Yes, it's hard to accomplish a lot when the Majority leader states flat out, "We will not support ANYTHING from this administration." Thanks, Moscow Mitch.
And thanks to McConnell also for not supporting either of the two House impeachment proceedings by not convicting and removing Trump. We would have been saved from January 6 and everything that followed.
And while we are busy cleaning up the Supreme Court I think we need to have a Constitutional Convention to amend and improve our Constitution! Jamie Raskin can lead the way.
Amendments still take ratification by 3/4 of the states. With the current status of so many of the states, beneficial amendments would be halted in their tracks.
To which one must conclude that we start by winning back the states before proceeding to amend. We can’t just keep throwing up our hands while chanting the Democrats’ mantra: “it’ll never work!”It wasn’t that long ago that some currently ruby-red states were purple or even light blue. Time to get to work!
The Constitution itself embodies a way of revising or amending itself without the can of worms that a Constitutional Convention would entail. The necessary feature for this to occur is for the American people to elect representatives and senators whose primary commitment is to the Constitution itself and to the People of the United States, people who have the guts and wherewithall to stand up and deny moneyed special interests who have been using both Congress and the Supreme Court to their advantage. This is not something we have to stretch for. It is built in to the Constitution. As things look now, it is within our reach. But WE have to choose to do it. WE have to quit looking for some magical leader to follow. WE have to lead, by letting out elected representatives know that this is what we expect of them.
A common sense treatise by none other than our own Jen Rubin. Well written and well executed points. Thank you and Happy Independence Day to all the Contrarians ❤️💙🤍🇺🇸🦅
Where is the Democrat leadership? It is past time to impeach Clarence Thomas for accepting lavish gifts and supporting his wife’s attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. In 1804, Associated Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached on charges of allowing partisan bias [!!!] to influence his judicial conduct. While he was acquitted, he has gone down in history as the only Justice to ever be impeached. Thomas deserves no less. While the Senate will not find him guilty, all of his crimes should be dissected publicly in an impeachment trial.
My question would be where are the Republicans? They are currently in charge of our government and if they had any guts, they would impeach him. However, they love for the most part what this court is doing so willing to allow this unethical behai.
Unfortunately the democrats are not the majority. Nothing can really be accomplished, even though the Dems try, without the republicans and they are all MAGAS.
Why are you asking about the Democrats when the Republican Party has allowed itself to become a personality cult, as well as actively working to dismantle our country for the benefit of its donors?
Where is the Democratic ('Democrat' as you used it is a Republican pejorative) majority that would do as you say? The current MAGApblican majority won't move against him. We will have to wait for a shift in congressional majority before this happens.
Hear hear, Marilyn! Jen and Norm are true patriots and forces of nature! We are so lucky to have them. Huge thanks to them and their teams! Proud to be a Contrarian!!! 💙
We must declare independents from the oligarchs who now control our country. Support and vote for these Democratic candidates for the Senate:
FL: Alexander Vindman, TX James Talarico, IA: Josh Turek, NH: Chris Pappas, GA: John Ossoff, AK: Mary Peltola, OH: Sherrod Brown, ME: Graham Platner, NC: Roy Cooper.
I am from South Carolina, and I have contributed to her campaign, but I didn't know the polls showed the race that close. She would be a great senator. I am so ready for Graham to be defeated. I write or call almost every day protesting his support of Trump and his corruption. Thanks! Gives me hope!!
I have already made small donations to most of these candidates. Must add Anne Andrews. I’ve also prepared voter postcards for Ohio, and GA next. If only we can rouse voters from their stupor as Jen rouses us
Thanks to all. We need Nuremberg 2. A Supreme Court that supports prejudice, violations of the Constitution and of human rights and open corruption requires a legal response.
During his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005, remember the words of John Roberts comparing judges to baseball umpires who "call balls and strikes"? Apparently the SCOTUS is exempt from doing so based on the heinous legislating-from-the-bench rulings of this corrupt cabal of judges during the recent term led by the Shameful Six.
It's not clear to me that term limits would pass Constitutional muster. I understand that most proposals would allow a Justice, upon term expiration, to join any Federal District or Circuit Court at no loss in salary, and stay there forever (subject to "good behavior" as noted in the Constitution). But of course, any law implementing terms would be challenged, and GUESS WHO WOULD GET TO DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH A LAW!?
You guessed it-- the SCROTUS would make that call. Talk about conflict of interest!
OTOH the right of Congress to add 4 Justices to the court is unquestioned. And the next time the Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress the first order of business would be to do just that. The Senate will need to get around the filibuster, but I'm sure that (assuming Schumer gets booted) the Democratic Majority Leader will figure out a way around it.
And after that, the President could say to the Court:
Congratulations! You now have 4 new colleagues. You can like it, or you can lump it, but either way, they're a'coming.
I agree that's the best answer. But amending the Constitution is incredibly hard by design. 2/3 of both Houses must approve it, then it needs to be ratified either by legislative approval or approval by a specifically established convention in 3/4 of the states.
An alternative path is a constitutional convention, but that has never been done, and most experts say that if it were tried, the cure would probably be worse than the disease.
So while it's the best answer, the chances of it happening are somewhere between slim and none
Your comments on the difficulties of Constitutional Amendments are spot on! I have pushed back on many solicitations to fund Amendments to eliminate the Electoral College for those reasons. The resources (human energy, time and money) would be better spent getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact passed into law in just a few more states. It’s more than 80% of the way to the threshold of 270 Electoral College votes, while a Constitutional Amendment hasn’t even been put to a vote in a Congressional committee!!
Not only that, but the chances that 3/4 of the states would ratify a national popular vote amendment are only slightly better than having the sun rise in the west tomorrow morning.
Under the current Electoral College, the less populated states have more influence in the outcome than the more populated ones. And it's extraordinarily unlikely that they would voluntarily surrender that power. But I suppose that if a few large states approve, it might be beyond the challenge by states like Vermont, Alaska and Wyoming, etc.
OTOH, the Interstate Compact depends only on individual states approving it and making up 50% plus 1 electoral votes. But it's still an uphill battle and I'm sure if it were approved it would be subject to Constitutional challenge. Given that the Constitution doesn't tell States how to appoint electors, in theory it meets Constitutional muster, but this SCOTUS has a political agenda and I'm sure they'd find a way to overturn it.
Ivan & others with an interest in the NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) --
The following, recently updated, link shows the status of the NPVIC & some very recent commentary (including by Ben Wikler) about the potential path to putting the NPVIC into action--
One (perhaps not so obvious) benefit of the NPVIC will be that every single voter, in every single state will suddenly have equal weight in Presidential elections. Campaigns will then need to address all voters' needs and desires. They won't be able to focus on voters in the small number of current "swing states".
I think we are on the verge of a watershed moment where enough people are enraged by all the corruption and the utter failure of Congress to act against it for us to be able to pass targeted constitutional amendments through which we can put guardrails in place.
I said in a post earlier this morning that the American people need a declaration of independence from congress. But Jennifer is correct and the court needs to be included in the declaration as well. They've all forgotten that they work for us. It's time to make them afraid of their emoyers.
All the talk about what's wrong with our government structurally--constitutionally, if you will, is true. But the bigger problem is the corruption which has become rooted in our national culture and psyche. "Hate the sin but not the sinner" has led to tolerance of conduct that once might have cost a person his/her job or community status. Penitence and atonement rarely go beyond rhetoric to reach behavior. Human beings aren't perfect, so neither will our governments be. But so long as our whatever-is-good-for-me-personally mentality is an acceptable community ethos, I fear we're doomed.
I agree that the judiciary needs to e significantly reformed. I do not agree that we can "fix" it with a Dem majority in Congress and a Dem president in 2029. Why? [1] The existential issue: I don't think we are going to survive until then as a representative democracy. [2] The pragmatic issue: Even if Dems overpower Rethuglicans at the midterms, they are likely to be hamstrung between the Scylla of the Executive and the Charybdis of the judiciary. Impeaching all of the thugs and grifters--Patel and the entire Dept of Justice "leadership"--will take too long to effect real change and this would be the only way we can protect democracy as we know it. [3] The historical issue: Despite their apparent love of overweening executive power, this SCOTUS also eviscerated Biden's attempts to use executive orders to ameliorate everything from student loan debt to the environment to social welfare programs. What makes you think that it can be reformed quickly enough to prevent that from happening again? I doubt it. [4] The Dem Machine issue: A very significant number of elected Democrats are beholden to PACs, billionaires, and big industry and they willingly take massive donations in order to shore up their campaign war chests and, frankly, enrich themselves. They are also the ones who are more than willing and eager to wipe out the Progressive wing of the party (not just the so-called Democratic Socialists--they are not socialists, by the way. They are more like the Social Democrat Party in the UK before it merged with the Liberals) instead of address this little issue of the death of democracy itself. I don't see those guys (mostly male, overwhelmingly white) wanting to rock the boat enough to make such a significant change.
And women even longer, especially women of color. This has nothing to do with my comment, however since voting rights aren’t what I discussed. Although the current crop of fascist, racist, and misogynist justices also want to suppress the vote
As Thomas Paine said in Common Sense:
“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” “YES WE CAN!!!” President Barack Obama.
He didn't actually accomplish that much, because he wasn't allowed to.
Yes, it's hard to accomplish a lot when the Majority leader states flat out, "We will not support ANYTHING from this administration." Thanks, Moscow Mitch.
And thanks to McConnell also for not supporting either of the two House impeachment proceedings by not convicting and removing Trump. We would have been saved from January 6 and everything that followed.
Is Mitch dead yet?
No, "they" say, he is continuing to improve.
in the sense that nobody gives a f--- what he says. but the damage he did will be around for a long time
Affordable Care Act. Moderate to liberal judges in thr federal judiciary.
I think they both accomplished a lot
And while we are busy cleaning up the Supreme Court I think we need to have a Constitutional Convention to amend and improve our Constitution! Jamie Raskin can lead the way.
But not until we win back a bunch of State Legislatures!
Thank you for that. Opening up the Constitution with the current makeup of so many of the state legislatures would be dangerous.
Check out Heather Cox Richardson. She favors amending rather than opening up to full rewriting in a constitutional convention.
Amendments still take ratification by 3/4 of the states. With the current status of so many of the states, beneficial amendments would be halted in their tracks.
To which one must conclude that we start by winning back the states before proceeding to amend. We can’t just keep throwing up our hands while chanting the Democrats’ mantra: “it’ll never work!”It wasn’t that long ago that some currently ruby-red states were purple or even light blue. Time to get to work!
You are absolutely right, and I inferred that changes in the states' makeup would be needed before we start to make corrections.
The Constitution itself embodies a way of revising or amending itself without the can of worms that a Constitutional Convention would entail. The necessary feature for this to occur is for the American people to elect representatives and senators whose primary commitment is to the Constitution itself and to the People of the United States, people who have the guts and wherewithall to stand up and deny moneyed special interests who have been using both Congress and the Supreme Court to their advantage. This is not something we have to stretch for. It is built in to the Constitution. As things look now, it is within our reach. But WE have to choose to do it. WE have to quit looking for some magical leader to follow. WE have to lead, by letting out elected representatives know that this is what we expect of them.
Except oligarchs on the right, not Raskin would lead the way.
A common sense treatise by none other than our own Jen Rubin. Well written and well executed points. Thank you and Happy Independence Day to all the Contrarians ❤️💙🤍🇺🇸🦅
Perfect‼️ “Fired up ready to go” to help build the foundation for the next 250. Thank you -and Happy Fourth🇺🇸
Where is the Democrat leadership? It is past time to impeach Clarence Thomas for accepting lavish gifts and supporting his wife’s attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. In 1804, Associated Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached on charges of allowing partisan bias [!!!] to influence his judicial conduct. While he was acquitted, he has gone down in history as the only Justice to ever be impeached. Thomas deserves no less. While the Senate will not find him guilty, all of his crimes should be dissected publicly in an impeachment trial.
My question would be where are the Republicans? They are currently in charge of our government and if they had any guts, they would impeach him. However, they love for the most part what this court is doing so willing to allow this unethical behai.
Unfortunately the democrats are not the majority. Nothing can really be accomplished, even though the Dems try, without the republicans and they are all MAGAS.
Why are you asking about the Democrats when the Republican Party has allowed itself to become a personality cult, as well as actively working to dismantle our country for the benefit of its donors?
It takes 67 votes in the Senate to impeach and remove anyone.
let's wait and see just how mad the duped MAGAS get
Where is the Democratic ('Democrat' as you used it is a Republican pejorative) majority that would do as you say? The current MAGApblican majority won't move against him. We will have to wait for a shift in congressional majority before this happens.
Thank you, Jennifer Rubin!!
Hear hear, Marilyn! Jen and Norm are true patriots and forces of nature! We are so lucky to have them. Huge thanks to them and their teams! Proud to be a Contrarian!!! 💙
We must declare independents from the oligarchs who now control our country. Support and vote for these Democratic candidates for the Senate:
FL: Alexander Vindman, TX James Talarico, IA: Josh Turek, NH: Chris Pappas, GA: John Ossoff, AK: Mary Peltola, OH: Sherrod Brown, ME: Graham Platner, NC: Roy Cooper.
Give as much money as you can to: www.senatemajority.com and https://wwwdscc.org
Don't forget Anne Andrews who is within striking distance to unrest Lindsey Graham! She will be great! (within 4 points last poll)
I am from South Carolina, and I have contributed to her campaign, but I didn't know the polls showed the race that close. She would be a great senator. I am so ready for Graham to be defeated. I write or call almost every day protesting his support of Trump and his corruption. Thanks! Gives me hope!!
Love Dr. Annie! 💙
I have already made small donations to most of these candidates. Must add Anne Andrews. I’ve also prepared voter postcards for Ohio, and GA next. If only we can rouse voters from their stupor as Jen rouses us
I think that you meant 'independence', but right on all counts.
Thanks to all. We need Nuremberg 2. A Supreme Court that supports prejudice, violations of the Constitution and of human rights and open corruption requires a legal response.
Vote! No, don’t just vote but get involved!
During his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005, remember the words of John Roberts comparing judges to baseball umpires who "call balls and strikes"? Apparently the SCOTUS is exempt from doing so based on the heinous legislating-from-the-bench rulings of this corrupt cabal of judges during the recent term led by the Shameful Six.
SCOTUS reform NOW!!
It's not clear to me that term limits would pass Constitutional muster. I understand that most proposals would allow a Justice, upon term expiration, to join any Federal District or Circuit Court at no loss in salary, and stay there forever (subject to "good behavior" as noted in the Constitution). But of course, any law implementing terms would be challenged, and GUESS WHO WOULD GET TO DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH A LAW!?
You guessed it-- the SCROTUS would make that call. Talk about conflict of interest!
OTOH the right of Congress to add 4 Justices to the court is unquestioned. And the next time the Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress the first order of business would be to do just that. The Senate will need to get around the filibuster, but I'm sure that (assuming Schumer gets booted) the Democratic Majority Leader will figure out a way around it.
And after that, the President could say to the Court:
Congratulations! You now have 4 new colleagues. You can like it, or you can lump it, but either way, they're a'coming.
The best path forward in my humble opinion is a constitutional amendment which delineates and circumscribes as well as expands the Court.
I agree that's the best answer. But amending the Constitution is incredibly hard by design. 2/3 of both Houses must approve it, then it needs to be ratified either by legislative approval or approval by a specifically established convention in 3/4 of the states.
An alternative path is a constitutional convention, but that has never been done, and most experts say that if it were tried, the cure would probably be worse than the disease.
So while it's the best answer, the chances of it happening are somewhere between slim and none
Your comments on the difficulties of Constitutional Amendments are spot on! I have pushed back on many solicitations to fund Amendments to eliminate the Electoral College for those reasons. The resources (human energy, time and money) would be better spent getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact passed into law in just a few more states. It’s more than 80% of the way to the threshold of 270 Electoral College votes, while a Constitutional Amendment hasn’t even been put to a vote in a Congressional committee!!
Not only that, but the chances that 3/4 of the states would ratify a national popular vote amendment are only slightly better than having the sun rise in the west tomorrow morning.
Under the current Electoral College, the less populated states have more influence in the outcome than the more populated ones. And it's extraordinarily unlikely that they would voluntarily surrender that power. But I suppose that if a few large states approve, it might be beyond the challenge by states like Vermont, Alaska and Wyoming, etc.
OTOH, the Interstate Compact depends only on individual states approving it and making up 50% plus 1 electoral votes. But it's still an uphill battle and I'm sure if it were approved it would be subject to Constitutional challenge. Given that the Constitution doesn't tell States how to appoint electors, in theory it meets Constitutional muster, but this SCOTUS has a political agenda and I'm sure they'd find a way to overturn it.
Ivan & others with an interest in the NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) --
The following, recently updated, link shows the status of the NPVIC & some very recent commentary (including by Ben Wikler) about the potential path to putting the NPVIC into action--
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
One (perhaps not so obvious) benefit of the NPVIC will be that every single voter, in every single state will suddenly have equal weight in Presidential elections. Campaigns will then need to address all voters' needs and desires. They won't be able to focus on voters in the small number of current "swing states".
Lee
I think we are on the verge of a watershed moment where enough people are enraged by all the corruption and the utter failure of Congress to act against it for us to be able to pass targeted constitutional amendments through which we can put guardrails in place.
I hope you're right (and the process doesn't degenerate into a Donnybrook), but I'm not placing any bets
yes, but I think many are ready to perfect more than before trump's disasterous reign, because he alone has made the need so out front
expand the court before attempting any rewrites, also impeach 1 or 2
I said in a post earlier this morning that the American people need a declaration of independence from congress. But Jennifer is correct and the court needs to be included in the declaration as well. They've all forgotten that they work for us. It's time to make them afraid of their emoyers.
Rejuvenate. Then, Gloves Off!
All the talk about what's wrong with our government structurally--constitutionally, if you will, is true. But the bigger problem is the corruption which has become rooted in our national culture and psyche. "Hate the sin but not the sinner" has led to tolerance of conduct that once might have cost a person his/her job or community status. Penitence and atonement rarely go beyond rhetoric to reach behavior. Human beings aren't perfect, so neither will our governments be. But so long as our whatever-is-good-for-me-personally mentality is an acceptable community ethos, I fear we're doomed.
I agree that the judiciary needs to e significantly reformed. I do not agree that we can "fix" it with a Dem majority in Congress and a Dem president in 2029. Why? [1] The existential issue: I don't think we are going to survive until then as a representative democracy. [2] The pragmatic issue: Even if Dems overpower Rethuglicans at the midterms, they are likely to be hamstrung between the Scylla of the Executive and the Charybdis of the judiciary. Impeaching all of the thugs and grifters--Patel and the entire Dept of Justice "leadership"--will take too long to effect real change and this would be the only way we can protect democracy as we know it. [3] The historical issue: Despite their apparent love of overweening executive power, this SCOTUS also eviscerated Biden's attempts to use executive orders to ameliorate everything from student loan debt to the environment to social welfare programs. What makes you think that it can be reformed quickly enough to prevent that from happening again? I doubt it. [4] The Dem Machine issue: A very significant number of elected Democrats are beholden to PACs, billionaires, and big industry and they willingly take massive donations in order to shore up their campaign war chests and, frankly, enrich themselves. They are also the ones who are more than willing and eager to wipe out the Progressive wing of the party (not just the so-called Democratic Socialists--they are not socialists, by the way. They are more like the Social Democrat Party in the UK before it merged with the Liberals) instead of address this little issue of the death of democracy itself. I don't see those guys (mostly male, overwhelmingly white) wanting to rock the boat enough to make such a significant change.
We all hope for a sea change!
Hope is fine; voting for change, protests, letter-writing, emails and phone calls help too. Work is needed to advance hope.
Excellent comment Linda. You should post it as a Note.
I did! ;-)
Black citizens waited almost 400 years for the vote...
And women even longer, especially women of color. This has nothing to do with my comment, however since voting rights aren’t what I discussed. Although the current crop of fascist, racist, and misogynist justices also want to suppress the vote
Exactly.