Feb 9, 2022·edited Feb 9, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Reproductive rights and freedom is guaranteed to women by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed multiple times by Supreme Court decisions. The right to have equal access to the ballot box regardless of your race, physical capabilities, or where you reside is also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These are facts not judgements. Now, one may hold different personal views on those issues and even speak out publicly on those alternative views, that too is a right guaranteed by our U.S. Constitutions first amendment. However, that does not permit one to deny those rights to another person. This is the fundamental error in these recent SCOTUS decisions overruling lower court decisions. These SCOTUS decisions effectively say, “I disagree with rights guaranteed to you under our Constitution and your judgement on how to exercise them and therefore choose to deny you those rights.” That is both morally and legally wrong. This is not the proscribed role in our Constitution or representative democracy for the Supreme Court.
Feb 9, 2022·edited Feb 9, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Robert, Because I am deeply troubled by the High Court’s methodical evisceration of precedent, of federal safeguards that I don’t imagine will end either with the Court allowing the Texas anti-abortion statute to remain in effect or with the reinstatement of Alabama’s racially gerrymandered voting map, I, too, submit that we ensue serious discussion about expanding the Court, despite said effort possibly not succeeding.
Here I would note, some time back, that Robert Reich had suggested a promising precedent for expanding the Court. My understanding is that in 1789 five Justices and one Chief Justice were seated, each of whom presided over one of the six Federal Circuit Courts. Today, because there are thirteen Federal Circuit Courts, over which only nine Justices preside, I imagine the High Court accepts fewer cases.
Though, admittedly, my knowledge here is somewhat limited, I suspect invoking precedent both to expand the High Court and possibly add Judges to the Lower Courts is far more persuasive than basing one’s argument solely on the need to balance the Court.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, because we need Congress to expand the Court, as you stated, Senate Democrats, by a majority vote, would have to modify the filibuster—a major hurdle, to say the least. Still, I agree we need to press for a serious discussion in the Senate about increasing the size of the Court, if for no other reason than the certainty that our current battles, as troubling as they are, are but a piece of a more widespread effort to dismantle precedent and federal safeguards.
One of the best things about reading the Edition on this platform is reading comments from other readers. It’s refreshing getting additional thoughts, ideas and concerns. Thank you.
The Supreme Court in the "decisions" discussed here are really acting as if they are auditioning for their own episode of "The Handmaid's Tale". I remember when JFK was running for President. There was a lot of concern that he might allow his religious convictions to prevail. He reassured us that would not be the case.
These "judges" did the same. But they lied about this and they lied about respecting precedent. All three should be impeached. They are NOT representative of America's majority opinions relative to elections and the role of religion in society. They are extremists in the extreme. They are evangelical bigots and hacks. I just signed Jessica's Resistbot. (I do that almost every morning)
Kavanaugh s the main topic of discussion in my small circle. He is a disgrace. Roberts comes across as spineless. Thank you for articulating defense of LGBTQ+ and race discussion in primary grades, which could be coupled with a reproach to bullying behavior. that won’t stop hate speech among parents at home, but at least kids will know there are multiple valid points of view.
From our seats watching this existential drama unfold, we are observing one of two things: the failure of the American experiment in democracy or its survival. I'm putting butter on my popcorn.
"... the conservative majority overturned the ruling using the "Shadow Docket" & delayed prompt consideration of the merits based on a 2nd Shadow Docket decision (if you can call it a decision.)
Feb 9, 2022·edited Feb 9, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
The overriding goal of the two supreme court decisions; the Republican National Committee's declaration that the January 6th insurrection was “legitimate political discourse" and legislation like HB 1557 (Florida’s “Don’t say gay” bill) are to systematically DIVIDE US. The country's right/far-right/Republican Trump Party are all WRONG for America. Their strategy is to systematically divide us, to alienate us from government and from one another. DIVIDE = CONQUER and SEPARATE = UNEQUAL.
We're not sitting still. In Today's Edition, Robert Hubbell recommends Chop Wood, Carry Water, which has started a Resistbot letter-writing campaign to urge our Senators to expand the Court. In addition, reader Jim Shelton, a member of 31st Street Swing Left, …. ' wrote an article published in The Daily Kos, 'Build Election Campaign Infrastructure Now: Think State Democratic Parties' '... the main point is that state parties are underfunded when they need the money most (to build infrastructure).' Jim explains why 31st Street Swing Left has joined forces with the State Party Advancement Network (SPAN). SPAN represents “a community of donors committed to working together to build strong and effective state parties.” See details above in Today's Edition for how we can be involved in this important work.
Having had the honour of being corrected by a ten-year-old, who already knows her basic sexual orientation, pre-menarche, I have evolved in my thinking on "discussions that are age-appropriate and developmentally-appropriate". If a child speaks his/her truth with agency, then it is the responsibility of the adult(s) in the room to guide the discussion, not to quash it because some political hack in the state capitol, or on the Supreme Court, says to do so.
Ditto for reproductive rights. I am no fan of abortion, but it's neither my body, nor my offspring, who are at issue. The final decision on birthing vs. terminating falls to the woman in question and her attending physician, hopefully, but not imperatively, with the consent of her mate and family.
I tried to follow your suggestion to enroll with SIGN PLADGA and once again experienced the painful realization that because DC is not a state, I do not have voting members of the House or Senate. So frustrating!!! I didn't even know that was an issue before I moved here. Thanks for all you do!
Reproductive rights and freedom is guaranteed to women by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed multiple times by Supreme Court decisions. The right to have equal access to the ballot box regardless of your race, physical capabilities, or where you reside is also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These are facts not judgements. Now, one may hold different personal views on those issues and even speak out publicly on those alternative views, that too is a right guaranteed by our U.S. Constitutions first amendment. However, that does not permit one to deny those rights to another person. This is the fundamental error in these recent SCOTUS decisions overruling lower court decisions. These SCOTUS decisions effectively say, “I disagree with rights guaranteed to you under our Constitution and your judgement on how to exercise them and therefore choose to deny you those rights.” That is both morally and legally wrong. This is not the proscribed role in our Constitution or representative democracy for the Supreme Court.
Robert, Because I am deeply troubled by the High Court’s methodical evisceration of precedent, of federal safeguards that I don’t imagine will end either with the Court allowing the Texas anti-abortion statute to remain in effect or with the reinstatement of Alabama’s racially gerrymandered voting map, I, too, submit that we ensue serious discussion about expanding the Court, despite said effort possibly not succeeding.
Here I would note, some time back, that Robert Reich had suggested a promising precedent for expanding the Court. My understanding is that in 1789 five Justices and one Chief Justice were seated, each of whom presided over one of the six Federal Circuit Courts. Today, because there are thirteen Federal Circuit Courts, over which only nine Justices preside, I imagine the High Court accepts fewer cases.
Though, admittedly, my knowledge here is somewhat limited, I suspect invoking precedent both to expand the High Court and possibly add Judges to the Lower Courts is far more persuasive than basing one’s argument solely on the need to balance the Court.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, because we need Congress to expand the Court, as you stated, Senate Democrats, by a majority vote, would have to modify the filibuster—a major hurdle, to say the least. Still, I agree we need to press for a serious discussion in the Senate about increasing the size of the Court, if for no other reason than the certainty that our current battles, as troubling as they are, are but a piece of a more widespread effort to dismantle precedent and federal safeguards.
One of the best things about reading the Edition on this platform is reading comments from other readers. It’s refreshing getting additional thoughts, ideas and concerns. Thank you.
The Supreme Court in the "decisions" discussed here are really acting as if they are auditioning for their own episode of "The Handmaid's Tale". I remember when JFK was running for President. There was a lot of concern that he might allow his religious convictions to prevail. He reassured us that would not be the case.
These "judges" did the same. But they lied about this and they lied about respecting precedent. All three should be impeached. They are NOT representative of America's majority opinions relative to elections and the role of religion in society. They are extremists in the extreme. They are evangelical bigots and hacks. I just signed Jessica's Resistbot. (I do that almost every morning)
Kavanaugh s the main topic of discussion in my small circle. He is a disgrace. Roberts comes across as spineless. Thank you for articulating defense of LGBTQ+ and race discussion in primary grades, which could be coupled with a reproach to bullying behavior. that won’t stop hate speech among parents at home, but at least kids will know there are multiple valid points of view.
From our seats watching this existential drama unfold, we are observing one of two things: the failure of the American experiment in democracy or its survival. I'm putting butter on my popcorn.
"... the conservative majority overturned the ruling using the "Shadow Docket" & delayed prompt consideration of the merits based on a 2nd Shadow Docket decision (if you can call it a decision.)
The overriding goal of the two supreme court decisions; the Republican National Committee's declaration that the January 6th insurrection was “legitimate political discourse" and legislation like HB 1557 (Florida’s “Don’t say gay” bill) are to systematically DIVIDE US. The country's right/far-right/Republican Trump Party are all WRONG for America. Their strategy is to systematically divide us, to alienate us from government and from one another. DIVIDE = CONQUER and SEPARATE = UNEQUAL.
We're not sitting still. In Today's Edition, Robert Hubbell recommends Chop Wood, Carry Water, which has started a Resistbot letter-writing campaign to urge our Senators to expand the Court. In addition, reader Jim Shelton, a member of 31st Street Swing Left, …. ' wrote an article published in The Daily Kos, 'Build Election Campaign Infrastructure Now: Think State Democratic Parties' '... the main point is that state parties are underfunded when they need the money most (to build infrastructure).' Jim explains why 31st Street Swing Left has joined forces with the State Party Advancement Network (SPAN). SPAN represents “a community of donors committed to working together to build strong and effective state parties.” See details above in Today's Edition for how we can be involved in this important work.
As I keep saying, the Republican Party is in a death spiral. But it’s up to us to make sure the circle gets tighter.
Thank you Robert for another newsletter packed with news, guidance and commiseration. Please don’t ever stop writing!
Having had the honour of being corrected by a ten-year-old, who already knows her basic sexual orientation, pre-menarche, I have evolved in my thinking on "discussions that are age-appropriate and developmentally-appropriate". If a child speaks his/her truth with agency, then it is the responsibility of the adult(s) in the room to guide the discussion, not to quash it because some political hack in the state capitol, or on the Supreme Court, says to do so.
Ditto for reproductive rights. I am no fan of abortion, but it's neither my body, nor my offspring, who are at issue. The final decision on birthing vs. terminating falls to the woman in question and her attending physician, hopefully, but not imperatively, with the consent of her mate and family.
I tried to follow your suggestion to enroll with SIGN PLADGA and once again experienced the painful realization that because DC is not a state, I do not have voting members of the House or Senate. So frustrating!!! I didn't even know that was an issue before I moved here. Thanks for all you do!
Thank you for that resistbot info. I immediately sent my message.