they loathe them when a ruling goes against their wishes (see SCOTUS’ ruling on Obamacare).
We have a public who largely doesn’t understand the role of the judiciary, and judges whose ruling are going beyond applying the law (see rulings on Trump’s travel ban, later dismissed by SCOTUS).
12
IWS has failed to notice the issue. It is not "loathing", it is taking political control of the judiciary, as has been done in Hungary and Poland in order to preserve the party in power. Hey, just like here!
50
"Judicial Activism" is regressive, crypto-Fascist republican code for "judges we disagree with."
1
I've practiced law since 1995 and have appeared in state and federal courts from California to New York. By far, the largest campaign contributors in states that elect judges are plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers (e.g., California, Nevada, Missouri). Notably, the -editorial cited a report from a self-described "progressive" organization to suggest that courts will issue "pro-business" decisions (note: no mention the decisions are legally incorrect). As a practicing lawyer, I had judges tell me that plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers say that they'd need to run someone against that judge if he/she didn't change his/her rulings. I never heard of a business doing this--it was only the plaintiffs' personal injury bar that made such threats. I'd welcome a federal or "Missouri" approach to all judicial appointments. It is grossly inaccurate, however, to suggest that business interests improperly tilt the scales of justice.
7
"As a practicing lawyer, I had judges tell me that plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers say that they'd need to run someone against that judge if he/she didn't change his/her rulings."
And why wouldn't Judges being threatened by such lawyers immediately report them to the Bar? I can't imagine a lawyer keeping his/her license to practice if such a threat were made.
20
If you have never heard of pro-business groups making such threats, then you have not been listening. This is standard operating procedure for the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth.
30
I practices since 1979, and I saw large lawfirms founded on major corporate clients raise overwhelming amounts for the election of judges. No, it is not all plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers.
2
The judiciary is the foundation of our democracy. The writers of the Constitution made it independent to prevent the takeover of the government by any particular ideology. We are a country of laws. It is not surprising that it is the Republicans and the Republican party that wants to subvert the laws to favor a particular ideology.
Recent studies show Republicans are authoritarian oriented by a ratio of 2:1 compared to more liberal groups. We see them attempting to give religion primacy over public policy and even science. They are working to assure the dominance of authoritarianism for several decades to thwart the voters right to an independent judiciary.
The republicans are a minority, this attack on our justice system is a silent coup to assure their brand of authoritarianism is carried on even after they are defeated at the polls. It is in fact a form of Fascism, not much different than that of regimes of the 1930s. Republicans have no shame, we [are seeing just how destructive they are morally and physically.
Impeach justices for a ruling that follows constitutional law because it did not give them special dispensation, no decent honest person can condone such behavior, it is inimical to a free society and has to be condemned by all, it is an attack on our society, and attack on free people everywhere.
We see such actions in dictatorships, corrupt governments, unaccountable to the people and dominated by force.
It is happening here, we can stop it now.
155
Short of civil war, an independent judiciary and a free press are the only things that stand between a moderate, restrained, responsible party and the absolute tyranny of extremism.
Both parties, regardless of which is in power, need to understand and respect that a healthy degree of balance is needed to govern and provide sufficient checks against the excesses of the other, even if that means sacrificing some valued goals. Such an approach, however, becomes a problem when the right represents the interests of the powerful and wealthy and then provides a home to extremists and cultivates the support of narrow-minded, backward-thinking, and repressive people to retain power. When that happens, the right moves so much further away from the other side that the center no longer reflects moderate positions and cannot be supported or respected by the left.
If such a possibility comes to fruition, then the government and the courts no longer represent the interests of all the people, and worse, can no longer provide any checks against a leader with self-serving intent. I don't think it is too far-fetched to say that the events, actions, and trends of the last few years show that we have started down a very dangerous path from which there may be no short-term recovery if we do not exercise the checks we still have available.
57
The whole point of representative democracy is that *we* stand there, between our government and crazies. We don't make all the decisions, but we can say who does.
2
Agree, as long as the tools given to us remain available, then it is our responsibility to use them. One of those tools is an independent judiciary that is not stacked heavily with justices who lean to one side. Another tool is voting through a process that also does not involve a stacked deck. We as a country seem to have allowed deck stacking for a long time. I think it is in everyone's interest to ensure that the tools we have to collectively make decisions and to have them assessed by the courts are as fair as possible. If we lose that ability, then this will no longer be the US as we knew it.
The Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers (seeking to impeach the Democratic state supreme court justices due to their gerrymandering decision) have a reputation for being incompetent. It is not surprising they would attempt a feeble end run to put their party's interests ahead of the state's.
52
And these attempts to go after the Democrats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will blow up in the GOP's faces this fall. Haven't these guys paid any attention to what just happened in PA's 18th District?
Holding back the Blue Wave will be like standing on a beach and trying to stop a tsunami by waving your hands. Like it or not, voters in the Keystone State are becoming more blue with each passing year and already have an edge in registrations.
Toomey should enjoy the remainder of his second term. He won't get another one.
2
From your typing fingers to God's eyes.
Republicans play for keeps. Not for them, the niceties of a democratic republic with its give and take. No, for Republicans it's take power by any means, including election theft or voter intimidation and suppression, and then use the levers of power to not only keep it for themselves, but to keep the Democrats from getting it.
The "United States"; what a quaint idea it was. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we break it up, the better. California (Where I live), Oregon, and Washington State would make quite a nice little country.
125
Need I remind you that issue was settled on May 09, 1865?
4
As would New England.
4
So, would New England and New York and New Jersey are welcome to join along.
4
The GOP wrecking crew is determined to get their way by hook or by crook. Step one is to “win” majorities at the state and national level through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and manipulation of voting machines. The Republican majorities make no sense when the GOP's base is shrinking and their positions are unpopular. Elections for governor have been rigged, so there is no doubt that the same is happening with state legislature races. Here’s what’s been occurring at the national level since we moved to computerized voting in 2002:
In 2006, Democrats regained control of Congress, however, exit poll data shows that "there was gross vote count manipulation and it had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of what would have been accurately tabulated a landslide of epic proportions." The same will happen in 2018 if our votes continue to be counted in a black box.
Jonathan Simon and Bruce O'Dell: Landslide Denied: Exit Polls vs. Vote Count
https://tinyurl.com/y5fk4r
In 2010, with 300 safe House seats Republicans won an unprecedented 128 of the remaining 135 seats with a small national vote share even though close races should break about even.
In 2014, the approval rating of the Republican Congress was at an all-time low (about 8%). The Party of No swept up more seats despite the fact that progressive ballot measures passed by wide margins (even in non-blue states).
#DemocracyDemandsTransparentVoteCounting
#SayNoToFaithBasedVoting
71
NYT: Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say https://tinyurl.com/ycanp24r
“The list of flaws in the Diebold software is long, according to the [John Hopkins] paper. Among other things, the researchers said, ballots could be altered by anyone with access to a machine, so that a voter might think he is casting a ballot for one candidate while the vote is recorded for an opponent.”
Whistleblowers:
Tom Feeney, the Republican Speaker of the House in Florida, asks Clint Curtis to write a vote flipping program in 2000.
https://tinyurl.com/y8jkhvog
Mike Connell, Karl Rove's IT guru, is killed in a single person plane crash in 2008 before he is scheduled to resume testimony in open court. The case was against Bush, Rove, and Secretary of State Ken Blackwell regarding the 2004 presidential election in Ohio.
https://tinyurl.com/yctncqr6
Republican Stephen Spoonamore, Computer Security Guru, Election Theft with Voter Machines
https://tinyurl.com/y7855vmp
"It seems that in every single bizarre circumstance where exit data, polling data or informational data swings it's all been in favor of Republicans, but not the sort of Republicans I want to see in office. These are people who lie and who cheat. We've had numerous elections now where the vote is way off: 5, 10, 12% from the actual polling. These statistical numbers are impossible. Americans must come to the realization there are people in this country who want to steal elections and we must stop them."
21
Thank you for all your hard work keeping on keeping on with the vote cheating detail. So important!
38
Ebmem,
Exit polls are scientific; they’re the international gold standard. Pollsters select precincts which have predicted past winners. Then they select respondents to match the demographics of the area.
Our State Department uses exit polls to verify elections in other countries. A discrepancy above 2 percent raises a red flag and an investigation and recount follow. As a result, elections have been overturned in Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia.
Why exit polls matter:
https://tinyurl.com/hkwvxts (the website is currently down)
Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, Italy, and other democracies rely on exit polls to announce the winners on election night (the hand counts are usually completed the next day) because their exit polls fall within the margin of error of 1-2 percent. In the U.S., discrepancies between exit polls and the recorded vote have been as high as 8, 10, 12 percent since we moved to computerized voting in 2002. They fell within the margin of error before 2002.
Authoritarian governments count votes in secret, not democracies.
65
This is not new, but it is good to see it get some air time. Days and days late and dollars and dollars (millions/billions) short.
See Jane Mayer's Dark Money and material of that nature; this is a long-laid plan, and it is in the final stages of a complete takeover.
If you are not frightened I hope it is because you are terrified. Time for all good people (men, women, and children) to come to the aid of their party. Berniebusters and other troll believers of conspiracy fiction too. Stop blaming your allies for what your enemies have done. Stop pretending anyone who isn't "pure" enough should be part of the general conflagration, of that a general confragration will do anything but enable the monsters who are perpetrating this takeover.
This is an emergency, and posturing and idealism needs to be the crown, not to footwear on the way.
121
Susan, you hit the nail on its head! Follow all of the extensive Koch brothers' networks as described in Dark Money and you will see that they are winning in many areas. The demise of consumer protection, the privatization of many government functions, the takeover of national, state, and local decision-making including all three branches of government, the inequality of our citizens, racism, sexism, the return of power to the banks and the stockholders of our major companies, the fear of terrorists in our people, the closer we come to fulfilling the goals and objectives of the Koch brothers and their many cronies.
Follow the money to find the power in this country! Much of it revolves around the Koch brothers and their wide circle. They have a plan that was devised many years ago! The less time that our citizens spend learning about what is really happening to our democracy, the sooner the "grand plan" will fall into place. I can only pray that they are found out before it is too late!
5
Try reading "Clinton Money" and then convince yourself that the Clintons were not attempting to buy the Presidency, as they bought the NY Senate seat for Hillary in 2000. That would be a state in which Hillary had never been a resident.
Hillary tried to buy the 2016 election with dark and foreign money. She paid the Russians to build a fake dossier on Trump.
The American voters could not be bought.
2
ebmem I know more about Clinton than you do, that's clear. Time to stop promoting Trump and his swamp. Meanwhile, Clinton lost, so I'm complaining about the attitude as it goes forward, which is all or nothing for perfection.
2
"The general liberty of the people can never be endangered... so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive. Liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from the union with the other departments." ~Alexander Hamilton
The supreme courts are supposed to be the grownups in the room. Their job is to ensure that the law is being followed equally not to engage in partisan politics. Often they make decisions that are morally correct even if it goes against the beliefs of society as a whole. They keep the other branches in check which is why the founders made sure that the judiciary is equal to the other branches of government. If we allow that separation and independence to be undermined we can kiss our democracy goodbye.
165
Courts are not authorized to make decisions that are morally correct. They have the power to enforce the law, as written. It is up to legislatures to determine what the voters consider to be moral.
How a state spends its revenues is a political decision, in which different forces pull in different directions and a political compromise results.
When a court makes a determination that a state is obligated to spend "X" on education after the federal government has already ordered the state to spend "Y" on Medicaid, the court had usurped the power of the elected legislature. When a single branch of the government, the judiciary in this case, usurps power of another branch, the legislature and executive branches are obligated to rein in the judiciary.
Separation of powers does not grant supreme power to any of the three branches of government. But it does generally take two branches to rein in a third.
In federal government, the executive government has usurped power from the legislature with Obama's executive overreach. The courts had limited ability to rein him in, because they lack enforcement authority, although SCOTUS ruled against Obama more than any other president in history. The states were able to use their balancing power [sovereignty of the states in areas not Constitutionally under federal control] enforcement power. One of the reasons the Union has survived as a democracy longer than predicted, is that we have a fourth balancing power, the states.
10
If we had a democracy (I.e. rule by the people), judicial independence would be illegal. Fortunately we have a constitutional republic where the judiciary is independent of rule by the people.
1
"Courts are not authorized to make decisions that are morally correct."
Wrong, and may the Good Providence cited by the Founders save us from it ever being so.
Trump poison has metastasized
Democracy has been downsized
Under fierce attack
The Courts must fight back
And vile, evil laws be demised.
51
There will be another election. This too shall pass, and rather soon, if we do the work and are honest about it.
2
Rule number three of the GOP Playbook : If you can't win by following the rules, change the Rules or the Umpires. That's what's happening here.
And for the curious: Rule number two is " It doesn't matter, when it's a Republican ". Rule number one : " More Tax Cuts for the Rich, in any circumstances ". Just saying.
275
Ebmen, Ross Perot took nearly 20% of the vote, so that is a silly comparison.
And Democrats blaming the electoral college, which is in the original constitution, and is not going anywhere, is just as silly.
Pat Toomey, straight out of the Club for Growth, is not in any sense of the world a moderate.
96
Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi are not in any sense moderates. What is your point?
Gillibrand acted like a moderate when she was in the House from a conservative Congressional district. When she was appointed to the Senate, she showed her true colors. No one today would argue that she is a moderate, although that was ostensibly the justification for her appointment to the Senate.
2
"No one today would argue that she is a moderate, although that was ostensibly the justification for her appointment to the Senate."
That exactly tracks the appointment and evolution of one of our greatest Chief Justices, Earl Warren.
There is no substitute for finding a good person, honest, clear thinking, with a good heart. Then you have to accept they'll act that way. That is why we have a representative system, a Republic, instead of a pure democracy.
Obama was most assuredly a moderate. How many mega-banks did he break up? How about that inclusion of a public option in the ACA? The increase in the minimum wage? The line in the sand he drew on not extending the Bush tax cuts for the already filthy rich?
Oh, that's right. None of those things happened.
Obama campaigned as a very poor mans FDR. That is who I voted for. I got Bob Dole.
Just because Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity called Obama a "leftist' (laughable), does not make it so.