Undermining the Supreme Court - a simple issue

[Craig234]

A book can be written about the corruption of the Supreme Court, but this post is one simple point.

Our system was created to recognize the need for checks and balances, because people can be corrupted. It was recognized that a monarch would do things in their interest against the public interest. And a Congress with no check would, and a president with no check would.

They built in some checks with the presidential veto power - the president able to veto a law, nd Congress able to override the veto with a super-majority.

Yet they had written rules for both to follow in the constitution, and recognized a need for another check if something got past both branches, to protect the constitution, and made the judiciary. And to make it an effective protector of the constitution not subject to political corruption, they made it a lifetime appointment difficult to remove.

So, the judiciary was supposed to be independent from politics, dedicated to protecting the constitution. Nice idea.

This is why the fact of our current situation with the court destroys that intended role for the courts.

Where we have one private organization, the Federalist Society, dedicated to MISINTERPRETING the constitution to serve special interests, dedicated to overthrowing the constitution by re-writing it from the courts, who groom an army of lawyers to adopt that agenda, and select lawyers who most reliably are loyal to that agenda to select them to be made judges.

They work in partnership with the Republican Party who almost exclusively only nominates judges selected by the Federalist Society. Over a half-billion dollars has been spent to get these selected judges now in control of the Supreme Court.

This post won't go into detail how much that agenda is at odds with the constitution except to note the hundreds (or more?) of rulings that have long been 5-4 where the Federalist Society justices vote against the others. It is a war on the constitution to remove its protections for the public interest against those special interests.

The point of this post is to note how much the intended independence of the judiciary is destroyed by this process of grooming lawyers to have a radical ideology and corrupting the selection process to get them put onto the court.

That process does not leave independent justices protecting the constitution, it leaves justices groomed and selected to have a radical ideology to re-write the constitution beholden to the forces that did so much and spent so much to get them installed. A type of corruption the designers of our system did not expect or protect from. Even Republicans should be able to understand how this destroys independence.

We've already lost much of the intended checks and balances between Congress and the President because of political parties and donors. Congress in the President's party and the President now act largely in unison, with aligned agendas, influenced by donors, unlike the separate groups each checking the other in 'checks and balances'.

But we've also seen the destruction of the courts' independence with the systemic processes to groom and install ideologues on the right.

The totality of the corruption can be seen by the one time Republicans rejected a Republican nominee I can recall - never because the justice is too corrupt or extreme, but the one they rejected was when Bush nominated someone not from the Federalist Society (Harriet Miers) trying to do a political favor. That was what they wouldn't allow.

 

[Craig234]

People seem to not care almost at all about the courts.

 

[Bullseye]

A book can be written about the corruption of the Supreme Court, but this post is one simple point.

Our system was created to recognize the need for checks and balances, because people can be corrupted. It was recognized that a monarch would do things in their interest against the public interest. And a Congress with no check would, and a president with no check would.

They built in some checks with the presidential veto power - the president able to veto a law, nd Congress able to override the veto with a super-majority.

Yet they had written rules for both to follow in the constitution, and recognized a need for another check if something got past both branches, to protect the constitution, and made the judiciary. And to make it an effective protector of the constitution not subject to political corruption, they made it a lifetime appointment difficult to remove.

So, the judiciary was supposed to be independent from politics, dedicated to protecting the constitution. Nice idea.

This is why the fact of our current situation with the court destroys that intended role for the courts.

Where we have one private organization, the Federalist Society, dedicated to MISINTERPRETING the constitution to serve special interests, dedicated to overthrowing the constitution by re-writing it from the courts, who groom an army of lawyers to adopt that agenda, and select lawyers who most reliably are loyal to that agenda to select them to be made judges.

They work in partnership with the Republican Party who almost exclusively only nominates judges selected by the Federalist Society. Over a half-billion dollars has been spent to get these selected judges now in control of the Supreme Court.

This post won't go into detail how much that agenda is at odds with the constitution except to note the hundreds (or more?) of rulings that have long been 5-4 where the Federalist Society justices vote against the others. It is a war on the constitution to remove its protections for the public interest against those special interests.

The point of this post is to note how much the intended independence of the judiciary is destroyed by this process of grooming lawyers to have a radical ideology and corrupting the selection process to get them put onto the court.

That process does not leave independent justices protecting the constitution, it leaves justices groomed and selected to have a radical ideology to re-write the constitution beholden to the forces that did so much and spent so much to get them installed. A type of corruption the designers of our system did not expect or protect from. Even Republicans should be able to understand how this destroys independence.

We've already lost much of the intended checks and balances between Congress and the President because of political parties and donors. Congress in the President's party and the President now act largely in unison, with aligned agendas, influenced by donors, unlike the separate groups each checking the other in 'checks and balances'.

But we've also seen the destruction of the courts' independence with the systemic processes to groom and install ideologues on the right.

The totality of the corruption can be seen by the one time Republicans rejected a Republican nominee I can recall - never because the justice is too corrupt or extreme, but the one they rejected was when Bush nominated someone not from the Federalist Society (Harriet Miers) trying to do a political favor. That was what they wouldn't allow.

You are so woefully misinformed and confused it's totally impossible to respond to this googledegook. By the way when it comes to 5-4 decisions those evil Federalist justices cross over to side with the liberal justices then the libs cross the other way.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is just another conspiracy theory to avoid explaining why the Federalist Society makes stronger and better constitutional arguments than do their progressive brethren.

 

[Bullseye]

This is just another conspiracy theory to avoid explaining why the Federalist Society makes stronger and better constitutional arguments than do their progressive brethren.

Exactly the Federalist Society argues the law; its opponents argue emotions, and "if it sounds good and gives me a 'warm and fluzzy' it must be Constitutional".

 

[Tangmo]

And this court led by el Duce Alito had oral arguments this week on the NC law by the Republican party legislature that makes it the final and unreviewable -- unchecked --authority on elections and voting in the state. To make Constitutional no judicial review of the legislature on elections, voting; certifying outcomes. The Rightwing Warrior Supreme Court majority will decide on the Constitutionality of this armband law.

Indeed it's not about the rule of law or emotion, it's entirely about using democracy to destroy democracy. All the while blaming it on democracy.

Most supreme court lawyers and experts want to believe the court will rule against the NC legislature and its elections absolutism, yet no one can be sure about which way this evangelical rightwing court majority will go in flashing their armbands again for all to see.

 

[Integrityrespec]

A book can be written about the corruption of the Supreme Court, but this post is one simple point.

Our system was created to recognize the need for checks and balances, because people can be corrupted. It was recognized that a monarch would do things in their interest against the public interest. And a Congress with no check would, and a president with no check would.

They built in some checks with the presidential veto power - the president able to veto a law, nd Congress able to override the veto with a super-majority.

Yet they had written rules for both to follow in the constitution, and recognized a need for another check if something got past both branches, to protect the constitution, and made the judiciary. And to make it an effective protector of the constitution not subject to political corruption, they made it a lifetime appointment difficult to remove.

So, the judiciary was supposed to be independent from politics, dedicated to protecting the constitution. Nice idea.

This is why the fact of our current situation with the court destroys that intended role for the courts.

Where we have one private organization, the Federalist Society, dedicated to MISINTERPRETING the constitution to serve special interests, dedicated to overthrowing the constitution by re-writing it from the courts, who groom an army of lawyers to adopt that agenda, and select lawyers who most reliably are loyal to that agenda to select them to be made judges.

They work in partnership with the Republican Party who almost exclusively only nominates judges selected by the Federalist Society. Over a half-billion dollars has been spent to get these selected judges now in control of the Supreme Court.

This post won't go into detail how much that agenda is at odds with the constitution except to note the hundreds (or more?) of rulings that have long been 5-4 where the Federalist Society justices vote against the others. It is a war on the constitution to remove its protections for the public interest against those special interests.

The point of this post is to note how much the intended independence of the judiciary is destroyed by this process of grooming lawyers to have a radical ideology and corrupting the selection process to get them put onto the court.

That process does not leave independent justices protecting the constitution, it leaves justices groomed and selected to have a radical ideology to re-write the constitution beholden to the forces that did so much and spent so much to get them installed. A type of corruption the designers of our system did not expect or protect from. Even Republicans should be able to understand how this destroys independence.

We've already lost much of the intended checks and balances between Congress and the President because of political parties and donors. Congress in the President's party and the President now act largely in unison, with aligned agendas, influenced by donors, unlike the separate groups each checking the other in 'checks and balances'.

But we've also seen the destruction of the courts' independence with the systemic processes to groom and install ideologues on the right.

The totality of the corruption can be seen by the one time Republicans rejected a Republican nominee I can recall - never because the justice is too corrupt or extreme, but the one they rejected was when Bush nominated someone not from the Federalist Society (Harriet Miers) trying to do a political favor. That was what they wouldn't allow.

The courts job is fundamentally different. It's not to decide what they want, what policy might or might not be good for someone or some party. Rather their purpose is to decide if the Constitution is being adhered too. Are our laws, and our execution of those laws being carried out according to our fundamentals as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. A good number of the current justices are conservatives and strong originalist, meaning they want to closing follow the Constitution as written. The liberal justices are more activist and they tend to want to legislate according to what they hope the law will be, or what they see as best. But it's not about what they want, it's about what the Constitution says.

 

[Loulit01]

Republicans broke the Supreme Court and made it an easy target, but our criminal justice system is broken all up and down the line.

 

[Tangmo]

The courts job is fundamentally different. It's not to decide what they want, what policy might or might not be good for someone or some party. Rather their purpose is to decide if the Constitution is being adhered too. Are our laws, and our execution of those laws being carried out according to our fundamentals as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. A good number of the current justices are conservatives and strong originalist, meaning they want to closing follow the Constitution as written. The liberal justices are more activist and they tend to want to legislate according to what they hope the law will be, or what they see as best. But it's not about what they want, it's about what the Constitution says.

That is a Reagan Era doctrine.

Gone with the Reagan Revolution.

Since Trump descended the escalator of Faulty Tower.

So called originalism ponders a petrified forest then it returns in its petrified state to inflict the modern society and its vibrant life.

 

[Tangmo]

You are so woefully misinformed and confused it's totally impossible to respond to this googledegook. By the way when it comes to 5-4 decisions those evil Federalist justices cross over to side with the liberal justices then the libs cross the other way.

You're experiencing apparitions.

 

[jnug]

This is just another conspiracy theory to avoid explaining why the Federalist Society makes stronger and better constitutional arguments than do their progressive brethren.

Oh yeah...that is one hell of a take. Clarence Thomas is about to bring the SC down around his ears. So you can talk about constitutional arguments till hell freezes over. Thomas and Alito are about to bring the SC to its knees.

 

[Tangmo]

People seem to not care almost at all about the courts.

It took 'em a little while to concoct their pretend it's the 1950s tact together, that's all.

The PutinTrumpRowers have in fact arrived.

Trying to sound like warm and fuzzy bipartisan RINOS of the bygone era. Ignore and pronounce the OP and its realities as "gobbledegook." That's the very first post by 'em in fact. Set their table.

People who hate John McCain just are not believable after that however. Lake in AZ comes to mind also. These same people work hard each day to make excuses for Donald Trump and Clarence The Thomas. They kid only themselves around here. They work hard too to keep el Duce Alito under the radar despite Alito's high profile celebratory statements and jovial behaviors on this new court.

 

[Athanasius68]

Oh yeah...that is one hell of a take. Clarence Thomas is about to bring the SC down around his ears. So you can talk about constitutional arguments till hell freezes over. Thomas and Alito are about to bring the SC to its knees.

That is all it boils down to:
Progressives being unable to adequately respond to originalist constitutional theory.

Rather than a general attack on the court in a simplistic temper tantrum, progressives should perhaps follow the idea of Justice Jackson, who is trying to develop her own 'progressive' originalist theory.

 

[Athanasius68]

You're experiencing apparitions.

The article is a couple years old, true, but the same general trend has held.

Progressive are far more in lockstep, and there is far less diversity, in their thinking.

In Supreme Court Term, Liberals Stuck Together While Conservatives Appeared Fractured

The court's conservative justices wrote separately a lot, often just for themselves. Meanwhile, the court's liberals let their victories speak for themselves and dissented as a bloc.

www.npr.org

 

[Tangmo]

Progressive are far more in lockstep, and there is far less diversity, in their thinking.

Your post is glib by any standard.

Because it says nothing worth discussing or debating. It drops in a couple of own the libs buzzwords that mean nothing then it moves off and away.

It has only the stock rightwing push button talking points that lead nowhere in respect of policy, issues or any matter of any consequence in the real world.

 

[jnug]

That is all it boils down to:
Progressives being unable to adequately respond to originalist constitutional theory.

Rather than a general attack on the court in a simplistic temper tantrum, progressives should perhaps follow the idea of Justice Jackson, who is trying to develop her own 'progressive' originalist theory.

That is about as twisted a post as I have read here. Jackson's position is not all that unusual. It simply points to the fact there are so many holes in the original text of the Constitution that are large enough that you could drive a Mack truck through them without touching anything.

Frankly, "Originalists" of the Conservative persuasion have twisted themselves into more knots that you can shake a stick at opting at some points for Textualism as opposed to Originalism. These IMO are just tags...just words used to by Justices to justify what they want to do. These do not represent principled issues of jurisprudence. Justices are just as likely to abandon them as they are to keep them.

This for example is now a radicalized, activist SC which Thomas is about to bring down around his ears. So go ahead, keep tossing terms around as if they mean something. Be my guest.

 

[Athanasius68]

Your post is glib by any standard.

Because it says nothing worth discussing or debating. It drops in a couple of own the libs buzzwords that mean nothing then it moves off and away.

It has only the stock rightwing push button talking points that lead nowhere in respect of policy, issues or any matter of any consequence in the real world.

It was an accurate response to the skepticism presented: re diversity opinion in the court.

 

[Bullseye]

You're experiencing apparitions.

Nope.

 

[Tangmo]

It was an accurate response to the skepticism presented: re diversity opinion in the court.

After Reagan was elected in 1980 so called conservative law students at Harvard founded a club where they could develop their rightwing politics and reactionary ideology against a diverse democratic society. They called it the Federalist Society. Yes, THE Federalist Society.

Six current members of the supreme court were among the founders of the Federalist Society and remain connected to -- and endorsed by -- the Federalist Society. This is of course the Federalist Society that in lockstep has corrupted the court with a dim and stark combination of dark money and a radical reactionary ideology.

The six members who have strangled diversity at the court and their Potus are -- of course:
el Duce Samuel Alito - GW
Clarence Thomas - GHW
Brett Kavanaugh - Trump
John Roberts - GW
Neil Gorsuch - Trump
Amy Coney Barrett -Trump

So, three Potus successfuly nominated The Gang of Six which is a lockstep continuity of ideology. Two of the Potus were a father and son autocracy. Another Bush Family son was governor of Florida during the 2000 election disaster in that state. Current court member Thomas (and Scalia now deceased) were members of the court that stopped the counting of votes in FL. However, Merritt Garland nominated by Obama never got a hearing, McConnell killing the nomination until Gorsuch grabbed the vacant seat.


The main thrust of the armband ideology of these pretend jurists is to destroy rights established in the Constitution since the American Experiment in Democracy began in 1789. This culturally reactionary court has as its main targets for destruction or significant reduction the post Civil War amendments to include up to recent times and the court decisions since the Civil War to very recent times. In this the six perjured themselves to the Senate. Liar liar robe on fire.

The reactionary and antisocial bents of the six reject diversity and inclusivity. A corporation is a person but a woman in need of an abortion is not. That is, by The Gang of Six there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. By this mantra the Right demands homogeneity and rejects diversity. The silence of the Right concerning the OP is proof that is conclusive and definitive of it. Indeed, the Extreme Right exposes itself completely by your silence and complicity in the massive corruption of the supreme court that in reality is led ever so jovially by el Duce Alito.

 

[Athanasius68]

After Reagan was elected in 1980 so called conservative law students at Harvard founded a club where they could develop their rightwing politics and reactionary ideology against a diverse democratic society. They called it the Federalist Society. Yes, THE Federalist Society.

Six current members of the supreme court were among the founders of the Federalist Society and remain connected to -- and endorsed by -- the Federalist Society. This is of course the Federalist Society that in lockstep has corrupted the court with a dim and stark combination of dark money and a radical reactionary ideology.

The six members who have strangled diversity at the court and their Potus are -- of course:
el Duce Samuel Alito - GW
Clarence Thomas - GHW
Brett Kavanaugh - Trump
John Roberts - GW
Neil Gorsuch - Trump
Amy Coney Barrett -Trump

So, three Potus successfuly nominated The Gang of Six which is a lockstep continuity of ideology. Two of the Potus were a father and son autocracy. Another Bush Family son was governor of Florida during the 2000 election disaster in that state. Current court member Thomas (and Scalia now deceased) were members of the court that stopped the counting of votes in FL. However, Merritt Garland nominated by Obama never got a hearing, McConnell killing the nomination until Gorsuch grabbed the vacant seat.


The main thrust of the armband ideology of these pretend jurists is to destroy rights established in the Constitution since the American Experiment in Democracy began in 1789. This culturally reactionary court has as its main targets for destruction or significant reduction the post Civil War amendments to include up to recent times and the court decisions since the Civil War to very recent times. In this the six perjured themselves to the Senate. Liar liar robe on fire.

The reactionary and antisocial bents of the six reject diversity and inclusivity. A corporation is a person but a woman in need of an abortion is not. That is, by The Gang of Six there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. By this mantra the Right demands homogeneity and rejects diversity. The silence of the Right concerning the OP is proof that is conclusive and definitive of it. Indeed, the Extreme Right exposes itself completely by your silence and complicity in the massive corruption of the supreme court that in reality is led ever so jovially by el Duce Alito.

armband ideology?
abortion was a right enshrined in the Constitution in 1789?
you guys are foaming at the mouth while babbling mindlessly.

The reason why originalism has come to be the mainstream of constitutional thinking isn't because of some conspiracy-- it is because it presents a stronger and better constitutional argument than its opponents. We don't need much more evidence of that than Justice Jackson attempt to fashion an originalist argument to advance a progressive agenda.

 

[Showtime586]

You are so woefully misinformed and confused it's totally impossible to respond to this googledegook. By the way when it comes to 5-4 decisions those evil Federalist justices cross over to side with the liberal justices then the libs cross the other way.

His ridiculous contention that people do not care about the courts is simply beyond responding to. I guess he doesn't understand judicial nominations are made with constituencies in mind.

 

[Tangmo]

Nope.

Yep.

 

[Tangmo]

armband ideology?
abortion was a right enshrined in the Constitution in 1789?
you guys are foaming at the mouth while babbling mindlessly.

The reason why originalism has come to be the mainstream of constitutional thinking isn't because of some conspiracy-- it is because it presents a stronger and better constitutional argument than its opponents. We don't need much more evidence of that than Justice Jackson attempt to fashion an originalist argument to advance a progressive agenda.

The bolded is considered the required virtue signaling among the Rightwing, one to the others. To me it means nothing and is of no value. It's a press button line over there the key for which is surely worn down.

I will say then move on that your Constitution is petrified, ossified. In contrast, my Constitution and that of Justice Jackson is organic which is how the Founders meant it to be. Indeed Jefferson advocated revolution each 20 years -- while that's more than a bit OTT it does overlap with the document being naturally organic.

Scalia btw and his "originalism" was all over the place in contradictions about the 10th Amendment. In one instance Scalia cited the 10A in the majority opinion to nullify a federal law for state and local authorities to assist in enforcing gun laws -- given the Supremacy Clause there's nothing unconstitutional about the states being required to enforce federal gun laws. Scalia also flubbed when he wrote that the feds don't have the authority to require the states to assist in enforcing environmental laws. Indeed, for the Rightwing the 10A and states rights are the kitchen sink for everything you can't get by actual Constitutional routes.

You're still avoiding the OP. The Right is working meanwhile to superimpose their own thread and topic of a 1950s mythically ideal America where argument carries the day because justice was blind and Father Knows Best. Indeed, the PutinTrumpRowers and your tribalism have killed all of that. So now have come even more zombies to try to bring that back.

 

[Athanasius68]

I will say then move on that your Constitution is petrified, ossified. In contrast, my Constitution and that of Justice Jackson is organic which is how the Founders meant it to be. Indeed Jefferson advocated revolution each 20 years -- while that's more than a bit OTT it does overlap with the document being naturally organic.

The issue is who decides-- the courts or the people.

You're still avoiding the OP. The Right is working meanwhile to superimpose their own thread and topic of a 1950s mythically ideal America where argument carries the day because justice was blind and Father Knows Best. Indeed, the PutinTrumpRowers and your tribalism have killed all of that. So now have come even more zombies to try to bring that back.

Not at all-- the point of the OP is to argue that only justices who think as the original poster are fit to be on the court.
The original poster is, as he or she usually is, wrong.