419 Comments
User's avatar
Robert B. Hubbell's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Sky 777's avatar

Bless you. Despise the trolls. There is a place for them all in the bell realm.

Enjoy a day off.

Expand full comment
Cathy Learoyd (Texas)'s avatar

Thank you!

Expand full comment
Jocelyn B's avatar

How the heck do the trolls even find your newsletter?? <sigh> I hope you are able to enjoy some time off!

Expand full comment
Robert B. Hubbell's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Jocelyn B's avatar

That's sad ....

Expand full comment
Karen Cartwright's avatar

Thanks for checking in and culling the trolls… now back to your long weekend!

Expand full comment
LH's avatar

Thank you, Robert and Jill for your brilliance and steadfast guidance in the natural, and yes, also very uncomfortable uncertainty. I am thankful for so much- a safe home, my health, family, the opportunity and obligation to continue the flight for this great experiment, and so much more. And for those in the world who do not have the same, I do pray (and support where I can) for peace, justice, health, safety, and basic human rights and dignity.

Expand full comment
Patricia Ward's avatar

Most helpful article. Went and got my Constitution and read. Thanks. Hope to find a way to scream and write legislators. Thanks again. Patricia Ward

Expand full comment
Harold R Berk's avatar

For those of you who liked my comment about the Supreme Court, /I wrote a more extensive and detailed article in my Substack Newsletter at: haroldrberk.substack.com

Hw the Supreme Court is deciding cases without Constitutional Jurisdiction.

Expand full comment
Ned L's avatar

Looking at discussions of SCOTUS and its disregard for lawful procedure, I can’t help but wonder about the Warren Court and its huge impact on furthering the progressive agenda. Don’t get me wrong - I hate the abuses of the current court. But couldn’t it be said the Warren Court did the same except in favor of the Progressive agenda? Curious to know your thoughts.

Expand full comment
Sky 777's avatar

Excellent column.

I had to take a breath.....and a day.

I am furious. And I am terrified.

The SCrOTUS has gone off the rails.

I feel like Cassandra, fated to utter true prophesies but never to be believed.

It’s exhausting.

Onward through the fog.

Expand full comment
Robert Grandy's avatar

This may sound crazy, but I've been thinking that the courts need to be reimagined in a way that imitates the three branches of government. If the framers anticipated a need for protecting the government from single power corruption, we should consider creating a similar form of protection in the court system by setting up a 3 tiered judiciary. For example, at the SCOTUS, have 3 "liberal" judges make up one tier, 3 "conservatives" make up a second tier, and 3 "neutrals" or "independents" a third tier. Each tier comes to a consensus, and then the 9 combined votes become the judgement. I'm probably not smart enough to understand why this wouldn't work, but to my brain, this approach would eleminate the ability of any group to pack the court. It would also avoid the crisis of illegitimacy we're now facing, and make it nearly impossible for the courts to move the country closer to fascism.

My wife of 47 years wonders how the judges could be chosen to insure they are not corrupt liers and cheaters. How about all judges are forced to take lie detector tests every year, and face a battery of questions regarding their finances and a host of other ethical issues. After all, why would they object, unless they have something to hide. Just saying.

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

I wish that I could answer that question but there are far smarter people than I who are trying, including Robert!

Expand full comment
Kathryn Hight's avatar

Given that the plaintiff does not assert a real case or controversy, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction. i wonder what would happen if the attorney general said that and, accordingly, stated that the Administration would not treat the opinion as precedential. Boyd Hight

Expand full comment
Kiki Veranes's avatar

Mr. Hubbell loved your letter. Thank you. But what about you baby, I’m talking of Mr. Biden? He seems not to have the courage to follow you advice and confront this completely new political institution, the Supreme Court? Maybe we should vote for Dr. Cornell West?

Expand full comment
John Sherwood's avatar

It starts in the House. Contact your Representative.

Expand full comment
Ed Coleman's avatar

"This Supreme Court:

Six right wing politicians, masquerading as judges, gleefully imposing their politics on the country by fiat, and unremorsefully living lives of leisure subsidized by billionaires with interests before the court.

An outrageous scam."

- Russell Shaw, Phoenix AZ

Expand full comment
Cathy Learoyd (Texas)'s avatar

Just thought of a new acronym as I was thinking of captions for Robert Reich's Sunday caption:

"Don't the RATs (Roberts, Alito, Thomas) usually leave a sinking ship?!" Vote in 2024 so we can impeach the RATs.

Expand full comment
Jane Carr's avatar

Excellent analysis of the reasoning of this dysfunctional Supreme Court.

Expand full comment
Robert A. Galano's avatar

I’m not angrier than you (I’m not sure that’s possible), but I’m equally angry – and very, very sad.

Expand full comment
Diane Lumiere's avatar

Yes, exactly! Keep in the news and lower courts every attempt to deny equal rights to those actually following the 14th amendment’s real purpose. Eventually the perverse reading of it by this Court of Six will become common knowledge. The 3 minority Court members are not going to back down to the likes of Robert’s and his cohorts.

Expand full comment