Hi All. Thanks for the wonderful comments. The trolls have found the open Comments section and have started posting, so I am locking down the comments to paid subscribers. I am very sorry about this situation, but do not want to subject my readers to bad-faith and upsetting comments. I have removed the offending posts that I found. Let me know if I missed any.
People forward the newsletter or post it on Facebook. Someone's "Uncle Fred" sees it and becomes incensed. They then try to start a Twitter-fight in the Comments section.
If SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction in those cases, maybe people can refuse to abide by its fiats and real cases can be brought to the court. If the decisions are not lawful, they don’t apply. The short answer is we need civil disobedience and a lot of it. If SCOTUS persists they bring on more civil disobedience.
Yes, it is time to go read Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience and stand up for Justice. There is a time and place for civil disobedience like here and now.. The People united shall never be defeated! My favorite song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UGs0rdhq8
Thank you Robert Hubbell, and this community, for confirming and clarifying the truth -- the cruelty -- of this atrocious unsupreme court decision and renegade court, and for joining together in solidarity.
Onward with Civil Disobedience!
In addition, grassroots activism -- MASSIVE turnout for every election, from Local to State to National.
It was a Substack comment (trying now to recall author to credit attribution) advocating for MASSIVE turnout, that I took the liberty to borrow, while writing Postcards To Voters & Vote Forward letters to Voters, to vote NO for Ballot Issue 1, and protect womens Freedom of Choice, against the mischief of the Dobbs decision.
I hope everyone read the comment from a reader yesterday explaining that the cost of postcards has gone up as well as the cost of postcard stamps. It's going to be 51 cents to send one postcard after July 9th. Buy stamps now!!!
Re:Civil disobedience: see massive nationwide protests in France because a policeman shot and killed one teenager. Such everyday US behavior is considered unacceptable to the French and they make it clear to the authorities.
Police shootings are unacceptable to most of us in the U.S. as well.
Regretfully — a powerful majority refuses to do anything about it.
Gun safety laws and proposals for more adequate training for Police and for gun safety legislation are perpetually voted down. By the mischief of Trump-appointed conservative judges and Republican leaders who support the NRA.
Disheartening!
The Activate America grassroots organization is running a postcard campaign for gun safety laws.
I remember a drawing of people marching for justice. A young person sighs, "How long do we have to keep doing this?" An older woman replies, "As long as it takes. I've been at it for 36 years so far."
Well, I've been at it since before seeing that drawing during the war on Viet Nam. All the progress we made, and now we live in a country turning more and more toward bigotry. This horrible, fascist, power-worshipping, constitution-despising court majority has been making me sick.
But no matter how much power they grab, these fascists are a minority in this country. No matter how deeply they believe in their right to diminish others, they are plain wrong. And none of us has to stand alone.
Thank you Robert Hubbell and all the people commenting in outrage. I'll take some recovery time and then get back to writing those voter postcards.
Although the fascists are in the minority, we also must remember that Hitler never got more than 40% of the vote before he became the legal Chancellor and took over Germany completely.
Thank you for sharing that beautiful (and pertinent) song!
I'm not positive, Cathy, but I'm guessing you meant the Randy Rainbow song "Donald in the John With Boxes" is your favorite. If so, it's at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zDXVw0aatQ. If I'm wrong, excuse my intrusion. Have a good day!
No, This is the Chilean Revolutionary song El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido. In English: The People United Shall Never Be Defeated. It's popularity has spread across the world and is used in many countries. I first heard it when a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard who I played chamber music with said I should go hear Stephen Drury play what the professor thought was the greatest composition of the 20th century at New England Conservatory written by Frederick Rzewski. The piano work has 36 variations on this song as the theme. Each set of six variations represents the five fingers of the hand with the sixth being the combination of the five representing the closed fist. It is an amazing piece that starts with the naivity of the young rebels and goes through battles, the frozen feeling of witnessing the death of a colleague and then finally at the end the theme comes back with the experience of war but also the hope and determination for the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWyc-fKM2Wc starting at 10:20. In this time I listen to it frequently. We, the People, all of us united this time!
Cathy Learoyd - I love this! Thank you for sharing this song. 💕 I want to brush off a little Pete Seeger at my next local public (pretty small) demonstration. 😊
Hi Cathy, my 'sister' living in another, shall we say, difficult state!
YES to civil disobedience, although I am not yet sure what form it will take. It is "like here and now," so I hope enough people will get on board to make a movement. Then we'll find out....
Loved the song, although my Spanish is quite rusty. I got the gist of it, and the passion from years of struggle and exploitation.
First comment re the above song from 9 years ago: "Hold on, Columbia. Don't let go of the streets!" People chimed in with support and encouragement from around the globe.
This is the most eloquent Today's Edition since I've been a subscriber. And deservedly so. The conservatives on the Court are behaving like kids in a sandbox with their nonsense. The idea of hearing a phony case! I really like Gary S's suggestion, that people can refuse to abide by SCOTUS' fiats, and real cases can be brought to the court. And Robert, you bet I'm angry!
Gary S. You are absolutely correct. Let’s all put on our Henry David Thoreau pants. Or, ladies might recall Alice Paul, Rosa Parks, or Jane Fonda & Gloria Steinem. It is really time to fight back with vigor.
These SCOTUS decisions in 303 Creative and in the student loan case crushed constitutional requirements for standing, bulldozed them and overrode the court's lack of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has created legal fiction at the level of The Big Lie, a hallmark of fascism. As we have been dealing with The Big Lie of election deniers, we are finally seeing recourse through our judicial system. My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. Here, however, the 303 Creative case in particular was advanced on facts not in evidence--a "gay" man who turned out to be heterosexual--a huge procedural issue, not to mention the hypothetical issue, but there is no court of appeal after SCOTUS.
As Joyce Vance writes tonight (7/01/23), we're looking at legal conduct that adds up to fraud and perjury for which attorneys are normally sanctioned.
Justice Sotomayor dissented that SCOTUS has now established the constitutional right for a business to refuse service to members of a federally protected class. LGBTQ+ now, and a slippery slope for people of color, women, senior citizens, people of different religions, etc. coming up in the pipeline as funneled by the dark moneyed Federalist Society.
The magnitude of this threat to democracy of a legally sanctioned Big Lie that is now blindsiding us from the judicial branch of our government has my hair on fire. Like Robert has been saying, expand the court! Support the Judiciary Act of 2023, "legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-Justice bench."
Please advise me if I am mistaken, however the Court decision in 303 Creative is either contradictory to its determination in the Affirmative Action case/decision or the Conservative Justices are simply political tools and no better than the extreme right-wing politicians and wealthy cronies who entertain them. In brief, Justice Roberts contended that there is no place, however well intended, for race to be a determinative factor in the selection of college registrants. There was an implied suggestion that racism, having been addressed for so many years, has been ameliorated [by the success of affirmative action], had a positive effect on society and that the protections of the past are no longer required, making "color-blindness" the current best course in the college acceptance process. In other words, race cannot be a determinative factor in the selection process. Affirmative action is now illegal.
Then what is happening when an individual claims that her right to free speech is threatened if she is forced to do creative work on behalf of a theoretical gay couple, who theoretically come to her to ask for a theoretical cake on which will be theoretical words offensive to her personally and contrary to her beliefs. Forgetting the issues of jurisdiction and standing in this matter, the court has effectively found in favor of what I call "Affirmative Prejudice". Is she not "selecting" a unique population and denying them their equal rights. The court has decided anyone now has right to not transact with anybody of their choosing. What if the baker were anti-semitic or a racist. Would then she be able to turn away Jews and Blacks, then Hispanics, then Asians, boys in sandals and girls with bare midriffs? It then follows she would be legally permitted to conduct her business with greater specificity - "I bake for only MAGA Extreme Right-Wing Republican White Christian Gun Owning Anti-Abortionists. She has been given the right with no standing that was taken away from Harvard and UNC for attempting to bring diversity to their campuses.
Excellent article, Robert; and bravo to you, David:
This is yet another blow to what heretofore been a requirement, “standing”. The Court sees itself free to give advisory opinions. They have freed themselves to render theoretical opinions on how they believe things “ought to be”. The unintended consequences seem infinite.
Worse, and a logical outfall from ‘303’, is the reinstatement of “separate but equal”, a monstrous and dangerous genie in a bottle.
It’s so very rich that these extremist judges all refused to answer any questions about a “theoretical case” during their confirmation hearings, yet are okay with ruling on a “theoretical case” once they’re on the Supreme Court. It truly is a Sham Supreme Court.
They miss the good ole days when the right sort of person could own a 3/5 person outright. If only the little people would stop claiming that they have rights which must be respected!
John Roberts and his gang consistently find in favor of the right to discriminate in favor of white right-wing Christians and against anyone else, to help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Exceptions may apply, mainly to preserve his own power.
303 Creative having now effectively posted such a sign, it will be interesting to see how Ms. Smith's business develops over the next few months and years. I've sometimes thought that the most effective solution to the problem of discriminatory businesses is to publicize their discrimination and let the forces of the market determine their fate. It would be nice to believe that they'd fail in short order but I'm no longer confident of that.
The Court would have been on much firmer ground had they decided that all discrimination was unconstitutional, including discrimination against non-legacy applicants to Harvard, non-athletic recruits to UNC, and others similarly situated. That, it seems to me, is the indisputable intent of the ideal of equal protection under the law.
In a practical sense, however, I don't understand why anyone would want to 'force' a creative person to use their creativity on one's behalf. As with forcing a surgeon to perform and operation, the potential for an adverse outcome not demonstrably under the control of the party being coerced is much greater than any benefit that might accrue. It's a larger and more serious application of the old joke about two servers watching a customer take a bite and one says to the other "He ate it", laughing hysterically.
I’m also so angry I just keep rereading these decisions in disbelief! Senator Whitehouse is vindicated. IT IS FOLLOW THE MONEY! Courtzilla has arrived! I agree with Gary S. These cases do not have standing, unless the 6 allowing it are standing on their heads! I would continue as if so and let the Court try to stop them. Biden should continue his relief program, just call it something else or change the sums a bit. Over and over. Colleges can create avenues to admit minority students if they choose. Any business that attempts to follow the path of that fantasy biz in Colorado should be sued pro bono immediately, over and over. I believe that there are sharper minds out there than these 6 pretenders. It appears racism is their true religion. And their God is a cruel one. Let’s not vote for that God. Vote for the millions hurt by these decisions of this feckless Courtzilla .
Please, don't conflate a vital part of every male's body with this court. Or, more generally, don't use the names of body parts, male OR female, as epithets.
Diane. My former boss used to say “The Process is the Process”. You’ve opened an idea that says, “Hey Court, here’s a new case to deal with. Its all legal until you guys tell me its not”
Flood the Zone with Progress, let the citizens vote for those who provide positive change
I'm surprised the John Roberts Christian Nationalist majority on the Supreme Court is still bothering to play the part of serious judges. Most of America knows they've made a mockery of the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Their opinions are contorted and their arguments are ridiculous.
Come on, Justice Roberts. You can save so much time. Just have the author write a one or two paragraph opinion containing the bottom line that we all know you've already decided before the case was even presented. Your base and your rich Federalist Society masters will be just as happy either way.
Because the Republican majority producing a long, illogical, unconstitutional, embarrassingly transparent "argument" in service of dragging America back to the dark ages, is as useless as Justice Roberts continuing to chide people for disparaging his court's antediluvian opinions, lest those criticisms "damage" the credibility of the Supreme Court. So feel free to start issuing brief, "CliffsNotes" style opinions and save everyone a lot of time.
By the way, Justice Roberts. No need to worry about your court's credibility being damaged by the criticism of outsiders. You and the fascist five have done that take down all on your own.
Just saying, if I had suggested in my Federal Procedural class in my second year of law school ( in the mid 70’s) that the Supreme Court or indeed any appellate court had jurisdiction to consider a case that had not exhausted it’s judicial appeal rights before appealing to the highest judicial authority of the nation, I would have flunked the class! Here, the complainant has yet to allege a real harm. How many other lawyers find themselves wondering what their legal education was really worth. The fight goes on but geez, I am grateful to be a retired litigator.
Jim, I was a middle school teacher and know next to nothing about the law, so I'm glad to learn that my confusion was warranted. I can't understand how this case skipped to the top like this. If others can elucidate, I would be most grateful.
Republicans, from the Supreme Court justices to the party elite, game these cases out. For example, look at how they took over the Court, from refusing to do their Constitutional duty of providing Advice and Counsel on Prescient Obama's Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to appointing a religious zealot in a single federal judge district with an ultra-conservative appeals court to facilitate the end the sale of the mifepristone, better known as the abortion pill.
This isn't jurisprudence. It is manipulation and insurrection.
Andrew, is expanding the court the only way to get some fair play? Some real jurisprudence? Do you see an expansion of the court as a possibility in the near future?
Robert, I am angry as hell. SCROTUS* has just given everyone the right to deny me anything they want to because of their religious beliefs. If I were to turn around and refuse service to a Christian couple, they would cry "discrimination" and demand "justice". Well, so do I.
*I have added the "R" into the abbreviation for SCOTUS to designate that it represents the RepubliQan party. I also have a very junior high part of my brain. That part of my brain revels in comparing the 6 (of the 6-3 votes we are being served without salt) to a particular part of the male anatomy where the family jewels reside.
As a manager I was once pressuring another manager to commit to a rather aggressive product development schedule. He finally said, "Cathy, please don't cut off my balls!" I quipped in reply, "Don't worry, I've never needed any."
Correct--they are Federalist Society puppets, and puppets have no balls. Lenny Leo is pulling the strings and they obey like good little legal zombies. Outrageous. Yes! to civil disobedience.
I can’t edit my comment from my phone. This is just to add that I’ll probably alternate SCROTUS with Extreme Court, which is what I’ve been calling it.
My husband and I were talking about just this point this morning. What if a business refused to serve Maga Republicans? or Evangelicals? What if a college refused to admit Jews? or Catholics? It seems that if any other group is substituted for Black or LGBTQ, it would be obvious that the college or business was discriminating. I fear that only Evangelical Christians have any rights in 2023 America.
Frankly, I fear for our country, our democracy. Period.
Question: What if a majority of the votes for a controversial Supreme Court decision came from its women members, and they were repeatedly called "The Boobs" on FOX News. Any objections??
Men don't like having our anatomy turned into insults any more than women do. I urge folks not to start that.
IMO, it's this kind of language mistake that periodically has amounted to the Left shooting itself in the foot. The fun of being outrageous can overtake our awareness of the need to keep our tent large and welcoming.
Republicans have spent the last 40 years gaming out how to control the Supreme Court. It is now time for Democrats and Independents to do the same. Hopefully the tide will turn and and the egregious rulings of the Roberts' Court will be sucked out to sea like the flotsam that they are.
So do I, David. It really isn't in my ordinary vernacular. I make an occasional exception, especially when it is called for. Or my junior high brain takes over.
Posted elsewhere (thanks for the correction on the state-ownedness of the corp, TCinLA). Worth repeating because the decision on standing is even more dishonest than it looks.
A friend asked me about standing of the plaintiff/appellants in the Student Loan case. The court found the State of Missouri had standing. I got curious as to how, and read the opinion.
In the student loan cases the court decided that Missouri had standing because a state owned non-profit corporation could be affected by the loan forgiveness. Not HAD BEEN affected. Might be. This turns out not to have been true--the entity, actually private--refused to be involved. But the court found that what it would lose were fees paid by the Federal government for administering federal loans. It naturally loses those fees when the loan is paid off. So the non-profit, through administration, got fees for loans it didn’t actually make, and thus made money. It would lose that money if someone, like the government or an inheritance from great aunt Sally paid off the loan.
Basically, the claim is for lost profits by a non-profit—it wouldn’t have to spend any money to administer loans that no longer existed. So why should it get the fees?
But wait—it isn’t the non-profit who is suing, which of course as a corporation it could. Picky Picky said the court. The state itself will lose money if its non-profit doesn’t get the fees it no longer has the requirement to do any work to earn. So falsely says the court.
So the harm Missouri will suffer is someone else not-getting fees for loans it doesn’t have to administer—when it doesn’t EARN the fees unless it administers a loan. Color me naïve, but that sounds rather speculative. Let’s hope Missouri doesn’t try to sue Great Aunt Sally’s estate. It loses fees when her estate pays off the loan, too.
There is apparently some state right to earnings for work it doesn’t have to do.
The GOP forces keep asking the supremes for basically advisory opinions. The very FIRST rejection of advisory opinions was the court squelching George Washington’s request for one. So much for an originalist court.
Watch out for the Mifepristone case. Standing is at its very heart.
Exactly; this is the nub of the lie: : So the harm Missouri will suffer is someone else not-getting fees for loans it doesn’t have to administer—when it doesn’t EARN the fees unless it administers a loan. Color me naïve, but that sounds rather speculative.
Thanks again for a most eloquent summary of the Extreme Court's deceitful explanations, and the ugly results.
Please enjoy your day off, maybe take a few more. Glad to hear you have other activities to give you a break from the craziness, and to recharge your batteries. Health and rest to you, from a grateful reader.
The Supreme court reactionary, radical majority is entitled to no legal respect. The Court has gone where no Supreme Court has gone before: acting as a legislative body and not a Court issuing decisions in real cases or controversies. In acting outside of its jurisdiction under the Constitution, the Court’s legislative pronouncements are not entitled to any legal effect and can be ignored due to absence of es which we can ignore. i standing by the plaintiffs. In the absence of Constitutional jurisdiction the court’s pronouncements are mere opinions of politicians in black robes. As such they have denied legitimacy to their attempts at legislating. Roberts’s and Gorsuch have issued unenforceable nullities. Attorney general Garland should issue an opinion confirming that the legislative pronouncements on student debt relief and imaginary website designers work are not law and can be ignored.
I agree that if the Court's decisions are unconstitutional, then they should be ignored, and the DOJ should say so. Any suggestions for how to put pressure on the DOJ to ensure that this happens?
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, conservatives complained loudly and repeatedly about the Warren Court supposedly “legislating from the bench”. Well, now – the Roberts Court has given us real-life instances of actually legislating from the bench !
Now that the radical majority has dropped any pretense of normal and fair judicial analysis, one has to wonder what's next? How far will those justices go to turn the U.S. into a place where long-fought-for rights are arbitrarily scrapped? I fear they're just getting started.
I think their agenda is as follows: The right to contraception (Griswold) and then same-sex marriage (Obergefell). That is what Justice Thomas wrote earlier this week.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should be renamed The Extreme Court. The facts as given here are astounding. Shouldn't the ruling be declared null and void since it was based on a trumped up charge in effect. Unfortunately there is no higher court to appeal too, which shows a weak link in the system. These people have unlimited power which is a very dangerous thing when you have people who are political animals and heavily biased from an ultra conservative perspective. Same with all the luxrative gifts to some of them and sham fees to family members. They did make a couple of fair decisions recently but I think that's because they knew they were becoming severely disrespected. But now it; it's back to business as usual. - a powerful extension of the Republican Party.
But Robert, that’s what they do. They give a little and then they dangle a carrot but lo and behold, they snatch the carrot away. I despise the Catholic Six! My apologies to anyone who is Catholic but these religious fanatics are eating at our gut.
Yes, it is unfortunate, Marlene and Sheila. I know there are good religious people that devote their entire lives to the service of others. They are humble and not at all materialistic, But the adoption of a given religion doesn't automatically make for a good person. Then there are those that use their religious beliefs to justify intolerance and exclusion. They are the hypocrites. If hypocrisy had a oder you would smell them a mile away.
Perfectly understandable, Jon, they pose in their black robes as distinguished elder statesmen, but in reality they are extremely flawed MAGA Republicans with extremely biased viewpoints. They had no problem allowing the States to pass draconian cruel legislation forcing women to carry a fertilized egg to full term no matter what hardship, physically, mentally and/or economically jt might cause them. By the way when they say for the states y to decide, it means the state legislatures, who are of the same frame of mind, not the people in the state which statistics show even in red states a fair number do not agree with total
abortion bans. These are the same legislature that persecute anyone not fitting their idea of straight white anglo saxon decent and preferably Christians. Hmmm . . . reminds me of a group in Germany in the 30's that thought exactly the same way. .
You observe that it's "a very dangerous thing". Indeed! It's actually surprising that it's taken 230 years for this flaw in our system to reveal itself in such stark relief. Have we just been lucky that only now have so many students who wound up failing to grasp even the most basic lessons from their government and law school classes ended up becoming Supreme Court justices? I mean, these jokers could have decided to become politicians, but instead they decided to become judges. Since it's been clear all along that the only people with absolute power in the US are Supreme Court justices, why have we been relatively lucky for so many years? Is the Federalist Society or something like that the force that has recently convinced such ideologues that being a Supreme Court justice ultimately makes you far more powerful here than being a mere politician? Seriously; I have no idea why this hasn't happened long before now. Then there's the matter of what we can do about it...
I keep wishing I could scream from the rooftops: "PEOPLE, A REVOLUTION IS HAPPENING IN AMERICA!!! Few shots are being fired, but it's a true revolution nonetheless."
Revolutionaries will do anything and everything to accomplish their ends. Lying, manipulation, disinformation, intimidation, scapegoating, gaslighting, violence, dog-whistles, legal challenges, investigations, stealing elections, voter suppression, ...... you name it.
They don't have long, are afraid of losing momentum, and thus quickly do a lot of destroying. The more they destroy, the more some of their opponents get demoralized. They have faith that, once their enemies have been defeated, a new & improved version of the country will be established by "their leaders". THEIR job, though, is to break down the old order. And in a reactionary revolution, wealthy right wingers make sure that funding is never an issue.
Having a mother who was a member of the John Birch Society, and growing up in Alabama, I know very well the intense bitterness that's been brewing on the far right for 70 years. They "deeply dislike" liberals, socialists, the federal government, immigrants, and most people who aren't Christian. Racism is also prevalent.
In the revolution , first came Reagan's "the government is the problem", then Gingrich's firebrand style, then the Tea Party, and finally Trump. Throughout that, right wing, well-funded organizations have been analyzing and planning dozens of strategies, knowing that some might eventually work. To me, Trump was just the starting gun for the latest round, but a signal that the full-blown attacks had begun. Few of us knew, though, the enormous effect that the Federalist Society would have. Our absurd way of replacing SCOTUS judges is a very weak link that was ripe for exploitation.
As Robert keeps periodically saying, we MUST expand the Supreme Court. But it should be done, IMO, in a way that is sustainable for decades. Otherwise we're just creating more chaos and fertile soil for more revolution 5–15 years hence. Also, Democratic politicians will only go for an expansion that's done in the most reasonable and defensible way. I believe that is the approach that must now be created.
Tie expansion of the court to the number of circuit courts, and possibly even require that each circuit court produces one SCOTUS justice from within their region. It's not like there is a dearth of wonderful candidates all across the country. Plus, of course, there should be term limits. Life time appointments are for royalty.
A key fact here is that Biden can currently put forth a nominee and only the Senate needs to approve that person (by 51 votes) for them to join the SCOTUS. Any more complex revisions of the Court require passage of a bill that gets a majority in the House (currently not doable) and 60% of Senate votes. The GOP will never allow that, without a VERY strong incentive. What could work that well? Expand the Court NOW!
A proposal I've tried (unsuccessfully, so far) to get published proposes that Biden and the Dems in the Senate work out an agreement like this: Two seats were stolen by the GOP in 2016-2020, and therefore 2 new Biden justices would be promptly nominated, and approved in the Senate.
SIMULTANEOUSLY, a Constitutional Amendment would be proposed that, if it were eventually passed and ratified, would permanently return the Court to 9 members. At that point, it would call for the longest serving justice - Thomas - to go off the newly expanded Court, along with 1 of the newest (Biden) justices. The amendment would also have clauses for age limits, term limits (18 years), and a code of ethics - solving those problems as well. I believe most Americans would see the amendment as imminently better than what we have been doing in recent decades.
Until that amendment was fully approved, there would be 2 Biden appointees on the Court, AND the possibility that he and the Dems might add more (as long as they control the WH and Senate). Great pressure would be on the GOP, both nationally and in statehouses, to support this fair and more sensible path forward. If they don't, a lot more decisions would probably be 6-5 against the originalists. And voters who want the SCOTUS messes fixed might be more inclined to keep the Senate Blue in '24 and '26. Also, Roberts et al would get a hug wake-up.
In summary, this would:
a) Fairly remedy the stolen seats NOW, a big inspiration to Dems.
b) Put forward a wise plan (amendment) to fix multiple longstanding Court problems.
c) Show that the Dems are fine with returning to a 9-member Court permanently (i.e. what most Americans are afraid to give up), IF it will be based on much better principles.
d) Allow Biden if re-elected, to appoint a justice every 2 years once the amendment passed.
e) Motivate the GOP to support this, if they don't want to lose even more Independent votes.
IMHO, the Roberts court is illegitimate. Its legitimacy died when Mitch McConnell refused act as prescribed in the Constitution to provide Advice and Consent wrt President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. The Court further lost legitimacy when a illegitimate president, elected with the assitance of a foreign enemy, appointed three justices to the court. Accordingly, any and all 6 Republican appointed justices v. 3 Democratic appointed justices rulings are illegitimate.
My hope is that these egregious decisions will drive voters to the polls so eventually future courts will undue these contrived decisions.
The court's legitimacy cracked when they stepped in and over-ruled the state Supreme Court of Florida on the topic of what Florida's state constitution allowed in regard to election recounts, preserving the count at the point where Roger Stone's thugs physically interrupted it, in order to appoint George W Bush President of the US in 2000. That same GWB then appointed both Roberts and Alito.
Andrew S Bermant - I agree with you. However, it may take a looong time to achieve the reversals of this politically armed Court majority. I'm guessing 30 years? 40 years? I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. 😔
Sharon, if we work together toward Nancy Cochran's "MASSIVE turnout for every election, from Local to State to National," I have hope we can accomplish our goal sooner than later!😀
What happens when Lorie Smith proclaims that her religion prevents her from creating a website for couples like my wife and me, where one partner is Christian (at least, by birth) and the other is Jewish? Or when she declares that she will not design a site for two Jews, because we have been condemned to eternal damnation? Or that she won’t work for a mixed-race couple?
As for the student loan case, it is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats. Many people oppose forgiving student loans for reasons unrelated to racism. Now we have another issue to campaign against the court on, one that will not galvanize the other side so much.
I'd like to hear what the court would have to say if an evangelical Protestant (which I think Lorie is) refused to create a site for a Catholic couple? Because, you know, the Thirty Years War and all that.
Yes, a slippery slope indeed, this majority's tortured logic. I wrote a a comment here with the hope that sound legal opponents may start using the majority's weak opinions against them. It just might work.
Jon - Exactly. While this Christian Court enables religious rule, our school boards have been subject to a stealth takeover campaign - even in here in blue California. Citizens advised by a church in a city nearby this town apparently ran a "stealth" campaign in coordywith this pastor, grabbed the majority on a School Board, and the first thing they did was to declare that there would be no teaching of CRT in Temecula schools (not that that is a real issue.) It is not being taught in Temecula. They are throwing the educational budget $ to hire lawyers friendly to them. They've coordinated privately (in blatant disregard of the Brown Act here), fired a greatly admired Superintendent of Schools, because she would not work with their agenda. Going forward, when they hire a new Super, it is my belief that the Board will be able to fire teachers. I'm sure the teachers are terrified, and trying to figure out how to appease this new politically-motivated School Board. At least the Board meetings are public, and our Gov. Gavin Newsom got wind of their Board leader saying something egregious recently (I forget just now what he said publicly , but it was either racist or not espousing diversity). I'm sure you can google this.) This has roiled up the community, who had been content with the award-winning school district as it had been run by the previous Superintendent. There is a pastor at a church in the area (not even in this school district) that these three new Board Members are seen with a lot. It appears that this area has been taken over by Christian Nationalists, and we are seeing the slow-motion destruction of the District. I don't want to mislead you - there is a large cohort of citizens that want this. I guess we'll find out at the next election if their voters are truly the majority here. 😔
Robert Hubbell’s fine righteous anger is fully justified by the several decisions this week of a renegade Supreme Court. He has used a perfect, if somewhat old-fashioned word--“reactionary”--to describe their behavior, one barely disguised by flimsy pseudo-legal rhetoric. That the SCOTUS term has ended gives the sane and sentient majority the time to absorb just how serious a blow the Court has struck against the liberties of us all--of whatever ethnicity or sexual orientation. My innate optimism allows me to hope that the astounding extremism these decisions collectively represent will evoke a might wave of anger and activism between now and November 2024. These six “Justices” have declared war on virtually the entire nation. We must, in response, take up arms against the sea of troubles these mendacious rulings have created. This Court is the product of the clever machinations of a deranged minority. We the majority must fight them with every tool at our disposal. To quote Goethe, “There is nothing the rabble fear more than intelligence.” We, the rational and reasonable majority, should not fear the open conflict needed to defeat the forces of darkness.
Like especially: My innate optimism allows me to hope that the astounding extremism these decisions collectively represent will evoke a might wave of anger and activism between now and November 2024
Sharon -- I am frequently tagged with that word "optimism"--a label I reject. Like most pessimists, we "optimists" are in fact making our best estimate as to future "reality" and expect to have subsequent events confirm our view. Even today, after a week of hair-curling decisions by Scotus, there is a sound basis for expecting a profound NEGATIVE reaction among a growing swath of voters to this renegade Court, one that will be expressed in future elections. Our party may be led by an 80-year old with some physical limitations, who makes the occasional verbal slip. Their party is led by a self-confessed demagogue facing multiple criminal indictments, with still more serious ones looming in the near future. The leading GOP challenger to that defendant is a self-proclaimed bigot devoid of even the weird personal appeal that Trump seemingly has for a large chunk of the electorate--but a MINORITY. We have to talk, march and most of all VOTE in order to expose these charlatans for the anti-democratic frauds that they are. P.S. My wife gently chides me for seeing the glass not as half-full, but as three-quarters full. I respond, "You're right about me. But I expect to be proved right about the future." We just have to remain focused and determined.
Wait, wait! "Our party may be led by an" extremely intelligent "80-year old with some" minor "physical limitations" but who is trim and exercises regularly, "who makes the occasional verbal slip" but is far more verbally nimble than a majority of Americans, is well educated and has a vast reserve of political experience and personal self control. "Their party is led by a" narcissistic man only three years younger, florid and overweight whose idea of exercise is riding a golf cart between holes, who may in fact display some physical limitations but which are difficult to distinguish from his juvenile antics of mockery and insult, whose spontaneous language production involves the word salad of incomplete thought, non sequiturs, and perseveration relieved only by being easily distractible, who is on record as not doing well during his formal education and who doesn't have much prior political experience, whose successes in life were primarily achieved originally through family influence and subsequently through cheating and law breaking and being a "self-confessed demagogue facing multiple criminal indictments, with still more serious ones looming in the near future". There; I just felt the comparison needed a bit added.
Sharon — Thank you for your kind words. I actually have a podcast! It’s called “Who the F*** Is Roger Smith?” and can be accessed on Apple, Spotify etc. and by going to www.rogersmithpodcast.com. You will find both verbal recordings and written essays by me. It’s full of optimism—that I expect will be proven right!
Very well said, Mr. Hubbell - you expressed what many feel - I’m hoping Justice John Roberts gets wind of your truthful, sincere criticism - we appreciate you!!
Hi All. Thanks for the wonderful comments. The trolls have found the open Comments section and have started posting, so I am locking down the comments to paid subscribers. I am very sorry about this situation, but do not want to subject my readers to bad-faith and upsetting comments. I have removed the offending posts that I found. Let me know if I missed any.
How the heck do the trolls even find your newsletter?? <sigh> I hope you are able to enjoy some time off!
People forward the newsletter or post it on Facebook. Someone's "Uncle Fred" sees it and becomes incensed. They then try to start a Twitter-fight in the Comments section.
That's sad ....
Thanks for checking in and culling the trolls… now back to your long weekend!
Bless you. Despise the trolls. There is a place for them all in the bell realm.
Enjoy a day off.
Thank you!
If SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction in those cases, maybe people can refuse to abide by its fiats and real cases can be brought to the court. If the decisions are not lawful, they don’t apply. The short answer is we need civil disobedience and a lot of it. If SCOTUS persists they bring on more civil disobedience.
Yes, it is time to go read Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience and stand up for Justice. There is a time and place for civil disobedience like here and now.. The People united shall never be defeated! My favorite song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8UGs0rdhq8
Thank you Robert Hubbell, and this community, for confirming and clarifying the truth -- the cruelty -- of this atrocious unsupreme court decision and renegade court, and for joining together in solidarity.
Onward with Civil Disobedience!
In addition, grassroots activism -- MASSIVE turnout for every election, from Local to State to National.
Onward for Justice.
Like: "MASSIVE turnout for every election, from Local to State"
It was a Substack comment (trying now to recall author to credit attribution) advocating for MASSIVE turnout, that I took the liberty to borrow, while writing Postcards To Voters & Vote Forward letters to Voters, to vote NO for Ballot Issue 1, and protect womens Freedom of Choice, against the mischief of the Dobbs decision.
I hope everyone read the comment from a reader yesterday explaining that the cost of postcards has gone up as well as the cost of postcard stamps. It's going to be 51 cents to send one postcard after July 9th. Buy stamps now!!!
Re:Civil disobedience: see massive nationwide protests in France because a policeman shot and killed one teenager. Such everyday US behavior is considered unacceptable to the French and they make it clear to the authorities.
Melinda Lecomte,
Indeed, the French are holding massive protests.
Police shootings are unacceptable to most of us in the U.S. as well.
Regretfully — a powerful majority refuses to do anything about it.
Gun safety laws and proposals for more adequate training for Police and for gun safety legislation are perpetually voted down. By the mischief of Trump-appointed conservative judges and Republican leaders who support the NRA.
Disheartening!
The Activate America grassroots organization is running a postcard campaign for gun safety laws.
I remember a drawing of people marching for justice. A young person sighs, "How long do we have to keep doing this?" An older woman replies, "As long as it takes. I've been at it for 36 years so far."
Well, I've been at it since before seeing that drawing during the war on Viet Nam. All the progress we made, and now we live in a country turning more and more toward bigotry. This horrible, fascist, power-worshipping, constitution-despising court majority has been making me sick.
But no matter how much power they grab, these fascists are a minority in this country. No matter how deeply they believe in their right to diminish others, they are plain wrong. And none of us has to stand alone.
Thank you Robert Hubbell and all the people commenting in outrage. I'll take some recovery time and then get back to writing those voter postcards.
Here's a song that helps me, Carrie Newcomer singing Lean in toward the Light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxAUmNjWaIs
Although the fascists are in the minority, we also must remember that Hitler never got more than 40% of the vote before he became the legal Chancellor and took over Germany completely.
Thank you for sharing that beautiful (and pertinent) song!
Thank you Joan!
A beautiful song, with a powerful message.
Yes, I agree. We The People have had it with this dreadful discriminatory Supremacist Court. We must take action. NOW
Cathy. Que fuerte!!!
I'm not positive, Cathy, but I'm guessing you meant the Randy Rainbow song "Donald in the John With Boxes" is your favorite. If so, it's at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zDXVw0aatQ. If I'm wrong, excuse my intrusion. Have a good day!
No, This is the Chilean Revolutionary song El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido. In English: The People United Shall Never Be Defeated. It's popularity has spread across the world and is used in many countries. I first heard it when a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard who I played chamber music with said I should go hear Stephen Drury play what the professor thought was the greatest composition of the 20th century at New England Conservatory written by Frederick Rzewski. The piano work has 36 variations on this song as the theme. Each set of six variations represents the five fingers of the hand with the sixth being the combination of the five representing the closed fist. It is an amazing piece that starts with the naivity of the young rebels and goes through battles, the frozen feeling of witnessing the death of a colleague and then finally at the end the theme comes back with the experience of war but also the hope and determination for the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWyc-fKM2Wc starting at 10:20. In this time I listen to it frequently. We, the People, all of us united this time!
OK, Now that I went and listened to it I see you're having some fun! Unfortunately, the subject just makes me throw up...
C C, Ha!
Thanks.
Cathy Learoyd - I love this! Thank you for sharing this song. 💕 I want to brush off a little Pete Seeger at my next local public (pretty small) demonstration. 😊
Hi Cathy, my 'sister' living in another, shall we say, difficult state!
YES to civil disobedience, although I am not yet sure what form it will take. It is "like here and now," so I hope enough people will get on board to make a movement. Then we'll find out....
Loved the song, although my Spanish is quite rusty. I got the gist of it, and the passion from years of struggle and exploitation.
Libertad!
Let me know what you decide to do. I came up with a great name for the reactionary Injustices: the RAT pack (Roberts Alito Thomas)
First comment re the above song from 9 years ago: "Hold on, Columbia. Don't let go of the streets!" People chimed in with support and encouragement from around the globe.
There ARE more of us.
Forceful, beautiful song.
Looking East
https://youtu.be/Vqx0WxcJ1ak
Great song! Thank you!
the ol
what are you doing in jail
What are you doing out ? i'm resdy
We need judicial reform. The only way that will happen if D’s prevail in all three chambers. I’m shaken to my core.
The best defense is a powerful offense.
This is interesting https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47382#:~:text=Court%20can%20declare%20a%20law,recordings%20of%20Supreme%20Court%20proceedings.
Very informative about Supreme Court reform. Thanks!
Thank you for the link. This'll keep me busy for a while today.
Wonderful! Thank you.
Thank you for posting this Erica. Very informative.
Thank you for this. Very compelling reading.
This is the most eloquent Today's Edition since I've been a subscriber. And deservedly so. The conservatives on the Court are behaving like kids in a sandbox with their nonsense. The idea of hearing a phony case! I really like Gary S's suggestion, that people can refuse to abide by SCOTUS' fiats, and real cases can be brought to the court. And Robert, you bet I'm angry!
This one's going out to my email list of 70-plus.
I always "share" to the public on Facebook.
If I share something like this on facebook I'm lucky if five people see it.
That's five more who wouldn't have seen it!
I said I'm ***lucky if*** five people see it. And, if I email, I can count on 70 people seeing it.
Gary S. You are absolutely correct. Let’s all put on our Henry David Thoreau pants. Or, ladies might recall Alice Paul, Rosa Parks, or Jane Fonda & Gloria Steinem. It is really time to fight back with vigor.
Let's add Francis Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor, who is responsible for the New Deal.
These SCOTUS decisions in 303 Creative and in the student loan case crushed constitutional requirements for standing, bulldozed them and overrode the court's lack of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has created legal fiction at the level of The Big Lie, a hallmark of fascism. As we have been dealing with The Big Lie of election deniers, we are finally seeing recourse through our judicial system. My layperson understanding of appellate cases is that they typically are about procedural issues, not the facts of the case per se. Here, however, the 303 Creative case in particular was advanced on facts not in evidence--a "gay" man who turned out to be heterosexual--a huge procedural issue, not to mention the hypothetical issue, but there is no court of appeal after SCOTUS.
As Joyce Vance writes tonight (7/01/23), we're looking at legal conduct that adds up to fraud and perjury for which attorneys are normally sanctioned.
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/enough-with-the-court
Justice Sotomayor dissented that SCOTUS has now established the constitutional right for a business to refuse service to members of a federally protected class. LGBTQ+ now, and a slippery slope for people of color, women, senior citizens, people of different religions, etc. coming up in the pipeline as funneled by the dark moneyed Federalist Society.
The magnitude of this threat to democracy of a legally sanctioned Big Lie that is now blindsiding us from the judicial branch of our government has my hair on fire. Like Robert has been saying, expand the court! Support the Judiciary Act of 2023, "legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats to create a 13-Justice bench."
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff
Also support JustMajority.org
Exactly my first thought why doesn't Harvard just say we don't comply
Please advise me if I am mistaken, however the Court decision in 303 Creative is either contradictory to its determination in the Affirmative Action case/decision or the Conservative Justices are simply political tools and no better than the extreme right-wing politicians and wealthy cronies who entertain them. In brief, Justice Roberts contended that there is no place, however well intended, for race to be a determinative factor in the selection of college registrants. There was an implied suggestion that racism, having been addressed for so many years, has been ameliorated [by the success of affirmative action], had a positive effect on society and that the protections of the past are no longer required, making "color-blindness" the current best course in the college acceptance process. In other words, race cannot be a determinative factor in the selection process. Affirmative action is now illegal.
Then what is happening when an individual claims that her right to free speech is threatened if she is forced to do creative work on behalf of a theoretical gay couple, who theoretically come to her to ask for a theoretical cake on which will be theoretical words offensive to her personally and contrary to her beliefs. Forgetting the issues of jurisdiction and standing in this matter, the court has effectively found in favor of what I call "Affirmative Prejudice". Is she not "selecting" a unique population and denying them their equal rights. The court has decided anyone now has right to not transact with anybody of their choosing. What if the baker were anti-semitic or a racist. Would then she be able to turn away Jews and Blacks, then Hispanics, then Asians, boys in sandals and girls with bare midriffs? It then follows she would be legally permitted to conduct her business with greater specificity - "I bake for only MAGA Extreme Right-Wing Republican White Christian Gun Owning Anti-Abortionists. She has been given the right with no standing that was taken away from Harvard and UNC for attempting to bring diversity to their campuses.
Excellent article, Robert; and bravo to you, David:
This is yet another blow to what heretofore been a requirement, “standing”. The Court sees itself free to give advisory opinions. They have freed themselves to render theoretical opinions on how they believe things “ought to be”. The unintended consequences seem infinite.
Worse, and a logical outfall from ‘303’, is the reinstatement of “separate but equal”, a monstrous and dangerous genie in a bottle.
It’s so very rich that these extremist judges all refused to answer any questions about a “theoretical case” during their confirmation hearings, yet are okay with ruling on a “theoretical case” once they’re on the Supreme Court. It truly is a Sham Supreme Court.
Oooo... Good point! I had missed this particular bit of irony, but Yes! They are immune to shame and blind to (their own) hypocrisy.
100% agree. Total slippery slope straight to discrimination on all fronts. Plain as day.
Frightening comment, when you put it that way hungry people could be denied purchasing food for any reason at all.
The John Roberts gang would see that as a positive feature: hungry people will work in poor conditions for low wages.
They miss the good ole days when the right sort of person could own a 3/5 person outright. If only the little people would stop claiming that they have rights which must be respected!
John Roberts and his gang consistently find in favor of the right to discriminate in favor of white right-wing Christians and against anyone else, to help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Exceptions may apply, mainly to preserve his own power.
303 Creative having now effectively posted such a sign, it will be interesting to see how Ms. Smith's business develops over the next few months and years. I've sometimes thought that the most effective solution to the problem of discriminatory businesses is to publicize their discrimination and let the forces of the market determine their fate. It would be nice to believe that they'd fail in short order but I'm no longer confident of that.
The Court would have been on much firmer ground had they decided that all discrimination was unconstitutional, including discrimination against non-legacy applicants to Harvard, non-athletic recruits to UNC, and others similarly situated. That, it seems to me, is the indisputable intent of the ideal of equal protection under the law.
In a practical sense, however, I don't understand why anyone would want to 'force' a creative person to use their creativity on one's behalf. As with forcing a surgeon to perform and operation, the potential for an adverse outcome not demonstrably under the control of the party being coerced is much greater than any benefit that might accrue. It's a larger and more serious application of the old joke about two servers watching a customer take a bite and one says to the other "He ate it", laughing hysterically.
Excellent comment, David!
Thanks.
Like the term "Affirmative Prejudice"! Just came up with another neat Acronym -- "Affirmative Prejudice from the RAT pack (Roberts Alito Thomas)".
Well said, David.
BRILLIANT!
I love the way you think! Brilliant analysis!
I’m also so angry I just keep rereading these decisions in disbelief! Senator Whitehouse is vindicated. IT IS FOLLOW THE MONEY! Courtzilla has arrived! I agree with Gary S. These cases do not have standing, unless the 6 allowing it are standing on their heads! I would continue as if so and let the Court try to stop them. Biden should continue his relief program, just call it something else or change the sums a bit. Over and over. Colleges can create avenues to admit minority students if they choose. Any business that attempts to follow the path of that fantasy biz in Colorado should be sued pro bono immediately, over and over. I believe that there are sharper minds out there than these 6 pretenders. It appears racism is their true religion. And their God is a cruel one. Let’s not vote for that God. Vote for the millions hurt by these decisions of this feckless Courtzilla .
Good points. The SCROTUM has been clearly bought off. They reek with fraud. These decisions should be ignored.
Please, don't conflate a vital part of every male's body with this court. Or, more generally, don't use the names of body parts, male OR female, as epithets.
"feckless Courtzilla" 👏 Cruelty is point.
Bravo,Diane!
Diane. My former boss used to say “The Process is the Process”. You’ve opened an idea that says, “Hey Court, here’s a new case to deal with. Its all legal until you guys tell me its not”
Flood the Zone with Progress, let the citizens vote for those who provide positive change
I'm surprised the John Roberts Christian Nationalist majority on the Supreme Court is still bothering to play the part of serious judges. Most of America knows they've made a mockery of the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Their opinions are contorted and their arguments are ridiculous.
Come on, Justice Roberts. You can save so much time. Just have the author write a one or two paragraph opinion containing the bottom line that we all know you've already decided before the case was even presented. Your base and your rich Federalist Society masters will be just as happy either way.
Because the Republican majority producing a long, illogical, unconstitutional, embarrassingly transparent "argument" in service of dragging America back to the dark ages, is as useless as Justice Roberts continuing to chide people for disparaging his court's antediluvian opinions, lest those criticisms "damage" the credibility of the Supreme Court. So feel free to start issuing brief, "CliffsNotes" style opinions and save everyone a lot of time.
By the way, Justice Roberts. No need to worry about your court's credibility being damaged by the criticism of outsiders. You and the fascist five have done that take down all on your own.
Thank you. You are eloquent. These are unthinkable times.
Thank you very much, Sharon. "Unthinkable" says it all.
Horrifying.
Just saying, if I had suggested in my Federal Procedural class in my second year of law school ( in the mid 70’s) that the Supreme Court or indeed any appellate court had jurisdiction to consider a case that had not exhausted it’s judicial appeal rights before appealing to the highest judicial authority of the nation, I would have flunked the class! Here, the complainant has yet to allege a real harm. How many other lawyers find themselves wondering what their legal education was really worth. The fight goes on but geez, I am grateful to be a retired litigator.
Jim, I was a middle school teacher and know next to nothing about the law, so I'm glad to learn that my confusion was warranted. I can't understand how this case skipped to the top like this. If others can elucidate, I would be most grateful.
Republicans, from the Supreme Court justices to the party elite, game these cases out. For example, look at how they took over the Court, from refusing to do their Constitutional duty of providing Advice and Counsel on Prescient Obama's Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to appointing a religious zealot in a single federal judge district with an ultra-conservative appeals court to facilitate the end the sale of the mifepristone, better known as the abortion pill.
This isn't jurisprudence. It is manipulation and insurrection.
I can only click "like" once so I'm going to add it here: Five likes and a "hell yeah".
Andrew, is expanding the court the only way to get some fair play? Some real jurisprudence? Do you see an expansion of the court as a possibility in the near future?
Robert, I am angry as hell. SCROTUS* has just given everyone the right to deny me anything they want to because of their religious beliefs. If I were to turn around and refuse service to a Christian couple, they would cry "discrimination" and demand "justice". Well, so do I.
*I have added the "R" into the abbreviation for SCOTUS to designate that it represents the RepubliQan party. I also have a very junior high part of my brain. That part of my brain revels in comparing the 6 (of the 6-3 votes we are being served without salt) to a particular part of the male anatomy where the family jewels reside.
The particular males you're talking about, Ally, obviously have no "jewels."
As a manager I was once pressuring another manager to commit to a rather aggressive product development schedule. He finally said, "Cathy, please don't cut off my balls!" I quipped in reply, "Don't worry, I've never needed any."
I laughed out loud.
Your a tough lady
😂😂
Correct--they are Federalist Society puppets, and puppets have no balls. Lenny Leo is pulling the strings and they obey like good little legal zombies. Outrageous. Yes! to civil disobedience.
You could add the entire rethug party to the ‘no jewels’ club.
Perfect, Ally! SCROTUS it shall be henceforth.
I can’t edit my comment from my phone. This is just to add that I’ll probably alternate SCROTUS with Extreme Court, which is what I’ve been calling it.
Ally,
My husband and I were talking about just this point this morning. What if a business refused to serve Maga Republicans? or Evangelicals? What if a college refused to admit Jews? or Catholics? It seems that if any other group is substituted for Black or LGBTQ, it would be obvious that the college or business was discriminating. I fear that only Evangelical Christians have any rights in 2023 America.
Frankly, I fear for our country, our democracy. Period.
Same, Hermine.
I use SCROTUMS* - the M standing for Minority.
Question: What if a majority of the votes for a controversial Supreme Court decision came from its women members, and they were repeatedly called "The Boobs" on FOX News. Any objections??
Men don't like having our anatomy turned into insults any more than women do. I urge folks not to start that.
IMO, it's this kind of language mistake that periodically has amounted to the Left shooting itself in the foot. The fun of being outrageous can overtake our awareness of the need to keep our tent large and welcoming.
Thanks for hearing me out!
Even better
With you 1000%, Ally.
"If I were to turn around and refuse service to a Christian couple, they would cry 'discrimination' and demand 'justice'."
Ally, this is the next logical step. In fact, this week the NY Times published an article titled "Religious Freedom Arguments Underpin Wave of Challenges to Abortion Bans." Here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/health/abortion-religious-freedom.html
Republicans have spent the last 40 years gaming out how to control the Supreme Court. It is now time for Democrats and Independents to do the same. Hopefully the tide will turn and and the egregious rulings of the Roberts' Court will be sucked out to sea like the flotsam that they are.
I wish people would not use the names of body parts, male or female, as epithets.
So do I, David. It really isn't in my ordinary vernacular. I make an occasional exception, especially when it is called for. Or my junior high brain takes over.
Posted elsewhere (thanks for the correction on the state-ownedness of the corp, TCinLA). Worth repeating because the decision on standing is even more dishonest than it looks.
A friend asked me about standing of the plaintiff/appellants in the Student Loan case. The court found the State of Missouri had standing. I got curious as to how, and read the opinion.
In the student loan cases the court decided that Missouri had standing because a state owned non-profit corporation could be affected by the loan forgiveness. Not HAD BEEN affected. Might be. This turns out not to have been true--the entity, actually private--refused to be involved. But the court found that what it would lose were fees paid by the Federal government for administering federal loans. It naturally loses those fees when the loan is paid off. So the non-profit, through administration, got fees for loans it didn’t actually make, and thus made money. It would lose that money if someone, like the government or an inheritance from great aunt Sally paid off the loan.
Basically, the claim is for lost profits by a non-profit—it wouldn’t have to spend any money to administer loans that no longer existed. So why should it get the fees?
But wait—it isn’t the non-profit who is suing, which of course as a corporation it could. Picky Picky said the court. The state itself will lose money if its non-profit doesn’t get the fees it no longer has the requirement to do any work to earn. So falsely says the court.
So the harm Missouri will suffer is someone else not-getting fees for loans it doesn’t have to administer—when it doesn’t EARN the fees unless it administers a loan. Color me naïve, but that sounds rather speculative. Let’s hope Missouri doesn’t try to sue Great Aunt Sally’s estate. It loses fees when her estate pays off the loan, too.
There is apparently some state right to earnings for work it doesn’t have to do.
The GOP forces keep asking the supremes for basically advisory opinions. The very FIRST rejection of advisory opinions was the court squelching George Washington’s request for one. So much for an originalist court.
Watch out for the Mifepristone case. Standing is at its very heart.
Exactly; this is the nub of the lie: : So the harm Missouri will suffer is someone else not-getting fees for loans it doesn’t have to administer—when it doesn’t EARN the fees unless it administers a loan. Color me naïve, but that sounds rather speculative.
🤯
Thanks again for a most eloquent summary of the Extreme Court's deceitful explanations, and the ugly results.
Please enjoy your day off, maybe take a few more. Glad to hear you have other activities to give you a break from the craziness, and to recharge your batteries. Health and rest to you, from a grateful reader.
The Supreme court reactionary, radical majority is entitled to no legal respect. The Court has gone where no Supreme Court has gone before: acting as a legislative body and not a Court issuing decisions in real cases or controversies. In acting outside of its jurisdiction under the Constitution, the Court’s legislative pronouncements are not entitled to any legal effect and can be ignored due to absence of es which we can ignore. i standing by the plaintiffs. In the absence of Constitutional jurisdiction the court’s pronouncements are mere opinions of politicians in black robes. As such they have denied legitimacy to their attempts at legislating. Roberts’s and Gorsuch have issued unenforceable nullities. Attorney general Garland should issue an opinion confirming that the legislative pronouncements on student debt relief and imaginary website designers work are not law and can be ignored.
I agree that if the Court's decisions are unconstitutional, then they should be ignored, and the DOJ should say so. Any suggestions for how to put pressure on the DOJ to ensure that this happens?
Write to Garland! If enough of us write to him, that should get his attention.
Contact Page for DOJ!
https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
THank you! I've sent a letter to him, and hope MANY OTHERS will do likewise!
I'll do it.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, conservatives complained loudly and repeatedly about the Warren Court supposedly “legislating from the bench”. Well, now – the Roberts Court has given us real-life instances of actually legislating from the bench !
And with tortured “logic”.
The Sophistical Court.
Could Milquetoast Garland actually do that? Intriguing . . .
I agree wholeheartedly.
Now that the radical majority has dropped any pretense of normal and fair judicial analysis, one has to wonder what's next? How far will those justices go to turn the U.S. into a place where long-fought-for rights are arbitrarily scrapped? I fear they're just getting started.
I think their agenda is as follows: The right to contraception (Griswold) and then same-sex marriage (Obergefell). That is what Justice Thomas wrote earlier this week.
I agree, Robert. And erasing further rights as required.
I don’t believe they’re a majority... they’re a minority... 3 of them appointed by an impeached, indicted, corrupt and criminal ex president.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should be renamed The Extreme Court. The facts as given here are astounding. Shouldn't the ruling be declared null and void since it was based on a trumped up charge in effect. Unfortunately there is no higher court to appeal too, which shows a weak link in the system. These people have unlimited power which is a very dangerous thing when you have people who are political animals and heavily biased from an ultra conservative perspective. Same with all the luxrative gifts to some of them and sham fees to family members. They did make a couple of fair decisions recently but I think that's because they knew they were becoming severely disrespected. But now it; it's back to business as usual. - a powerful extension of the Republican Party.
A meme is going around that says "I've had burritos more supreme than this court."
Funny! There's certainly nothing superior about these people/ How about The Inferior Court of The United States
But Robert, that’s what they do. They give a little and then they dangle a carrot but lo and behold, they snatch the carrot away. I despise the Catholic Six! My apologies to anyone who is Catholic but these religious fanatics are eating at our gut.
I am a recovering Catholic, and no apologies needed, Marlene. This religious cult deserves all of our push-back for its evil teachings.
Yes, it is unfortunate, Marlene and Sheila. I know there are good religious people that devote their entire lives to the service of others. They are humble and not at all materialistic, But the adoption of a given religion doesn't automatically make for a good person. Then there are those that use their religious beliefs to justify intolerance and exclusion. They are the hypocrites. If hypocrisy had a oder you would smell them a mile away.
I’ve been labeling it the Extreme Court for a long time.
Perfectly understandable, Jon, they pose in their black robes as distinguished elder statesmen, but in reality they are extremely flawed MAGA Republicans with extremely biased viewpoints. They had no problem allowing the States to pass draconian cruel legislation forcing women to carry a fertilized egg to full term no matter what hardship, physically, mentally and/or economically jt might cause them. By the way when they say for the states y to decide, it means the state legislatures, who are of the same frame of mind, not the people in the state which statistics show even in red states a fair number do not agree with total
abortion bans. These are the same legislature that persecute anyone not fitting their idea of straight white anglo saxon decent and preferably Christians. Hmmm . . . reminds me of a group in Germany in the 30's that thought exactly the same way. .
You observe that it's "a very dangerous thing". Indeed! It's actually surprising that it's taken 230 years for this flaw in our system to reveal itself in such stark relief. Have we just been lucky that only now have so many students who wound up failing to grasp even the most basic lessons from their government and law school classes ended up becoming Supreme Court justices? I mean, these jokers could have decided to become politicians, but instead they decided to become judges. Since it's been clear all along that the only people with absolute power in the US are Supreme Court justices, why have we been relatively lucky for so many years? Is the Federalist Society or something like that the force that has recently convinced such ideologues that being a Supreme Court justice ultimately makes you far more powerful here than being a mere politician? Seriously; I have no idea why this hasn't happened long before now. Then there's the matter of what we can do about it...
I keep wishing I could scream from the rooftops: "PEOPLE, A REVOLUTION IS HAPPENING IN AMERICA!!! Few shots are being fired, but it's a true revolution nonetheless."
Revolutionaries will do anything and everything to accomplish their ends. Lying, manipulation, disinformation, intimidation, scapegoating, gaslighting, violence, dog-whistles, legal challenges, investigations, stealing elections, voter suppression, ...... you name it.
They don't have long, are afraid of losing momentum, and thus quickly do a lot of destroying. The more they destroy, the more some of their opponents get demoralized. They have faith that, once their enemies have been defeated, a new & improved version of the country will be established by "their leaders". THEIR job, though, is to break down the old order. And in a reactionary revolution, wealthy right wingers make sure that funding is never an issue.
Having a mother who was a member of the John Birch Society, and growing up in Alabama, I know very well the intense bitterness that's been brewing on the far right for 70 years. They "deeply dislike" liberals, socialists, the federal government, immigrants, and most people who aren't Christian. Racism is also prevalent.
In the revolution , first came Reagan's "the government is the problem", then Gingrich's firebrand style, then the Tea Party, and finally Trump. Throughout that, right wing, well-funded organizations have been analyzing and planning dozens of strategies, knowing that some might eventually work. To me, Trump was just the starting gun for the latest round, but a signal that the full-blown attacks had begun. Few of us knew, though, the enormous effect that the Federalist Society would have. Our absurd way of replacing SCOTUS judges is a very weak link that was ripe for exploitation.
As Robert keeps periodically saying, we MUST expand the Supreme Court. But it should be done, IMO, in a way that is sustainable for decades. Otherwise we're just creating more chaos and fertile soil for more revolution 5–15 years hence. Also, Democratic politicians will only go for an expansion that's done in the most reasonable and defensible way. I believe that is the approach that must now be created.
Tie expansion of the court to the number of circuit courts, and possibly even require that each circuit court produces one SCOTUS justice from within their region. It's not like there is a dearth of wonderful candidates all across the country. Plus, of course, there should be term limits. Life time appointments are for royalty.
A key fact here is that Biden can currently put forth a nominee and only the Senate needs to approve that person (by 51 votes) for them to join the SCOTUS. Any more complex revisions of the Court require passage of a bill that gets a majority in the House (currently not doable) and 60% of Senate votes. The GOP will never allow that, without a VERY strong incentive. What could work that well? Expand the Court NOW!
A proposal I've tried (unsuccessfully, so far) to get published proposes that Biden and the Dems in the Senate work out an agreement like this: Two seats were stolen by the GOP in 2016-2020, and therefore 2 new Biden justices would be promptly nominated, and approved in the Senate.
SIMULTANEOUSLY, a Constitutional Amendment would be proposed that, if it were eventually passed and ratified, would permanently return the Court to 9 members. At that point, it would call for the longest serving justice - Thomas - to go off the newly expanded Court, along with 1 of the newest (Biden) justices. The amendment would also have clauses for age limits, term limits (18 years), and a code of ethics - solving those problems as well. I believe most Americans would see the amendment as imminently better than what we have been doing in recent decades.
Until that amendment was fully approved, there would be 2 Biden appointees on the Court, AND the possibility that he and the Dems might add more (as long as they control the WH and Senate). Great pressure would be on the GOP, both nationally and in statehouses, to support this fair and more sensible path forward. If they don't, a lot more decisions would probably be 6-5 against the originalists. And voters who want the SCOTUS messes fixed might be more inclined to keep the Senate Blue in '24 and '26. Also, Roberts et al would get a hug wake-up.
In summary, this would:
a) Fairly remedy the stolen seats NOW, a big inspiration to Dems.
b) Put forward a wise plan (amendment) to fix multiple longstanding Court problems.
c) Show that the Dems are fine with returning to a 9-member Court permanently (i.e. what most Americans are afraid to give up), IF it will be based on much better principles.
d) Allow Biden if re-elected, to appoint a justice every 2 years once the amendment passed.
e) Motivate the GOP to support this, if they don't want to lose even more Independent votes.
Any ideas. folks, on how to make this a reality?
I think there were other subtle reasons for the "fair" decisions and am awaiting further developments. Don't applaud quite yet.
IMHO, the Roberts court is illegitimate. Its legitimacy died when Mitch McConnell refused act as prescribed in the Constitution to provide Advice and Consent wrt President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. The Court further lost legitimacy when a illegitimate president, elected with the assitance of a foreign enemy, appointed three justices to the court. Accordingly, any and all 6 Republican appointed justices v. 3 Democratic appointed justices rulings are illegitimate.
My hope is that these egregious decisions will drive voters to the polls so eventually future courts will undue these contrived decisions.
The court's legitimacy cracked when they stepped in and over-ruled the state Supreme Court of Florida on the topic of what Florida's state constitution allowed in regard to election recounts, preserving the count at the point where Roger Stone's thugs physically interrupted it, in order to appoint George W Bush President of the US in 2000. That same GWB then appointed both Roberts and Alito.
I so wish Gore had fought against that move.
Andrew S Bermant - I agree with you. However, it may take a looong time to achieve the reversals of this politically armed Court majority. I'm guessing 30 years? 40 years? I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. 😔
Sharon, if we work together toward Nancy Cochran's "MASSIVE turnout for every election, from Local to State to National," I have hope we can accomplish our goal sooner than later!😀
What happens when Lorie Smith proclaims that her religion prevents her from creating a website for couples like my wife and me, where one partner is Christian (at least, by birth) and the other is Jewish? Or when she declares that she will not design a site for two Jews, because we have been condemned to eternal damnation? Or that she won’t work for a mixed-race couple?
As for the student loan case, it is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats. Many people oppose forgiving student loans for reasons unrelated to racism. Now we have another issue to campaign against the court on, one that will not galvanize the other side so much.
I'd like to hear what the court would have to say if an evangelical Protestant (which I think Lorie is) refused to create a site for a Catholic couple? Because, you know, the Thirty Years War and all that.
Or because Biden is Catholic.
Yes, a slippery slope indeed, this majority's tortured logic. I wrote a a comment here with the hope that sound legal opponents may start using the majority's weak opinions against them. It just might work.
Jon - Exactly. While this Christian Court enables religious rule, our school boards have been subject to a stealth takeover campaign - even in here in blue California. Citizens advised by a church in a city nearby this town apparently ran a "stealth" campaign in coordywith this pastor, grabbed the majority on a School Board, and the first thing they did was to declare that there would be no teaching of CRT in Temecula schools (not that that is a real issue.) It is not being taught in Temecula. They are throwing the educational budget $ to hire lawyers friendly to them. They've coordinated privately (in blatant disregard of the Brown Act here), fired a greatly admired Superintendent of Schools, because she would not work with their agenda. Going forward, when they hire a new Super, it is my belief that the Board will be able to fire teachers. I'm sure the teachers are terrified, and trying to figure out how to appease this new politically-motivated School Board. At least the Board meetings are public, and our Gov. Gavin Newsom got wind of their Board leader saying something egregious recently (I forget just now what he said publicly , but it was either racist or not espousing diversity). I'm sure you can google this.) This has roiled up the community, who had been content with the award-winning school district as it had been run by the previous Superintendent. There is a pastor at a church in the area (not even in this school district) that these three new Board Members are seen with a lot. It appears that this area has been taken over by Christian Nationalists, and we are seeing the slow-motion destruction of the District. I don't want to mislead you - there is a large cohort of citizens that want this. I guess we'll find out at the next election if their voters are truly the majority here. 😔
You've stated the key to the situation, Sharon--the next election. Now the people of the district have been warned. They can act to retrieve things.
I wish more people could see the rousing up of the people in this area. I hope it gets a more involved votership. People here are working hard.
Robert Hubbell’s fine righteous anger is fully justified by the several decisions this week of a renegade Supreme Court. He has used a perfect, if somewhat old-fashioned word--“reactionary”--to describe their behavior, one barely disguised by flimsy pseudo-legal rhetoric. That the SCOTUS term has ended gives the sane and sentient majority the time to absorb just how serious a blow the Court has struck against the liberties of us all--of whatever ethnicity or sexual orientation. My innate optimism allows me to hope that the astounding extremism these decisions collectively represent will evoke a might wave of anger and activism between now and November 2024. These six “Justices” have declared war on virtually the entire nation. We must, in response, take up arms against the sea of troubles these mendacious rulings have created. This Court is the product of the clever machinations of a deranged minority. We the majority must fight them with every tool at our disposal. To quote Goethe, “There is nothing the rabble fear more than intelligence.” We, the rational and reasonable majority, should not fear the open conflict needed to defeat the forces of darkness.
Like especially: My innate optimism allows me to hope that the astounding extremism these decisions collectively represent will evoke a might wave of anger and activism between now and November 2024
Yes- though I don’t agree the word “reactionary” is at all outdated or “old-fashioned.” I think it’s perfectly suited for the times.
Roger R Smith - I really want to have your optimism.
Sharon -- I am frequently tagged with that word "optimism"--a label I reject. Like most pessimists, we "optimists" are in fact making our best estimate as to future "reality" and expect to have subsequent events confirm our view. Even today, after a week of hair-curling decisions by Scotus, there is a sound basis for expecting a profound NEGATIVE reaction among a growing swath of voters to this renegade Court, one that will be expressed in future elections. Our party may be led by an 80-year old with some physical limitations, who makes the occasional verbal slip. Their party is led by a self-confessed demagogue facing multiple criminal indictments, with still more serious ones looming in the near future. The leading GOP challenger to that defendant is a self-proclaimed bigot devoid of even the weird personal appeal that Trump seemingly has for a large chunk of the electorate--but a MINORITY. We have to talk, march and most of all VOTE in order to expose these charlatans for the anti-democratic frauds that they are. P.S. My wife gently chides me for seeing the glass not as half-full, but as three-quarters full. I respond, "You're right about me. But I expect to be proved right about the future." We just have to remain focused and determined.
Wait, wait! "Our party may be led by an" extremely intelligent "80-year old with some" minor "physical limitations" but who is trim and exercises regularly, "who makes the occasional verbal slip" but is far more verbally nimble than a majority of Americans, is well educated and has a vast reserve of political experience and personal self control. "Their party is led by a" narcissistic man only three years younger, florid and overweight whose idea of exercise is riding a golf cart between holes, who may in fact display some physical limitations but which are difficult to distinguish from his juvenile antics of mockery and insult, whose spontaneous language production involves the word salad of incomplete thought, non sequiturs, and perseveration relieved only by being easily distractible, who is on record as not doing well during his formal education and who doesn't have much prior political experience, whose successes in life were primarily achieved originally through family influence and subsequently through cheating and law breaking and being a "self-confessed demagogue facing multiple criminal indictments, with still more serious ones looming in the near future". There; I just felt the comparison needed a bit added.
Roger R Smith - whatever you write, I want to read. I definitely need to feel optimistic.
Sharon — Thank you for your kind words. I actually have a podcast! It’s called “Who the F*** Is Roger Smith?” and can be accessed on Apple, Spotify etc. and by going to www.rogersmithpodcast.com. You will find both verbal recordings and written essays by me. It’s full of optimism—that I expect will be proven right!
Very well said, Mr. Hubbell - you expressed what many feel - I’m hoping Justice John Roberts gets wind of your truthful, sincere criticism - we appreciate you!!