A Court Supreme [Archive] - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

Nick Danger

01-29-2022, 07:24 PM

Ronald Reagan 1980: "“one of the first supreme court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find”."
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jan/29/republicans-joe-biden-supreme-court-pick

Joe Biden 2022: "The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/biden-supreme-court-black-woman-pick-february/

Music, Maestro, please! As in Crotchets and Quavers.

May the best woman win. And she is?

Don't get too excited, Stavros. For one thing, the Senate will have to approve the nominee and Breyer isn't retiring until February, by which time we will have a conservative majority in the Senate. They might just block the nominee until conservatives get the White House back in 2024. I DOUBT it, that wouldn't play well with the proletariat; but they could. Also, conservatives currently have a 6-3 majority in the SCOTUS so even putting Queen Latifah in there won't level the playing field. Still, a minor win for liberals if Biden doesn't figure out a way to fuck it up.

Stavros

01-30-2022, 06:18 PM

As a non-US citizen and therefore neutral, I offer this YouTube interview from CBS that skirts over the field. Maybe Biden should expand the Supreme Court and appoint all four of these women? Why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeg0dNAT9v4

Nick Danger

01-31-2022, 12:38 PM

broncofan

01-31-2022, 02:31 PM

Sure, why not? Ignoring the Constitution hasn't been a problem for Biden up to this point.
Where in the Constitution does it fix the number of Supreme Court Justices? This is a rhetorical question but take a look and tell me where you find it.

Nick Danger

01-31-2022, 07:06 PM

Where in the Constitution does it fix the number of Supreme Court Justices? This is a rhetorical question but take a look and tell me where you find it.

It's not in the Constitution exactly, Bronco, as I'm sure you know. However the Constitution does stipulate three separate but equal branches of government in the first 3 articles, and we've had 9 Supreme Court justices for over 150 years now because it WOULD be unconstitutional for a political party to alter the court for partisan purposes - i.e., it would be an intrusion of legislative and executive power into the judicial branch, therefore unconstitutional. Frankly, I'd like to see him try it - one more ridiculous failure to overreach his power in order to subvert democracy added to the list.

Stavros

02-12-2022, 08:59 PM

Guess Y'all Alabammy Bound...all the way to 1903...

"In a 1903 case out of Alabama, Giles v Harris (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/189/475/), the supreme court determined that it was powerless to stop a state from disfranchising Black voters even if the methods were unconstitutional.

This assault on African Americans’ right to vote was an assault on American democracy aided and abetted by the highest court in the land. The results were devastating. By 1960, there were counties in Alabama that had no Black voters registered (https://www.teachingforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1960registeredvoters.pdf), while simultaneously having more than 100% of white age-eligible voters on the rolls. In Mississippi a mere 6.7% (https://www.vox.com/2015/3/6/8163229/voting-rights-act-1965) of eligible Black adults were registered to vote."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/12/us-supreme-court-racist-discrimination-election-system

Stavros

02-13-2022, 12:31 PM

blackchubby38

02-16-2022, 12:20 AM

Three candidates reviewed. Of one, Anderson says

"Jackson is seen as the top candidate. And she, too, has a proven record of bipartisan support: she was confirmed to the appeals court on a 53-44 vote. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted for her."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/12/joe-biden-supreme-court-pick-short-list

But if nominated, will the same people who once voter for her, now vote against?

And why does the President choose Supreme Court Justices? Ought the Separation of Powers confer this decison to the Judiciary? Or an independent body?

I think it should be J. Michele Childs for three reasons:

1. The view about having a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to one of the Ivy League schools.

2. If we are going take things into consideration like life experiences and personal perspective, then there is something to be said about having a black woman from the South on the Supreme Court.

3. She has Jim Clyburn's support. Without Clyburn's endorsement of Biden before the 2020 South Carolina primary, there is a good chance that he doesn't win the Democratic party nomination.

Stavros

02-16-2022, 09:56 AM

blackchubby38

02-17-2022, 01:59 AM

Thanks, Blackchubby for your views -I don't know any of the candidates. My only additional point to yours, is to note Justice Amy Coney Barrett also did not graduate from an Ivy League law school, but you probaby knew that anyway.

I didn't know that about Amy Coney Barret. The only thing I remember about her confirmation process was the right wing bacchanal that became a super spreader event.

Stavros

02-17-2022, 03:29 PM

There is a list of the law schools from which Supreme Court Justices have graduated, here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supr eme_Court_justices

I looked into why the President chooses the Justices on the Court, though in practice it is a decision that we are told, the President makes after consulting others, and the process must involve the Senate, and thus the Senate Judiciary Committee becomes an important source of 'advice' on the selection. But it does mean two branches of Government choosing the Justices on the third, and I wonder if there should be a Constitutional amendment to change the way the Court is composed.

This is a very useful overview of the process from the Congressional Research Service, bang up to date, but doesn't query the process as it currently exists.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44235.pdf

Stavros

04-07-2022, 09:38 PM

I have not followed the hearings in the Senate, which I assume were available live on tv and online. I have reached a point where, when I see names like Cruz and Cotton my mind tends to flip to something more important.

There are no surprises that the opposition to the appointment of Ketanji Brown Jackson had nothing to do with the law or her ability to judge it, but were motivated by the single most obvious fact that the men -and in a few cases women- object to a Black person having any role in public life.

Tom Cotton, a graduate of Harvard Law School, stands out as a man so wilfully determined to ignore the law that he attempted to smear the reputation of Justice Jackson by making the now inevitable -for men of such limited intellect- comparison with the Nazis, his only nod to the present being the 'terrorists' in Guantanamo Bay. That Cotton was wrong on law and on legal procedure is not in fact a result of him graduating from Harvard, because it is a deliberate ruse on his part to make whatever attempt he can to deny a Black American a role in public life.

In 1770, an incident on King Street in Boston (Mass), resulted in British troops killing five local men, instantly dubbed by the terrorist Paul Revere as 'a Massacre', which is how Americans remember it. The furore led the acting Governor to initiate legal proceedings, through ten people were put on trial, eight of them Soldiers of the King. Two of those soldiers were defended by a lawyer called John Adams. 27 years later, he became President of the US.

Rather than reach back into a dark moment in European history, albeit one enlightened by Justice Jackson, Tom Cotton need only refer to the history of his own country to find an example where the Rule of Law was a substantial value in public affairs, even before the creation of the United States, but it seems, a value that conveyed then, and now, a meaning with which he has 'lost patience'.

Because it has created a process in which a Black woman must be humiliated in public, not because of her ability to judge the merits of a case in law, or because she too is a graduate of Harvard, but because she is Black.

The principles that led the other Justice Jackson to Nuremberg are noted in his own words, in this link-

Tom Cotton Says Ketanji Brown Jackson Would Represent Nazis at Nuremberg Trials (esquire.com) (https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a39649435/tom-cotton-ketanji-brown-jackson-nuremberg-nazis/)

yodajazz

05-02-2022, 05:39 PM

The Supreme Court confirmation hearings were a lot more than "being mean" to Judge Jackson. It a carefully crafted show, before a national audience, to promote the right wing/republican talking points agenda. The over riding theme is to paint democrats, as evil people. So this is not as policies, as it is about this. This also harnesses the negative energies of the QAnon movement. this along with the 'end of times visions of many white evangelicals.  As long as it helps republicans, they no shame in harnessing that insanity.

So lets look at a specific questioning issue of Judge Kentanji Jackson. One purpose of the overall strategy is to use basic fear, to by pass higher brain functions. Thus they could also get an otherwise intelligent person to buy, with the messaging that "democrats are trying to destroy the nation". I heard this statement years ago from a radio talk host, while riding in a car. In terms of basic fear, consider Trump's Jan 6th speech, "You better fight like hell, or you won't have a country anymore". That is not related to any policy issues, it is just about instilling fear.

So let's look at questioning lines by republicans, in Judge Ketanji Jackson's hearing. A lot of questioning was around a 2 1/2 year sentence given to an 18 year old who was caught viewing child porn online. This was used to position her as being soft on pedophillia in general. And that fits in the line of QAnon thinking, among others.  It has been my life experience in general that judges are softer on the youngest adult offenders, in almost every type of crime. In the confirmation hearings she was forced to go into detail to defend her actions on that case.

But one specific question, says a lot about their strategies: She was asked the question; "What is a woman?" or "Define what is a woman?". Jackson answered, that the question should be answered my medical specialists. I believe she sensed the implications of any specific answer. I think you understand the implications of the right's attacks on trans rights, and trans in general.

I really admire Jackson for taking a case of defending a prisoner at Guantanamo prison. A have long felt that, holding someone without trial could create new enemies, because of it's obvious injustice. It seems to me, that the majority of people don't consider such things. However in that line of attack from the republicans, does seem to e more about a specific issue. So I consider that to be a more legitimate line of questioning, than some of the others. But it looks like I have sidetracked myself here, regarding the issue of the right's positioning strategies. There is some serious stuff going on. I see their world view as being fascist, and anti democracy,in general.

broncofan

05-03-2022, 05:14 AM

If reports are true, Roe v. Wade is no longer current precedent on the question of whether the 14th amendment protects the right to an abortion. Horrifying if true. I'm completely at a loss. Just a very upsetting development that will have terrible consequences for women.

filghy2

05-03-2022, 05:36 AM

So let's look at questioning lines by republicans, in Judge Ketanji Jackson's hearing. A lot of questioning was around a 2 1/2 year sentence given to an 18 year old who was caught viewing child porn online. This was used to position her as being soft on pedophillia in general. And that fits in the line of QAnon thinking, among others. It has been my life experience in general that judges are softer on the youngest adult offenders, in almost every type of crime. In the confirmation hearings she was forced to go into detail to defend her actions on that case.

But one specific question, says a lot about their strategies: She was asked the question; "What is a woman?" or "Define what is a woman?". Jackson answered, that the question should be answered my medical specialists. I believe she sensed the implications of any specific answer. I think you understand the implications of the right's attacks on trans rights, and trans in general.

Similar lines are being used on anti-LGBT legislation; eg anyone opposed to the "Don't say gay bill" must be a supporter of grooming. https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505/leftist-groomers-homophobia-satanic-panic-explained

As you suggest, this demonisation of minority groups is pretty much straight from the fascist playbook.

The galling thing is that the Republican Party doesn't seem to be paying a political price for this kind of extremism. It's as if moderate or uncommitted voters just don't pay attention to this stuff or don't care about it.

Stavros

05-03-2022, 06:06 AM

[QUOTE=yodajazz;2052074]

So let's look at questioning lines by republicans, in Judge Ketanji Jackson's hearing. A lot of questioning was around a 2 1/2 year sentence given to an 18 year old who was caught viewing child porn online. This was used to position her as being soft on pedophillia in general. And that fits in the line of QAnon thinking, among others.  It has been my life experience in general that judges are softer on the youngest adult offenders, in almost every type of crime. In the confirmation hearings she was forced to go into detail to defend her actions on that case.
-As I have argued in other threads, it is hypocritical of the 'QAnon' lunatics to bang on about paedophiles in Govt when they often live in States where a 74-year old man can legally marry a 14-year old girl, or an 11-year old raped and made pregnant be forced to marry her rapist, as happened in Florida. Just as the aborted foetus causes outrage but not the aborted life of an adult on death row. And yet in his First Draft, Justice Alito in the Notes refers to numerous laws that outlawed abortion using words such as 'using poison' to 'intentionally' cause death -which sounds to me like the chemical route to death in some US Prisons.

But one specific question, says a lot about their strategies: She was asked the question; "What is a woman?" or "Define what is a woman?". Jackson answered, that the question should be answered my medical specialists. I believe she sensed the implications of any specific answer. I think you understand the implications of the right's attacks on trans rights, and trans in general.
-Maybe she should have asked 'Does the US Constitution define what a woman is?'

I really admire Jackson for taking a case of defending a prisoner at Guantanamo prison. A have long felt that, holding someone without trial could create new enemies, because of it's obvious injustice. It seems to me, that the majority of people don't consider such things. However in that line of attack from the republicans, does seem to e more about a specific issue. So I consider that to be a more legitimate line of questioning, than some of the others. But it looks like I have sidetracked myself here, regarding the issue of the right's positioning strategies. There is some serious stuff going on. I see their world view as being fascist, and anti democracy,in general.
--A few years ago there was a documentary on US crime and a case in Jacksonville in Florida in which a 12-year old living rough on the streets was arrested and charged with the murder of a homeless man. He was sent to an adult prison -at the age of 12!- and aged 14 sentenced to life in prison, even though apart from his confession, there was no murder weapon, no motive, and in fact no explanation. Maybe in this case Florida is just not a decent place in which to be accused of murder, at any age.

broncofan

05-03-2022, 06:09 AM

Similar lines are being used on anti-LGBT legislation; eg anyone opposed to the "Don't say gay bill" must be a supporter of grooming. https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505/leftist-groomers-homophobia-satanic-panic-explained

As you suggest, this demonisation of minority groups is pretty much straight from the fascist playbook.

The galling thing is that the Republican Party doesn't seem to be paying a political price for this kind of extremism. It's as if moderate or uncommitted voters just don't pay attention to this stuff or don't care about it.
What I'm saying here will dominate the news for months if you guys don't know about it.

The Court is set to overturn Roe and apparently Alito has already written the majority opinion which has been leaked. This will create a wave of protests and public life is going to be toxic for many months. But the excerpt of Alito's decision I saw also criticized Obergefell (gay marriage case) and Lawrence v. Texas (which made banning sodomy between consenting adults unconstitutional). If they really want to overturn all of these precedents, we're in a world of trouble. It remains to be seen whether this will hurt them in the midterms.

Yes, the don't say gay bill is designed to attack all lgbt as potential groomers, to instill the idea that sexual orientation and gender identity are choices, and to put defenders of gay rights on the defensive as well.

Stavros

05-03-2022, 06:31 AM

The leaked draft of Alito's opinion is in the Politico link. I have read some of it, and while I am not an expert in law, least of all US law, there are a number of issues which I think are contentious.

First, the argument is that Roe-v-Wade was bad law from the start, and it may be that its language and reasoning was flawed, and that Casey attempted to deal with this -I really don't know. The argument that because Abortion had in fact been illegal in US history works against Roe-v-Wade for overturning the concept of precedent in Stare Decisis, but surely this means that if a legal matter has never been cited in the Constitution then it cannot be introduced? Moreover, if Slavery was legal then the Constitutional Amendment that made it illegal took State Decisis and flipped it. If one law can be flipped then can another?

Second, Alito says the decision must be returned to the 'Elected Representatives' of the People -but it seems this does not refer to the House of Representatives, or the Senate of the United States. It means, also, that the decision is being 'returned' to individual States, where the Elected Representatives have been elected on a minority vote, in a country where the polls indicate that less than 30% of the US public think Roe-v-Wade should be repealed. This undermines democracy, as it means that a party with the largest seats in the State House but a minority of the vote can make decisions that affect all.

Third, when I put in the words 'Rape' and 'Incest' into the search box, it did not return any results.

Fourth if as Alito's document states "The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" (pag3 24) -well, the same argument could be made for same-sex marriage. Add voting rights for Black people and the trajectory of this Draft ruling suggests the US Supreme Court believes that the best way forward is to take ten steps back.

A lot more to come I expect. There is a note that makes the point that as most abortions are carried out on Black women, abortion has reduced the size of the Black American population -I can't find it but it might be a note from a comment made in 1925. I am also not sure what this ruling means with regard to Women's Rights, other than the prospect that such Rights are not written in to the Constitution. ??

The document can be found here-
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473)

filghy2

05-04-2022, 04:10 AM

Stavros

05-04-2022, 08:18 AM

This article argues that the reasoning in the draft decision could indeed be used to overturn other rights. Essentially it says that constitutional rights do not exist if they are not mentioned specifically in the document and there has been a tradition of the state restricting such rights.

I think this is what is known as the 'Literalist' interpretation of the US Constitution. But if one argues that neither Women nor Black people have dedicated clauses in this hallowed document, they are 'the People' referred to in the opening line, although at the time, Black people were not in fact defined as 100% human, so maybe a literalist view could argue that in the context of the time in which it was written, Black people were not included in the deal. On this basis, it is logical for Black people to have the vote removed indeed, it would seem that the 14th Amendment must now be ripe for repeal as it was not envisaged by the Founding Fathers, who we might assume, would have been appalled at the abolition of Slavery. There has been a trend in some 'Right-Wing' historians to revise US history to argue that Lincoln traduced the US Constitution and that the Civil War marks the departure from its original intentions that define the American Revolution. Against this, or indeed, in favour of it, is the classic study by Charles Beard of 1913 which argued that the whole purpose of the Constitution was the 'Conservation' of the property rights of the men who wrote it, benefiting themselves and their class.

A Fascist asks: how do we define the Nation, and who belongs in it? Because if you don't belong here, you must leave. Because if you don't belong you cannot be trusted with the right to be a citizen. If the US is to return to its basic principles on a literalist interpretation of the Constitution, does this mean the Bill of Rights is no longer a valid document, being a compromise, or if you prefer, a 'surrender'? And does it not mean either that Slavery must be re-constituted, or the Blacks rounded up and shipped back to the Africa they came from, which they never wanted to leave anyway?

The implications of this judgment, if true, do not just re-write the law, but history too, just as Alito's document makes stunning arguments about what has happened in US history, and why it is all so wrong. Or is it a lament for the world that has left Alito behind, and it is resentment that drives this twist in the tale that is, or was, America?

A summary of Beard's view is here-
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitution_of_ the_United_States)

Stavros

05-05-2022, 07:12 AM

If a man's sperm is an essential component of life, then maybe men should be banned from ejaculating outside of marriage? Why must women be the only person responsible?

Meanwhile, from yesteryear, but still fizzing-

George Carlin about abortion and 'the sanctity of life'. - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bLf4F0PM4)

broncofan

05-05-2022, 05:59 PM

I think this is what is known as the 'Literalist' interpretation of the US Constitution.
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitution_of_ the_United_States)
One issue is whether one should consider the bare text v some broader purpose behind the text but the other issue is a temporal one.

Does a phrase only have the meaning it had when it was ratified? For instance, if a clause protects those rights essential to ordered liberty, does it only cover our conception of ordered liberty at the time of ratification? One argument in favor of this originalist interpretation is that it would only protect the specific things those voting on ratification would have had in mind. An argument against it is that if someone provides a category or a broad standard perhaps it's because they do not want to enumerate the specific items covered and instead want to maintain the flexibility for our understanding of such concepts to evolve.

The 14th amendment protects fundamental rights and also has an equal protection clause which limits legislating by category unless there are compelling and justified reasons to do so.

The politico article had a good explanation for why it's very limiting to only protect rights deeply rooted in our nation's history. It is circular and impedes the protection of rights of people who have historically been discriminated against and therefore undermines the purpose of the 14th amendment. As it said if something has been restricted before then its protection can't be deeply rooted and we are locked into the time of ratification, in this case 1868.

Stavros

05-05-2022, 06:44 PM

One issue is whether one should consider the bare text v some broader purpose behind the text but the other issue is a temporal one.

There is a wider issue than the literalist one and the 14th Amendment -the Alito draft states ""The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions" " -but this begs the questions: When does the history of your 'Nation' begin, and what are its traditions?

To some the 'tradition' is the Enlightenment that is said to form the basis of the political liberalism that is 'enshrined' in the language of the Constitution, but to others, it is the legacy of the 'Great Awakening' and the Christian Religious roots of settlers communities without which there would not be a State, let alone a United States. It may be couched in the contrast between Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards, and I don't see any simple resolution to this issue, if the debate is to be shaped only by those men, mostly men, for whom God, Family and Country are the pillars on which their 'Nation' is built, and without which, they declare, it cannot survive.

It seems to me that the Alito doctrine suggests, maybe even demands, that the 'traditions' of the 'Nation' call up the legacy of settlement that pre-dates 1776, if it is the case that the 'Nation's' history began before July 4th. But this brings with it enough baggage to bewilder the average citizen. The Proclamation of 1763 for example, banned the expansion of settlement west of the Appalachians, an attempt by the Crown to limit settlement, to protect the lands of First Nations that the Crown had fought the French to control. In practical effect, enough people violated the law to make it redundant, but does this mean that law-breaking for personal gain is a 'traditional' right of the Citizen? One thinks of the Bundy clan and their land rights claims.

Whatever, I think this decision is opening up a raft of controversial issues, few of which are going to be resolved by rational argument, not least because there is so little rational thinking involved on the side of so-called 'Conservatives', a political label in desperate need of a definition, or re-definition.

filghy2

05-06-2022, 03:16 AM

Does a phrase only have the meaning it had when it was ratified? For instance, if a clause protects those rights essential to ordered liberty, does it only cover our conception of ordered liberty at the time of ratification? One argument in favor of this originalist interpretation is that it would only protect the specific things those voting on ratification would have had in mind. An argument against it is that if someone provides a category or a broad standard perhaps it's because they do not want to enumerate the specific items covered and instead want to maintain the flexibility for our understanding of such concepts to evolve.

Some commentators have noted that the same reasoning would seem to imply that the Court should reverse their recent fundamentalist interpretation of the second amendment. There is no reason to think the original drafters intended the right to bear arms should be absolute and it doesn't reflect the practice that applied over most of the period since then. The conservative majority essentially invented a right that had not previously existed, which is the very criticism they are directing at Roe Vs Wade.

Of course, we know this isn't going to happen. The same justices who consistently argued that electoral matters should be left to the states in other cases were willing to concoct a reason to intervene and stop the Florida recount in the 2000 election.

filghy2

05-06-2022, 03:28 AM

Whatever, I think this decision is opening up a raft of controversial issues, few of which are going to be resolved by rational argument, not least because there is so little rational thinking involved on the side of so-called 'Conservatives', a political label in desperate need of a definition, or re-definition.

Radical reactionaries would be more accurate, given their agenda is to reverse the general direction of social changes that have occurred over the past 60 years or so.

broncofan

05-06-2022, 08:39 PM

Some commentators have noted that the same reasoning would seem to imply that the Court should reverse their recent fundamentalist interpretation of the second amendment.
I think I have seen some critiques of Scalia's opinion in Heller (second amendment case) that have questioned its fidelity to the originalist method. I had thought to myself while writing the post about Roe that Heller seems to consider intent of the founders at such a high level of generality that it doesn't look much like originalism. For instance, if we think about the guns that the founders could have had in mind, it would likely only have been those in existence or similar. But Scalia skirted this by saying their intent was to protect the kinds of guns that are commonly used for home defense, which is circular as it depends on what restrictive laws are permitted by the Court. Anyhow, the more Conservative Justices favor recognition of a right the more likely they are to read the clause protecting it at a high level of generality that creates an open category.

Trump's Presidency really was a perfect storm disaster for the Supreme Court. It does seem arbitrary that Justices are appointed for life and that the direction of social change in this country depends on who happens to be in power when someone gets sick and dies.

I think even if Roe is not distinguished from other cases depending on privacy rights by principles Justices will be reluctant for the time being to go further. For instance, if they abolish Lawrence v. Texas and states start passing anti-sodomy laws and locking up gay men, will that stand? It's scary to think how far they've already gone.

broncofan

05-06-2022, 09:04 PM

Hi Stavros I didn't answer the good questions about stare decisis on the last page because I haven't read Alito's opinion and also only know generally what the principle means but it seems you also do so I had nothing to add.

I think you're right that there is often difficulty in originalism in pinpointing the time period we are looking at and what is rooted in our history. Interpreting the Constitution the way they do means it incorporates by reference so much data that Jurists should be qualified historians in addition to legal scholars. That doesn't make sense to me given what constitutions are.

Scalia (who I use as the quintessential conservative jurist since he was the most ostentatious in defending his methodology) was an originalist for purposes of interpreting the Constitution but I believe he was a textualist for the purpose of interpreting statutes. This second term means that he would look at a statute and believed that nothing should be inferred that is not in the text. Critics would argue that there may be ambiguity and that they should go to legislative notes and discussions in Congress to resolve it. Scalia instead relied on the Webster's dictionary. He was often so literal his readings would thwart legislative purpose.

The reason I mention these differences is not because I like textualism but I actually think it applies better to something like the Constitution which often includes broad categories and ideas, rather than specific prohibitions. A reasonable interpretation of what is written in the constitution applied to any context is a better guide than the undiscoverable intentions of multiple people hundreds of years ago. Constitutions should be timeless and they can be made timeless by interpreting categories in a way that reflects our current understanding of the terms. We shouldn't be forced to go on a fishing expedition to uncover all of the prejudices of the 18th century.

broncofan

05-06-2022, 09:09 PM

The reason I mention these differences is not because I like textualism
I'm defending it as almost reasonable not if one is a zealot and thinks something can't be protected unless it is explicitly listed but rather that the words in the text should be interpreted to have the plain meaning they have to the reader. So if you see a phrase like "rights essential to ordered liberty", you don't look for what it meant to the founders but rather how that phrase is commonly understood in the context of our society, and more broadly the world we live.

Stavros

05-07-2022, 07:08 AM

The reason I mention these differences is not because I like textualism but I actually think it applies better to something like the Constitution which often includes broad categories and ideas, rather than specific prohibitions. A reasonable interpretation of what is written in the constitution applied to any context is a better guide than the undiscoverable intentions of multiple people hundreds of years ago. Constitutions should be timeless and they can be made timeless by interpreting categories in a way that reflects our current understanding of the terms. We shouldn't be forced to go on a fishing expedition to uncover all of the prejudices of the 18th century.

Many thanks for this, as I think you have summarized the dilemma perfectly, and gives the Constitution a living presence rather than being an historical document locked into its times. This would of course be condemned by Trumpits as a Liberal interpretation designed to defend those parts of the Constitution you like, being silent on the rest, but those who think the Constitution is past its sell-by date have yet to offer the American people anything superior, or maybe they just want Trump to become Eternal President.

But it also helps firm up what the Constitution means today, though I am still not sure, as an historical argument, rather than a political one, if it resolves the conflict between Liberals and Conservatives, or the Religious -vs- Secular foundations of the United States. I would argue the Liberal portal is the key one for American political culture, because it does protects both the Religious and the Secular without enabling one to dominate the other, which is why His Holiness in Texas, is it seems to me, attempting to use the Liberal Constitution for a Religious purpose. And this is where the battle lines have been drawn.

Stavros

05-07-2022, 07:27 AM

Radical reactionaries would be more accurate, given their agenda is to reverse the general direction of social changes that have occurred over the past 60 years or so.

Sorry, I don't like 'Radical Reactionary'. Based on the view there is a 'New Wave Fascism' that has been developing in Europe, North America and elsewhere too, a consequence of the crisis of Globalization provoked by the 2007 crash and Covid, and the unhappy marriage of economic and political nationalism, New Wave Fascist would seem appropriate, but is probably too academic.

The confusion deepens because on the one hand, I think the original sin of the Americas is the conflict between the Religious and the Secular. Some would argue, after Tocqueville, that the Christian identity of the early American settlements was never in question, and that they compromised politically precisely because their own conflicts in Europe had led them to the Americas, so the point of principle in politics was not to make the religious identity of the settlement Political, but let it be whatever it was. I see this as a fall-out from the Catholic-Protestant divide, but also the bitter divisions within the various non-Catholic sects.

So I am tempted to re-package Conservatives as 'Religious Fundamentalists' because for the most part this identifies the supporters of Trump and his penumbra, which includes McConnell and friends, and also links their policy preferences to a frame of reference which is more likely to be the Bible than the Constitution, as per Texas.

Here is the additional problem -being a Religious Fundamentalist in the US is to be part of a declining sector of the population.

Below are extracts from an unusually (for the Telegraph) sympathetic article which looks broadly at this issue-

-It points out that medical technology such as ultra-sound has helped refine the chronology of gestation but also impacted issues such as term limits in the debate on abortion, but note too the reference to the concept of 'quickening' which meant that Abortion was legal in the United States until the 19th century.
-The decline of religion and the growth of secular views thus impacts the political geography of those States where the majority vote for one party, but are governed by the losers. This seems to me to thus establish a major long term dilemma for the meaning of democracy in the US.
-So I stand by Religious Fundamentalist rather than Conservative, not least because I think it identifies the losers being in control of the political agenda, in the States, the Supreme Court, and perhaps Congress too. It may also swerve from a Religious determination to a Nationalist one, where the existential threat to the US does not just come from 'radical leftists' who have no God, but the belief that to be an American one must believe in God, Family and Country, closing the circle. In an attempt to end the perpetual conflict between the Religious and the Secular, they are claiming it seems to me, that to be an authentic American means to be a Christian, and there is no compromise on that.

Here are some extracts-

"...the United States is in the middle of a likely-irreversible shift toward secularism. As recently as 2004, a Gallup poll found that 85 per cent of Americans identified as Christian. By 2021, that number had plummeted to 63 per cent and the decline shows no signs of slowing down. Between 2006 and 2021, white evangelical Protestants’ share of the population has declined 37 per cent. Younger Americans are far more likely to be secular – 40 per cent of millennials in Gallup’s poll identified as nonbelievers or had no religious preference. And yet Americans are not becoming less divided over abortion as the influence of religion wanes."

"The success of the US anti-abortion movement in polarising the conflict is not just the result of strategic savvy. The movement has benefited from larger shifts in US political geography and partisanship. Before Roe v Wade, the anti-abortion movement was the strongest in states like Pennsylvania, New York and Minnesota. Republicans were weak politically in the South, which still pledged its fidelity to the so-called Dixiecrats, who had long defended racial segregation.But the movement’s centre of power has shifted south. Now, Democrats have no realistic chance of winning in most Southern states, which are home to solid and increasingly uncompromising anti-abortion majorities. Even Republican voters uncomfortable with abortion bans are unlikely to change how they cast their ballots. That’s partly because of negative partisanship – the hatred of leaders and even voters from the opposite party, which has risen exponentially since the Eighties. The more antipathy voters have for the opposition, the more willing they are to vote for extreme candidates –and to set aside their concerns about sweeping criminal abortion bans. For example, the most recent data we have suggest that a majority of voters in Oklahoma favour abortion being legal under all or most circumstances. And yet that state has passed an abortion ban with no debate."
America’s abortion debate is a chilling reminder of how history can be rewritten at a stroke (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/america-abortion-debate-chilling-reminder-161408234.html)

Stavros

05-08-2022, 03:00 PM

To add to my remarks above, I refer those interested to a review in this week's edition of The Times Literary Supplement of Victor Hanson's The Dying Citizen: How progressive elites, tribalism and globalization are destroying the idea of America -but an America which is viewed not just in narrow terms, but without much regard for the facts of its history, as the reviewer points out.

Some extracts-

"One of the bestselling authors of American history is a sixty-eight-year-old Texan named David Barton. If you dip into his seminal work, The American Story (2020), co-authored with his son Tim, you will find a central tenet of Christian nationalism: “The Golden Thread in American history is the superintending Providence of Almighty God”. In Barton’s telling, Christopher Columbus was the saviour of the native Tainos (whom he actually kidnapped and enslaved) and there is no mention of his introduction of African slavery to the Americas.
Barton is a regular guest at Republican fundraisers and on fundamentalist broadcasts, and, while he has no credibility among serious historians, the rise of Christian nationalism in the political arena has increased the demand for similar voices with more academic clout. One of these is Victor Davis Hanson
...In his new book, The Dying Citizen, Hanson leans hard on his classicist background to make a nativist case, celebrating ancient Greece and its formulae for citizenship while studding his prose with learned etymologies. But when it comes to the foundations of the American republic, his history is erratic and blinkered. The founding of America expanded rights for “the vast majority of the resident population”, he argues, “in part because colonial America lacked many of the European mainland’s traditions of class distinctions, primogeniture, peasantry and serfdom”. He has apparently forgotten the nearly 20 per cent of the US population that was enslaved, according to the first census in 1790..."
Clues to the US’s crises | Anne Nelson (the-tls.co.uk) (https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/the-dying-citizen-victor-davis-hanson-american-schism-seth-david-radwell/)

tslvr

05-08-2022, 05:47 PM

Can anyone be correct 100% of the time when their arguments lean one way 100% of the time?

Lorca81

05-08-2022, 09:44 PM

Stavros

05-09-2022, 06:34 AM

Can anyone be correct 100% of the time when their arguments lean one way 100% of the time?

Depending on what is being claimed -yes. For example, The Earth is Flat/The Earth is not Flat. If one bases the argument on proven science, then the statement The Earth is not Flat, is right 100% of the time. By contrast, the statement, Human Life is Sacred cannot be 100% right if there is no definition of what is Sacred, though for those for whom the word does mean something, then the statement must be 100% correct.

Stavros

05-09-2022, 06:40 AM

The danger of the leaked draft opinion is that it rejects the underlying reasoning behind Roe and Casey, namely that there is a fundamental—albeit unwritten—right to privacy and bodily autonomy protected by the U.S. Constitution. Roe relied on cases going back 40–50 years that protected the right to use contraception and marry someone of another race. In the 50 years since Roe, subsequent cases applied that privacy right to prevent states from criminalizing gay sex and prohibiting same-sex marriage. Basically, this draft opinion calls all of that into question.

And this is where Americans must focus their arguments -on what precedent means in law, and in the way law evolves as societies change, as it seems to me that embedded in Alito's argument is the view that because he doesn't like the changes that have taken place in his country, they are to be classed as 'unprecedented' as if this also meant their legal status must be questioned, or even repealed in law. I wonder how this view fares when the 18th Amendment is the matter for debate.

Stavros

05-09-2022, 06:45 AM

Further to my posts on the Religious aspect of Abortion, it seems to me that those opposed to it fail to address the critical issue of Pregnancy, in and of itself. Thus they make claims about the existence of life beginning with a 'heartbeat' as the key marker, even though any basic scientist will argue life is contained in sperm and eggs. The circumstances in which a woman become pregnant seem to be either dismissed, or in the case of Rape and Incest, wished away as if they were of no importance, because the foetus is the only concern.

But even here the either/or argument fails to address problems that can arise in pregnancy that make a full term fruitless if the foetus dies in the womb, or the cases where gestation fails to proceed normally -here, for example is one case from a Letter in the Guardian a few days ago. I wonder if even those who claim to be opposed to Abortion in all circumstances, can honestly maintain such a position with such cases -

"I was 33, pregnant and deliriously happy. At our scheduled ultrasound, we learned that our baby had spina bifida and anencephaly – the baby (we later learned was a girl) had neither a skull nor a spine. The chances of her survival were zero, and my doctor scheduled a surgical abortion as soon as he heard the news. The following days were a blur of grief and sadness."
This attack on women’s reproductive rights must be resisted | Letters | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/this-attack-on-womens-reproductive-rights-must-be-resisted)

filghy2

05-11-2022, 06:15 AM

Can anyone be correct 100% of the time when their arguments lean one way 100% of the time?

How about thinking through the implications of your question? If the right answer is ambiguous that surely this is not the right way to resolve it - a handful of ideologues who obtained their majority though political machinations imposing their view even though they don't represent the majority. Most Americans favour allowing abortions, at least in some circumstances.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/

The pro-choice people are not imposing their moral views on anyone else. Nobody is forced to have an abortion if they don't believe it is right, and no doctor is forced to perform abortions. It is the minority of anti-abortionists who want to impose their moral views on others.

If there is no consensus on a question of morality shouldn't it be left to individuals, rather than one group imposing their views on the rest?

Stavros

05-11-2022, 04:49 PM

[QUOTE=filghy2;2052554]
If there is no consensus on a question of morality shouldn't it be left to individuals, rather than one group imposing their views on the rest?[
/QUOTE]

The valid point you make does not seem to sway the opinion of the -mostly- men who are making terrifying decisions. The case in El Salvador of a woman sentenced to 30 years in prison because her miscarriage was transformed into 'aggravated homicide'- may sound outrageous, but it is not far from the position emerging in some US States such as Louisiana where a Bill before its House would make abortion Homicide and charge the woman with murder. These cases in these links-

El Salvador: woman sentenced to 30 years in prison for homicide after miscarriage | El Salvador | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/10/el-salvador-woman-sentenced-prison-after-miscarriage)

GOP Crusade Against Abortion Could Lead To Contraception Bans (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gop-crusade-against-abortion-could-140100591.html)

On top of the above, comes the Senator from Montana who wants to know why Turtle Eggs have more protection than a 'pre-born human baby'. You have to wonder if this mature adult knows what Pregnancy is, and what can happen once it has begun. But maybe he isn't that sure about the origins either, or is he going to suggest that Americans be banned from eating eggs? After all, if the Sea Turtle's eggs are protected, what about Hens? Because Hens Have Rights.

Republican senator compares women to sea turtles and eagles in speech against abor
tion rights | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/senator-daines-abortion-sea-turtles-b2076129.html)

filghy2

05-12-2022, 03:38 AM

The valid point you make does not seem to sway the opinion of the -mostly- men who are making terrifying decisions. The case in El Salvador of a woman sentenced to 30 years in prison because her miscarriage was transformed into 'aggravated homicide'- may sound outrageous, but it is not far from the position emerging in some US States such as Louisiana where a Bill before its House would make abortion Homicide and charge the woman with murder.

One might respect the integrity of their views if they were consistent about the sanctity of life. But in reality most of the anti-abortion zealots show indifference to human life in other contexts; eg they are generally opposed to gun laws, anti-poverty programs and Covid measures and in favour of capital punishment.

This article suggests that the obsession of white protestant evangelicals in the US with abortion is a relatively recent construct of the post-1970s. Prior to that they were relatively unconcerned with abortion and interested mainly in defending racial segregation.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480

There is a parallel here with the rise of gun rights zealotry. Up until the 1970s the NRA was a pragmatic organisation that accepted the need for reasonable gun controls. In both cases fundamentalism seems to have been cultivated for political gain.

Stavros

05-12-2022, 07:01 AM

One might respect the integrity of their views if they were consistent about the sanctity of life. But in reality most of the anti-abortion zealots show indifference to human life in other contexts; eg they are generally opposed to gun laws, anti-poverty programs and Covid measures and in favour of capital punishment.

This article suggests that the obsession of white protestant evangelicals in the US with abortion is a relatively recent construct of the post-1970s. Prior to that they were relatively unconcerned with abortion and interested mainly in defending racial segregation.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480

There is a parallel here with the rise of gun rights zealotry. Up until the 1970s the NRA was a pragmatic organisation that accepted the need for reasonable gun controls. In both cases fundamentalism seems to have been cultivated for political gain.

All good points. I don't know enough about it, but how does this play out in Australia? On the one hand it strikes me as a mostly secular country, but has its 'Christian militants', such as Margaret Court in Western Australia. Are these fringe elements? Then there is the Catholic Church. I say this also because I think some American 'Evangelicals' have been in and out of Australia either for some, or again since the 1970s.

filghy2

05-13-2022, 11:31 AM

All good points. I don't know enough about it, but how does this play out in Australia? On the one hand it strikes me as a mostly secular country, but has its 'Christian militants', such as Margaret Court in Western Australia. Are these fringe elements? Then there is the Catholic Church. I say this also because I think some American 'Evangelicals' have been in and out of Australia either for some, or again since the 1970s.

They are not generally as militant as in the US, but Christians definitely still have some influence, mainly in the Liberal (conservative) Party. 38 per cent of the voters still voted no on the same-sex marriage plebiscite. However, no mainstream politician is likely to propose outlawing abortion, so that is certainly a fringe issue.

Interestingly, the current Prime Minister is a member of the Hillsong Church, a US-style evangelical outfit. However, he has been trying to distance himself since the founder was disgraced and forced to resign.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-24/hillsong-church-founder-brian-houston-fall-from-grace/100934680

MrFanti

05-14-2022, 08:58 PM

A "oversight" by the Democratic Party also lies in the number of Conservative Catholic Hispanics....

Stavros

06-28-2022, 05:20 PM

How does a Professor of Law in a School ranked 118 in the US walk into the Oval Office in 2020 and become one of the most influential lawyers in a battery of White House lawyers, responsible, in whole or in part for the novel interpretation of the Constitution enabling the Vice-President to delay certification of the 2020 election on the basis that it was so flawed as to be unacceptable without further investigation -and regardless of what 60 Courts of law had stated before January 6th ---??

Is it possible that Eastman entered the Oval Office on the recommendation of Justice Clarence Thomas, for whom Eastman clerked presumably in his younger days? My guess is that a lot of aspiring lawyers 'clerk' for a Senior Justice, do all of them for that reason have automatic access to the President?

Or could it be that Clarence told Ginny, and Ginny told Rudy, and Rudy told Donny, and so it goes...? And is this an even more reasonable grounds for investigating Clarence Thomas than the Justices who according to AOC are liable to be impeached for lying under Oath with regard to their view that Roe-vs-Wade was 'settled law' -until they voted against it?

And since when has Clarence Thomas become the most vocal and activist Justice? For years he was famous for having nothing to say. What motivates him now? He seems to be leading the charge against established Freedoms and Rights though while he indicates a medieval hostility to same-sex marriage, gay sex (Sodomy! Buggery!) and Contraception, there is no sign he is thinking of recommending the repeal of laws enabling 'Inter-Racial' Marriage....

Could the House Committee on January 6th Subpoena Thomas to appear before it and explain what role he played, if at all, in the Republican attempt to deny the American people the validity of their votes?

Stavros

07-02-2022, 02:16 PM

More on the above. I listened to the one hour phone call 45 had with Brad Raffensperger in Georgia and had to ask myself who is Cleta Mitchell?

According to Wikipedia she was a Democrat up to the mid 1990s and has since veered right sharply. She says on the call Georgia will not give them the data so they can make their own check of the vote, but the State legally cannot release this information to third parties. In other words, she is ignorant of the law in Georgia, but implies the State is deliberately withholding the evidence they need to prove fraud.

But this is the intriguing claim -that it was Mitchell who brought John Eastman into the White House, and the link? Ginni Thomas-

"Prior to the 2020 election, she organized legal efforts to challenge mail-in ballots cast in the election.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleta_Mitchell#cite_note-23) Mitchell has worked closely with Ginni Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginni_Thomas), wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, in the Council for National Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy) to organize efforts to keep Trump in power, and The New York Times reported that it was Mitchell who "enlisted John Eastman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eastman), the lawyer who crafted specious legal theories claiming Vice President Mike Pence could keep Mr. Trump in power..."
Cleta Mitchell - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleta_Mitchell)

Incidentally, the phone call is a grim reminder of just what an obsessed fruit cake Trump is. If anyone has ever listened to the whole of his speeches, they will be aware that he repeats himself again, and again, and again. So i noted down the number of times he said things repeatedly-

He claims he won Georgia 'by a lot', not once, but 13 times.
He says he needs 11, 780 votes not once, but 14 times.
He says Ruby Freeman is 'a professional vote scammer and Hustler', and refers to her not once, but 10 times. Pity she can't sue for libel.
He says ballots were shredded or burned not once, but 7 times.

All of the claims are refuted 'Your numbers are wrong' -but 45 refuses to accept the truth, count the numbers again and 'Ultimately I win'.

The call is on YouTube if you have an hour to spare.

Stavros

07-04-2022, 04:00 AM

You have to wonder if any of the Justices on the Supreme Court think this is just- or maybe they are as determined as Trump and his fake Christians, to inflict as much suffering on America's children as they can.

"A10-year-old rape victim in Ohio was denied an abortion, sparking outrage online as many Republican-led states strip away reproductive rights following the Supreme Court (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/supreme-court)'s overruling of Roe v. Wade.Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indianapolis, received a call last Monday, three days after the Court's ruling, from a child abuse doctor in Ohio who had a 10-year-old girl in their office who was six weeks and three days pregnant, and therefore ineligible to receive an abortion in the state, according to a report from The Indianapolis Star."
'She's 10': Child Rape Victim's Abortion Denial Sparks Outrage on Twitter (newsweek.com) (https://www.newsweek.com/shes-10-child-rape-victims-abortion-denial-sparks-outrage-twitter-1721248)

Stavros

07-05-2022, 02:18 PM

The Thomas Court reigns Supreme, high in the land, breezin' through the park. The man has form, and a simple ignorance of the American Revolution, and, well, the law! But when he refers to Sport, and Targets, maybe he did have Highland Park in mind, after all, he has either ignored the phrase 'a well organized militia', or just doesn't know what it means. Boom!

And with that I wish you all a calmer, more peaceful, life-affirming summer.

"US Supreme Court (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/supreme-court) justice Clarence Thomas (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/clarence-thomas) had written a dissent ruling against an automatic weapons ban in Highland Park almost a decade before the 4 July mass shooting at the Illinois city (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/highland-park-shooting-4th-of-july-b2115546.html) in which six were killed and 36 injured.An ordinance, signed by mayor Nancy Rotering on 24 June 2013, had read: “The City Council has determined that assault weapons (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/assault-weapons) are traditionally not used for self-defence in the city of Highland Park and that such weapons pose an undue risk to public safety.”
Mr Thomas had, in his dissent in 2015 when the Supreme Court had refused to hear the challenge on the ordinance, said it “criminalises modern sporting rifles (e.g., AR-style semi-automatic rifles), which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defence, hunting, and target shooting.”
“Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles,” he wrote, describing assault rifles as “modern sporting rifles (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/america-ar15-uvalde-shooting-history-b2093713.html)”, a terminology often used by those favouring bans on restrictions of guns.
He continued: “The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defence and target shooting,” he wrote in his dissent. “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
Clarence Thomas wrote dissent opinion on assault rifle ban in Highland Park nearly a decade ago (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clarence-thomas-wrote-dissent-opinion-091155577.html)

broncofan

07-09-2022, 01:01 PM

I thought this article was a funny parody of originalist theory. It ridicules the pseudo-scientific method of trying to divine original intent by cherry-picking a legal history that is not exactly well documented and is not American either. Of course, I don't have any objection to English law as much of our common law derives from it and it is the source of many rights as well as procedures that are part of our legal system. It's just that mining this history can be difficult because it's not clear what our framers wanted to adopt and what they wanted to rebel against.

I also am not necessarily saying it's good to protest someone's dinner. I don't think Kavanagh suffered much harm and his ruling will mean many women suffer and die but I am not sure what the most effective form of protest is either. Just meant as an attack on the methodology being used to strike down civil rights protections.

Anyhow enjoy https://newrepublic.com/article/167019/kavanaugh-mortons-constitutional-right-dinner

Stavros

10-05-2022, 07:45 AM

When is a district boundary 'race based'? When it's in Alabama! This seems to me to capture the race-based dilemma of American law, politics and society, but the blatant attempt to collapse the 'Black vote' into one district merely emphasises the need for electoral reform. I don't see how or why States should control districting, and that an Independent Electoral Commission should draw the boundaries based on a range of factors, such as income, social background, rural-urban and so on, and attempt to achieve a balance in each district. What the US has had for so long just inflames opinions, and seems intended to do so.

Nevertheless, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson makes compelling arguments on the purpose behind the 14th and 15th Amendments, or maybe these are too 'recent' for Thomas and Alito?

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pummels Alabama attorneys over ‘race blindness’ in major voting rights case (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justice-ketanji-brown-221831880.html)

Stavros

10-06-2022, 03:18 PM

A bleak forecast for Moore v Harper...

The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/most-terrifying-case-heard-us-103034169.html)

Stavros

10-31-2022, 11:17 PM

"Justice Thomas asked “what academic benefits” come from diversity, other than “feeling good and all that stuff”.“I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” he said."
Clarence Thomas says he doesn’t have a ‘clue’ what diversity means as Supreme Court takes aim at affirmative action (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clarence-thomas-says-doesn-t-204313276.html)

Derrida said- Il n'y a pas de hors-texte! But even he would be baffled by what Thomas has claimed. And he understood English, unlike the learned Justice, or maybe Clarence is just 'taking the piss', as they might say in The Nag's Head, Dalston.

Stavros

07-01-2023, 11:28 AM

Here is a law, in a manner of speaking, that is plain enough, in 'black and white':

"The US supreme court turned away (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063023zor_b07d.pdf#page=24) a case on Friday challenging Mississippi’s rules (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/08/us-1890-law-black-americans-voting) around voting rights for people with felony convictions, leaving intact a policy implemented more than a century ago with the explicit goal of preventing Black people from voting.
Those convicted of any one of 23 specific felonies (https://www.msvotes.org/policy-and-research/rights-restoration/) in Mississippi permanently lose the right to vote. The list is rooted in the state’s 1890 constitutional convention, where delegates chose disenfranchising crimes that they believed Black people were more likely to commit. “We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,” the president of the convention said at the time. The crimes, which include bribery, theft, carjacking, bigamy and timber larceny, have remained largely the same since then; Mississippi voters amended it remove burglary in 1950 and added murder and rape in 1968."

The legal argument being

"Challengers to the law argued that the policy was unconstitutional because it bore the “discriminatory taint (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-412/244285/20221028145905609_Petition%20for%20Certiorari%20an d%20Appendix%20-%20Harness%20v%20Watson.pdf)” from the 1890 constitution."

But

"Both a federal district judge and the US court of appeals for the fifth circuit upheld Mississippi’s policy. The modifications to the policy in 1950 and 1968, the fifth circuit noted, got rid of any discrimination in the original policy."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sotomayor describes this an an 'analytical error' for while the list of crimes that stops felons voting has changed, in its substance the law retains the motive that was stated explicitly in 1890, with statistics that show the extent to which Black citizens of the USA living in Mississippi cannot vote.

Anyone get that 1619 feelin' all over again?

Stavros

10-10-2023, 09:17 AM

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the Supreme Court (Sponsors to be declared?) may be about to interpret the Constitution so literally that most Government agencies will have to shut down, or something like that.

It is a long read on a complex legal subject, but worth it when the consequences are so profound for Americans. The case is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau vs Community Financial Services Association, and the right of Federal Agencies to be funded without the permission of Congress, which de-regulation advocates argue cannot be allowed to continue:

" “If taken seriously, moreover, this argument would invalidate most federal spending, and it would make it impossible for benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare to even exist.” ".
How the Supreme Court's corruption could end Social Security — and America | Opinion (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/how-the-supreme-court-s-corruption-could-end-social-security-and-america-opinion/ar-AA1hURst?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=13095e57763847ea96ae3dac506fc410&ei=56)

filghy2

10-11-2023, 01:18 AM

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the Supreme Court (Sponsors to be declared?) may be about to interpret the Constitution so literally that most Government agencies will have to shut down, or something like that.

It doesn't seem likely. I think even this Supreme Court can figure out that ending Social Security and Medicare would lead to very serious blowback.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/3/23901502/supreme-court-cfpb-appropriations-clause-community-financial-kavanaugh-barrett

Stavros

10-11-2023, 08:41 AM

It doesn't seem likely. I think even this Supreme Court can figure out that ending Social Security and Medicare would lead to very serious blowback.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/10/3/23901502/supreme-court-cfpb-appropriations-clause-community-financial-kavanaugh-barrett

And those new Justices who, when questioned in the confirmation hearings said they would not vote to repeal Roe -vs- Wade? Maybe they are in the mood to be Disruptive, and who can stop them?

Stavros

06-14-2024, 06:57 PM

Latest from the Supreme Court: We have given you the guns, we have given you the ammo -what are you waiting for? Go kill Americans!

Kamala Harris after supreme court ruling: ‘Weapons of war have no place on the streets of a civil society’ – live (theguardian.com) (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jun/14/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-trip-updates)

From Justice Clarence Thomas (Sponsored by Harlan Crow)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQCiKeCWYAE65Vt?format=jpg&name=small

yodajazz

06-16-2024, 03:13 AM

Stavros

06-16-2024, 09:11 AM

I nominate this to be the worst Supreme Court decision in the past 50 years, or more. Here, we have talk of 'civil war' being thrown about. We have a top contender for president saying something, 'We will wipe out the vermin...'. I can't come up with an appropriate analogy. 58 killed, 500 injured using bump stocks in Las Vegas. We have internet trolls; foreign and domestic, whose job it is to stir up and and distrust. We have other sites who business model is simply promote anger. I recently learned a new word of this. It's called "rage farming." Their motive seems to mostly for driving up engagement click for thier bottom line profit.

But this leads to a funny situation. I was with my daughter, and she took my blood pressure. For the first time in my life doctors raised concerns about it. The pressure number was reasonable when she took it, at my home. Then I was telling her about a site called Quora, and I read one of those hate filled letters. Right after that, I blurted that I bet my blood pressure has gone up 20 points. Then it came to me, to take my pressure again. Sure enough, it had gone up by twenty points! As I have gotten older now the doctors are concerned about potential issues, and I have several appts coming up. I think trolling is an intentional strategy these days. They sometimes call it, "owning the libs."

Legalizing bump stocks is the last thing in the world we need. Whereas Jesus said, according to scripture; "My peace I bring unto you." I take issue with the 'warrior Jesus portrayed in Revelations. This should not usurp the words coming directly from the mouth of Jesus.

The question might be, if there is a civil war, when will it start? But that is because the narrative over January 6th has been derailed, after all, on the most basic of definitions, it must be illegal to smash the windows of a building to gain entry, and then urinate and defecate on the floor of The Speaker's office. But then, when it comes to the Evangelical Christians and their second coming, if they were not more keen to take money out of people's pockets while telling them the Angels are coming, they might pause to remind Mr Trump that in The Lord's Prayer, Christians are told to forgive those who have wronged them. I read a while ago that Trump was brought up to never say sorry, or as his father is alleged to have said 'never fold'. Convicted of a crime? Never say sorry -and never be humble, as we are told Jesus was.

On guns, I think your country is doomed. Sorry about that.

As for blood pressure, yep, 'news' has been replaced by comment, a lot of it angry accusation, mostly lies, designed to fill that space where real politics, most of the time, is boring.

I take Amlodipine for my BP, which with dietary adjustments, has it stabilized. I get it for free on the NHS, not sure what it is marketed as in the US, or its cost.

Stay well! Stay clear of the crazies! Live a long life.

Stavros

07-01-2024, 06:52 PM

"In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.But instead of deciding for themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to work out precisely how to apply their decision to Trump's case.
The lower court must now decide whether he was acting officially or privately."
US Supreme Court sends Trump immunity claim back to lower court (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump-hails-us-supreme-court-ruling-but-judge-fears-for-our-democracy/ar-BB1pdvzN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=EDGEESS&cvid=858350cfb5a54e98bf224d5232af346d&ei=34)

So much for the 'Supreme' Court on so important a constitutional, and legal issue.

That said, is it the 'official business' of the President to effectively order his Vice-President to violate the Constitution with regard to the Certification of Elections in a joint session of Congress?

And does any State in the Union having verified and counted the votes in an election, become dependent on the President for his (or her) approval before announcing the result, and can a President change the vote to benefit himself (or herself) --?

Is playing Golf an 'official act' of the Presidency?

Are lower courts competent to make these decisions?

Fitzcarraldo

07-01-2024, 07:55 PM

We made it just shy of 248 years without a king.

KnightHawk 2.0

07-01-2024, 09:13 PM

KnightHawk 2.0

07-01-2024, 09:39 PM

Not surprised at all by the Right Wing Supreme Court's decision today,and gave Donald Trump exactly what he wanted all along,which is absolute immunity from prosecution. The SCOTUS says that Donald Trump is above the law,and do whatever he wants. This decision also has a major impact on the State Case in Fulton County Georgia,and the Federal Cases in Washington DC and Florida.And this decision also shows how divided the US Supreme Court is,with the majority accusing the dissenters of hyperbolic theories and fearmongering.

Stavros

07-01-2024, 11:48 PM

We made it just shy of 248 years without a king.

It comes with a uniform too, plus a sword and a crown, just like George III....who knows maybe we will get Virginia back too.

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/prince-charles-prince-of-wales-reads-the-queens-speech-next-news-photo-1666006373.jpg?crop=1xw:0.84334xh;center,top

Stavros

07-02-2024, 12:04 AM

I wonder what Biden can do now that he has what Justice Sotomayor says is 'immunity'. This strikes me, though of course I see no lateral application that I would welcome or endorse...

"In her dissent, the justice Sonia Sotomayor listed some of the things that the president can now do without consequence, according to the majority. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” she writes."
Was Donald Trump a king during his presidency? The US supreme court thinks so | Moira Donegan | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/01/trump-president-immunity-supreme-court)

KnightHawk 2.0

07-02-2024, 02:18 AM

Here's President Joe Biden's Remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS7_b8KU_Zs

filghy2

07-02-2024, 04:00 AM

So much for the 'Supreme' Court on so important a constitutional, and legal issue.

So much for originalism as well. If the founding fathers had intended the President to have absolute immunity for 'official' acts wouldn't they have put it in the Constitution?

filghy2

07-02-2024, 04:02 AM

I nominate this to be the worst Supreme Court decision in the past 50 years, or more.

I think this has now been surpassed.

Stavros

07-02-2024, 09:15 AM

So we have heard from the Supreme Court, from President Biden, and of course the other guy, but what do the American people think about this judgment? It is already clear they do not approve of the repeal of Roe v Wade, so I wonder if this latest Court decision will backfire.

Even if the only remedy is to not elect Trump or even Republicans, we don't yet know if this minority party will accept the results of the November poll. The coldest chill, as with January 6, is that a hard core of Republicans and their hangers-on welcome this decision. The Court presided over a divided country, and took the decision to widen the wounds. It's like they don't care.

Stavros

07-02-2024, 09:19 AM

But will a lower, circuit court agree with Justice Barrett?

"The justices sent the case back to a lower court to determine which aspects of the indictment fall into either category."The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States," Barrett wrote.
"And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority — and thus no official capacity — to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct."".
'Not entitled to protection': Amy Coney Barrett says no reason Trump should avoid trial (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/not-entitled-to-protection-amy-coney-barrett-says-no-reason-trump-should-avoid-trial/ar-BB1pdXHd?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=EDGEESS&cvid=d515e33d24b240ff886a2210dd01454a&ei=27)

Fitzcarraldo

07-03-2024, 12:58 AM

Thoughts from one of the leaders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project:
https://therickwilson.substack.com/p/the-red-court-and-the-coming-horrors

KnightHawk 2.0

07-03-2024, 01:09 AM

Thoughts from one of the leaders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project:
https://therickwilson.substack.com/p/the-red-court-and-the-coming-horrorsOnce again Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project is giving everybody a warning about the Right Wing Supreme Court.

Stavros

07-03-2024, 06:59 AM

Thoughts from one of the leaders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project:
https://therickwilson.substack.com/p/the-red-court-and-the-coming-horrors

Strongly worded, but. Surely one thing the Supreme Court does is return to the lower courts the right to distinguish official acts from private ones. I think the response so far has been to panic -why has the sentencing in the 'Hush Money' case been delayed to September, when the events that it concerns took place before Mr Trump was President? Is this not a clear case in which he has no Supreme Court to protect him?

In the case of the Documents, on that the law is clear that a President does not have the right to personally own documents that belong to the people of the US, so the Courts must decide what takes precedence -the existing law, or Trump's claim that the law does not apply to him.

Is this not the time for the Lower Courts to do exactly what the Supreme Court will not do -and where relevant, prosecute Trump with the full force of the law?

Stavros

07-03-2024, 07:25 AM

The Telegraph (a Farage obsessed Brexit Pamphlet masquerading as a newspaper) has this sophistry that purports to show how the Supreme Court judgment -which actually ducks out and passes those judgments to lower courts- has strengthened American Democracy, with this priceless observation-

"the Supreme Court has tasked the judiciary with determining which of his actions fall under the scope of official duties and which do not. This critical distinction ensures that presidents cannot misuse their office for personal gain while providing a necessary shield for their legitimate functions."
The Supreme Court has strengthened America (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-strengthened-america-042700955.html)

Does this mean Trump can be prosecuted for his golfing strategy - play in clubs he owns to reap the financial benefit?

More disturbing, though that depends on what you think of the 'Administrative State' -is Clarence Thomas in effect suggesting that the Agencies of the Federal Govt should be abolished given that he thinks they interfere in American businesses, or 'overreach'-

"The case stems from a fine imposed by OSHA against an Ohio contractor after a worker was injured by a broken catwalk on a worksite.The company then sued President Joe Biden’s administration, claiming that the agency’s ability to set “reasonably necessary or appropriate” safety standards violates congress’ constitutional law-making authority.
An appeals court rejected that argument, and the company appealed up to the Supreme Court.
“The Occupational Safety and Health Act may be the broadest delegation of power to an administrative agency found in the United States Code,” Thomas wrote."
Justice Clarence Thomas wants the Supreme Court to take aim at ‘far-reaching’ workplace safety laws (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/justice-clarence-thomas-wants-supreme-164908936.html)

Project 2025 is happening a year early.

filghy2

07-03-2024, 08:10 AM

"the Supreme Court has tasked the judiciary with determining which of his actions fall under the scope of official duties and which do not. This critical distinction ensures that presidents cannot misuse their office for personal gain while providing a necessary shield for their legitimate functions."

Except that the decision explicitly says “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” In other words, he can misuse the office for personal gain as long as it's under the guise of an official act.

Stavros

07-03-2024, 01:56 PM

Except that the decision explicitly says “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” In other words, he can misuse the office for personal gain as long as it's under the guise of an official act.

That doesn't make sense, not even in legal terms. Motivation is so clearly a factor in decision making I don't see how it cannot be scrutinized. But even that surely cannot enable the President to take actions whose consequences are financial gain- such as playing Golf in clubs that he owns, and charging the Secret Service detail substantially more to use the facilities than normal members are charged. If a President who is a businessman must relinquish control while in office, how can it then be legal for the same President to use his own business to play golf, and in 4 years make more money from Golf than Tiger Wood made in 20?

Again, the motive behind the President hoarding documents that do not belong to him may not be clear- a need, out of vanity to show visitors the files on a policy? The desire to make money selling the contents of files to a foreign government, or if they relate to trade, for example, to a US based business? Motivation is irrelevant here, because an existing law that has not been challenged or made void, still applies to the former President and for violating that law he must present himself in Court.

Not enquiring into January 6th needs no scrutiny of motivation because the record from multiple sources makes it clear that Trump refused to accept the vote, and conspired with others to prevent the certification of the results of the Electoral College on the 6th of January. The existing law that has not been set aside, describes any attempt to prevent Congress from fulfilling its Constitutional duties as Sedition against the United States. Vice President Pence refused Trump's request/demand and in doing so upheld the law, but there is no contest that Trump himself opposed this, indeed, that members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, without a shred of evidence to support their claims, also attempted to prevent the Certification from taking place.

Based on these facts the Supreme Court decision is not based on an interpretation of law, but of politics, which it is not entitled to do. That the Court has passed the actual determination of what is or is not legal to a lower court suggests that Justices knew they could not subvert the laws that they are supposed to maintain, but that they made a Political Decision precisely to protect the career of a man whose politics they approve of.

But if the Supreme Court is to establish itself as a political party, then maybe President Biden should appoint four or five more Justices to make his own political points, though I don't know if this can be done owing to time and Congressional approval.

I also don't know if AOC's attempt to impeach Justices can work if the grounds are them receiving sponsorship in return for judgments that are commerically beneficial to their sponsors, I assume this would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.