Agree with every point, but the most important is the Supreme Court. It cannot be reformed…in fact, the present court would declare nearly every reform unconstitutional…it must be changed. There should be a sustained campaign for the resignations of corrupt (Thomas) grifters (Alito, Roberts) and perjurer rapists (Kavanaugh). There is no shame or disrespect in returning the Court to its best. Let’s stop coddling clowns.
Face it. Justices with lifetime job security don't need to care about much of anything, including how their rulings go against the grain.
It's time for impeachments for those who lied in their confirmation hearings, who accept bribes, who don't recuse from cases they're involved in, and who don't support the Constitution. The lifetime appointments should be reduced to a "term in office" shorter than this, possibly 18 years. They can rotate into other federal appeals courts.
Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Term limits or age will NOT fix SCOTUS. A total restructure as suggested at the bottom of https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20 might give us a Supreme Court that handles a country of 340 million rather than just 3 million people.
I’m beginning to believe that those 4 justices are in the Epstein Files. Certainly Roberts is as seen in a photo with him and a young woman on his lap. Could that be the kompromat Trump has on all of them?
I had not seen that photo, but it's a heck of a thought.
Sadly, I find it easy to believe our President would be willing to blackmail people with evidence that implicates himself at the same time. He's that nutty and maybe his blackmail victims are that scared of exposure.
I would very much like to see Jen and Norm tackle the question of fixing SCOTUS. It seems to be the key to everything. As long as the Senate rules stay in place, the chances for 60 votes to expand the court seem small. Impeachment is even harder (2/3rds of those present must vote in favor). So where does that leave a presumptive Democratic President in 2029? Are we stuck with a corrupt court that will block all meaningful reforms or is there another way forward that we’ve all missed?
I actually think that we have an opportunity to have such a blowout tsunami in 2026 that the Senate can change its rules so that the court can be expanded with less than 60 votes. Let the GOP cry for a change. Then, add 5 solid justices, across a broad left to middle spectrum, but ALL with integrity and wisdom in their backgrounds. That can be sold to the nation as a BALANCING of an out-of-control Supreme Court.
Then: 1st order of business: bring Trump up on corruption charges. With at least 50 counts. Across a broad range of his perfidy. Let the case go up to the NEW Supreme Court, and let them rule wisely that CORRUPTION and BRIBERY are NOT legitimate powers of the presidency, and thus a president CAN be tried on those charges. E.g., killing off the WORST ruling in SC history -- I know, that's a competitive field -- : last summer's immunity ruling.
I would like it if Jen and Norm encouraged everyone to bring the following to their Congresspeople's attention: Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Don’t get me wrong—I’m very happy that folks are continuing with various forms of pressure on their elected officials. Every effort helps. However, given the Senate’s track record this year, my question still stands—where are the (necessary) Republican votes to change anything of importance about SCOTUS? If current Senate rules remain in place, restructuring the Supreme Court would take 60 votes (and no filibuster). Assuming we have a slim Senate majority in 2029–perhaps 1-2 votes—we would still need 8-9 Republican votes to do anything fundamental. Can we identify that many “persuables” on the other side?
Remember that the Republican Party in general, and Mitch McConnell in particular, spent years patiently building this judicial firewall against Democratic Administrations. It worked almost to perfection during Biden’s time in office and we all saw how that ended. My overriding interest is making sure that we don’t walk into that same trap again. I suspect that we’re all going to work hard to elect Democrats in both 2026 and 2028, and I think we all want to see tangible benefits from the effort that will be required to do so.
Can a D Senate change the rules and eliminate the filibuster? I think so? Then they could change the number of SCOTUS justices; however, the 2/3 vote required for conviction after impeachment IS a Constitutional rule, so not much hope there.
In theory, yes. The filibuster and de facto 60 vote requirement not only aren’t in the Constitution, they aren’t even actual laws. A simple Senate vote would suffice to end both. Problem is that the filibuster in particular has long been seen as protection for the minority party. Most of the Senators have been around long enough to know that the party in the majority today will be tomorrow’s minority. Recently you saw Trump push fairly hard on the Senate to end the filibuster, and even the Trumpiest of the Senators told him “no.”
There are two interrelated roadblocks that, if left unaddressed, will quite possibly torpedo the next Democratic Administration—SCOTUS and the Senate. If we want to attack the Senate problem, we really need to start working now on the arguments to use and laying the groundwork with at least the Democratic Senators who are likely to still be in office come 2029. We’d be fighting a lot of history, but with a good enough game plan, most anything is possible. If we could pick this particular lock, then legislative solutions for the SCOTUS problem (several of which have been discussed in comments on this article) become possible.
By "arguments to use and laying the groundwork with at least the Democratic Senators who are likely to still be in office come 2029," are you talking about arguments for eliminating the filibuster?
I have thought for some years as this growing frustration that laws supported by huge majorities of the population still can't get through Congress or are struck down by the Supreme Court is not sustainable, meaning states start to secede or the country just blows up. I'm not sure what either of those options really looks like, but this current path of just ignoring big majority opinions is not okay.
One "good" thing about Supreme Court Justice "good Behaviour" (or its opposite) is that it has no statute of limitations so if at least a few Senators start pulling together perhaps impeachments can happen in 2027. The Courts have been over 200 years getting themselves into their own judicial mess so I don't expect it will be a quick slam-dunk fixing it.
I truly admire your optimism and I really do not want to come off as a “Debbie Downer” with my remarks. I’ll just remind folks that the bar for impeachment is described in the Constitution and is even higher than that for legislation. If all Senators are present, 67 votes are needed for conviction and removal in an impeachment proceeding. That would serve to rid us of one Justice. At a minimum we’d need to do that at least once more, and replace the offenders with two more sympathetic Justices to have a bare 5-4 SCOTUS majority. To really clean house we’d need to remove six Justices. So the 8-9 Republican votes needed for legislation become 15-16 votes—multiplied by the number of Justices we attempt to remove. The Founding Fathers made impeachment hard on purpose. The Confirmation hearings are the place where bad apples are supposed to be screened out—clearly that ship has long since sailed.
If this is the preferred path to reform, we should start identifying specific Senators we think might be swayed by the case that would be presented and focus attention on them. If history is any guide, a lot of the existing census of the Senate will still be there in 2029.
Even if not enough (weak) Republicans vote for impeachment of failed (unconstitutional voting) Justices at the very least their constituents would see how the Republican Senators and Representatives voted and figure out who NOT to vote for in the future.
We can't, but Congress can (though they are a MAJOR part of the problem. See: Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
This is why I don't see court expansion as a fix. Why would we want MORE of that? I think the court needs to be disbanded. We have plenty of lower courts. Let the chips fall where they may there. If somebody wants to, say, overturn gay marriage or stop selling cakes to people they don't like, let them appeal to fckng Congress and see how that goes. Those guys can't even make a budget.
The Supreme Court is required in our Constitution. It would be much harder to remove it than to repair it.
And at one point, the number of justices was linked to the number of circuit courts in the country. I think each justice was responsible for some level of oversight of their circuit. We currently have 13 circuits (12 geographic and 1 'special' circuit for some situations) and only 9 justices. So just restoring the ratio would help a lot.
I've had killing the filibuster as the top priority but I can live with reforming SCOTUS first... as long as killing the filibuster and legislating Citizens United out of existence (i.e., getting private money out of politics) follow by no more than about ten minutes.
Whatever the order of those reforms, all three need to happen quickly -- within a single-digit number of weeks upon a bold Congress committed to transformational change taking office -- and in full form, not after two years of protracted back-and-forth resulting in toothless, thoroughly diluted half-measures. "The way it's always been done" is history. "The way we need to do it now" is what will lead the country to a Democracy 2.0 that actually serves the people.
Without all three reforms in place concurrently or very nearly so, nothing will change. SCOTUS will remain majority extremist right-wing partisan, Congress will remain unable to make any bold moves, and the corporations and oligarchs will continue to buy the legal and political outcomes they want.
We must focues on what we can do and that is the public sentiment is the only working force now to win back our country. For this to happen I thank Jenn and other opinion editors who are giving the public reliable data to join forces.
Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Perhaps I am dense. I have gone to the website you suggested, and cannot figure out how to find the so-called petition. A little l help please. I am sure I am not alone. Is this real or a joke?????
Following https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20 is the best I've been able to come up with. I don't see anything about a petition or cover letter, though there is discussion of SCOTUS carryings-on.
If you use a VPN, you might need to disconnect it for the link to succeed.
A good list. One correction - moderate Republicans do exist. They just have a “D” after their name. Maggie Hassan is a moderate Republican (I know, I live in NH). So is Tim Kaine. And Shaheen and Fetterman. Sad, but true.
Labels aside, I consider Fetterman complicit in Trump’s hostile takeover of our democracy. He canoodles with the GOP - the party which has served no purpose in the last year but to enable Trump to do whatever he chooses. We don’t need “moderates” right now; we need patriots who actively condemn and fight against the atrocities of this administration. From the looks of it - and despite his attempts to justify why he’s voted 26% of the time to support Trump’s agenda - Fetterman kinda likes Trump. And, for me, that’s unforgivable.
I was shocked that Pennsylvania Democrats rejected Connor Lamb in favor of Fetterman. They bought into the media hype about "working man," "hoody," "shorts," etc. Next time, look at qualifications and ideas that will build up our country.
TY JR. Excellent summary as we head into the Holiday and YE days. It drives home that the 2026 mid-terms are crucial. I especially apreciated this:
"Pointing out that slashing Medicaid and SNAP, zapping Affordable Care Act subsidies, messing with vaccine guidelines, and enacting cost-raising tariffs disproportionately hurt red states, especially rural residents, falls on deaf MAGA ears."
That's because tax cuts for tech-bro and oil & gas billionaires is THE TOP PRIORITY. Selfishness within the GOP is THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE. "Get it while you can" is another way of saying it. And, in Trump, and with Miller and Vought holding hands, the 1% hit an out-of-the-park home run.
Good list though I don't think the far right are Christians at all, because what they espouse is not anything Christ taught. How about putting parentheses around the use of that term. All faith traditions have zealots with extreme views far from the main tenets of any given religion. Let's call a spade a spade.
These "Christians" seem to be taking more from the Old Testament than the words and teachings of Jesus. They seem to prefer a more vengeful and cruel form of religion.
But the Old Testament also emphasizes God's mercy, which these "Christians" overlook.
J. D. Vance and others are trumpeting a perversion of Christianity. Vance converted to a narrow form of Catholicism. Does he think that the "evangelical right" will not come for his group when they finish with other groups?
Well..... it is also in the New Testament -- a minority expression -- and yes, it is in the Old Testament as well but it's probably fair to say that there, too, it is a minority expression.
The horrible Robbers' Court is an example of why all groups of "leaders" must include multiple equal voices with various representations. We can also see that with the small and horrendous cabal that Agent Orange uses to destroy the country. Companies that are led by boards with diverse members have proved time and again that they do better than those pasteurized groups doing the driving. New directions are on the horizon.
Okay, PUSH your Congresspeople to see the Petition that is soon to be in the U.S. Senate: Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Thank you for compiling a concise list, JR! I just want to point out a couple of my annoyances with the admin this year. I think the rarely mentioned motive for republican congress-people to support Trump's nonsense is his threat to stop funding to their states if they cross him. I think that's been proven now. And it puts their decision to ignore their constituents in more of a gray area - but in a viscous cycle of increasing his power to do that very thing.
Another VERY ANNOYING thing (but shallow on my part) is Trump's constant use of superlatives (a subset of lies). Maybe he thinks "the best of all time" label is eventually convincing, but it's not and it's so tiresome!
"The best of all times" and the "new golden age of America" fall flat when people find it impossible to make ends meet; when wages don't go up, when the kitchen table budget must be stretched beyond endurance. It is no golden age when families have to choose between food or utilities, or food and medical care and prescriptions. As always, "it's the economy, stupid."
Sales! You have to create desire. The city slicker has hit the rubes right where they live and they love it. It the greatest show on earth. Hey! I have an idea - let's put on a show!
Hey, please encourage your Congresspeople, particularly your Senators, to put on a show! Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Jen - As year one of this dystopian nightmare comes to an end, I’d like to thank you for all your hard work. I continue to look forward to your analysis of the issues and the path forward - because it’s always incisive and unflinching, and exactly what this moment needs.
"Sixth, religious appeals do not work with White Christian nationalists." One thing we can do that will cost them legitimacy if not power is to stop referring to them as Christians when they demonstrably are not. They are white racist nationalists, and by their actions have removed themselves from the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I think the DNC needs to not jump to the conclusion that people are voting Democrat and rest on those laurels but rather to take a good hard look at the Democrats who are winning and see what actions they take that make them favorable to the voters. People on the left are tired of lip service and they're ready for action
Agree with every point, but the most important is the Supreme Court. It cannot be reformed…in fact, the present court would declare nearly every reform unconstitutional…it must be changed. There should be a sustained campaign for the resignations of corrupt (Thomas) grifters (Alito, Roberts) and perjurer rapists (Kavanaugh). There is no shame or disrespect in returning the Court to its best. Let’s stop coddling clowns.
Face it. Justices with lifetime job security don't need to care about much of anything, including how their rulings go against the grain.
It's time for impeachments for those who lied in their confirmation hearings, who accept bribes, who don't recuse from cases they're involved in, and who don't support the Constitution. The lifetime appointments should be reduced to a "term in office" shorter than this, possibly 18 years. They can rotate into other federal appeals courts.
Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Term limits or age will NOT fix SCOTUS. A total restructure as suggested at the bottom of https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20 might give us a Supreme Court that handles a country of 340 million rather than just 3 million people.
Not sure why the first link above failed. This is the correct link: https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253#p253
If that gets reworked to worthless by the system, try https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19 then go down to the (currently) last reply: Petition to U.S. Senate...
I wouldn't even give them 18. They should only serve the same 6 years as Senators.
I’m beginning to believe that those 4 justices are in the Epstein Files. Certainly Roberts is as seen in a photo with him and a young woman on his lap. Could that be the kompromat Trump has on all of them?
I had not seen that photo, but it's a heck of a thought.
Sadly, I find it easy to believe our President would be willing to blackmail people with evidence that implicates himself at the same time. He's that nutty and maybe his blackmail victims are that scared of exposure.
I would very much like to see Jen and Norm tackle the question of fixing SCOTUS. It seems to be the key to everything. As long as the Senate rules stay in place, the chances for 60 votes to expand the court seem small. Impeachment is even harder (2/3rds of those present must vote in favor). So where does that leave a presumptive Democratic President in 2029? Are we stuck with a corrupt court that will block all meaningful reforms or is there another way forward that we’ve all missed?
I actually think that we have an opportunity to have such a blowout tsunami in 2026 that the Senate can change its rules so that the court can be expanded with less than 60 votes. Let the GOP cry for a change. Then, add 5 solid justices, across a broad left to middle spectrum, but ALL with integrity and wisdom in their backgrounds. That can be sold to the nation as a BALANCING of an out-of-control Supreme Court.
Then: 1st order of business: bring Trump up on corruption charges. With at least 50 counts. Across a broad range of his perfidy. Let the case go up to the NEW Supreme Court, and let them rule wisely that CORRUPTION and BRIBERY are NOT legitimate powers of the presidency, and thus a president CAN be tried on those charges. E.g., killing off the WORST ruling in SC history -- I know, that's a competitive field -- : last summer's immunity ruling.
I would like it if Jen and Norm encouraged everyone to bring the following to their Congresspeople's attention: Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Don’t get me wrong—I’m very happy that folks are continuing with various forms of pressure on their elected officials. Every effort helps. However, given the Senate’s track record this year, my question still stands—where are the (necessary) Republican votes to change anything of importance about SCOTUS? If current Senate rules remain in place, restructuring the Supreme Court would take 60 votes (and no filibuster). Assuming we have a slim Senate majority in 2029–perhaps 1-2 votes—we would still need 8-9 Republican votes to do anything fundamental. Can we identify that many “persuables” on the other side?
Remember that the Republican Party in general, and Mitch McConnell in particular, spent years patiently building this judicial firewall against Democratic Administrations. It worked almost to perfection during Biden’s time in office and we all saw how that ended. My overriding interest is making sure that we don’t walk into that same trap again. I suspect that we’re all going to work hard to elect Democrats in both 2026 and 2028, and I think we all want to see tangible benefits from the effort that will be required to do so.
Can a D Senate change the rules and eliminate the filibuster? I think so? Then they could change the number of SCOTUS justices; however, the 2/3 vote required for conviction after impeachment IS a Constitutional rule, so not much hope there.
In theory, yes. The filibuster and de facto 60 vote requirement not only aren’t in the Constitution, they aren’t even actual laws. A simple Senate vote would suffice to end both. Problem is that the filibuster in particular has long been seen as protection for the minority party. Most of the Senators have been around long enough to know that the party in the majority today will be tomorrow’s minority. Recently you saw Trump push fairly hard on the Senate to end the filibuster, and even the Trumpiest of the Senators told him “no.”
There are two interrelated roadblocks that, if left unaddressed, will quite possibly torpedo the next Democratic Administration—SCOTUS and the Senate. If we want to attack the Senate problem, we really need to start working now on the arguments to use and laying the groundwork with at least the Democratic Senators who are likely to still be in office come 2029. We’d be fighting a lot of history, but with a good enough game plan, most anything is possible. If we could pick this particular lock, then legislative solutions for the SCOTUS problem (several of which have been discussed in comments on this article) become possible.
By "arguments to use and laying the groundwork with at least the Democratic Senators who are likely to still be in office come 2029," are you talking about arguments for eliminating the filibuster?
I have thought for some years as this growing frustration that laws supported by huge majorities of the population still can't get through Congress or are struck down by the Supreme Court is not sustainable, meaning states start to secede or the country just blows up. I'm not sure what either of those options really looks like, but this current path of just ignoring big majority opinions is not okay.
One "good" thing about Supreme Court Justice "good Behaviour" (or its opposite) is that it has no statute of limitations so if at least a few Senators start pulling together perhaps impeachments can happen in 2027. The Courts have been over 200 years getting themselves into their own judicial mess so I don't expect it will be a quick slam-dunk fixing it.
I truly admire your optimism and I really do not want to come off as a “Debbie Downer” with my remarks. I’ll just remind folks that the bar for impeachment is described in the Constitution and is even higher than that for legislation. If all Senators are present, 67 votes are needed for conviction and removal in an impeachment proceeding. That would serve to rid us of one Justice. At a minimum we’d need to do that at least once more, and replace the offenders with two more sympathetic Justices to have a bare 5-4 SCOTUS majority. To really clean house we’d need to remove six Justices. So the 8-9 Republican votes needed for legislation become 15-16 votes—multiplied by the number of Justices we attempt to remove. The Founding Fathers made impeachment hard on purpose. The Confirmation hearings are the place where bad apples are supposed to be screened out—clearly that ship has long since sailed.
If this is the preferred path to reform, we should start identifying specific Senators we think might be swayed by the case that would be presented and focus attention on them. If history is any guide, a lot of the existing census of the Senate will still be there in 2029.
Even if not enough (weak) Republicans vote for impeachment of failed (unconstitutional voting) Justices at the very least their constituents would see how the Republican Senators and Representatives voted and figure out who NOT to vote for in the future.
Not sure why the first link I posted failed, here it is again https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253#p253 or if that fails again try https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19 and scroll down to the (currently) last reply (Petition to U.S. Senate...)
Still waiting for a party to file motions to recuse to Thomas and Alito.
Can we being impeachment charges against SCOTUS for faling to uphold their oaths to thr Constitution?
We can't, but Congress can (though they are a MAJOR part of the problem. See: Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Not sure why the first link I posted failed, here it is again https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253#p253 or if that fails again try https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19 and scroll down to the (currently) last reply (Petition to U.S. Senate...)
This is why I don't see court expansion as a fix. Why would we want MORE of that? I think the court needs to be disbanded. We have plenty of lower courts. Let the chips fall where they may there. If somebody wants to, say, overturn gay marriage or stop selling cakes to people they don't like, let them appeal to fckng Congress and see how that goes. Those guys can't even make a budget.
The Supreme Court is required in our Constitution. It would be much harder to remove it than to repair it.
And at one point, the number of justices was linked to the number of circuit courts in the country. I think each justice was responsible for some level of oversight of their circuit. We currently have 13 circuits (12 geographic and 1 'special' circuit for some situations) and only 9 justices. So just restoring the ratio would help a lot.
I've had killing the filibuster as the top priority but I can live with reforming SCOTUS first... as long as killing the filibuster and legislating Citizens United out of existence (i.e., getting private money out of politics) follow by no more than about ten minutes.
Whatever the order of those reforms, all three need to happen quickly -- within a single-digit number of weeks upon a bold Congress committed to transformational change taking office -- and in full form, not after two years of protracted back-and-forth resulting in toothless, thoroughly diluted half-measures. "The way it's always been done" is history. "The way we need to do it now" is what will lead the country to a Democracy 2.0 that actually serves the people.
Without all three reforms in place concurrently or very nearly so, nothing will change. SCOTUS will remain majority extremist right-wing partisan, Congress will remain unable to make any bold moves, and the corporations and oligarchs will continue to buy the legal and political outcomes they want.
We must focues on what we can do and that is the public sentiment is the only working force now to win back our country. For this to happen I thank Jenn and other opinion editors who are giving the public reliable data to join forces.
They can be impeached. Anyone remember “Impeach Earl Warren”?👹
Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Perhaps I am dense. I have gone to the website you suggested, and cannot figure out how to find the so-called petition. A little l help please. I am sure I am not alone. Is this real or a joke?????
Apologies. Not sure why the first link I posted failed, here it is again https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=253#p253 or if that fails again try https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19 and scroll down to the (currently) last reply (Petition to U.S. Senate...) Thanks
Following https://usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20 is the best I've been able to come up with. I don't see anything about a petition or cover letter, though there is discussion of SCOTUS carryings-on.
If you use a VPN, you might need to disconnect it for the link to succeed.
Bravo, Ms. Rubin!!
Spot on Jen! Thank you for your daily brilliant analysis and all the work you do to protect our fragile democracy.
A good list. One correction - moderate Republicans do exist. They just have a “D” after their name. Maggie Hassan is a moderate Republican (I know, I live in NH). So is Tim Kaine. And Shaheen and Fetterman. Sad, but true.
Labels aside, I consider Fetterman complicit in Trump’s hostile takeover of our democracy. He canoodles with the GOP - the party which has served no purpose in the last year but to enable Trump to do whatever he chooses. We don’t need “moderates” right now; we need patriots who actively condemn and fight against the atrocities of this administration. From the looks of it - and despite his attempts to justify why he’s voted 26% of the time to support Trump’s agenda - Fetterman kinda likes Trump. And, for me, that’s unforgivable.
I was shocked that Pennsylvania Democrats rejected Connor Lamb in favor of Fetterman. They bought into the media hype about "working man," "hoody," "shorts," etc. Next time, look at qualifications and ideas that will build up our country.
I think Fetterman, aside from abortion rights, has become a dyed in-the-wool Netanyahu/Trump tool.
OMG. Why doesn't Trump name the Supreme Court building after himself? That would be perfect!
Don't tempt him.
Just wait, Sara. He's working on it; right after he renames the White House - "The Trump Memorial White House".
Doesn't "Memorial" mean he's dead? Could we be that lucky?
The lesson is extremely simple:
Republicans ARE the problem!!!!!!
How many self created problems do you want?
How much cruelty do you want?
How much indifference to people do you want?
How much hate do you want?
Pick a wretchedness, any wretchedness,
Republicans ARE the problem.
They offer no solutions, only creating greater problems.
The solution is simple: No Republicans in any office, at any level, at any time; ever.
TY JR. Excellent summary as we head into the Holiday and YE days. It drives home that the 2026 mid-terms are crucial. I especially apreciated this:
"Pointing out that slashing Medicaid and SNAP, zapping Affordable Care Act subsidies, messing with vaccine guidelines, and enacting cost-raising tariffs disproportionately hurt red states, especially rural residents, falls on deaf MAGA ears."
That's because tax cuts for tech-bro and oil & gas billionaires is THE TOP PRIORITY. Selfishness within the GOP is THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE. "Get it while you can" is another way of saying it. And, in Trump, and with Miller and Vought holding hands, the 1% hit an out-of-the-park home run.
1. Why (oh, why) does Contrarian not highlight Mark Epstein?
Trump's underbelly very well could be "Bubba."
2. Who says the mifdterms will be fair? IMHO we wuz robbed in 2016 and 2024. Did Trump admit that Musk stole Pennsylvania?
Good list though I don't think the far right are Christians at all, because what they espouse is not anything Christ taught. How about putting parentheses around the use of that term. All faith traditions have zealots with extreme views far from the main tenets of any given religion. Let's call a spade a spade.
These "Christians" seem to be taking more from the Old Testament than the words and teachings of Jesus. They seem to prefer a more vengeful and cruel form of religion.
But the Old Testament also emphasizes God's mercy, which these "Christians" overlook.
J. D. Vance and others are trumpeting a perversion of Christianity. Vance converted to a narrow form of Catholicism. Does he think that the "evangelical right" will not come for his group when they finish with other groups?
Well..... it is also in the New Testament -- a minority expression -- and yes, it is in the Old Testament as well but it's probably fair to say that there, too, it is a minority expression.
Scoundrels need to hide behind something, flags, Gods, family and of course apple pie.
The horrible Robbers' Court is an example of why all groups of "leaders" must include multiple equal voices with various representations. We can also see that with the small and horrendous cabal that Agent Orange uses to destroy the country. Companies that are led by boards with diverse members have proved time and again that they do better than those pasteurized groups doing the driving. New directions are on the horizon.
Okay, PUSH your Congresspeople to see the Petition that is soon to be in the U.S. Senate: Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Thank you for compiling a concise list, JR! I just want to point out a couple of my annoyances with the admin this year. I think the rarely mentioned motive for republican congress-people to support Trump's nonsense is his threat to stop funding to their states if they cross him. I think that's been proven now. And it puts their decision to ignore their constituents in more of a gray area - but in a viscous cycle of increasing his power to do that very thing.
Another VERY ANNOYING thing (but shallow on my part) is Trump's constant use of superlatives (a subset of lies). Maybe he thinks "the best of all time" label is eventually convincing, but it's not and it's so tiresome!
"The best of all times" and the "new golden age of America" fall flat when people find it impossible to make ends meet; when wages don't go up, when the kitchen table budget must be stretched beyond endurance. It is no golden age when families have to choose between food or utilities, or food and medical care and prescriptions. As always, "it's the economy, stupid."
Sales! You have to create desire. The city slicker has hit the rubes right where they live and they love it. It the greatest show on earth. Hey! I have an idea - let's put on a show!
(Spanky and Our Gang)
Hey, please encourage your Congresspeople, particularly your Senators, to put on a show! Copies of a Petition to the U.S. Senate that are aimed at correcting U.S. Supreme Court Constitutional violations are scheduled to arrive at the Senator's offices the Saturday after Christmas. Visit usareset.net/forum/viewtopic.php to see the petition and the cover letter to various Senators. Thanks
Jen - As year one of this dystopian nightmare comes to an end, I’d like to thank you for all your hard work. I continue to look forward to your analysis of the issues and the path forward - because it’s always incisive and unflinching, and exactly what this moment needs.
What will guide us in 2026? It’s all laid out here in black and white! It’s time for red states to stop voting for recycled sycophants.
Sadly, so true. Thank you Jenn for spelling out the truth of where we are.
Eighth, no lie is too ridiculous for MAGA cultists to accept. (not reject)
"Sixth, religious appeals do not work with White Christian nationalists." One thing we can do that will cost them legitimacy if not power is to stop referring to them as Christians when they demonstrably are not. They are white racist nationalists, and by their actions have removed themselves from the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I think the DNC needs to not jump to the conclusion that people are voting Democrat and rest on those laurels but rather to take a good hard look at the Democrats who are winning and see what actions they take that make them favorable to the voters. People on the left are tired of lip service and they're ready for action