Very informative and well researched article. Unfortunately, you’re preaching to the choir. Not a single MAGA (even the few that can read) or republican will ever read or understand this.
The fact that Thomas and Alito "should" recuse themselves has no meaning to these "gentlemen." It has to be made mandatory - recuse or impeachment! Decisions regarding refusal v. non-recusal could be delegated to a panel of retired judges.
I understand now why the proposals are for 18 years and (if 13 justices) 26 years maximum terms. But even 18 years is too damn long for justices to sit on that Court. It's clear now how much age affects the abilities of judges to keep up with the evolution of technology and society. Air out the house more often, or it stinks.
Age is likely less of an issue than the corruption brought on by the lack of external ethical guidlines which should be rigidly enforced. That includes recusal from conflict of interest cases, to acceptance of what are called bribes in any other parlance.
My MAGA rep Bunker Ben Cline loves the salary, staff and perks while doing NOTHING unless Dear Leader directs him. We're deep red, but we are working to elect Beth Macy in VA06. She took on Purdue Pharma (She wrote "Dopesick"). She is not afraid of anyone.
First-rate essay! My only quibble is that, while I agree SCOTUS has played a significant role in turning Congress into a herd of geldings, I would add that a hefty percentage of GOP members of the House and Senate, most notably House Squeaker Mike Johnson, happily did it to themselves, all in the interest of pleasing Dear Leader.
The People commanded in Article I that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.' Such powers included the power and duty "To make all Laws" that turn out to "be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" not only all "the foregoing Powers" (of Congress), but also "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The people of each generation were expected to elect people to Congress and to the presidency to enact laws that represent our interests in light of the exigencies of our time.
The People also commanded that the president would have only "executive Power," i.e., "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and otherwise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The People didn't give federal judges any power to say that Congress ceded any of its powers to the president. Article III commands that federal "judicial Power shall extend" no further than to deciding (and explaining) how "this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties" govern the facts of any particular case or controversy.
And Article VI emphasizes that every state or federal public servant (and all attorneys) are "bound" to "support this Constitution" as the paramount part of "the supreme Law of the Land."
I believe that in the wake of the Slaughter case, there will be a move to further refine the "intelligible principle" standard to reduce the ambiguity of laws passed by Congress.
Yes, sir, Mr. Ornstein, you are exactly right. I think you should be on the commission to reshape the blatantly rogue SupCt. Everything you said is so painfully true. Thank you for fighting for our democracy.
I worry that the Republican Senate may expand Scotus. A simple majority in both Houses is sufficient. A filibuster would push the Senate to requiring 60 votes.
The Court is so far gone they don't even bother to avoid rank hypocrisy that even non-experts and non-lawyers can see, let alone adherence to precedent. Self-described Originalists cherrypick or ignore history and Textualists ignore or just change the plain meaning of words. The Cook and Slaughter decisions are irreconcilable despite Roberts writing both of them and issuing them simultaneously. Justice Jackson pointed out Thomas's hypocrisy in calling the Constitution "color blind" in one decision but saying birthright citizenship was reserved for Black Americans. The excellent history compiled by Mr. Ornstein does not include all of the cases decided on the shadow docket most of which have absolutely no explanation. The current Republican-appointed majority treats their bosses, We the People, with naked contempt.
"These truths should be self-evident. But not to the Roberts Court. In a series of arrogant, ahistorical, anti-Constitutional decisions, the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the power to defang Congress, undermine democracy, and unleash a corrupt, power-hungry, vindictive president with dictatorial powers (and few, if any, constraints), destroying the delicate checks and balances foundational to our political system."
Yeah, absolutely no bias at all in that assessment, Norm...
After reading this, there are fewer phrases more appropriate than what William Bendix offered in the TV series "Life of Riley": "What a revolting development this is."
"Length alone does not fully describe the reality that Congress is first among equals in our three branches."
That reality has shifted abysmally as Congress has given away so much of its authority and responsibility to the president, and what it hasn't given away, accepts and signs off on the demands without question.
The supreme court (lower case intentional) has lost its supremacy to a corrupt group of justices who support what should be illegal presidential behavior. It's no wonder the approval rating is so low.
Think now of Justice Breyer, that his exit left six Cath-Cons (5 male (please consider this in the light of their upbringing and early education) in charge, once again raising the Constitutional question of the Court's non-representativeness of the American population.
My view is we need a "Rainbow Court", one that avoids the toxic single-flavor of the current majority, obviously somewhat drunk on its power and, falsely, taking comfort from being appointed amidst shenanigans of the most transgressive kind.
A Rainbow Court might have from 1 to 3 members from each circuit. A gender balance would be essential, and as long as we have two dominant parties, a party balance too.
Racial & ethnic & cultural balance is tricky, I grant, but we must give muscle to American diversity.
There are too many lawyers; a difficult representation to even theorize about, but somehow we should be able to broaden the Court's experience of adult life in the U.S.
Dred Scott, Plessy, the current upset of the modern updating of the administrative state...all samples of the need to provide a Court of America; if Supreme, then also Representative.
Agreed-- this Court is a disaster. But if a GQP President has unlimited power, then when the Democrats win the White House (from my keyboard to The Lord's eyes), that person can reverse everything Don the Con did, including regulations and gutting the civil service, and firing all of Don's appointees to regulatory agencies.
I agree that under this scenario the country would become the world's largest Banana Republic, swing wildly to the right and left with each change of administration. But that is better than the alternative of a fascist state.
As I've always said-- you don't send Little Lord Fauntleroy out to do battle against Bluto-- you need a streetfighter to beat another streetfighter.
Very informative and well researched article. Unfortunately, you’re preaching to the choir. Not a single MAGA (even the few that can read) or republican will ever read or understand this.
Still waiting for motions to recuse Thomas and Alito....
Still waiting for motions to IMPEACH Thomas and Alito....
Fixed that for ya.
The fact that Thomas and Alito "should" recuse themselves has no meaning to these "gentlemen." It has to be made mandatory - recuse or impeachment! Decisions regarding refusal v. non-recusal could be delegated to a panel of retired judges.
What a well written article. Thank you for laying out the actions of the Robert’s court so clearly.
I understand now why the proposals are for 18 years and (if 13 justices) 26 years maximum terms. But even 18 years is too damn long for justices to sit on that Court. It's clear now how much age affects the abilities of judges to keep up with the evolution of technology and society. Air out the house more often, or it stinks.
Age is likely less of an issue than the corruption brought on by the lack of external ethical guidlines which should be rigidly enforced. That includes recusal from conflict of interest cases, to acceptance of what are called bribes in any other parlance.
My MAGA rep Bunker Ben Cline loves the salary, staff and perks while doing NOTHING unless Dear Leader directs him. We're deep red, but we are working to elect Beth Macy in VA06. She took on Purdue Pharma (She wrote "Dopesick"). She is not afraid of anyone.
So heartening to read solutions to the court’s willing surrender to an autocrat!
First-rate essay! My only quibble is that, while I agree SCOTUS has played a significant role in turning Congress into a herd of geldings, I would add that a hefty percentage of GOP members of the House and Senate, most notably House Squeaker Mike Johnson, happily did it to themselves, all in the interest of pleasing Dear Leader.
"Length alone does not fully describe the reality that Congress is first among equals in our three branches."
Perhaps you can write a piece discussing how Congress has ceded its powers over the years.
Congress cannot cede its powers to the president.
The People commanded in Article I that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.' Such powers included the power and duty "To make all Laws" that turn out to "be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" not only all "the foregoing Powers" (of Congress), but also "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The people of each generation were expected to elect people to Congress and to the presidency to enact laws that represent our interests in light of the exigencies of our time.
The People also commanded that the president would have only "executive Power," i.e., "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and otherwise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The People didn't give federal judges any power to say that Congress ceded any of its powers to the president. Article III commands that federal "judicial Power shall extend" no further than to deciding (and explaining) how "this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties" govern the facts of any particular case or controversy.
And Article VI emphasizes that every state or federal public servant (and all attorneys) are "bound" to "support this Constitution" as the paramount part of "the supreme Law of the Land."
I believe that in the wake of the Slaughter case, there will be a move to further refine the "intelligible principle" standard to reduce the ambiguity of laws passed by Congress.
This GOP Congress will not do anything to limit what Trump does. Party loyalty has overcome common sense and loyalty to the Constitution.
....And service to the constituents who elected them. Once in, special interests took over.
Ongoing litigation in Pennsyltucky. Did Trump admit that Musk stole Pennsylvania in 2024?
Election Truth Alliance v. SCHMIDT (1:25-cv-00329)
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71883352/parties/election-truth-alliance-v-schmidt/
MSM has yet to hear from Ashley St. Clair.
Yes, sir, Mr. Ornstein, you are exactly right. I think you should be on the commission to reshape the blatantly rogue SupCt. Everything you said is so painfully true. Thank you for fighting for our democracy.
I worry that the Republican Senate may expand Scotus. A simple majority in both Houses is sufficient. A filibuster would push the Senate to requiring 60 votes.
The Court is so far gone they don't even bother to avoid rank hypocrisy that even non-experts and non-lawyers can see, let alone adherence to precedent. Self-described Originalists cherrypick or ignore history and Textualists ignore or just change the plain meaning of words. The Cook and Slaughter decisions are irreconcilable despite Roberts writing both of them and issuing them simultaneously. Justice Jackson pointed out Thomas's hypocrisy in calling the Constitution "color blind" in one decision but saying birthright citizenship was reserved for Black Americans. The excellent history compiled by Mr. Ornstein does not include all of the cases decided on the shadow docket most of which have absolutely no explanation. The current Republican-appointed majority treats their bosses, We the People, with naked contempt.
"These truths should be self-evident. But not to the Roberts Court. In a series of arrogant, ahistorical, anti-Constitutional decisions, the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the power to defang Congress, undermine democracy, and unleash a corrupt, power-hungry, vindictive president with dictatorial powers (and few, if any, constraints), destroying the delicate checks and balances foundational to our political system."
Yeah, absolutely no bias at all in that assessment, Norm...
After reading this, there are fewer phrases more appropriate than what William Bendix offered in the TV series "Life of Riley": "What a revolting development this is."
"Length alone does not fully describe the reality that Congress is first among equals in our three branches."
That reality has shifted abysmally as Congress has given away so much of its authority and responsibility to the president, and what it hasn't given away, accepts and signs off on the demands without question.
The supreme court (lower case intentional) has lost its supremacy to a corrupt group of justices who support what should be illegal presidential behavior. It's no wonder the approval rating is so low.
Well said and the need is desperate . Who can make it happen and how can they make it happen?
Thank you.
Nobody, and nohow. Hence the problem.
Think now of Justice Breyer, that his exit left six Cath-Cons (5 male (please consider this in the light of their upbringing and early education) in charge, once again raising the Constitutional question of the Court's non-representativeness of the American population.
My view is we need a "Rainbow Court", one that avoids the toxic single-flavor of the current majority, obviously somewhat drunk on its power and, falsely, taking comfort from being appointed amidst shenanigans of the most transgressive kind.
A Rainbow Court might have from 1 to 3 members from each circuit. A gender balance would be essential, and as long as we have two dominant parties, a party balance too.
Racial & ethnic & cultural balance is tricky, I grant, but we must give muscle to American diversity.
There are too many lawyers; a difficult representation to even theorize about, but somehow we should be able to broaden the Court's experience of adult life in the U.S.
Dred Scott, Plessy, the current upset of the modern updating of the administrative state...all samples of the need to provide a Court of America; if Supreme, then also Representative.
Agreed-- this Court is a disaster. But if a GQP President has unlimited power, then when the Democrats win the White House (from my keyboard to The Lord's eyes), that person can reverse everything Don the Con did, including regulations and gutting the civil service, and firing all of Don's appointees to regulatory agencies.
I agree that under this scenario the country would become the world's largest Banana Republic, swing wildly to the right and left with each change of administration. But that is better than the alternative of a fascist state.
As I've always said-- you don't send Little Lord Fauntleroy out to do battle against Bluto-- you need a streetfighter to beat another streetfighter.