It's a shame as well as astonishing how low Justice Roberts has allowed his court to sink. They might as well fly the American flag upside down on their home flagpoles and hang it beneath either the Gadsden flag or the MAGA flag, depending on their color preferences.
I believe they have achieved it! This is now worst Supreme Court in history. I have always thought the Taney Court was the worst. I believe this Court has now gone lower. Their stream of egregiously bad decisions is second to none.
All of us need to use the new playbook where GERRYMANDERING is approved by SCOTUS for all. We are behind. Simply matching the enemy will NOT catch us up. We must be much more aggressive. Then on to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico! For citizens, we must take to the streets in protests. Message with signs that are loud! How do you make a sign loud? By design! Here are 108 free signs for you that scream!
There was a very illuminating article on Roberts in The Guardian on August 21, 2025.. It is the best article on this fascist I have read in a long time. But let us not forget whom we have to thank for on this extreme fascist court: Mitch McConnell.
You are very welcome. I almost didn't read it, because I dislike that fascist tool, but then I did anyway and boy am I glad I did. As I said, it is incredibly illuminating.
Agreed. But why? Does he secretly hate the society that has so richly rewarded his and his wife's careers? Does he think he's leaving a better country for his kids?
That's the $64,000 question. I think your take certainly plays a role in his actions. Ivory Tower elitist out of touch with the lives of regular folks. Posing the question, "Are you better off now than you were pre-Roberts?" Minorities and women would resoundingly say "No."
I say he is either completely lacking in common sense, or he is a racist at heart with some misogyny tossed in for good measure. He is a disaster for reproductive healthcare.
He thinks the Constitution should be color blind; it never was and he weakens the amendments that would help ensure that it is. It's like he doesn't know that racism is worldwide and new racists are created everyday, it's simply a human condition that many fall prey to. It is unrealistic to think it needs not to be dealt with if the goal is an equitable society.
Whatever his motives may be, he has the means and opportunity for his criminal behavior. An educated idiot no better than a common thief.
Pedant! :) Yes, that is often how it happens, peer pressure, social osmosis, whatever the means, it is globally omnipresent such that few if any populations are immune to developing it in at least some members.
I understand studies showing preschool age children are largely oblivious to various levels of skin melanin.
The Guardian ran a piece last week on Roberts, very illuminating. Roberts has alway, from his days as a law student, believed in the power and primacy of the Executive Branch over the other two. He is not a fan of representative democracy, or a government that is answerable to its citizens. Rulings from this version of the court since his ascension to CJ have reinforced that over and over. He likes what our current dictator is doing, and he’s been given the toadies to vote his way.
At this point, the only members of the Court entitled to the title of "Justice" are Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson. Since none of the rest seems to give a damn about justice, which means for all not just someone who must be bribing you, none deserves to be called "justice."
"However, pro-democracy Americans have agency to reverse the slide into authoritarianism if they commit to redesign the Supreme Court, increase the ranks of diligent lower court judges, support conscientious journalism and nonprofits, and call out constitutional vandals." We all must understand criticisms would not stop Trump and MAGA authoritarian take over. Jen always ends her column by prescribing the action for stopping the take over. Jen is a true leader of Americans for democracy.
Not hardly. She's great at rhetoric but typically lacking in facts to back it up. And most people in this forum will simply agree with her premise no matter what because, well, "Trump!". This is not a "pro-democracy" Substack as she claims. It's simply "anti-Trump". It would not surprise me that, if tomorrow, Trump comically issued an executive order that commands everyone to breathe, Jen would have an op-ed out demanding we all hold our breaths. She simply will not agree with anything Trump says or does.
No decent people agree with what Trump is doing: lying constantly, covering for pedophiles, threatening our alliances while sucking up to the world's worst tyrants, shredding the constitution with the help of the hyper-partisan Republican hacks on the Supreme Court and his cabinet, and destroying both the current economy and our future.
You can't be pro-Trump and pro-constitutional republic, much less pro-democracy at the same time, and Jen is clever enough to have figured that out. Not everyone is.
"No decent people agree with what Trump is doing: lying constantly, covering for pedophiles, threatening our alliances while sucking up to the world's worst tyrants, shredding the constitution with the help of the hyper-partisan Republican hacks on the Supreme Court and his cabinet, and destroying both the current economy and our future."
No decent people, political party or media outlet would have lied about a President in serious cognitive decline and then offered up a replacement who knew about it yet failed to tell the American public.
"Decent" people who whine and snivel now about "covering for pedophiles" never cared that the previous administration had four years to release everything they had on said pedophile but failed to do so.
Decent people would not complain now about "threatening our alliances while sucking up to the world's worst tyrants" when the previous administration did little or nothing themselves save for hiding behind Ukrainian flag symbols and refusing to let the Europeans have at it militarily against said tyrant.
Decent people should worry about "shredding the Constitution" when a political party and government agencies covertly and overtly attempts to thwart the presidential ambitions of an opposition candidate through faked and leaked intelligence, suppresses information and spreads disinformation with regards to a laptop, or tries to force individuals to take a vaccine through government action.
Decent people know that "hyper-partisan" refers to both political parties and the media. Decent people should say "throw all the bums out" in the next election cycle. Decent people know that the current President is not running again and that Democrats should focus on how they should clean up their act instead of fixating constantly on a single person who keeps playing them for fools on an almost daily basis.
"You can't be pro-Trump and pro-constitutional republic, much less pro-democracy at the same time, and Jen is clever enough to have figured that out. Not everyone is."
What an an asinine assessment. I am most assuredly for the Constitution, as should all of us and especially those who hold office, either elected or appointed. Jen is your typical hyper-partisan hack, and there are plenty of them on both sides of the political aisle. If the main thrust of almost every column is "anti-Trump" then clearly she has lost the ability to be objective or never had it in the first place.
Hiro, please understand that my observations about Jen apply to plenty of other so-called "journalists" who simply want to advance a political agenda. They exist on both sides of the political aisle.
"It's a shame as well as astonishing how low Justice Roberts has allowed his court to sink."
It's not the job of the Chief Justice to get everyone on the same page. It's his job to make sure everyone has a chance to air their views and assign justices to write majority and/or dissenting opinions.
Sadly, our systems are NOT strong enough to withstand what the second election of trump has brought.
The founding fathers never imagined the perfect storm we are experiencing.
First, breathtakingly stupid voters elected a psychopath for a second time.
Then, a compliant Congress prostrates itself before him. They won’t go against him because they’re afraid his cult followers will kill them and their families.
And the “supreme” court lets him and his fascist administration do whatever they want, even if it’s illegal or unconstitutional, even giving him immunity so he can’t even be held in contempt for ignoring court rulings.
And his loyalists take control of the military, Department of Justice, and FBI, giving him free rein to send troops and police to intimidate and even kill protesters in the streets.
And institutions like universities, news media, and even entertainers are made to give him tribute or be silenced.
A perfect storm.
The fascist takeover is complete.
In less time than it took hitler.
On November 5, 2024, the United States committed suicide.
add to that the decimation of voting rights to ensure maga stays in power so they can remake society in their whites only christian fundamentalist image..(what? stephen miller?).. if the voters want our old country back, warts and all, and are able to overcome the alt right assault on our rights, I fear we need to be prepared.. for violence..
I also don't agree with it's simply a matter of electing a Democrat.. the Democrat Party failed the working people, much as Biden tried and started to do many great things ( except for his one great mistake of arming the Netanyahu regime) .. this has been long simmering and so brilliantly tapped into by the alt right.. the desire of angry people to feel victimized and want to break things..
Can we, as reasoning people who want to live in a fair, just and peaceful society, imagine a way to rebuild from the ashes of what has been burned to the ground?
I agree. There WILL be violence. Stephen Miller, Hegseth, Vought, Thiel, Bove, and the other fascists are eager for it. That’s why the growing militarization in our cities is happening. They’re gonna start shooting protesters and resisters.
Biden's one great mistake was appointing Merrick Garland as AG, who totally failed to meet the moment of history when his country needed him. If we had an AG who did his job with any kind of sense of alacrity, the trump cases would have moved through the system instead of letting him hang around and fester and come back.
We're not done yet, Francie!! This can feel like the end ... but with every end, there is a beginning. It well may get worse, much worse, than we ever might have imagined, but this is only the beginning of a horrible reign of tyranny ... that will be brought to its knees. This really is treason, because we now have an administration at war with America, fighting a war on American soil, effectively killing our freedoms, and our democracy. Is Trump backed by and aligned with Russia, as long suspected in 2016? No one has followed the money, not yet. History is being written, and the nightmare chapter has only begun. We need to adapt and learn how to fight back, and that is only starting.
Donald, there's nothing at all good about trying to make people believe "The fascist takeover is complete."
It's very far from true that "The founding fathers never imagined the perfect storm we are experiencing." They experienced and expected at least as bad as we're experiencing. That's the overarching point of our Constitution and the overarching point of the people who wrote and ratified it.
Corruption of government and abuses of power always were the constant companions of government and power, and they always will be. To see how to combat them, we need to better understand our history to better understand our Constitution.
It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing. People say such things to justify just not thinking about our Constitution and our history and just not thinking about how to use them now.
Unfortunately, this “supreme” court is essentially ruling time and again that the Constitution can be ignored.
They began doing that when they overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that trump could be kept off the state ballot due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
They granted presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as official acts, which trump and this administration take advantage of every day. He and his administration break laws and violate the Constitution daily.
Hell, his immunity even means he can’t be found in contempt of court for ignoring court rulings!
They’re allowing him to decimate agencies created and funded by congress, both illegal AND unconstitutional!
The founding fathers never anticipated that fascist psychopaths would take over the government with the goal of destroying it.
Donald, you're wrong repeatedly. SCOTUS did not grant "presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as official acts." That's not what their decision said or meant. That's only what people who don't understand it (or don't want us to understand it) say.
You're wrong that "The founding fathers never anticipated that fascist psychopaths would take over the government with the goal of destroying it." Have you ever considered The Federalist Papers? See https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text. They wrote regularly about the kind of thing you claim they "never anticipated."
The immunity decision said, to my knowledge, that a president can’t be prosecuted for crimes if they were part of official duties. Every law trump and his administration breaks, every violation of the Constitution, such as impounding funds, IS done as an official act!
And if the founding fathers foresaw the fact that all three branches of government might have the goal of destroying it, why is the destruction occurring before our very eyes?
Donald, it's clearly false that "Every law trump and his administration breaks, every violation of the Constitution" by the president "IS done as an official act." This is my point. We need to think about what our Constitution actually says and means. Consider what it says are the president's official duties.
His duty is to "faithfully execute the Office of President," which means that in all official conduct he must "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability." That includes the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." It's plainly impossible for any violation of the president's oath (any knowing violation of his duties specified by our Constitution, itself) to be an "official duty." This is obvious and irrefutable.
Jack, by withholding congressionally appropriated funds he is violating both his Constitutional duties AND the 1974 impoundments law, and the “supreme” court is allowing him to do it!!!
That’s just one example of what I’m talking about.
Donald, instead of misrepresenting what the Founders thought, why not use what they thought to defend us against the problem we've got.
In The Federalist No. 1, for example, Alexander Hamilton emphasized that the preservation and guardianship of our nation and our Constitution should never be trusted to anyone not truly committed to the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust for which he holds his office:
It must not be “forgotten that” although “the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty” that was said “in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment” devoted to “the security of liberty” and to the truth that the “interest” of “government” must “never be separated” from “the security of liberty.” So it must never be “forgotten” that “a dangerous ambition” always “lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people,” as well as “under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” “History will teach us that” either such zeal “has been found” to be a “road to the introduction of despotism” and “that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
That flowery 18th century language sounds and looks just swell, but unfortunately it describes exactly what we’re witnessing now.
Breathtakingly stupid voters elected a psychopath a SECOND TIME!!!
And unlike the first time, this time all the guardrails have been removed.
Keep in mind that trump isn’t doing this crap on his own. He’s too stupid. The actual nazis like Stephen Miller and the others behind Project 2025 are thinking it up. Trump is simply their “useful idiot” they managed to put into office to sign the orders.
Donald, you correctly made my point precisely: "it describes exactly what we’re witnessing now." So please stop trying to convince people that "The founding fathers never anticipated that fascist psychopaths would take over the government with the goal of destroying it." They anticipated it and empowered us to oppose it. We just need to use our heads to think about how. This is the time to be very active and vocal in opposing the violations of our Constitution. This is not the time to try to convince people that our Constitution is irrelevant (that literally is the message coming from Trump and the people who use him and support him).
Jack, it’s not I who thinks or says the Constitution is irrelevant.
It’s the damn “supreme” court that thinks and rules it irrelevant!!!
There is very little we can do to stop this nonsense. We can protest, gather in crowds, hold signs, hold hands, and sing Kumbuya all day every day.
It won’t stop this crap.
We can vote. Maybe. If there are ever real elections again. 2026 will be too late.
With any luck, some folks remain in the military, CIA, or FBI who are still loyal to their oath to the Constitution who will rectify the threat to this country.
"Sadly, our systems are NOT strong enough to withstand what the second election of trump has brought." Donald
"It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing." Jack
Yes, as you say, our Constitution does prohibit what we're seeing. And I might disagree (as you seem to) with Donald when he says our systems aren't strong enough to withstand what this president hath wrought. However while the systems we have embodied in our Constitution might in theory be capable of prohibiting the slide toward fascism, those systems are entrusted to the hands of human beings. And the men and women who are tasked with upholding those systems, our elected representatives and our courts--ultimately the Supreme Court, have not had the wisdom or courage or accountability or dedication to the common good to safeguard our Constitutional systems. Are they ignorant? Living with blinders on? Venal and selfish? Does the president and his posse have some dirt on every last one of them? In the end we depend not on systems but on the people who operate/control those systems. Collective human failure can lead to systemic failure. Our Constitution isn't above failing. Sadly. It may or may not be beyond repair.
Donna, I write to show what our Constitution says and what it means (in part, by showing what the people who fought to found our nation or who wrote or ratified our original Constitution or Bill of Rights said or did). People who say our Constitution may be beyond repair just give up too easily. They almost certainly don't know how our Constitution (our nation) was designed to deal with what we're seeing. Nobody back then said (or thought) that keeping a republic would be easy.
"Our Constitution isn't above failing. Sadly. It may or may not be beyond repair."
It's not the Constitution that is "failing". Rather, it's the people in government that we elect and their cronies, from appointed government officials, lobbyists for any special interest group you care to name, NGOs and the media. Far too many of them are in it simply for the power. As John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
The Founders created a system where power was deliberately segmented into three overlapping branches, and further bifurcated between state and federal authority. That was a pretty damn good safeguard against the kind of rabble-rousing demagoguery James Madison so feared (and what would soon come to pass in France).
What they didn't foresee was how quickly and strongly "factionalism" would metamorphose into political party systems. And nobody I know of thought that party would one day take all precedence over institutions. The idea of Congress surrendering its authority to a a President, backed by a cult threatening its adherents with harm should they think about leaving -- I don't know that anyone saw that.
This cult has no legal foundation for its behavior. Sooner or later most judges are going to agree.
If we pay attention to our history, it's simple to see that they did "foresee" exactly "how quickly and strongly 'factionalism' would metamorphose into political party systems." That was, in fact, the very reason our Constitution was designed as it was.
James Madison was the driving force behind the original Constitution precisely because he saw how fast factionalism turned into a political party, which very quickly turned into abuses of political power. Madison even described this very process when explained to the people why they should ratify our Constitution and again when he explained to Congress why we needed to amend our Constitution immediately.
Madison (as a member of the First Congress) promptly presented to Congress on June 8, 1789, his proposals on how to improve on our original Constitution. Madison highlighted crucial truths about the power of the people, as well as how all power was limited and restrained by our Constitution.
Madison acknowledged that “all power is subject to abuse,” and “the abuse of the powers of the general [federal] government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done.” “The people of many states, have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of government” and “once bills of rights are established in all the states as well as the federal constitution,” they “will have a salutary tendency.”
Crucially, Madison emphasized that “whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights” (and whatever form our Bill of Rights takes) “the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against [abuses by] the legislative,” (sometimes against abuses by the judicial branch) “and, in some cases, against [abuses by] the community itself; or, in other words, against [abuses by] the majority [of the people to protect the rights of a] minority.”
Madison emphasized that “in a government” such as was constituted by our Constitution, “the great danger lies” in “the abuse of the community” even more “than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty [in the Bill of Rights], ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.”
You certainly know your Madison, unquestionably. I wonder if any of them foresaw the one-day tranny of the *minority* pretending to be the majority, however. Even so, it doesn't overly help us to figure what to do next.
Figuring out what to do now starts with understanding what the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution did and why. Those people were extremely sophisticated and much more knowledgeable than most of us about how to address what we're facing. We need to catch up to the people of our past.
In The Federalist No. 10, Madison clarified "a faction" means "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
In The Federalist No. 51, Madison warned that in "a society" in "which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." In The Federalist No. 43, Madison even warned that "violent factions" are "the natural offspring of free government." In The Federalist No. 45, Madison acknowledged it is "essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty."
In The Federalist No. 37, Madison warned "The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character."
It's wonderful language, but it doesn't tell us much about how we get out of that 'dark and degraded' picture once we find ourselves in it. Worse still, one-third the population has no clue they're supporting and facilitating the anarchic degradation of the country because their 'state-run' media spews lies and inanities non-stop, and too many believe it, or refuse to search for alternatives.
There's a deep laziness inside our society that seems to have caught up with us. Akin to the Franklin comment of 'a republic, if you can keep it.' We're losing ours rapidly. I only hope enough fight back to reclaim it.
This situation did not happen overnight. This whole mess can be traced back to the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. And no, they did not envision somebody like Trump who is a clown and an idiot being their standard bearer. They had somebody more like JD Vance in mind and they will probably get their way soon.
I agree emphatically. Reagan was the fork in the road that led us here, and the fact that Trump does not know how to behave is a wildcard that neither side anticipated. Meanwhile, I don't think Vance has the mojo to hold the coalition together, so they need to consolidate executive power before they can get rid of Trump, or before he has a coronary or succumbs to dementia to the point where he can no longer function.
I don’t think there IS a solution other than people in the military, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, or some other organization who are still in those positions and still loyal to their oath to the Constitution, take whatever steps are needed to rectify the situation.
"Looks like that’s the only thing that’ll stop this bullshit fascism."
Yeah, you're suggesting a coup. As least have the spine to admit it.
Not to worry, though. If the Dems take back the House in the midterms, there will be non-stop impeachment inquiries. But they won't have 67 seats in the Senate to convict, so it will look like the previous clown shows we were treated to back in Trump's first term.
If you truly think Trump is a fascist, violated his oath of office, ignored the Constitution and needs to be removed from office, write down every single unconstitutional/impeachable offense he has committed and forward them to Norm Eisen. I'm sure he's already working on a list - maybe he's missed something.
I’m saying some kind of military or other organizational intervention appears to be the only path to stopping this shitshow since congress has relinquished its authority and the “supreme” court exists now only to hold the door open for this fascist administration and armed military and armed untrained thugs are now being sent into the streets.
Norm Eisen doesn’t need a list from me, he has his own, as do people like Weissman, Elias, Luttig, and many others.
The problem is those people can only win in the courts until the administration’s apparently private “supreme” court overturns their lower court wins.
Which makes the Democrats winning big in the Midterms all that more important. Trump realizes that, I think. He will do what he can to disrupt any chance the Dems have of re-taking the Congress.
I agree with all of Jen's reforms for the High Court. I would add one: eliminate the shadow docket. They are altering law from the bench. A clear and good faith explication and explanation should be mandatory. And, like a lot else which tRump has shown to be quite corruptible , maybe come up with a new system for vetting and nominating judges at all levels. And, age and experience requirements should be included.
Honestly, until this wretched Court, I didn't even know there was such a thing. And not just a good faith defense of its rulings, but a justification for why something should be considered an "emergency." This seems so obvious, yet very little discussion of it can be found.
This is all pretty tough to take knowing Mitch McConnell stole two liberal judge seats. I wish President Obama had tested the old pirate and just gone ahead and installed Merrick Garland. Republicans would have been up in arms and called for impeachment, but he could have countered by saying, "do your damn job." The hypocrisy of McConnell then allowing Tramp to appoint a judge with two weeks to go in his term was appalling. I also wish RBG had decided that even she wasn't invincible, and that after her cancer diagnosis, she should have stepped down. If the court were 5-4 liberal, we wouldn't be in this mess. Tramp would be in a (c)ankle brace in Mar-A-Lardo (if they make them that big). I go back and forth between the scoundrels I despise most in this 10-year Tramp debacle, but if it comes right down to it, McConnell may be the one. I hope his constituents in Kentucky, the ones who have lost their Medicaid, WIC, etc., understand you have to make a politician earn your vote. Because now they're the ones who will suffer the most, though all of us who care about this once-great country are suffering in some way or another. Thanks Mitch. May you rot in hell.
Agreed. Obama was a good president, but not a great one. I get tired of him being held up as perfect when he didn’t do 1/10th of what was necessary to prevent McConnell from stealing that seat. Obama should have been on television everyday raging about what was happening. He is a kind man and decent man, but he made some seriously critical errors.
Yes, there have been enough "seriously critical errors" for all of us to share. The biggest example is the almost 1/3 of voters who didn't even bother to show up at the polls in 2024. Where were they?
Protesting against “Genocide Joe”, griping about the price of eggs, wanting women -especially women of color - to stay in their place, posting the latest Instagram proof of their wonderful, exciting lives, and/or anxiously waiting for the latest episode of “bread and circuses” to drop. Take your pick. American exceptionalism. What a country.
He should have claimed that he had the right to nominate the next justice no matter how long it takes, and put the question to the Supreme Court. The court would have split 4-4 and made possible the spectacle of an ex president sending nominees to the Senate. I begged him to do so in every possible forum, including generating petitions and sending letters to the White House.
I’m with you. He should have said, “Garland’s my guy; he starts work tomorrow, do something about it.” I thought he was soft on all those bank CEOs who nearly caused a world economic meltdown, too. They should still be in prison. And under his watch, Democrats allowed state houses all over the country to build red super majorities. That said, I liked him and still do. He’s an honorable man when he needed to be a bastard to certain people, Mitch being one of them.
re Obama, you are so right! Where is the (arguably) most famous Chicagoan of the 21st century as his city is the object of unconstitutional existential threat. Todau Pritzker was eloquent, forceful, mission-driven. If only Obama weren't already Resting In Peace in his comfy manse.
I didn't know that or associate Pritzker with Obama. Good to know. Now Obama ought to return the favor and use his own eloquence on the frontlines of the battle for Chicago and other Democratic-run cities.
RBG was counting on HRC to win in 2016. She intended to resign after that election so her successor would be appointed by the first woman president. Tragically for all, she couldn't last through the first T regime.
Democracy and this high court are mutually exclusive. Roberts and his thug buddies in robes don’t want democracy, don’t want representative government, don’t want government accountable to its citizens. What they want is an executive who rules, a king, a dictator, a tyrant, a strongman, whatever you want to call it. It’s clear that “separation of powers” is nothing more than a phrase on a piece of parchment. A now worthless piece of parchment.
Yes, John. The parchment has been fed through a shredder and replaced with the odious Project 2025. Surely, the Founders are rolling over in their graves. Never could they have imagined that after going to war to free themselves from the tyrannical Mad King George III, a future electorate hundreds of years later would foolishly elect a despotic lunatic grifter who would usher in the current reign of terror we are now having to endure.
Steven, there's nothing at all good about trying to make people believe "The parchment [Constitution] has been fed through a shredder and replaced with the odious Project 2025."
It's very far from true that "Never could [the Founders] have imagined" what we are experiencing. They experienced and expected at least as bad. That's the overarching point of our Constitution and the overarching point of the people who wrote and ratified it.
Corruption of government and abuses of power always were the constant companions of government and power, and they always will be. To see how to combat them, we need to better understand our history to better understand our Constitution.
It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing. People say such things to justify just not thinking about our Constitution and our history and just not thinking about how to use them now.
Jack, no one is disputing the Constitution’s authority to prohibit what we’re seeing. But a piece of paper is just a piece of paper until it’s enforced. This version of the Supreme Court has zero interest in ruling in favor of its provisions. It is crystal clear, since 2010, that it believes the Executive Branch, Article II, holds special privileges over those of Congress and the courts. It supports a lawless executive, the one who by the Constitution should be enforcing our laws, not breaking them. And if you don’t know what I’m referring to, just revisit its ruling on the Jack Smith January 6 case. July a year ago it basically gave the Executive cart blanche to do whatever his little heart desires, all under the cover of “official duties.” And the way in which it is issuing many of its rulings supports that. It seems to me that arguing about what the Constitution was or should be at this point is a waste of time. What I’m thinking about is what form of government follows this tyranny once it is removed. To believe that we’ll just revert to the old ways afterwards is hopelessly naive.
The SCOTUS decision clearly did not give the president "cart blanche to do whatever his little heart desires, all under the cover of 'official duties.' ” Only people who don't understand (or who don't want us to understand) that decision say that. That decision was essentially nothing more than an "advisory opinion," which many SCOTUS decisions say is plainly unconstitutional.
Baloney. Roberts slow-walked Jack Smith’s most important case against the dictator until it ran out of time. That case could easily have been heard, but Roberts squashed it. If January 6 wasn’t “high crimes and misdemeanors” nothing is.
John, that's not what you wrote above, and that's not what I said you were wrong about. The truth of your comment here does nothing to show your prior statement wasn't false.
John, of course the Constitution must be enforced to be effective. Enforcing it starts with understanding it. One of the first things to understand about our Constitution is that we can judge it for ourselves at least as well as the current SCOTUS majority, and we were expected to judge it for ourselves. That's part of the reason judges are required to explain their decisions.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731-732 (1931). Some of that was reiterated in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008).
The proper response to SCOTUS justices lying to us or deceiving us about our Constitution or violating our Constitution is to expose and oppose their conduct, not pretend or presume that their word is law.
With all due respect, I would argue that it’s you who doesn’t understand the Constitutiion. This court and its right-wing nakedly partisan majority, Alito, Thomas, Kavannaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch and Roberts have the final say on what it means. We don’t. And it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks this or that phrase means and how it should be interpreted. You’ve taken a snippet of a ruling and posted it here. Sp what? Exposed and Opposed? This court is well-known to most in this country, it doesn’t matter/
John, let's not forget the point: you clearly misrepresented that our Constitution is "A now worthless piece of parchment." You're wrong that "it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks." You may not understand it, but SCOTUS justices actually do care about what we know and what we think. They want us to think they're being truthful and that they know what our Constitution means. Correcting them requires us to actually know what our Constitution means and show them we know.
John, please see my reply to Steven's reply to your comment. It's dangerously counterproductive to say our Constitution is "A now worthless piece of parchment."
It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing. People say such things to justify just not thinking about our Constitution and our history and just not thinking about how to use them now.
On some days I feel energized to push back, on others I just want to barf and sit with my head in my hands. Thumbs up for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for helping me continue to function. Love, love, love the Calvinball meme.
To show Trump and his gang that the American people will oppose his FASCIST attack on our Democratic Republic, we must elect these Democratic candidates to the Governorships of New Jersey and Virgina OVERWHELMINGLY!!!!!
"“settlements” in frivolous cases (nothing more than thinly disguised tributes) Call it what it is: a BRIBE. Several members of the SC have first hand experience with bribes, don't they?
A dollar short and far too late. I don’t see how America comes back from these times of government gone wild. Trump is the symptom. Idiocy, ignorance and a complete lack of critical thinking by the citizenry is the cause. (The main-stream-media, including first the demise, and then the monopolization of local news, is a main contributor to the idiocy, ignorance and lack of critical thinking. The demise of public schools and the rise of theocratic and other non-public schools contributes to the state of no common facts.) Racism, bigotry and misogyny are like the roots of weeds; they relentlessly entangle and are almost impossible to remove.
Would the existing evidence also support the impeachment option for current SCOTUS justices instead of or in addition to expansion? Any reform will require a significant turnover in Congress.
And yet we're always finding ourselves being reactionary to the latest outrage even as the MAGAs have already moved on to something else and ramped it up another notch. We propose future solutions as though we are still operating under semi-normality even while normality is fast slipping through our fingers.
There are huge swaths of people in this country who's lifestyle precludes the many of the typical media outlets and often even online based news and info. But if you're driving around rurally and though the exurbs, turn on your radio, and tune up and down, you'll hear a lot of talk radio and "Christian" radio. Give it a listen some time, it can be frightening. They live in an imagined festering world of social depravity, godless heathenism, political oppression from cultural and political elites, and worst of all a socialist democrat party that wants to run every aspect of their lives and take away all their freedoms.
So these folks love Trump and the MAGA cult, huge numbers of them are cheering on troops occupying DC, and want to see all "democrat cities" occupied and taken over. And as long as Trump can inflame that side of his MAGA base and the hangers on who are somewhat attracted to it, they'll agree with anything he does.
This isn't going to turn around unless they get hit hard in their wallets, real goods, services, and programs are taken away from them, jobs are lost, their kids catch preventable diseases, and Democrats can successfully pin all that on Republicans. But we'd also have to break through decades of political and cultural brainwashing, and I'm not sure that we can.
Well said-all of it. How low our SCOTUS has fallen should shock the country. We are scorned by our allies and our rule of law is destroyed by obeisance to a traitorous demagogue. Shame on all who have let this happen to a country that once stood as a shining example
It's a shame as well as astonishing how low Justice Roberts has allowed his court to sink. They might as well fly the American flag upside down on their home flagpoles and hang it beneath either the Gadsden flag or the MAGA flag, depending on their color preferences.
I believe they have achieved it! This is now worst Supreme Court in history. I have always thought the Taney Court was the worst. I believe this Court has now gone lower. Their stream of egregiously bad decisions is second to none.
All of us need to use the new playbook where GERRYMANDERING is approved by SCOTUS for all. We are behind. Simply matching the enemy will NOT catch us up. We must be much more aggressive. Then on to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico! For citizens, we must take to the streets in protests. Message with signs that are loud! How do you make a sign loud? By design! Here are 108 free signs for you that scream!
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/protest-sign-sign-everywhere-a-sign?r=3m1bs
Roberts did not 'allow' it to sink, he's been busily drilling holes in the hull for years. It's premeditated.
There was a very illuminating article on Roberts in The Guardian on August 21, 2025.. It is the best article on this fascist I have read in a long time. But let us not forget whom we have to thank for on this extreme fascist court: Mitch McConnell.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/justice-john-roberts-supreme-court
I LOVE Ketanji Brown Jackson. She dares say what most only think, but never utter.
Thanks, I missed that and will read it.
You are very welcome. I almost didn't read it, because I dislike that fascist tool, but then I did anyway and boy am I glad I did. As I said, it is incredibly illuminating.
I missed it too; thank you!
Agreed. But why? Does he secretly hate the society that has so richly rewarded his and his wife's careers? Does he think he's leaving a better country for his kids?
That's the $64,000 question. I think your take certainly plays a role in his actions. Ivory Tower elitist out of touch with the lives of regular folks. Posing the question, "Are you better off now than you were pre-Roberts?" Minorities and women would resoundingly say "No."
I say he is either completely lacking in common sense, or he is a racist at heart with some misogyny tossed in for good measure. He is a disaster for reproductive healthcare.
He thinks the Constitution should be color blind; it never was and he weakens the amendments that would help ensure that it is. It's like he doesn't know that racism is worldwide and new racists are created everyday, it's simply a human condition that many fall prey to. It is unrealistic to think it needs not to be dealt with if the goal is an equitable society.
Whatever his motives may be, he has the means and opportunity for his criminal behavior. An educated idiot no better than a common thief.
Your assessment is spot on with one exception. Racism is not the human condition. Racism is taught.
Pedant! :) Yes, that is often how it happens, peer pressure, social osmosis, whatever the means, it is globally omnipresent such that few if any populations are immune to developing it in at least some members.
I understand studies showing preschool age children are largely oblivious to various levels of skin melanin.
He's just a bought dog.
The Guardian ran a piece last week on Roberts, very illuminating. Roberts has alway, from his days as a law student, believed in the power and primacy of the Executive Branch over the other two. He is not a fan of representative democracy, or a government that is answerable to its citizens. Rulings from this version of the court since his ascension to CJ have reinforced that over and over. He likes what our current dictator is doing, and he’s been given the toadies to vote his way.
Remember who said "let them eat cake/bread", and look how that turned out. That kind of "justice" is coming.
The Federalists knew what they were doing when they engineered the elevation of this authoritarian to the Court.
Roberts has worked hard and deliberately to make this current court and became very wealthy while doing so.
At this point, the only members of the Court entitled to the title of "Justice" are Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson. Since none of the rest seems to give a damn about justice, which means for all not just someone who must be bribing you, none deserves to be called "justice."
In my always-ever-so-humble-opinion, of course.
Gorsuch already does this, no?
Alito (and his wife, who no doubt exercises independent judgment on such matters.)
To say nothing of Thomas
The Confederate flag would be their preference (even for Thomas).
"However, pro-democracy Americans have agency to reverse the slide into authoritarianism if they commit to redesign the Supreme Court, increase the ranks of diligent lower court judges, support conscientious journalism and nonprofits, and call out constitutional vandals." We all must understand criticisms would not stop Trump and MAGA authoritarian take over. Jen always ends her column by prescribing the action for stopping the take over. Jen is a true leader of Americans for democracy.
"Jen always ends her column by prescribing the action for stopping the take over."
No, Jen loves to spout vague rhetoric that sounds like "action".
TROLL BEWARE
Jen is a skilled opinion writer.
"Jen is a skilled opinion writer."
Not hardly. She's great at rhetoric but typically lacking in facts to back it up. And most people in this forum will simply agree with her premise no matter what because, well, "Trump!". This is not a "pro-democracy" Substack as she claims. It's simply "anti-Trump". It would not surprise me that, if tomorrow, Trump comically issued an executive order that commands everyone to breathe, Jen would have an op-ed out demanding we all hold our breaths. She simply will not agree with anything Trump says or does.
No decent people agree with what Trump is doing: lying constantly, covering for pedophiles, threatening our alliances while sucking up to the world's worst tyrants, shredding the constitution with the help of the hyper-partisan Republican hacks on the Supreme Court and his cabinet, and destroying both the current economy and our future.
You can't be pro-Trump and pro-constitutional republic, much less pro-democracy at the same time, and Jen is clever enough to have figured that out. Not everyone is.
"No decent people agree with what Trump is doing: lying constantly, covering for pedophiles, threatening our alliances while sucking up to the world's worst tyrants, shredding the constitution with the help of the hyper-partisan Republican hacks on the Supreme Court and his cabinet, and destroying both the current economy and our future."
No decent people, political party or media outlet would have lied about a President in serious cognitive decline and then offered up a replacement who knew about it yet failed to tell the American public.
"Decent" people who whine and snivel now about "covering for pedophiles" never cared that the previous administration had four years to release everything they had on said pedophile but failed to do so.
Decent people would not complain now about "threatening our alliances while sucking up to the world's worst tyrants" when the previous administration did little or nothing themselves save for hiding behind Ukrainian flag symbols and refusing to let the Europeans have at it militarily against said tyrant.
Decent people should worry about "shredding the Constitution" when a political party and government agencies covertly and overtly attempts to thwart the presidential ambitions of an opposition candidate through faked and leaked intelligence, suppresses information and spreads disinformation with regards to a laptop, or tries to force individuals to take a vaccine through government action.
Decent people know that "hyper-partisan" refers to both political parties and the media. Decent people should say "throw all the bums out" in the next election cycle. Decent people know that the current President is not running again and that Democrats should focus on how they should clean up their act instead of fixating constantly on a single person who keeps playing them for fools on an almost daily basis.
"You can't be pro-Trump and pro-constitutional republic, much less pro-democracy at the same time, and Jen is clever enough to have figured that out. Not everyone is."
What an an asinine assessment. I am most assuredly for the Constitution, as should all of us and especially those who hold office, either elected or appointed. Jen is your typical hyper-partisan hack, and there are plenty of them on both sides of the political aisle. If the main thrust of almost every column is "anti-Trump" then clearly she has lost the ability to be objective or never had it in the first place.
Thank you for insight about Jen.
Hiro, please understand that my observations about Jen apply to plenty of other so-called "journalists" who simply want to advance a political agenda. They exist on both sides of the political aisle.
They can't even be subtle in their treason.
"It's a shame as well as astonishing how low Justice Roberts has allowed his court to sink."
It's not the job of the Chief Justice to get everyone on the same page. It's his job to make sure everyone has a chance to air their views and assign justices to write majority and/or dissenting opinions.
The MAGA court isn’t even in full swing yet, but trashing million slated for health research in the dead of night is chilling.
Sadly, our systems are NOT strong enough to withstand what the second election of trump has brought.
The founding fathers never imagined the perfect storm we are experiencing.
First, breathtakingly stupid voters elected a psychopath for a second time.
Then, a compliant Congress prostrates itself before him. They won’t go against him because they’re afraid his cult followers will kill them and their families.
And the “supreme” court lets him and his fascist administration do whatever they want, even if it’s illegal or unconstitutional, even giving him immunity so he can’t even be held in contempt for ignoring court rulings.
And his loyalists take control of the military, Department of Justice, and FBI, giving him free rein to send troops and police to intimidate and even kill protesters in the streets.
And institutions like universities, news media, and even entertainers are made to give him tribute or be silenced.
A perfect storm.
The fascist takeover is complete.
In less time than it took hitler.
On November 5, 2024, the United States committed suicide.
add to that the decimation of voting rights to ensure maga stays in power so they can remake society in their whites only christian fundamentalist image..(what? stephen miller?).. if the voters want our old country back, warts and all, and are able to overcome the alt right assault on our rights, I fear we need to be prepared.. for violence..
I also don't agree with it's simply a matter of electing a Democrat.. the Democrat Party failed the working people, much as Biden tried and started to do many great things ( except for his one great mistake of arming the Netanyahu regime) .. this has been long simmering and so brilliantly tapped into by the alt right.. the desire of angry people to feel victimized and want to break things..
Can we, as reasoning people who want to live in a fair, just and peaceful society, imagine a way to rebuild from the ashes of what has been burned to the ground?
I agree. There WILL be violence. Stephen Miller, Hegseth, Vought, Thiel, Bove, and the other fascists are eager for it. That’s why the growing militarization in our cities is happening. They’re gonna start shooting protesters and resisters.
military in DC are now being armed with assault weapons
Biden's one great mistake was appointing Merrick Garland as AG, who totally failed to meet the moment of history when his country needed him. If we had an AG who did his job with any kind of sense of alacrity, the trump cases would have moved through the system instead of letting him hang around and fester and come back.
We're not done yet, Francie!! This can feel like the end ... but with every end, there is a beginning. It well may get worse, much worse, than we ever might have imagined, but this is only the beginning of a horrible reign of tyranny ... that will be brought to its knees. This really is treason, because we now have an administration at war with America, fighting a war on American soil, effectively killing our freedoms, and our democracy. Is Trump backed by and aligned with Russia, as long suspected in 2016? No one has followed the money, not yet. History is being written, and the nightmare chapter has only begun. We need to adapt and learn how to fight back, and that is only starting.
Donald, there's nothing at all good about trying to make people believe "The fascist takeover is complete."
It's very far from true that "The founding fathers never imagined the perfect storm we are experiencing." They experienced and expected at least as bad as we're experiencing. That's the overarching point of our Constitution and the overarching point of the people who wrote and ratified it.
Corruption of government and abuses of power always were the constant companions of government and power, and they always will be. To see how to combat them, we need to better understand our history to better understand our Constitution.
It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing. People say such things to justify just not thinking about our Constitution and our history and just not thinking about how to use them now.
Unfortunately, this “supreme” court is essentially ruling time and again that the Constitution can be ignored.
They began doing that when they overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that trump could be kept off the state ballot due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
They granted presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as official acts, which trump and this administration take advantage of every day. He and his administration break laws and violate the Constitution daily.
Hell, his immunity even means he can’t be found in contempt of court for ignoring court rulings!
They’re allowing him to decimate agencies created and funded by congress, both illegal AND unconstitutional!
The founding fathers never anticipated that fascist psychopaths would take over the government with the goal of destroying it.
Donald, you're wrong repeatedly. SCOTUS did not grant "presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as official acts." That's not what their decision said or meant. That's only what people who don't understand it (or don't want us to understand it) say.
You're wrong that "The founding fathers never anticipated that fascist psychopaths would take over the government with the goal of destroying it." Have you ever considered The Federalist Papers? See https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text. They wrote regularly about the kind of thing you claim they "never anticipated."
The immunity decision said, to my knowledge, that a president can’t be prosecuted for crimes if they were part of official duties. Every law trump and his administration breaks, every violation of the Constitution, such as impounding funds, IS done as an official act!
And if the founding fathers foresaw the fact that all three branches of government might have the goal of destroying it, why is the destruction occurring before our very eyes?
Donald, it's clearly false that "Every law trump and his administration breaks, every violation of the Constitution" by the president "IS done as an official act." This is my point. We need to think about what our Constitution actually says and means. Consider what it says are the president's official duties.
His duty is to "faithfully execute the Office of President," which means that in all official conduct he must "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability." That includes the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." It's plainly impossible for any violation of the president's oath (any knowing violation of his duties specified by our Constitution, itself) to be an "official duty." This is obvious and irrefutable.
Jack, by withholding congressionally appropriated funds he is violating both his Constitutional duties AND the 1974 impoundments law, and the “supreme” court is allowing him to do it!!!
That’s just one example of what I’m talking about.
Donald, instead of misrepresenting what the Founders thought, why not use what they thought to defend us against the problem we've got.
In The Federalist No. 1, for example, Alexander Hamilton emphasized that the preservation and guardianship of our nation and our Constitution should never be trusted to anyone not truly committed to the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust for which he holds his office:
It must not be “forgotten that” although “the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty” that was said “in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment” devoted to “the security of liberty” and to the truth that the “interest” of “government” must “never be separated” from “the security of liberty.” So it must never be “forgotten” that “a dangerous ambition” always “lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people,” as well as “under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” “History will teach us that” either such zeal “has been found” to be a “road to the introduction of despotism” and “that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
That flowery 18th century language sounds and looks just swell, but unfortunately it describes exactly what we’re witnessing now.
Breathtakingly stupid voters elected a psychopath a SECOND TIME!!!
And unlike the first time, this time all the guardrails have been removed.
Keep in mind that trump isn’t doing this crap on his own. He’s too stupid. The actual nazis like Stephen Miller and the others behind Project 2025 are thinking it up. Trump is simply their “useful idiot” they managed to put into office to sign the orders.
Donald, you correctly made my point precisely: "it describes exactly what we’re witnessing now." So please stop trying to convince people that "The founding fathers never anticipated that fascist psychopaths would take over the government with the goal of destroying it." They anticipated it and empowered us to oppose it. We just need to use our heads to think about how. This is the time to be very active and vocal in opposing the violations of our Constitution. This is not the time to try to convince people that our Constitution is irrelevant (that literally is the message coming from Trump and the people who use him and support him).
Jack, it’s not I who thinks or says the Constitution is irrelevant.
It’s the damn “supreme” court that thinks and rules it irrelevant!!!
There is very little we can do to stop this nonsense. We can protest, gather in crowds, hold signs, hold hands, and sing Kumbuya all day every day.
It won’t stop this crap.
We can vote. Maybe. If there are ever real elections again. 2026 will be too late.
With any luck, some folks remain in the military, CIA, or FBI who are still loyal to their oath to the Constitution who will rectify the threat to this country.
"Sadly, our systems are NOT strong enough to withstand what the second election of trump has brought." Donald
"It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing." Jack
Yes, as you say, our Constitution does prohibit what we're seeing. And I might disagree (as you seem to) with Donald when he says our systems aren't strong enough to withstand what this president hath wrought. However while the systems we have embodied in our Constitution might in theory be capable of prohibiting the slide toward fascism, those systems are entrusted to the hands of human beings. And the men and women who are tasked with upholding those systems, our elected representatives and our courts--ultimately the Supreme Court, have not had the wisdom or courage or accountability or dedication to the common good to safeguard our Constitutional systems. Are they ignorant? Living with blinders on? Venal and selfish? Does the president and his posse have some dirt on every last one of them? In the end we depend not on systems but on the people who operate/control those systems. Collective human failure can lead to systemic failure. Our Constitution isn't above failing. Sadly. It may or may not be beyond repair.
Donna, I write to show what our Constitution says and what it means (in part, by showing what the people who fought to found our nation or who wrote or ratified our original Constitution or Bill of Rights said or did). People who say our Constitution may be beyond repair just give up too easily. They almost certainly don't know how our Constitution (our nation) was designed to deal with what we're seeing. Nobody back then said (or thought) that keeping a republic would be easy.
"Our Constitution isn't above failing. Sadly. It may or may not be beyond repair."
It's not the Constitution that is "failing". Rather, it's the people in government that we elect and their cronies, from appointed government officials, lobbyists for any special interest group you care to name, NGOs and the media. Far too many of them are in it simply for the power. As John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
The Founders created a system where power was deliberately segmented into three overlapping branches, and further bifurcated between state and federal authority. That was a pretty damn good safeguard against the kind of rabble-rousing demagoguery James Madison so feared (and what would soon come to pass in France).
What they didn't foresee was how quickly and strongly "factionalism" would metamorphose into political party systems. And nobody I know of thought that party would one day take all precedence over institutions. The idea of Congress surrendering its authority to a a President, backed by a cult threatening its adherents with harm should they think about leaving -- I don't know that anyone saw that.
This cult has no legal foundation for its behavior. Sooner or later most judges are going to agree.
If we pay attention to our history, it's simple to see that they did "foresee" exactly "how quickly and strongly 'factionalism' would metamorphose into political party systems." That was, in fact, the very reason our Constitution was designed as it was.
James Madison was the driving force behind the original Constitution precisely because he saw how fast factionalism turned into a political party, which very quickly turned into abuses of political power. Madison even described this very process when explained to the people why they should ratify our Constitution and again when he explained to Congress why we needed to amend our Constitution immediately.
Madison (as a member of the First Congress) promptly presented to Congress on June 8, 1789, his proposals on how to improve on our original Constitution. Madison highlighted crucial truths about the power of the people, as well as how all power was limited and restrained by our Constitution.
Madison acknowledged that “all power is subject to abuse,” and “the abuse of the powers of the general [federal] government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done.” “The people of many states, have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of government” and “once bills of rights are established in all the states as well as the federal constitution,” they “will have a salutary tendency.”
Crucially, Madison emphasized that “whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights” (and whatever form our Bill of Rights takes) “the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against [abuses by] the legislative,” (sometimes against abuses by the judicial branch) “and, in some cases, against [abuses by] the community itself; or, in other words, against [abuses by] the majority [of the people to protect the rights of a] minority.”
Madison emphasized that “in a government” such as was constituted by our Constitution, “the great danger lies” in “the abuse of the community” even more “than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty [in the Bill of Rights], ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.”
You certainly know your Madison, unquestionably. I wonder if any of them foresaw the one-day tranny of the *minority* pretending to be the majority, however. Even so, it doesn't overly help us to figure what to do next.
Figuring out what to do now starts with understanding what the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution did and why. Those people were extremely sophisticated and much more knowledgeable than most of us about how to address what we're facing. We need to catch up to the people of our past.
In The Federalist No. 10, Madison clarified "a faction" means "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
In The Federalist No. 51, Madison warned that in "a society" in "which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." In The Federalist No. 43, Madison even warned that "violent factions" are "the natural offspring of free government." In The Federalist No. 45, Madison acknowledged it is "essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty."
In The Federalist No. 37, Madison warned "The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character."
It's wonderful language, but it doesn't tell us much about how we get out of that 'dark and degraded' picture once we find ourselves in it. Worse still, one-third the population has no clue they're supporting and facilitating the anarchic degradation of the country because their 'state-run' media spews lies and inanities non-stop, and too many believe it, or refuse to search for alternatives.
There's a deep laziness inside our society that seems to have caught up with us. Akin to the Franklin comment of 'a republic, if you can keep it.' We're losing ours rapidly. I only hope enough fight back to reclaim it.
This situation did not happen overnight. This whole mess can be traced back to the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. And no, they did not envision somebody like Trump who is a clown and an idiot being their standard bearer. They had somebody more like JD Vance in mind and they will probably get their way soon.
I agree emphatically. Reagan was the fork in the road that led us here, and the fact that Trump does not know how to behave is a wildcard that neither side anticipated. Meanwhile, I don't think Vance has the mojo to hold the coalition together, so they need to consolidate executive power before they can get rid of Trump, or before he has a coronary or succumbs to dementia to the point where he can no longer function.
I agree with that. Vance has all the like ability of Ted Cruz. I think we will soon see if JD vans is or isn’t a dead end for the fascist movement
"Sadly, our systems are NOT strong enough to withstand what the second election of trump has brought."
Then what, if anything, do you suggest as a solution?
I don’t think there IS a solution other than people in the military, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, or some other organization who are still in those positions and still loyal to their oath to the Constitution, take whatever steps are needed to rectify the situation.
I keep wondering what might be going through the minds of the former top level people in those orgs....
So, in other words, you're suggesting a coup.
Looks like that’s the only thing that’ll stop this bullshit fascism. Congress won’t. The corrupt “supreme” court won’t.
I’m not advocating a coup. I’m merely stating a fact.
"Looks like that’s the only thing that’ll stop this bullshit fascism."
Yeah, you're suggesting a coup. As least have the spine to admit it.
Not to worry, though. If the Dems take back the House in the midterms, there will be non-stop impeachment inquiries. But they won't have 67 seats in the Senate to convict, so it will look like the previous clown shows we were treated to back in Trump's first term.
If you truly think Trump is a fascist, violated his oath of office, ignored the Constitution and needs to be removed from office, write down every single unconstitutional/impeachable offense he has committed and forward them to Norm Eisen. I'm sure he's already working on a list - maybe he's missed something.
I’m saying some kind of military or other organizational intervention appears to be the only path to stopping this shitshow since congress has relinquished its authority and the “supreme” court exists now only to hold the door open for this fascist administration and armed military and armed untrained thugs are now being sent into the streets.
Norm Eisen doesn’t need a list from me, he has his own, as do people like Weissman, Elias, Luttig, and many others.
The problem is those people can only win in the courts until the administration’s apparently private “supreme” court overturns their lower court wins.
No
Which makes the Democrats winning big in the Midterms all that more important. Trump realizes that, I think. He will do what he can to disrupt any chance the Dems have of re-taking the Congress.
DC in September.
https://removalcoalition.org/
This is how Congress should be greeted.
I agree with all of Jen's reforms for the High Court. I would add one: eliminate the shadow docket. They are altering law from the bench. A clear and good faith explication and explanation should be mandatory. And, like a lot else which tRump has shown to be quite corruptible , maybe come up with a new system for vetting and nominating judges at all levels. And, age and experience requirements should be included.
Honestly, until this wretched Court, I didn't even know there was such a thing. And not just a good faith defense of its rulings, but a justification for why something should be considered an "emergency." This seems so obvious, yet very little discussion of it can be found.
This is all pretty tough to take knowing Mitch McConnell stole two liberal judge seats. I wish President Obama had tested the old pirate and just gone ahead and installed Merrick Garland. Republicans would have been up in arms and called for impeachment, but he could have countered by saying, "do your damn job." The hypocrisy of McConnell then allowing Tramp to appoint a judge with two weeks to go in his term was appalling. I also wish RBG had decided that even she wasn't invincible, and that after her cancer diagnosis, she should have stepped down. If the court were 5-4 liberal, we wouldn't be in this mess. Tramp would be in a (c)ankle brace in Mar-A-Lardo (if they make them that big). I go back and forth between the scoundrels I despise most in this 10-year Tramp debacle, but if it comes right down to it, McConnell may be the one. I hope his constituents in Kentucky, the ones who have lost their Medicaid, WIC, etc., understand you have to make a politician earn your vote. Because now they're the ones who will suffer the most, though all of us who care about this once-great country are suffering in some way or another. Thanks Mitch. May you rot in hell.
Agreed. Obama was a good president, but not a great one. I get tired of him being held up as perfect when he didn’t do 1/10th of what was necessary to prevent McConnell from stealing that seat. Obama should have been on television everyday raging about what was happening. He is a kind man and decent man, but he made some seriously critical errors.
Yes, there have been enough "seriously critical errors" for all of us to share. The biggest example is the almost 1/3 of voters who didn't even bother to show up at the polls in 2024. Where were they?
Protesting against “Genocide Joe”, griping about the price of eggs, wanting women -especially women of color - to stay in their place, posting the latest Instagram proof of their wonderful, exciting lives, and/or anxiously waiting for the latest episode of “bread and circuses” to drop. Take your pick. American exceptionalism. What a country.
It has turned out that the "exorbitant" price increase of eggs is NOTHING compared to the rising price of freedom.
He should have claimed that he had the right to nominate the next justice no matter how long it takes, and put the question to the Supreme Court. The court would have split 4-4 and made possible the spectacle of an ex president sending nominees to the Senate. I begged him to do so in every possible forum, including generating petitions and sending letters to the White House.
I’m with you. He should have said, “Garland’s my guy; he starts work tomorrow, do something about it.” I thought he was soft on all those bank CEOs who nearly caused a world economic meltdown, too. They should still be in prison. And under his watch, Democrats allowed state houses all over the country to build red super majorities. That said, I liked him and still do. He’s an honorable man when he needed to be a bastard to certain people, Mitch being one of them.
re Obama, you are so right! Where is the (arguably) most famous Chicagoan of the 21st century as his city is the object of unconstitutional existential threat. Todau Pritzker was eloquent, forceful, mission-driven. If only Obama weren't already Resting In Peace in his comfy manse.
I believe it was Pritzker influence that put Obama on the map. JB Pritzker is from Chicago banking royalty, and they were early Obama supporters.
I didn't know that or associate Pritzker with Obama. Good to know. Now Obama ought to return the favor and use his own eloquence on the frontlines of the battle for Chicago and other Democratic-run cities.
I point the finger at Mitch for all of this.
RBG was counting on HRC to win in 2016. She intended to resign after that election so her successor would be appointed by the first woman president. Tragically for all, she couldn't last through the first T regime.
As we’ve all seen, there’s no such thing as a sure bet!
Democracy and this high court are mutually exclusive. Roberts and his thug buddies in robes don’t want democracy, don’t want representative government, don’t want government accountable to its citizens. What they want is an executive who rules, a king, a dictator, a tyrant, a strongman, whatever you want to call it. It’s clear that “separation of powers” is nothing more than a phrase on a piece of parchment. A now worthless piece of parchment.
Yes, John. The parchment has been fed through a shredder and replaced with the odious Project 2025. Surely, the Founders are rolling over in their graves. Never could they have imagined that after going to war to free themselves from the tyrannical Mad King George III, a future electorate hundreds of years later would foolishly elect a despotic lunatic grifter who would usher in the current reign of terror we are now having to endure.
Steven, there's nothing at all good about trying to make people believe "The parchment [Constitution] has been fed through a shredder and replaced with the odious Project 2025."
It's very far from true that "Never could [the Founders] have imagined" what we are experiencing. They experienced and expected at least as bad. That's the overarching point of our Constitution and the overarching point of the people who wrote and ratified it.
Corruption of government and abuses of power always were the constant companions of government and power, and they always will be. To see how to combat them, we need to better understand our history to better understand our Constitution.
It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing. People say such things to justify just not thinking about our Constitution and our history and just not thinking about how to use them now.
Jack, no one is disputing the Constitution’s authority to prohibit what we’re seeing. But a piece of paper is just a piece of paper until it’s enforced. This version of the Supreme Court has zero interest in ruling in favor of its provisions. It is crystal clear, since 2010, that it believes the Executive Branch, Article II, holds special privileges over those of Congress and the courts. It supports a lawless executive, the one who by the Constitution should be enforcing our laws, not breaking them. And if you don’t know what I’m referring to, just revisit its ruling on the Jack Smith January 6 case. July a year ago it basically gave the Executive cart blanche to do whatever his little heart desires, all under the cover of “official duties.” And the way in which it is issuing many of its rulings supports that. It seems to me that arguing about what the Constitution was or should be at this point is a waste of time. What I’m thinking about is what form of government follows this tyranny once it is removed. To believe that we’ll just revert to the old ways afterwards is hopelessly naive.
The SCOTUS decision clearly did not give the president "cart blanche to do whatever his little heart desires, all under the cover of 'official duties.' ” Only people who don't understand (or who don't want us to understand) that decision say that. That decision was essentially nothing more than an "advisory opinion," which many SCOTUS decisions say is plainly unconstitutional.
Baloney. Roberts slow-walked Jack Smith’s most important case against the dictator until it ran out of time. That case could easily have been heard, but Roberts squashed it. If January 6 wasn’t “high crimes and misdemeanors” nothing is.
John, that's not what you wrote above, and that's not what I said you were wrong about. The truth of your comment here does nothing to show your prior statement wasn't false.
John, of course the Constitution must be enforced to be effective. Enforcing it starts with understanding it. One of the first things to understand about our Constitution is that we can judge it for ourselves at least as well as the current SCOTUS majority, and we were expected to judge it for ourselves. That's part of the reason judges are required to explain their decisions.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731-732 (1931). Some of that was reiterated in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008).
The proper response to SCOTUS justices lying to us or deceiving us about our Constitution or violating our Constitution is to expose and oppose their conduct, not pretend or presume that their word is law.
With all due respect, I would argue that it’s you who doesn’t understand the Constitutiion. This court and its right-wing nakedly partisan majority, Alito, Thomas, Kavannaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch and Roberts have the final say on what it means. We don’t. And it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks this or that phrase means and how it should be interpreted. You’ve taken a snippet of a ruling and posted it here. Sp what? Exposed and Opposed? This court is well-known to most in this country, it doesn’t matter/
John, let's not forget the point: you clearly misrepresented that our Constitution is "A now worthless piece of parchment." You're wrong that "it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks." You may not understand it, but SCOTUS justices actually do care about what we know and what we think. They want us to think they're being truthful and that they know what our Constitution means. Correcting them requires us to actually know what our Constitution means and show them we know.
Yes. What this court doesn't seem to understand is that, if they are successful, their lovely black robes will be just worthless pieces of cloth.
John, please see my reply to Steven's reply to your comment. It's dangerously counterproductive to say our Constitution is "A now worthless piece of parchment."
It's dangerously counterproductive to think that our Constitution doesn't already prohibit what we're seeing. People say such things to justify just not thinking about our Constitution and our history and just not thinking about how to use them now.
It all shocks us but the alternative needs a better sales job than "this sucks".
On some days I feel energized to push back, on others I just want to barf and sit with my head in my hands. Thumbs up for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for helping me continue to function. Love, love, love the Calvinball meme.
To show Trump and his gang that the American people will oppose his FASCIST attack on our Democratic Republic, we must elect these Democratic candidates to the Governorships of New Jersey and Virgina OVERWHELMINGLY!!!!!
MIKIE SHERRILL FOR NEW JERSEY
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER FOR VIRGINIA
"“settlements” in frivolous cases (nothing more than thinly disguised tributes) Call it what it is: a BRIBE. Several members of the SC have first hand experience with bribes, don't they?
A dollar short and far too late. I don’t see how America comes back from these times of government gone wild. Trump is the symptom. Idiocy, ignorance and a complete lack of critical thinking by the citizenry is the cause. (The main-stream-media, including first the demise, and then the monopolization of local news, is a main contributor to the idiocy, ignorance and lack of critical thinking. The demise of public schools and the rise of theocratic and other non-public schools contributes to the state of no common facts.) Racism, bigotry and misogyny are like the roots of weeds; they relentlessly entangle and are almost impossible to remove.
most americans are idiots
"most americans are idiots"
Agree, and those in power love it.
they should........it's what put them there !
I seem to recall reading that Mr. Roberts was protective of his Courts Reputation. clearly this is no longer the case, SAD,
Would the existing evidence also support the impeachment option for current SCOTUS justices instead of or in addition to expansion? Any reform will require a significant turnover in Congress.
And impeachment might have some advantages including being more truly "conservative".
And yet we're always finding ourselves being reactionary to the latest outrage even as the MAGAs have already moved on to something else and ramped it up another notch. We propose future solutions as though we are still operating under semi-normality even while normality is fast slipping through our fingers.
There are huge swaths of people in this country who's lifestyle precludes the many of the typical media outlets and often even online based news and info. But if you're driving around rurally and though the exurbs, turn on your radio, and tune up and down, you'll hear a lot of talk radio and "Christian" radio. Give it a listen some time, it can be frightening. They live in an imagined festering world of social depravity, godless heathenism, political oppression from cultural and political elites, and worst of all a socialist democrat party that wants to run every aspect of their lives and take away all their freedoms.
So these folks love Trump and the MAGA cult, huge numbers of them are cheering on troops occupying DC, and want to see all "democrat cities" occupied and taken over. And as long as Trump can inflame that side of his MAGA base and the hangers on who are somewhat attracted to it, they'll agree with anything he does.
This isn't going to turn around unless they get hit hard in their wallets, real goods, services, and programs are taken away from them, jobs are lost, their kids catch preventable diseases, and Democrats can successfully pin all that on Republicans. But we'd also have to break through decades of political and cultural brainwashing, and I'm not sure that we can.
Well said-all of it. How low our SCOTUS has fallen should shock the country. We are scorned by our allies and our rule of law is destroyed by obeisance to a traitorous demagogue. Shame on all who have let this happen to a country that once stood as a shining example
of freedom and democracy. Now we are neither.