A letter to the editor of the London Review of Books:
Frederick Wilmot-Smith writes about prospects for the Supreme Court in the wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death (RBG’s Big Mistake, LRB, 8 October). The immediate worry is that the radical conservatives on the court will now decide that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and overturn Roe v. Wade. But this is only the beginning. Republicans have been packing the federal judiciary for decades with judges who can be counted on to undermine the power of government in order to advance the agenda of the Republican Party.
Congress should enact laws overriding anti-democratic decisions made by the Supreme Court and codifying the rights of the people. It could, for example, pass a National Voting Rights Act giving every citizen over the age of 18 the right to vote, requiring uniform voting procedures for every state and every election, making each federal election day a national holiday, controlling partisan gerrymandering, extending the time available to complete the 2020 census, and putting in place procedures to protect the voting process. It could also pass a National Policing Code to establish uniform policing procedures and standards throughout the US, and to guarantee every person in the country fair treatment by the police; a National Gun Control Act that would implement reasonable regulations for gun ownership and usage, and ban automatic weapons; a National Marriage Act, guaranteeing the right of two people to marry in every state; and a National Reproductive Rights Act.(Emphasis mine - JG)
All of these could be ruled unconstitutional by activist conservative justices on the grounds that Congress does not have the power to enact such laws. Many incorrectly believe that it would be necessary to amend the constitution in order to change the balance of power between Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress, however, has at its disposal many methods, expressly authorized by the constitution, that would enable it to confront the court, including restructuring the federal judiciary and limiting the types of case that may be heard by the courts. Perhaps the most important tool is the assertion of its own power to interpret the constitution, particularly under the post-Civil War 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Each of these expressly grants Congress ‘the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article’.
If the Democrats win an emphatic victory in November and then Congress takes strong action to define and enforce the rights of the people, some fear that the Republican Party will just undo or counteract those actions when they return to power. To that I say, don’t be afraid. Once rights are granted to the people, whether by the judiciary or Congress, they do not willingly give them up. Living in a democracy requires every generation to fight for its rights.
Ray Kwasnick
Boston, Massachusetts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Roots of Trumpism - a series
I think it was Nebraska Sen. Roman Hruska who memorably told the Senate, during the aborted* attempt to appoint Harold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court, that "It has been held against this nominee that he is a lying sack of shit. Even if he is a lying sack of shit, there are a lot of judges and people and lawyers who are lying sacks of shit. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? And a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there." Or words to that effect.
*If you'll pardon the expression.
*If you'll pardon the expression.
Without Diana Ross, The Supremes couldn't cut it
But the Supremes without Anthony Kennedy won't change a whit. So he hit a few left notes right: he was no moderate.
Three Blue Dog Democrats, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, met with Donald Trump at the White House last week, along with GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley, to discuss the president's plans to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary ideologues.
So far they claim to be in wait-and-see mode, all having raised doubts about whether they would vote for a nominee with a record of opposition to Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act.
But talk is cheap: Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp all crossed the aisle last year to support Rightist blowhard now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, as terrible an appointment as anyone Trump is likely to unearth.
The Democrats have the power to shut down the Senate until they get a satisfactory compromise nominee or the election happens, whichever comes first. Or, for that matter, to achieve any other goal they're serious about (DACA, say).
For Democrats, unfortunately, being able to do something and doing something are two very different matters.
Or: they could hold out for changes to the terms of judges. The primary argument for lifetime appointments, judicial independence, a horse that escaped from the barn years ago, is as well served by single terms longer than a president's two. If justices were limited to 12-year appointments, say, they would still be independent, but you would no longer have the incumbent party trying to control the judiciary decades after it has left office.
An interesting sidebar is what should happen to the terms of justices currently ensconced on the court that exceed the new limit, especially since removing them simultaneously would require also that several new judges be appointed at once. But in politics everything is negotiable. There is nothing impractical in working out a formula to dispose of the longest-serving justices (who are Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito, the latter, conveniently, having been there 12 years) if their removal supported the intention of the reform.
With the promise of more turnover, any single appointment would be less fraught. The Democrats would lose the opportunity to influence this court seat, but by forcing a change to termed justices they might make future appointments less contentious for being less momentous.
Extra credit:
✓ If Democrats refuse to participate in roll call votes, the Senate will come to a halt for lack of a quorum: How Democrats can shut down the Senate by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ Quorum-breaking can be very disruptive but does not provide a long-term option for blocking a Supreme Court nomination: How Democrats can shut down the Senate, part II by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ How can someone who calls herself pro-choice oppose Roe v. Wade? Let me count the ways: Let Roe go by Megan McArdle (Washington Post).
✓ “Massive numbers of women resisted the law” -- a historian on life before Roe: The secret lives of women before Roe v. Wade by Rickie Solinger (Vox).
✓ A testy exchange with Dianne Feinstein helped make a former Notre Dame law professor a favorite of conservatives: How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist by Eliana Johnson (Politico).
✓ Humans are living longer. That means judges are serving longer, too: It’s Time to Retire Lifetime Appointments for Supreme Court Justices by Adrienne LaFrance (Slate).
Three Blue Dog Democrats, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, met with Donald Trump at the White House last week, along with GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley, to discuss the president's plans to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary ideologues.
So far they claim to be in wait-and-see mode, all having raised doubts about whether they would vote for a nominee with a record of opposition to Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act.
But talk is cheap: Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp all crossed the aisle last year to support Rightist blowhard now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, as terrible an appointment as anyone Trump is likely to unearth.
The Democrats have the power to shut down the Senate until they get a satisfactory compromise nominee or the election happens, whichever comes first. Or, for that matter, to achieve any other goal they're serious about (DACA, say).
For Democrats, unfortunately, being able to do something and doing something are two very different matters.
Or: they could hold out for changes to the terms of judges. The primary argument for lifetime appointments, judicial independence, a horse that escaped from the barn years ago, is as well served by single terms longer than a president's two. If justices were limited to 12-year appointments, say, they would still be independent, but you would no longer have the incumbent party trying to control the judiciary decades after it has left office.
An interesting sidebar is what should happen to the terms of justices currently ensconced on the court that exceed the new limit, especially since removing them simultaneously would require also that several new judges be appointed at once. But in politics everything is negotiable. There is nothing impractical in working out a formula to dispose of the longest-serving justices (who are Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito, the latter, conveniently, having been there 12 years) if their removal supported the intention of the reform.
With the promise of more turnover, any single appointment would be less fraught. The Democrats would lose the opportunity to influence this court seat, but by forcing a change to termed justices they might make future appointments less contentious for being less momentous.
Extra credit:
✓ If Democrats refuse to participate in roll call votes, the Senate will come to a halt for lack of a quorum: How Democrats can shut down the Senate by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ Quorum-breaking can be very disruptive but does not provide a long-term option for blocking a Supreme Court nomination: How Democrats can shut down the Senate, part II by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ How can someone who calls herself pro-choice oppose Roe v. Wade? Let me count the ways: Let Roe go by Megan McArdle (Washington Post).
✓ “Massive numbers of women resisted the law” -- a historian on life before Roe: The secret lives of women before Roe v. Wade by Rickie Solinger (Vox).
✓ A testy exchange with Dianne Feinstein helped make a former Notre Dame law professor a favorite of conservatives: How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist by Eliana Johnson (Politico).
✓ Humans are living longer. That means judges are serving longer, too: It’s Time to Retire Lifetime Appointments for Supreme Court Justices by Adrienne LaFrance (Slate).
Lesser of two evils? Really?
Like Bill Clinton as president (you remember: banking "reform," telecom "reform," welfare "reform," WTO, NAFTA -- that Bill Clinton), President Obama has tried to deflect criticism by adopting the policies of his opponents, in effect, as used to be said, being more Catholic than the Pope. In domestic affairs, this has led to passivity and inaction, allowing the Right to stake out the parameters of the political debate: the pursuit of austerity; the advancement of tax cuts (more of a muddle now that candidate Obama is a born-again populist); the promotion of the health of the insurance industry ahead of the health of the people; the setting "on the table" of cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
But, as troubling as the administration's domestic agenda has been, it is in the area of foreign policy that its behavior is most distressing. Not wishing to allow criticism from conservatives, Obama has not just continued George W. Bush's Long War, but has enlarged it both in scope and in ferocity. The legal and physical framework established during Bush's reign, from the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act thru Gitmo to drones, not only remains in place, but has been extended to include contract killings and a list of conflict points that looks like the departure board of an international airline.
So where does that leave the Left in November 2012? True to form, the presidential wing of the Democratic Party is campaigning on the shop-worn "lesser-of-two-evils" platform, even though it has become so threadbare the only part not in tatters is the fear-mongering about appointments to the Supreme Court. (And, by the way, how different is jazzing up the Democratic base over Roe V. Wade from the GOP's cynical use of "social issues" to get its base hyperventilating? Here's something you can put money on: whether Obama or Romney is president, the next appointee to the Supreme Court will be a reliable defender of corporate interests and the status quo.) Even if you're appalled, as you should be, by the idea of Mitt Romney in the White House (and Paul Ryan a heartbeat away), how can you vote for Obama without endorsing his policy choices?
The answer, of course, is that you can't. In 2008, it was possible to convince yourself that the Democratic candidate's general blandness ("hope," "change," "yes we can") and specific conservatism (missile attacks on Iran, more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, advocacy of the death penalty, deliberate blurring of the clear language of the 2nd amendment, bipartisanship as a policy goal) was a disguise intended to slip him past voters on election day, a "whites of their eyes" strategy as it is (now wistfully) described to get hold of the reins of power before turning the carriage of state down the road to peace and economic justice. In 2012, deluding yourself that Obama is the candidate of change is no longer possible. No wonder the campaign is spending its millions demonizing the hapless Romney (Obama has been supremely lucky in his opponents, but never more so than this season); what else is there to talk about?
If you're not a supporter of fiscal austerity except when it comes to funding endless war, what do you do? In some states, third party candidates will be on the ballot (in California, no joke, Roseanne Barr was nominated for president last week by the Peace and Freedom Party, which also has in Marsha Feinland a first rate candidate for U.S. Senate against that pillar of the status quo, Sen. Diane Feinstein; Barr is also working hard to get on the ballot in other states; and the Green Party has a worthy candidate in Dr. Jill Stein). In most of the places where where liberal disappointment in the president is greatest -- New York, Illinois, California, New England and the Pacific Northwest, the distortions of the electoral college have rendered votes in the Obama-Romney contest so meaningless that even progressives persuaded by lesser-of-two-evils argument can cast a third party protest vote without worrying. There also are numerous opportunities to affect the much more important matter of who gets to serve in the national legislature: in addition to such obvious choices as Sen. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Alan Grayson, scores of federal and local progressive candidates need your support: you'll find most (or all) of them at the fundraising site ActBlue. And you can work to build a third party more in tune with the your politics than the duopoly; get involved in local politics; join the struggle to create alternative power bases, for example in labor or community organizations; pursue change in specific policy areas (such as militarization or the environment); assist civil rights and civil liberties defenders like the Southern Poverty Law Center or the American Civil Liberties Union.
Or you can take to the streets.
What you can't do, it seems to me, is sit passively in the audience of our political theater; what you can't do is agree to business as usual; what you can't do is once again accept without resistance the lesser of two evils.
But, as troubling as the administration's domestic agenda has been, it is in the area of foreign policy that its behavior is most distressing. Not wishing to allow criticism from conservatives, Obama has not just continued George W. Bush's Long War, but has enlarged it both in scope and in ferocity. The legal and physical framework established during Bush's reign, from the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act thru Gitmo to drones, not only remains in place, but has been extended to include contract killings and a list of conflict points that looks like the departure board of an international airline.
So where does that leave the Left in November 2012? True to form, the presidential wing of the Democratic Party is campaigning on the shop-worn "lesser-of-two-evils" platform, even though it has become so threadbare the only part not in tatters is the fear-mongering about appointments to the Supreme Court. (And, by the way, how different is jazzing up the Democratic base over Roe V. Wade from the GOP's cynical use of "social issues" to get its base hyperventilating? Here's something you can put money on: whether Obama or Romney is president, the next appointee to the Supreme Court will be a reliable defender of corporate interests and the status quo.) Even if you're appalled, as you should be, by the idea of Mitt Romney in the White House (and Paul Ryan a heartbeat away), how can you vote for Obama without endorsing his policy choices?
The answer, of course, is that you can't. In 2008, it was possible to convince yourself that the Democratic candidate's general blandness ("hope," "change," "yes we can") and specific conservatism (missile attacks on Iran, more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, advocacy of the death penalty, deliberate blurring of the clear language of the 2nd amendment, bipartisanship as a policy goal) was a disguise intended to slip him past voters on election day, a "whites of their eyes" strategy as it is (now wistfully) described to get hold of the reins of power before turning the carriage of state down the road to peace and economic justice. In 2012, deluding yourself that Obama is the candidate of change is no longer possible. No wonder the campaign is spending its millions demonizing the hapless Romney (Obama has been supremely lucky in his opponents, but never more so than this season); what else is there to talk about?
If you're not a supporter of fiscal austerity except when it comes to funding endless war, what do you do? In some states, third party candidates will be on the ballot (in California, no joke, Roseanne Barr was nominated for president last week by the Peace and Freedom Party, which also has in Marsha Feinland a first rate candidate for U.S. Senate against that pillar of the status quo, Sen. Diane Feinstein; Barr is also working hard to get on the ballot in other states; and the Green Party has a worthy candidate in Dr. Jill Stein). In most of the places where where liberal disappointment in the president is greatest -- New York, Illinois, California, New England and the Pacific Northwest, the distortions of the electoral college have rendered votes in the Obama-Romney contest so meaningless that even progressives persuaded by lesser-of-two-evils argument can cast a third party protest vote without worrying. There also are numerous opportunities to affect the much more important matter of who gets to serve in the national legislature: in addition to such obvious choices as Sen. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Alan Grayson, scores of federal and local progressive candidates need your support: you'll find most (or all) of them at the fundraising site ActBlue. And you can work to build a third party more in tune with the your politics than the duopoly; get involved in local politics; join the struggle to create alternative power bases, for example in labor or community organizations; pursue change in specific policy areas (such as militarization or the environment); assist civil rights and civil liberties defenders like the Southern Poverty Law Center or the American Civil Liberties Union.
Or you can take to the streets.
What you can't do, it seems to me, is sit passively in the audience of our political theater; what you can't do is agree to business as usual; what you can't do is once again accept without resistance the lesser of two evils.
Politics: The role of the Supreme Court
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's riveting opening at Kagan SCOTUS nomination hearing:
Saturday Catchup: Must reads (and sees) from the past week
Taxing Cannabis: This Time, Pot Really Might Become Legal by Kevin Drum (Mother Jones 2010-03-26) -- The only thing that can stop legalization in California is massive spending by the prison guards union.
War Crimes: State Department Declares Illegal Drone Attacks to Be Legal as Part of Eternal Global War by David Swanson (AfterDowningStreet 2010-03-26) -- Because they say so, that's why.
Change Watch: The horrible prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein by Glenn Greenwald (Salon 2010-03-26) -- or Elena Kagan, for that matter. Will Obama move SCOTUS to the right?'
The influence of the Israel Lobby on America's Iran policy (Obama continues Bush's Iran policy 3) by Daan de Wit, translated by Ben Kearney (Deep Journal 2010-03-23) -- Why Washington lives in fear the lobby's long reach. Also, see Obama continues Bush's Iran policy 1 and 2.
Jon Stewart does (in) Glenn Beck:
Is this the Birth of a Nation? by Melissa Harris-Lacewell (The Nation 2010-03-22) -- The return of Jim Crow.
Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects by Jeremy Binckes and Nick Wing (Huntington Post 2010-03-23) | It's not affordable or universal, but it's a damn sight better than what was there before.
The real hero of health care reform: Nancy Pelosi by Mark Greenbaum (Christian Science Monitor 2010-03-22) -- Whatever you think of the outcome, leadership came from the House not the White House.
If you want to see why Carly Fiorina will never be US Senator you have only to watch this wacko ad for Carly Fiorina:
Secrets of the Tea Party: The troubling history of Tea Party leader Dick Armey by Beau Hodai (In These Times 2010-03-21)
Two Right-Wing Billionaire Brothers Are Remaking America for Their Own Benefit by Jim Hightower (AlterNet 2010-03-19) -- The Moneybags behind the corporate coup d'état.
War Crimes: State Department Declares Illegal Drone Attacks to Be Legal as Part of Eternal Global War by David Swanson (AfterDowningStreet 2010-03-26) -- Because they say so, that's why.
Change Watch: The horrible prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein by Glenn Greenwald (Salon 2010-03-26) -- or Elena Kagan, for that matter. Will Obama move SCOTUS to the right?'
The influence of the Israel Lobby on America's Iran policy (Obama continues Bush's Iran policy 3) by Daan de Wit, translated by Ben Kearney (Deep Journal 2010-03-23) -- Why Washington lives in fear the lobby's long reach. Also, see Obama continues Bush's Iran policy 1 and 2.
Jon Stewart does (in) Glenn Beck:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Conservative Libertarian | ||||
| ||||
Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects by Jeremy Binckes and Nick Wing (Huntington Post 2010-03-23) | It's not affordable or universal, but it's a damn sight better than what was there before.
The real hero of health care reform: Nancy Pelosi by Mark Greenbaum (Christian Science Monitor 2010-03-22) -- Whatever you think of the outcome, leadership came from the House not the White House.
If you want to see why Carly Fiorina will never be US Senator you have only to watch this wacko ad for Carly Fiorina:
Secrets of the Tea Party: The troubling history of Tea Party leader Dick Armey by Beau Hodai (In These Times 2010-03-21)
Two Right-Wing Billionaire Brothers Are Remaking America for Their Own Benefit by Jim Hightower (AlterNet 2010-03-19) -- The Moneybags behind the corporate coup d'état.
Con Law: Free speech is a human right
There are many proposals to extend the reach of democracy by revising the Constitution, from excising the electoral college to remodeling the Senate, but no proposal to amend the document has gained more traction than the effort to add a clause declaring that corporations should not be considered "persons" and cannot claim the same rights under the law as human beings. Since the Supremes based their recent ruling that corporate spending to influence elections is a free speech right flowing from the legal fiction that corporations are persons, the proposed amendment would undermine the foundation of the court's decision. A coalition of public interest organizations has launched a campaign to overturn the ruling. The groups -- Voter Action, Public Citizen, Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance -- say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. Their aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, is to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades.
For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, visit Free Speech for People.
Listen to a press call on the Supreme Court decision.
View the Supreme Court ruling.
See, also: Politics: Representative Democracy and the Power of Corporations (Impractical Proposals 2010-01-24)
Actions:
Sign Campaign to Legalize Democracy's Move to Amend petition.
Spread the word by urging others to visit www.freespeechforpeople.org for information on the constitutional reform campaign.
For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, visit Free Speech for People.
Listen to a press call on the Supreme Court decision.
View the Supreme Court ruling.
See, also: Politics: Representative Democracy and the Power of Corporations (Impractical Proposals 2010-01-24)
Actions:
Sign Campaign to Legalize Democracy's Move to Amend petition.
Spread the word by urging others to visit www.freespeechforpeople.org for information on the constitutional reform campaign.
Clip File: 4 Supreme Court Cases That Will Say a Lot About the Direction of Our Country
Would a Human Sacrifice TV Channel be protected by the First Amendment? This and other key questions will be answered this term.
"As the Supreme Court kicked off its new season last week with a brand new justice on the bench, the cases on the docket provided a fascinating glimpse into the judicial soul of the country.
"In the first days alone, there were cases involving dog fighting, a controversial cross on public land, and a number of prickly criminal justice issues.
"The months to come will test laws on some of the most controversial issues of our time, including guns, sex offenders and the uniquely American question of whether teenagers can be sentenced to life without parole. The outcomes will tell us a lot about the future direction of the Roberts court, and what it might mean to have Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the bench."
The rest of the story: 4 Supreme Court Cases That Will Say a Lot About the Direction of Our Country by Liliana Segura (AlterNet 2009-10-12)
"As the Supreme Court kicked off its new season last week with a brand new justice on the bench, the cases on the docket provided a fascinating glimpse into the judicial soul of the country.
"In the first days alone, there were cases involving dog fighting, a controversial cross on public land, and a number of prickly criminal justice issues.
"The months to come will test laws on some of the most controversial issues of our time, including guns, sex offenders and the uniquely American question of whether teenagers can be sentenced to life without parole. The outcomes will tell us a lot about the future direction of the Roberts court, and what it might mean to have Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the bench."
The rest of the story: 4 Supreme Court Cases That Will Say a Lot About the Direction of Our Country by Liliana Segura (AlterNet 2009-10-12)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
