You left out the court choosing a president (Bush v Gore) and severely restricting the ability of death penalty defendants to appeal their convictions even when represented by ineffective counsel (I need to find the citation on that one. It got lost in the same session as Bruen, if memory serves.) And if the invalidation of the Colorado decision to keep T off the ballot. Court reform absolutely needs to be part of the plan.
This another great article sir. Its truly dumbfounding why dems are'nt speaking about this topic or the electoral college even. We wouldnt have to deal with certain states becoming un-flippable or flipped because it was gerrymandered to death. 1 person = 1 vote.
As much as I agree with you I find myself wondering if we're talking about the same democrats. The milquetoast losers running the party these days aren't up for confrontation or war. Maybe someday we'll have some fightin' democrats *leading* the party. That'll be something to see.
Good column, but I cannot over-emphasize how much I hate, Hate, HATE the blithe, and deeply toxic bothsiderism of: "𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰-𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵".
There is only ONE party that has done that, ever.
(sure the Democrats of the Confederacy committed Treason in Defense of Slavery, and later instituted Jim Crow when they lost that fight, but 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳𝘴 are all Republicans and have been since the so-called "tribes" re-sorted themselves post 1965 Civil Rights Act. )
The "Republican Party" that Reverend King was a member of is called "The Democratic Party" today.
The 'above it all' haughty scolds telling us all of this is 'both sides' equally, and equating social approbium of politicians for their degrading policies and statements as "cancel culture" as proof that the "liberals are a viciously nasty tribe" with a party that actively supports murdering citizens in broad daylight in fromt of witnesses is deeply sociopathic and is intended to foment the kind of 'pox on both their houses' attitude that only enables the kind of corruption and autocratic governance we're seeing today.
"Both sides" isn't really my intent here. But the tribal nature of political parties still exist. I don't think the Democrats would ever nominate and then defend someone as corrupt as Trump but that doesn't change the fact that the House Speaker and Senate Leader don't necessarily function as independent leaders. That's what the founders couldn't foresee
Well I see the right messages being spoken about the attacks on Crow, Kelly, et al. about the threats to lock them up. I guess we'll see how well the fight goes once Hillary Clinton is sat in the closed-door session about Epstein so that the heat can be taken off the billionaires or something.
Until one or more of the corrupt justices are impeached and removed there won't be a change. This is indeed a fatal flaw of America. But it can be done if people sit down and do the work.
I still don't know that everyone's rowing in the same direction but there seems to be an effort.
Senator Jon Ossoff's speech a week ago, where he said the GOP and the Trump administration work for the "Epstein Class," clearly pointed the way forward. The GOP, Trump, his minions, and family, and the Supreme Court are corrupt. They don't care about anyone but themselves and their oligarchic friends. They take from us and give to those who already have everything; that's why things are unaffordable. They only listen to those who give them bribes (oh, sorry, that's gratuities and gifts per the Court), or fund their ballrooms, or give them no-bid government contracts. They think they own us and can use us as they will. I am not concerned about specific policies; I am concerned about stopping the looting of this nation and restoring the Constitution. I want Liberty and Justice for all.
I think the same. While they feel like their vaulted chambers are immune from consequences, they clearly told Rump that he can do ANYTHING with immunity. If he thinks that they are hampering his agenda, he can literally fire them. The “first they came for ..” poem will remind them of this. There won’t be anyone to save them.
They’re old. How much baksheesh do you need to live out your last 10 years? Apparently all of it.
There are indeed ways to reform this corrupted court if and only if the Dems wield the power given to them.
Until the Dems control the oval, start investigating them.
And when and if the Dems control the oval, add 4 more justices. Pass term limits.
And if you really want to Corleone them, take away their protections. Leave or else. Where is it written that the US government must provide protections?
Or have the IRS find out exactly how Kavanaugh’s 300k in debt disappeared.
All of this would require a stiff back that, quite frankly, I don’t think the Dems have.
The Supreme Court can't be reformed. But a majority Democratic Congress can abolish the Supreme Court by just repealing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the Supreme Court. Article 3 of the constitution only calls for a supreme (lower case) court. The US Courts of Appeal can optimally and democratically fulfill that role.
The judges in the US Courts of Appeal aren't perfect, of course. But there are lots of them, appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents. They have a code of ethics. Cases will be heard by a more diverse, less easily captured group of judges. It's way past time we stopped wringing our hands about the difficulty of reforming the Supreme Court. Just get rid of it.
Just announce the following: “The Supreme Court has proven itself corrupt and untethered to the law and Constitution. We will treat it as a merely advisory body now. Judicial review is over.”
These doomers seem to believe Democrats have zero power right now and can just sit there silent waiting for voters to reward them (presumably for “kitchen table issues”, meaning the only thing people talk about in their kitchens is the price of butter, not a lawless demented child rapist using unlimited power and zero accountability to kill citizens in the streets).
It doesn’t occur to them that even in the minority you can use your media access and war chests to spread a message that outrages voters and even changes their minds. Yes most voters want borders controlled and in principle they want deportation of people who are here illegally. But turns out most of them don’t want workers pulled from jobs, kids yanked from school, neighbors taken away, and when they see this done violently and with no due process (which means whoops, a lot of mistakes that don’t go corrected! Sorry, the guy you voted for just deported your sister, good luck getting her back from El Salvador! But at least the black lady with the annoying laugh isn't there to make you feel inferior!). And believe it or not, you can affect what people talk about in their kitchens, by changing the media conversation.
“But the media is hostile to us” you say. Guess we should give up, right? Or maybe consider this—why does the media like Trump I’m the first place, compared to a normal Republican who controls his bowels? Because the media REALLY likes viewership, and Trump knows how to give it to them. Learn to deliver must-watch soundbites, not overly lawyered mush, get your message out so it can’t be ignored, change some minds, and get the public outraged about this illegitimate Court and the fascists it protects. Stop being weak.
trump used to give the media viewership, but I'm not so sure now, it's more that the media is addicted to trump and can't quit him. However, your point about the must-watch soundbites and getting their message out is a good one for the Dems. They can use that strategy with the corporate media (the one addicted to trump) and with independent media, which is overtaking the corporate media in viewership.
Republicans and Democrats alike have long said the media wants to pursue the other party’s agenda. They are both wrong to some extent because the media cares most about what will keep them in business.
Even if they didn’t have the votes to block anyone, giving even one Dem vote for these corrupt and incompetent nominees undermines the whole message that this administration is a threat to the country.
There’s simply no constituency for people who would support Democrats “if only they were more accommodating.” That idea is the mush that comes from focusing on groups and consultants but defies common sense and actual electoral results.
My entire voting life (and I cast my first ballot in 1982) is Democrats being afraid-of Reagan, of Gingrich, of the Tea Party, of MAGA. Afraid of offending people who hate them. When the odd fighter *does* emerge, they're labeled extreme and divisive when no one seems to care about the GOP literally pissing on the Constitution to get what they want (and I am honestly unsure what that is right now besides a nationwide house fire). The first Dem candidate who says, first, no, this administration and it's enablers ARE NOT IMMUNE AND I WILL ENSURE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS PROSECUTED and then take steps to ensure SCOTUS is neutered in it's ability to cause further harm has my vote, now and forever. Still waiting, though.
You're not going to get anyone to make a vow like that, prosecuting anyone as a Democrat. The legal system works differently. The pricktator is allowed to make pronouncements like that (against Hillary Clinton) because he's the chosen avatar of the unreconstructed and that means great deference in the political and legal systems.
Democrats have to utilize normal order and investigative procedure, including making sure evidence is admissible. Additionally we also have to be careful that we don't end up in a court with another Aileen Cannon.
All it takes is some weird shit to happen in the case and oh, the chud walks free, and look at that! "[Democrat] lied to get elected! I'm not going to vote for them anymore!" And we all saw that the pricktator was had dead to rights in his prior cases. Absolutely nothing of consequence has happened to him because of that deference for the champion of the unreconstructed.
You left out the court choosing a president (Bush v Gore) and severely restricting the ability of death penalty defendants to appeal their convictions even when represented by ineffective counsel (I need to find the citation on that one. It got lost in the same session as Bruen, if memory serves.) And if the invalidation of the Colorado decision to keep T off the ballot. Court reform absolutely needs to be part of the plan.
This another great article sir. Its truly dumbfounding why dems are'nt speaking about this topic or the electoral college even. We wouldnt have to deal with certain states becoming un-flippable or flipped because it was gerrymandered to death. 1 person = 1 vote.
Thanks!
As much as I agree with you I find myself wondering if we're talking about the same democrats. The milquetoast losers running the party these days aren't up for confrontation or war. Maybe someday we'll have some fightin' democrats *leading* the party. That'll be something to see.
Good column, but I cannot over-emphasize how much I hate, Hate, HATE the blithe, and deeply toxic bothsiderism of: "𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰-𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵".
There is only ONE party that has done that, ever.
(sure the Democrats of the Confederacy committed Treason in Defense of Slavery, and later instituted Jim Crow when they lost that fight, but 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳𝘴 are all Republicans and have been since the so-called "tribes" re-sorted themselves post 1965 Civil Rights Act. )
The "Republican Party" that Reverend King was a member of is called "The Democratic Party" today.
The 'above it all' haughty scolds telling us all of this is 'both sides' equally, and equating social approbium of politicians for their degrading policies and statements as "cancel culture" as proof that the "liberals are a viciously nasty tribe" with a party that actively supports murdering citizens in broad daylight in fromt of witnesses is deeply sociopathic and is intended to foment the kind of 'pox on both their houses' attitude that only enables the kind of corruption and autocratic governance we're seeing today.
"Both sides" isn't really my intent here. But the tribal nature of political parties still exist. I don't think the Democrats would ever nominate and then defend someone as corrupt as Trump but that doesn't change the fact that the House Speaker and Senate Leader don't necessarily function as independent leaders. That's what the founders couldn't foresee
“Don’t forget the cannoli!” (Completely irrelevant but somehow obligatory nonetheless.)
Well I see the right messages being spoken about the attacks on Crow, Kelly, et al. about the threats to lock them up. I guess we'll see how well the fight goes once Hillary Clinton is sat in the closed-door session about Epstein so that the heat can be taken off the billionaires or something.
Until one or more of the corrupt justices are impeached and removed there won't be a change. This is indeed a fatal flaw of America. But it can be done if people sit down and do the work.
I still don't know that everyone's rowing in the same direction but there seems to be an effort.
Senator Jon Ossoff's speech a week ago, where he said the GOP and the Trump administration work for the "Epstein Class," clearly pointed the way forward. The GOP, Trump, his minions, and family, and the Supreme Court are corrupt. They don't care about anyone but themselves and their oligarchic friends. They take from us and give to those who already have everything; that's why things are unaffordable. They only listen to those who give them bribes (oh, sorry, that's gratuities and gifts per the Court), or fund their ballrooms, or give them no-bid government contracts. They think they own us and can use us as they will. I am not concerned about specific policies; I am concerned about stopping the looting of this nation and restoring the Constitution. I want Liberty and Justice for all.
With the presidential immunity ruling, the Supreme Court signed their own arrest warrants.
Tell me again that MAGA isn't a suicide cult.
I think the same. While they feel like their vaulted chambers are immune from consequences, they clearly told Rump that he can do ANYTHING with immunity. If he thinks that they are hampering his agenda, he can literally fire them. The “first they came for ..” poem will remind them of this. There won’t be anyone to save them.
They’re old. How much baksheesh do you need to live out your last 10 years? Apparently all of it.
100% agree.
There are indeed ways to reform this corrupted court if and only if the Dems wield the power given to them.
Until the Dems control the oval, start investigating them.
And when and if the Dems control the oval, add 4 more justices. Pass term limits.
And if you really want to Corleone them, take away their protections. Leave or else. Where is it written that the US government must provide protections?
Or have the IRS find out exactly how Kavanaugh’s 300k in debt disappeared.
All of this would require a stiff back that, quite frankly, I don’t think the Dems have.
All of this yes. But Kavanaugh’s parents paid off his loans, and we really need to get off this talking point because it’s undermining factual arguments. Mother Jones wrote a piece in 2021 that lays it out, I think, persuasively: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/09/heres-the-truth-about-brett-kavanaughs-finances/
Yes, that often annoyed me because Kavanaugh's financial situation was no big mystery if you knew anyone from his financial background.
Ok. But I’d definitely would use the power to investigate ties to their benefactors.
The IRS and DOJ could look into the many undeclared gifts and ties to white nationalist organizations.
And I do understand we are opening a door.
Would be easier to add the seats and term limits. Which Biden failed to pursue. Especially after Dobbs. He could’ve gotten it done.
The Supreme Court can't be reformed. But a majority Democratic Congress can abolish the Supreme Court by just repealing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the Supreme Court. Article 3 of the constitution only calls for a supreme (lower case) court. The US Courts of Appeal can optimally and democratically fulfill that role.
The judges in the US Courts of Appeal aren't perfect, of course. But there are lots of them, appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents. They have a code of ethics. Cases will be heard by a more diverse, less easily captured group of judges. It's way past time we stopped wringing our hands about the difficulty of reforming the Supreme Court. Just get rid of it.
Just announce the following: “The Supreme Court has proven itself corrupt and untethered to the law and Constitution. We will treat it as a merely advisory body now. Judicial review is over.”
These doomers seem to believe Democrats have zero power right now and can just sit there silent waiting for voters to reward them (presumably for “kitchen table issues”, meaning the only thing people talk about in their kitchens is the price of butter, not a lawless demented child rapist using unlimited power and zero accountability to kill citizens in the streets).
It doesn’t occur to them that even in the minority you can use your media access and war chests to spread a message that outrages voters and even changes their minds. Yes most voters want borders controlled and in principle they want deportation of people who are here illegally. But turns out most of them don’t want workers pulled from jobs, kids yanked from school, neighbors taken away, and when they see this done violently and with no due process (which means whoops, a lot of mistakes that don’t go corrected! Sorry, the guy you voted for just deported your sister, good luck getting her back from El Salvador! But at least the black lady with the annoying laugh isn't there to make you feel inferior!). And believe it or not, you can affect what people talk about in their kitchens, by changing the media conversation.
“But the media is hostile to us” you say. Guess we should give up, right? Or maybe consider this—why does the media like Trump I’m the first place, compared to a normal Republican who controls his bowels? Because the media REALLY likes viewership, and Trump knows how to give it to them. Learn to deliver must-watch soundbites, not overly lawyered mush, get your message out so it can’t be ignored, change some minds, and get the public outraged about this illegitimate Court and the fascists it protects. Stop being weak.
trump used to give the media viewership, but I'm not so sure now, it's more that the media is addicted to trump and can't quit him. However, your point about the must-watch soundbites and getting their message out is a good one for the Dems. They can use that strategy with the corporate media (the one addicted to trump) and with independent media, which is overtaking the corporate media in viewership.
Republicans and Democrats alike have long said the media wants to pursue the other party’s agenda. They are both wrong to some extent because the media cares most about what will keep them in business.
Also stop voting for trump's nominees for anything. The dems could have stopped some of this, if they had the balls of Mitch McConnell.
Even if they didn’t have the votes to block anyone, giving even one Dem vote for these corrupt and incompetent nominees undermines the whole message that this administration is a threat to the country.
There’s simply no constituency for people who would support Democrats “if only they were more accommodating.” That idea is the mush that comes from focusing on groups and consultants but defies common sense and actual electoral results.
My entire voting life (and I cast my first ballot in 1982) is Democrats being afraid-of Reagan, of Gingrich, of the Tea Party, of MAGA. Afraid of offending people who hate them. When the odd fighter *does* emerge, they're labeled extreme and divisive when no one seems to care about the GOP literally pissing on the Constitution to get what they want (and I am honestly unsure what that is right now besides a nationwide house fire). The first Dem candidate who says, first, no, this administration and it's enablers ARE NOT IMMUNE AND I WILL ENSURE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS PROSECUTED and then take steps to ensure SCOTUS is neutered in it's ability to cause further harm has my vote, now and forever. Still waiting, though.
You're not going to get anyone to make a vow like that, prosecuting anyone as a Democrat. The legal system works differently. The pricktator is allowed to make pronouncements like that (against Hillary Clinton) because he's the chosen avatar of the unreconstructed and that means great deference in the political and legal systems.
Democrats have to utilize normal order and investigative procedure, including making sure evidence is admissible. Additionally we also have to be careful that we don't end up in a court with another Aileen Cannon.
All it takes is some weird shit to happen in the case and oh, the chud walks free, and look at that! "[Democrat] lied to get elected! I'm not going to vote for them anymore!" And we all saw that the pricktator was had dead to rights in his prior cases. Absolutely nothing of consequence has happened to him because of that deference for the champion of the unreconstructed.
Uh huh
Yeah. It would be really nice if the Dems decided to *not* be controlled opposition for once.
The nationwide house fire is exactly what they want. Trump has said it, when everything crashes, you can buy it all up cheap.