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 thanks McConnell for snatching away President Obama's right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice on the flimsy excuse of a presidential election several months away and giving drumpf the right to appoint a Justice a mere six weeks before another presidential election. I vividly remember his trembling body, supported by an aide, getting his behind to a protected area of the Capitol as drumpf's SS troops were attacking. I guess I remember it better than he did.
I read something a few days ago that he had been found unconscious in his home where medical personnel suspected (but have not subsequently confirmed) cardiac arrest. According to several news outlets as of 7-2-26, he remains hospitalized - no details have been released.
Also as Thomas Paine said in Common Sense: in America THE LAW IS KING. He doesn't seem to soften the statement by adding that it depends on who is interpreting said law. We have a strong body of precedent to support the laws of this country, which the supremes seem to be trying to bury. Jen's list of wrongs sounds like a great place to start.
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.
Let’s start by listening to Abraham Lincoln who in 1854 said, “Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy which harmonize with it.” What kind of country do WE want to create? Let’s make it happen!
In February 1861, Lincoln traveled from Illinois to the Capitol for his first inauguration. On the way, Lincoln stopped at Independence Hall in Philadelphia for a flag-raising ceremony. He was asked to speak extemporaneously. He chose to explain his thinking about our Declaration of 1776 and its relevance to this country and our Constitution.
Lincoln accentuated that “all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated, and were given to the world from this hall in which we stand. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”
Some such sentiments were expressed in a 1859 speech about our Constitution and the continuing power of the people (the eternal right of revolution) to overthrow so-called public servants who faithlessly serve themselves instead of faithfully serving our Constitution:
"The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that constitution."
Of course, in 1859 Lincoln was speaking, in part, directly about U.S. Supreme Court justices—a majority of whom were responsible for the abominable Dred Scott decision in 1857 and the justices’ fraudulent supporting opinions. But Lincoln’s words applied with at least as much force to his predecessor (then-President James Buchanan) and any other president, each of whom is elected for the sole purpose of preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution.
No. Holding a constitutional convention is a long-time dream of the Christian nationalist right and the Federalist Society, and they have long-term plans to seize control of it and rewrite the Constitution to take away our rights. We do not have the numbers to overcome this right now.
I'd like them to investigate impeaching the justices who agreed with making abortions illegal, supported the immunity decision, and the other major decisions that fly in the face of the actual Constitution and/or demonstrate either sloppy logic and/or complete support of P2025 where I believe we'd have NO Constitution.
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?
It takes a majority of the House to impeach and 2/3rds of the Senate to remove. we need to stop blaming Democrats because the more we do that, the more we help drive down their approvals and make people less likely to step up vote Republicans out.
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.
Thomas should have never been appointed to the court. It looked to me that the Senate Judiciary Committee under Biden was afraid to reject his nomination because they didn't want to appear racist. Remember Thomas' "high-tech lynching" comment? https://www.deseret.com/1991/10/12/18945794/thomas-calls-hearings-a-lynching/
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!!
Lindsey just keeps getting more and more clownish. I recall when he used to be sort of credible. Now he's so far up Trump's ass he hasn't seen daylight in years.
Thanks, I was just about to add Annie Andrews, who is running against Lindsey Graham. Please help this woman. Lindsey barely won last time. Lindsey only won because trump had the NRC give him $10 million 2 weeks before the election. Why? Because Dem Jamie Harrison was polling ahead of Graham.
He didn't barely win — he won by ten points which cannot be flipped by ten million dollars two weeks before the election (I heard this claim from the ungracious Nina Turncoat in our congressional primary election too; elections don't flip that hard in two weeks.) If Harrison was polling ahead of Lindsey and they were that far off, that polling firm no longer has credibility.
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
Cooper is a virtual shoo-in, and Peltola and Brown are looking strong. Ossoff should be easily reelected; he's in a good position and campaigning his ass off. Pappas replaces another Democrat. I'm a little optimistic about Turek and especially Talarico; those daily emails from Beto O'Rourke about what his group is doing to drive turnout are inspiring. The only one looking a little iffy is Platner. Recent polls have been getting tighter, and Susie Concern is famous for pulling out difficult wins.
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!!! 💙
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.
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".
Exactly. We hear the smaller states whining that presidential candidates would just focus on larger states, but right now they don't focus on MOST states. Back in 2004, we here in Ohio were the center of everything, inundated with candidate visits. That continued into 2008, 2012 and 2016 (I had the chance to hear Hillary speak 7 times!) After that election, we've been virtually ignored.
I think Move to Amend would be very popular though. That's the group backing the constitutional amendment that simply says "Money is not speech and corporations are not people," thereby abolishing the entire basis of Citizens United.
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.
We also have to stop being pessimists and stop denigrating our own leaders. We need to pressure them but not pre-decide that they are weak and cowardly. We have MANY who are not, and we need to cast a discerning eye on them to support those who are the real deal and not lionize the ones who speak the glossiest prose and have the shiniest presentation.
Just expand the Court to 13. That requires nothing but swearing them in. That would fix the current issue. It appears to be Alito and Thomas will retire before trump's term is up, so he can name some 20 year old auto mechanics to replace them.
If they don't retire before the Democrats hopefully take the Senate, then Trump will be forced to name judicial candidates who aren't extreme or under qualified. Unless we're at 51 and fucking John Fetterman decides supporting Trump is more important than supporting democracy. And this isn't image based on his stupid statements: he has fallen into the last place with the most conservative voting record among Democrats. I followed along as he slid under Maggie Hassan about a month ago. He's 8 points below her in the current session which is pretty dramatic.
Also eliminating the shadow docket and requiring decisions and their process to be public is a no-brainer. Congress absolutely has the power to do that. And a code of ethics, like every other court has, is essential as well. Outside donations should be banned completely.
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.
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.
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
You were ok until the last point. No, there is NOT a "very signifiant number" of Democrats so beholden to PACS and billionaires that they vote against public interest. That's a claim made by some fiery — but often dishonest — young candidates who may or may not call themselves "socialists" but are smearing their Democratic opponents baselessly as "corporate" Democrats. The most egregious is the ruthlessly ambitious Melat Kiros who just defeated one of the most progressive Democrats in the House, and who will have difficulty equaling Degette's record. BTW it's the GOP that is "mostly male, overwhelmingly white." That doesn't describe Democrats. And there are some white male Democrats who are tremendous progressives such as Ed Markey, Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, Mark Pocan, Jamie Raskin, Jeff Merkley, Chris Van Hollen, Ron Wyden and Jim McGovern, although it is women (of all colors) who are among our greatest progressive heroes in Congress.
Unfortunately, everyone has to take "massive donations" these days thanks to Citizens United. I don't believe in unilaterally disarmament. But I look at how people vote, not at whole gave them money.
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.
It was only recently that political careers ended over corruption and misdeeds. Trump has completely rewritten that playbook and we need to get back to it.
So, following the logic that the writers of the 14th amendment clearly intended it to only cover children of freed slaves, when the court takes up assault rifle controls in the next term they will of course conclude that the writers of the 2nd amendment clearly intended it to only cover flint-lock muskets. Right?
I've been saying this for years when righties toss around "originalism." I doubt the founders would've written the Second Amendment if they'd imagined assault-style weapons.
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.
And thanks McConnell for snatching away President Obama's right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice on the flimsy excuse of a presidential election several months away and giving drumpf the right to appoint a Justice a mere six weeks before another presidential election. I vividly remember his trembling body, supported by an aide, getting his behind to a protected area of the Capitol as drumpf's SS troops were attacking. I guess I remember it better than he did.
I typically don't wish people ill, but in the case of McConnell, I am really tested.
Is Mitch dead yet?
in the sense that nobody gives a f--- what he says. but the damage he did will be around for a long time
How would you be able to tell?
No, "they" say, he is continuing to improve.
I read something a few days ago that he had been found unconscious in his home where medical personnel suspected (but have not subsequently confirmed) cardiac arrest. According to several news outlets as of 7-2-26, he remains hospitalized - no details have been released.
Affordable Care Act. Moderate to liberal judges in thr federal judiciary.
I think they both accomplished a lot
Also as Thomas Paine said in Common Sense: in America THE LAW IS KING. He doesn't seem to soften the statement by adding that it depends on who is interpreting said law. We have a strong body of precedent to support the laws of this country, which the supremes seem to be trying to bury. Jen's list of wrongs sounds like a great place to start.
Right on!
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.
Let’s start by listening to Abraham Lincoln who in 1854 said, “Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy which harmonize with it.” What kind of country do WE want to create? Let’s make it happen!
In February 1861, Lincoln traveled from Illinois to the Capitol for his first inauguration. On the way, Lincoln stopped at Independence Hall in Philadelphia for a flag-raising ceremony. He was asked to speak extemporaneously. He chose to explain his thinking about our Declaration of 1776 and its relevance to this country and our Constitution.
Lincoln accentuated that “all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated, and were given to the world from this hall in which we stand. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”
Some such sentiments were expressed in a 1859 speech about our Constitution and the continuing power of the people (the eternal right of revolution) to overthrow so-called public servants who faithlessly serve themselves instead of faithfully serving our Constitution:
"The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that constitution."
Of course, in 1859 Lincoln was speaking, in part, directly about U.S. Supreme Court justices—a majority of whom were responsible for the abominable Dred Scott decision in 1857 and the justices’ fraudulent supporting opinions. But Lincoln’s words applied with at least as much force to his predecessor (then-President James Buchanan) and any other president, each of whom is elected for the sole purpose of preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution.
Except oligarchs on the right, not Raskin would lead the way.
No. Holding a constitutional convention is a long-time dream of the Christian nationalist right and the Federalist Society, and they have long-term plans to seize control of it and rewrite the Constitution to take away our rights. We do not have the numbers to overcome this right now.
I'd like them to investigate impeaching the justices who agreed with making abortions illegal, supported the immunity decision, and the other major decisions that fly in the face of the actual Constitution and/or demonstrate either sloppy logic and/or complete support of P2025 where I believe we'd have NO Constitution.
Jamie Raskin would be a great person to do the job.,
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?
It takes 67 votes in the Senate to impeach and remove anyone.
let's wait and see just how mad the duped MAGAS get
We will find out in November.
It takes a majority of the House to impeach and 2/3rds of the Senate to remove. we need to stop blaming Democrats because the more we do that, the more we help drive down their approvals and make people less likely to step up vote Republicans out.
We need another mechanism for removing a rogue or criminal president.
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.
Thomas should have never been appointed to the court. It looked to me that the Senate Judiciary Committee under Biden was afraid to reject his nomination because they didn't want to appear racist. Remember Thomas' "high-tech lynching" comment? https://www.deseret.com/1991/10/12/18945794/thomas-calls-hearings-a-lynching/
Yes, and Thomas' dissenting opinion on birthright citizenship shows that he's even more racist (against non-whites) than the other 5 MAGA justices.
Democrats are not the leadership of the House right now. Liddle Mikey Johnson is. Only he can allow an impeachment process to begin.
Perfect‼️ “Fired up ready to go” to help build the foundation for the next 250. Thank you -and Happy Fourth🇺🇸
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!!
Lindsey just keeps getting more and more clownish. I recall when he used to be sort of credible. Now he's so far up Trump's ass he hasn't seen daylight in years.
You are right! At one time he, like Vance, saw Trump for what he is only to be drawn into the corruptness and quest for power.
Thanks, I was just about to add Annie Andrews, who is running against Lindsey Graham. Please help this woman. Lindsey barely won last time. Lindsey only won because trump had the NRC give him $10 million 2 weeks before the election. Why? Because Dem Jamie Harrison was polling ahead of Graham.
He didn't barely win — he won by ten points which cannot be flipped by ten million dollars two weeks before the election (I heard this claim from the ungracious Nina Turncoat in our congressional primary election too; elections don't flip that hard in two weeks.) If Harrison was polling ahead of Lindsey and they were that far off, that polling firm no longer has credibility.
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
Cooper is a virtual shoo-in, and Peltola and Brown are looking strong. Ossoff should be easily reelected; he's in a good position and campaigning his ass off. Pappas replaces another Democrat. I'm a little optimistic about Turek and especially Talarico; those daily emails from Beto O'Rourke about what his group is doing to drive turnout are inspiring. The only one looking a little iffy is Platner. Recent polls have been getting tighter, and Susie Concern is famous for pulling out difficult wins.
I think that you meant 'independence', but right on all counts.
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!!! 💙
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!
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
Exactly. We hear the smaller states whining that presidential candidates would just focus on larger states, but right now they don't focus on MOST states. Back in 2004, we here in Ohio were the center of everything, inundated with candidate visits. That continued into 2008, 2012 and 2016 (I had the chance to hear Hillary speak 7 times!) After that election, we've been virtually ignored.
I think Move to Amend would be very popular though. That's the group backing the constitutional amendment that simply says "Money is not speech and corporations are not people," thereby abolishing the entire basis of Citizens United.
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
We also have to stop being pessimists and stop denigrating our own leaders. We need to pressure them but not pre-decide that they are weak and cowardly. We have MANY who are not, and we need to cast a discerning eye on them to support those who are the real deal and not lionize the ones who speak the glossiest prose and have the shiniest presentation.
If we want to accomplish great things, we must take great risks.
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
Just expand the Court to 13. That requires nothing but swearing them in. That would fix the current issue. It appears to be Alito and Thomas will retire before trump's term is up, so he can name some 20 year old auto mechanics to replace them.
If they don't retire before the Democrats hopefully take the Senate, then Trump will be forced to name judicial candidates who aren't extreme or under qualified. Unless we're at 51 and fucking John Fetterman decides supporting Trump is more important than supporting democracy. And this isn't image based on his stupid statements: he has fallen into the last place with the most conservative voting record among Democrats. I followed along as he slid under Maggie Hassan about a month ago. He's 8 points below her in the current session which is pretty dramatic.
I understand that expanding the court would be possible with a 51-50 vote. We would get rid of the filibuster first!
expand the court before attempting any rewrites, also impeach 1 or 2
Also eliminating the shadow docket and requiring decisions and their process to be public is a no-brainer. Congress absolutely has the power to do that. And a code of ethics, like every other court has, is essential as well. Outside donations should be banned completely.
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.
Declaration of independence FROM Congress? Why? We should just vote and take it over.
Anastasia, between gerrymandering and people being too lazy to vote taking out incumbents is an uphill battle. It's time for drastic measures.
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!!
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.
Excellent comment Linda. You should post it as a Note.
I did! ;-)
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.
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
You were ok until the last point. No, there is NOT a "very signifiant number" of Democrats so beholden to PACS and billionaires that they vote against public interest. That's a claim made by some fiery — but often dishonest — young candidates who may or may not call themselves "socialists" but are smearing their Democratic opponents baselessly as "corporate" Democrats. The most egregious is the ruthlessly ambitious Melat Kiros who just defeated one of the most progressive Democrats in the House, and who will have difficulty equaling Degette's record. BTW it's the GOP that is "mostly male, overwhelmingly white." That doesn't describe Democrats. And there are some white male Democrats who are tremendous progressives such as Ed Markey, Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, Mark Pocan, Jamie Raskin, Jeff Merkley, Chris Van Hollen, Ron Wyden and Jim McGovern, although it is women (of all colors) who are among our greatest progressive heroes in Congress.
Unfortunately, everyone has to take "massive donations" these days thanks to Citizens United. I don't believe in unilaterally disarmament. But I look at how people vote, not at whole gave them money.
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.
It was only recently that political careers ended over corruption and misdeeds. Trump has completely rewritten that playbook and we need to get back to it.
So, following the logic that the writers of the 14th amendment clearly intended it to only cover children of freed slaves, when the court takes up assault rifle controls in the next term they will of course conclude that the writers of the 2nd amendment clearly intended it to only cover flint-lock muskets. Right?
I've been saying this for years when righties toss around "originalism." I doubt the founders would've written the Second Amendment if they'd imagined assault-style weapons.