This past Monday, Associate Justice Elena Kagan said of the Supreme Court’s current reputation in the wake of the most recent term: “The very worst moments [in the court’s history] have been times when judges have even essentially reflected one party’s or one ideology’s set of views in their legal decisions. The thing that builds up reservoirs of public confidence is the court acting like a court and not acting like an extension of the political process. Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves when they don’t act like courts, when they instead stray into places that looks like they are an extension of the political process or where they are imposing their own personal preferences. If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy.”
“the spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” By contrast, “this is a court that is very convinced of its righteousness,” - I hope that is what eventually will stop the ride on this road, if it indeed is a road, and not a flight right into unknown turmoil in the air. There has been arguments that we should have a Supreme Court in Sweden, which we don't have, but it seems we are not missing anything.
Science is then formalized liberty: 5 degrees of freedom, or 1 degree of freedom, meaning that to be convinced means to be convinced of being wrong 5% or 1% of the time. Righteousness, to never be wrong, is a matter of abusing religion, out of insecurity.
It seems to me that the righteousness of this Stench Bench can be directly traced back to their catechism classes and to the Federalist Society. They would have this country become a theocracy with themselves at the helm, it would seem.
I don't know anything about catechism, being raised Protestant. Can you go into details? I'd really like to know . There seems to be a morality/ethics question here
"Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. Seek the company of those who search for truth; run from those who have found it." Vaclav Havel. God bless the Russian men fleeing Putin's conscription. God bless every child ,woman and man who works to find the middle way, calm the control freaks, reign in the extremists and perfectionists, in every family, community, culture, nation and society. Life is messy and uncertain. It seems many of can never get our heads around this and this is when real social trouble builds. I am praying hard that open democracy will prevail in the US and will remerge in the UK. For too many centuries, the wonderful peoples of England have repeatedly endured horrible oppression and repression by acquisition, power and profit focused elites. God protect Alexei Navalny and all his brave supporters in the Federation of Russia. also emerge in the Federation of Russia.
That was an impressive summary and analysis of the important issues on the Court's docket. Do you have legal training? If no, how do you do it? What sources do you reference. Asking for a friend (me).
Robert: I went to law school for a year, long enough to realize that I was going to have to be nice to those assholes for the rest of my life. The law has always interested me as a political matter, and I took all three Constitutional Law classes that were available for me as an undergraduate in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences (a "60s degree" you can't get any more, but to me how one tries to understand politics without understanding history, economics, sociology, law and humanities - which were the fields in my major - is beyond me)
"Lorie Smith's case was brought to the court with the active help of a leading conservative advocacy group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF... In a wave of preemptive proceedings, ADF is representing businesses owned by devout Christians who declare an intention to refuse to deal with LGBTQ couples in the context of marriage."
ADF is funded by the Covenant Foundation, the Bolthouse Foundation, the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute
this is hardly an original observation, but these reactionary groups ALWAYS use names that are meant to disguise their real intentions...like, you know, Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, etc. in fact, this little tactic has worn pretty thin...if a group has "freedom" or "liberty" or "family" in its name, right away I'm suspicious.
it occurred to me a few weeks back that the right-wing majority on SCOTUS seemed to be kinda paranoid and now, even the usually completely pathetic NYT Op-Ed page has even caught up.
everything you're saying here, is stuff I think about every day, but manage to compartmentalize and "forget" because it fills me with dread. and it's just soooo obvious.
one thing, though: I'm not sure this'll work at all, but I find myself HATING that the world still describes these scumbags as "conservative." through most of its history, SCOTUS has been "conservative" in some kind of authentic sense (when it wasn't disgusting), but now it's a hotbed of reactionary zeal, which is to say it's no fucking good. the legacy of TFF. now he's petitioning "his" justices for redress of his insane grievances...I don't actually think he'll succeed because the law seems pretty clear-cut, but who the fuck knows.
I will possibly be less upset when I sleep off the sick from my bivalent vaccine shot yesterday....
it is indeed, Tom. next week, my elderly flu shot and then the Shingrex, which, in my particular plan, costs a few hundred bucks but is obviously better than Shingles, which I might have had about six years ago, and I don't have enough strength to weather something like that again.
then I get to fight with my ridiculous vax-denying friend upstairs.
For those of us eager to hear from Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson this is a good time to do so.
‘Ketanji Brown Jackson invokes 14th Amendment history during Supreme Court voting rights hearing’(YahooNews)
‘In the Alabama Redistricting Case, Merrill v. Milligan, the panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, agreed unanimously with civil rights advocates who sued over newly drawn maps, arguing that they were a racial gerrymander and violated the Voting Rights Act by granting the state only a single majority-Black district out of seven while Black people make up more than a quarter of the state’s population.’ (USNews)
The Supreme Court restored the controversial map in a 5-4 decision weeks later and said it would hear the case.
In oral arguments the case is now before the high court.
‘Participating in her second day of oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tangled with Alabama’s solicitor general in a case challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars racial discrimination in voting policies.’
‘The justices agreed to review a lower court’s opinion that found Alabama’s redrawn 2021 congressional map was likely a violation of the law because it includes only one majority Black district out of seven, despite the fact that Black voters account for 27% of the state’s voting population.’
‘In court Tuesday, Edmund LaCour, Alabama’s solicitor general, argued that the map was “race-neutral,” and that the order for a new map would put the state at odds with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it would have to prioritize race in redistricting.’
‘Jackson wondered why LaCour would make such a claim given that framers of the 14th Amendment — which guaranteed equal protection to all people, including former slaves — did not intend it to be “race-neutral or race-blind.”
“I don’t think we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem,” Jackson said.
She said the framers themselves adopted the Equal Protection Clause “in a race-conscious way.”
“The entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed former slaves,” Jackson said.
‘Jackson, the court’s newest justice and first Black woman ever to sit on its bench, then cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “which specifically stated that Black citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens.”
“I don’t think that the historical record establishes that the founders believed that race neutrality or race blindness was required,” she said. “That’s the point of that act, to make sure that the other citizens, the Black citizens, would have the same [rights] as the white citizens.”(aol.com/news) see link below.
Yes, Mim, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's contribution to the oral argument today brought smiles to my mind and face. I think she provided a worthy extension to TC's '....BUMPY TERM'.
I've always wondered why the Founding "Fathers" created the highest court in the land without any safeguards against its judges making decisions based in their personal beliefs, and with the knowledge of the Constitution much greater than the people's - which leaves us all the the position of having to trust judges who have their own agendas.
Is it not obvious, as evidenced by this Court's decision throwing away 50 years of settled law? If Roe v Wade was a mistake, why did it prevail for 50 years, why wasn't it struck down decades ago? And now we're looking at a court docket that appears to be signaling the same intent - to rip away the civil rights of Americans because of the majority's personal beliefs.
It's just breathtaking how easily this group of religious ideologues has unchecked power because 200 years ago, some white guys in three-cornered hats thought it was a good idea.
When I was in law school and we studied SC decisions, I noticed that when a precedent was overturned, the Court was very careful to go through its extensive reasoning, which included a lot of history and changes that made the new decision valid.
This SC has abandoned that, and Alito's fractured history, extremely weak reasoning, and relying on a 17th Century believer in prosecuting witches makes me sick!
How stupid and ignorant does he think we are?!
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was no liberal, but she always used as a criterion for her decisions, the effect of the decision on the lives of the people subject to it. Again, Alito and the majority show absolutely NO concern for the lives seriously negatively affected by Dobbs.
And they wonder why the Court has lost its legitimacy?! Kagan is 100% correct. And Roberts should be ashamed. He does know better. He seems afraid of his right wing colleagues. Much as McCarthy fears the nut cases running his side of the House.
“the spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” By contrast, “this is a court that is very convinced of its righteousness,” - I hope that is what eventually will stop the ride on this road, if it indeed is a road, and not a flight right into unknown turmoil in the air. There has been arguments that we should have a Supreme Court in Sweden, which we don't have, but it seems we are not missing anything.
Science is then formalized liberty: 5 degrees of freedom, or 1 degree of freedom, meaning that to be convinced means to be convinced of being wrong 5% or 1% of the time. Righteousness, to never be wrong, is a matter of abusing religion, out of insecurity.
It seems to me that the righteousness of this Stench Bench can be directly traced back to their catechism classes and to the Federalist Society. They would have this country become a theocracy with themselves at the helm, it would seem.
"Stench Bench". Good enough to steal! :-)
I wonder if they know how we are talking about them?
I'm pretty sure they do and I'm pretty sure it's a significant source of empowerment.
I think you are right, and I think Kurt Andersen gives an even wider source for these sentiments in
Fantasyland, How America got Heywire, 500-years… The need to be 100% right may come out of deep insecurity, religious or not.
I don't know anything about catechism, being raised Protestant. Can you go into details? I'd really like to know . There seems to be a morality/ethics question here
With s smaller population, Sweden shouldn't need a supreme court.
"Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. Seek the company of those who search for truth; run from those who have found it." Vaclav Havel. God bless the Russian men fleeing Putin's conscription. God bless every child ,woman and man who works to find the middle way, calm the control freaks, reign in the extremists and perfectionists, in every family, community, culture, nation and society. Life is messy and uncertain. It seems many of can never get our heads around this and this is when real social trouble builds. I am praying hard that open democracy will prevail in the US and will remerge in the UK. For too many centuries, the wonderful peoples of England have repeatedly endured horrible oppression and repression by acquisition, power and profit focused elites. God protect Alexei Navalny and all his brave supporters in the Federation of Russia. also emerge in the Federation of Russia.
That was an impressive summary and analysis of the important issues on the Court's docket. Do you have legal training? If no, how do you do it? What sources do you reference. Asking for a friend (me).
Separately, I was hoping we can talk offline. Rhubbell@outlook.com
Robert: I went to law school for a year, long enough to realize that I was going to have to be nice to those assholes for the rest of my life. The law has always interested me as a political matter, and I took all three Constitutional Law classes that were available for me as an undergraduate in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences (a "60s degree" you can't get any more, but to me how one tries to understand politics without understanding history, economics, sociology, law and humanities - which were the fields in my major - is beyond me)
Brilliant, TC.
🗽
Holy Snafu, Batman!!!!
Thanks for this in-depth report, TC.
Further to one point:
"Lorie Smith's case was brought to the court with the active help of a leading conservative advocacy group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF... In a wave of preemptive proceedings, ADF is representing businesses owned by devout Christians who declare an intention to refuse to deal with LGBTQ couples in the context of marriage."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/supreme-court-303-creative-coordinated-anti-lgbt-legal-strategy.html
ADF is funded by the Covenant Foundation, the Bolthouse Foundation, the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute
Of course they do. It's all manufactured BS.
this is hardly an original observation, but these reactionary groups ALWAYS use names that are meant to disguise their real intentions...like, you know, Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, etc. in fact, this little tactic has worn pretty thin...if a group has "freedom" or "liberty" or "family" in its name, right away I'm suspicious.
it occurred to me a few weeks back that the right-wing majority on SCOTUS seemed to be kinda paranoid and now, even the usually completely pathetic NYT Op-Ed page has even caught up.
Those funding sources should raise red flags to anyone with a brain. Evil personified, IMO.
everything you're saying here, is stuff I think about every day, but manage to compartmentalize and "forget" because it fills me with dread. and it's just soooo obvious.
one thing, though: I'm not sure this'll work at all, but I find myself HATING that the world still describes these scumbags as "conservative." through most of its history, SCOTUS has been "conservative" in some kind of authentic sense (when it wasn't disgusting), but now it's a hotbed of reactionary zeal, which is to say it's no fucking good. the legacy of TFF. now he's petitioning "his" justices for redress of his insane grievances...I don't actually think he'll succeed because the law seems pretty clear-cut, but who the fuck knows.
I will possibly be less upset when I sleep off the sick from my bivalent vaccine shot yesterday....
The good news here is, you got the shot!
it is indeed, Tom. next week, my elderly flu shot and then the Shingrex, which, in my particular plan, costs a few hundred bucks but is obviously better than Shingles, which I might have had about six years ago, and I don't have enough strength to weather something like that again.
then I get to fight with my ridiculous vax-denying friend upstairs.
Oh, the company you keep, David. There it is -- the rewards of neighborliness!
For those of us eager to hear from Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson this is a good time to do so.
‘Ketanji Brown Jackson invokes 14th Amendment history during Supreme Court voting rights hearing’(YahooNews)
‘In the Alabama Redistricting Case, Merrill v. Milligan, the panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, agreed unanimously with civil rights advocates who sued over newly drawn maps, arguing that they were a racial gerrymander and violated the Voting Rights Act by granting the state only a single majority-Black district out of seven while Black people make up more than a quarter of the state’s population.’ (USNews)
The Supreme Court restored the controversial map in a 5-4 decision weeks later and said it would hear the case.
In oral arguments the case is now before the high court.
‘Participating in her second day of oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tangled with Alabama’s solicitor general in a case challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars racial discrimination in voting policies.’
‘The justices agreed to review a lower court’s opinion that found Alabama’s redrawn 2021 congressional map was likely a violation of the law because it includes only one majority Black district out of seven, despite the fact that Black voters account for 27% of the state’s voting population.’
‘In court Tuesday, Edmund LaCour, Alabama’s solicitor general, argued that the map was “race-neutral,” and that the order for a new map would put the state at odds with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it would have to prioritize race in redistricting.’
‘Jackson wondered why LaCour would make such a claim given that framers of the 14th Amendment — which guaranteed equal protection to all people, including former slaves — did not intend it to be “race-neutral or race-blind.”
“I don’t think we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem,” Jackson said.
She said the framers themselves adopted the Equal Protection Clause “in a race-conscious way.”
“The entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed former slaves,” Jackson said.
‘Jackson, the court’s newest justice and first Black woman ever to sit on its bench, then cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “which specifically stated that Black citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens.”
“I don’t think that the historical record establishes that the founders believed that race neutrality or race blindness was required,” she said. “That’s the point of that act, to make sure that the other citizens, the Black citizens, would have the same [rights] as the white citizens.”(aol.com/news) see link below.
https://www.aol.com/news/ketanji-brown-jackson-invokes-14th-174817842.html
Ah, she jumped right in!
Yes, Mim, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's contribution to the oral argument today brought smiles to my mind and face. I think she provided a worthy extension to TC's '....BUMPY TERM'.
yes, Fern. in two days and a bit, she's definitely announced her presence with a vengeance. the rhyme was an accident, but possibly a fortunate one.
'...with a vengeance.' Yes, David, that, too. I prefer 'with the mighty scale of truth and justice'.
Salud!
Wow. Get out the vote and the administration, with the help of congress, must drill down on legislation.
I've always wondered why the Founding "Fathers" created the highest court in the land without any safeguards against its judges making decisions based in their personal beliefs, and with the knowledge of the Constitution much greater than the people's - which leaves us all the the position of having to trust judges who have their own agendas.
Is it not obvious, as evidenced by this Court's decision throwing away 50 years of settled law? If Roe v Wade was a mistake, why did it prevail for 50 years, why wasn't it struck down decades ago? And now we're looking at a court docket that appears to be signaling the same intent - to rip away the civil rights of Americans because of the majority's personal beliefs.
It's just breathtaking how easily this group of religious ideologues has unchecked power because 200 years ago, some white guys in three-cornered hats thought it was a good idea.
When I was in law school and we studied SC decisions, I noticed that when a precedent was overturned, the Court was very careful to go through its extensive reasoning, which included a lot of history and changes that made the new decision valid.
This SC has abandoned that, and Alito's fractured history, extremely weak reasoning, and relying on a 17th Century believer in prosecuting witches makes me sick!
How stupid and ignorant does he think we are?!
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was no liberal, but she always used as a criterion for her decisions, the effect of the decision on the lives of the people subject to it. Again, Alito and the majority show absolutely NO concern for the lives seriously negatively affected by Dobbs.
And they wonder why the Court has lost its legitimacy?! Kagan is 100% correct. And Roberts should be ashamed. He does know better. He seems afraid of his right wing colleagues. Much as McCarthy fears the nut cases running his side of the House.
We are in for a bumpy ride indeed!
TC todays blog is absolutely brilliant. You laid the issues out with clarity. Keep the light shining.