Two directions for action regarding reactionary SCOTUS:
1. Like Robert says repeatedly, 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."
"Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions–it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our efforts. So, if you’re looking for ways to help right now, here are some organizations doing important work:
Just watched the Movement Briefing where Senator Whitehouse who is strongly in favor of expanding the court says it is better messaging to say "Balance the Court" rather than expand.
To add to what I got out of the Movement Briefing: The aha moment for me was when he said the reason the Extreme Court ruled against the independent legislature theory is that the "creepy" billionaires who have captured this court does not want any government control over what they are doing and they want to keep the captured courts to counter them. So the Captured Court is being consistent in doing what dark money wants them to! The Captured Court has more than an ethics problem; it has a Federalist Society backed by billionaire dark money that is the problem. We, the People, all of us this time!
With the utmost of respect for Sen. Whitehouse and his brilliance, to me, "balance" connotes changes within the existing 9 seats on SCOTUS, whereas "expand" clearly connotes add to the 9 seats.
Jun 30, 2023·edited Jun 30, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Robert, a most powerful and thoughtful post. I agree - the Court has been politicized. It is time to take it back. Hopefully, this decision, which mocks stare decisis and is therefore neither based on the law or the Constitution but rather the radical right’s disdain for those less fortunate than themselves, will hasten the day when voters will support modifying the Court either through expansion or, in the case of Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, impeachment for ethics violations.
One additional thought among many - I’ve been writing counter-commentaries all night to what appears to be a concerted effort by Republican operatives to suck the air out of The NY Times comments section - let us not forget that women are also beneficiaries of affirmative action. If the radical right could have its way, women would be baby-making housewives again.
I am with you, Andrew ... 'a most powerful and thoughtful post.'
I am heartsick about what this decision means for the stain of racism in America, still. I also appreciate your naming 'women as beneficiaries of affirmative action.' Earlier this evening, I wondered how this devastating ruling will impact woman, of every race.
Jun 30, 2023·edited Jul 1, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Pardon my totally mundane comment tonight. But I was caught unaware until today that our postage stamps are going up AGAIN (Is DeJoy literally glued to his seat as Postmaster General or what!) as of this July 9. Postcards will be three cents more, as will first class letters. If anyone is planning to write a lot of postcards for various campaigns in this next year and would just as soon not pay any more than necessary, buy them now. I may be the only one who didn't know about the increase. But I'd rather make an unnecessary comment than have anyone go to buy a big pile of stamps only to find out at that point that there was another hike in prices. Sending my best to Robert, Jill and all the followers of this Hubbell newsletter.
You're very welcome. By the way, there are finally new postcard stamps that are very pretty and do not include any Moray eels or "an odd-shaped barn." : ) They have sailboats in light colors. As one who thinks these postcards should be as appealing as possible, I was pleased to be able to order the new stamps.
Speaking of postcards, there are campaigns going on right now. PostcardstoVoters.org has a campaign for the Ohio August election, so important. ActivateAmerica.vote has a campaign supporting Ruben Gallego and for gun safety.
A domestic stamp for postcards will be 51 cents after July 9. "Wow" was my first thought too. It's not surprising that we can get confused. The last increase in our postage took effect about five and a half months ago on January 22, 2023.
I have until recent years been a fan of the USPS but no longer. I do not object to paying but am offended when I go the my mailbox almost every day to find junk sent by corporate America and non-profits not once but routinely. Let them pay at the same rate the average household does and we’d see a lot (LOT) less junk. I am not spoiled. Capitalism is NOT fair or consumer friendly.
Robert, yours is one of the best critiques of the SCOTUS decision I've read, and I can only imagine your voice ringing with outrage had you been able to do an audio. Many thank yous for taking time once again to guide and encourage your readers, even in the midst of travel and the rest of your life.
“We can fix the Court. We need only be as bold and dogged as Republicans have been over the last twenty-five years.”
Robert, so many of us are with you on this point. Democrats have not stepped up to play hardball. That must stop. They left it up to the voters in 2020 and we elected a trifecta. That wasn’t enough to expand the Supreme Court with its stolen seat or safeguard voting rights and elections.
Republicans came to the midterms with voter suppression, gerrymandering and a corrupt Supreme Court and took the House majority. The DOJ and FBI dithered instead of going after seditionists, including 45.
If they keep leaving it up to voters, we won’t be able to overcome Republican rigging of the system, including monopoly media ownership, tax breaks for the oligarchs funding them and so much more.
President Biden and all Democratic electeds, you must stand with us to preserve democracy or more and more of your voters will flee the country as it sinks into the abyss.
I would just ask one question. With a razor small majority in the Senate and the minority in the House is it possible that Biden might be smart to speak little of expansion, hold his cards close and work like hell to get those majorities?
Excellent point, John. "Packing the Court" is not a good campaign tool. He would indeed be wise to cool it on this subject. Then...upon re-election sign the bill that comes from our new majorities on the Hill.
And the Blue Trifecta will allow for the impeachment of at least two justices. 3 or 4 would be justified. Thomas and Alito for being bought. Gorsuch for non-recusal. And Roberts for mingling his wife's very lucrative work with his own.
If we win 51% of Independents, Biden wins by 15 million votes.
And no one would run on a platform of "Pack the Court." It would be "restore the right to reproductive liberty, allow gun safety legislation to be passed by the states, protect voting rights of Black voters," etc. We campaign on the RESULTS of enlarging the Court.
Conservatives will not be silent in the face of “restore the right to reproductive liberty” (an abstract phrasing that goes over most people’s heads) and similar slogans. They will counterattack with allegations that Democrats want to “pack the Court”, etc., painting Democrats as radicals who want to spread judicial, social, and political disruption. That could be quite effective, as people are sick of repeated disruptions, and fear more.
Democrats must prepare effective counter-arguments (propaganda, in reality).
A related thought (question): What donpolls say about the popularity of affirmative action?
Possibly. It comes down to analyzing those eligible to vote and determining when strident pushback might engage Democratic voters who have tuned out. 45 and his enablers have no qualms mobilizing their constituents with outrage. We, the majority, are justified in our anger at injustice after injustice after cheating, etc.
Jun 30, 2023·edited Jun 30, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Yes, you are so right. Say what you will about Republicans, they come to play hardball every time with gloves off. For all the good that he has done and is doing, Biden must counter with these same tactics minus the lying and sadism. The SCOTUS needs to be expanded or everything that we hold dear will be in these corrupt judges crosshairs. I am somewhat bewildered as to why Biden would work so diligently to help average Americans but leave this putrid SCOTUS door open so it can all come to nigh. He needs to fight fire with fire and I am going to write him daily to say so starting today.
Here's an espresso to you! Whatever label we put on it, the Barrett seat was at least layering hypocrisy on hypocrisy, and there outa be a law! McConnell's setting a precedent and then violating his own precedent for the second seat is throwing a spitball for sure. But there's no umpire to override this and again it comes down to getting out the vote.
Rather than expanding the court, we need to impeach some of those corrupt justices. Clarence Thomas is at the top of my list. Either way, we need more democrats in Congress and the Senate.
An aside: while I much prefer hearing Robert’s voice present the audio version of his nightly newsletter, one can access audio as with Joyce Vance’s Civil Discourse, Heather Cox Richardson, and others. Once on the Substack page, in the upper right hand corner, a headphones symbol shows. Click on it and you have the option to play now. I did that tonight. It’s not the same as Robert’s voice but ever so handy if you are driving or perhaps doing a power walk but listening nonetheless. I took a picture to post, but this app doesn’t allow the photo.
Spot on, Robert Hubbell! This is no time for Democrats to wring their hands and say, 'Woe is us". It's time to take off the gloves, and go bare-knuckled into the ring, playing hard ball with all the skill, savvy, and determination that our GOP opponents have been wielding for decades. Let's get at it!
So well said, Robert. We must be as dogged as the previous administration and the right wing Federalist Society has been. Our reality is that six justices have taken up the cause of far right racist and privileged billionaires to cut loose from the constitutional foundations of this country’s democratic principle. Moreover, as we saw in another case reported today, they are dedicated to tearing down the wall of separation of church and state.
The six have been cultivated as the instruments of religious zealots and deregulation capitalists who are driven by power and wealth - the very inequities that have brought us to this moment. I fear they are prepared to take the United States down the path of Hungary and Turkey.
I would simply add that it was why the C-PAC held its annual meeting in Hungary the last two years and had Viktor Orban speak, if I am not mistaken at both as well as bring him here to the US to speak to their conference. Regretfully, he is their role model for a Christian Country. Let's be clear we use the wording "culture wars" but a BIG part of it is "religiously driven."
Jessica Craven of ChopWood/CarryWater fame posted this link from Reuters highlighting the more than 100 "political elites" with family ties to slavery. Many surprising members of this family.
Of course the court must be expanded. Adding four or six new members is the only way to balance out the six political hacks who now dominate it. But that is a short-term solution; we'd be just one election away from an counter-expansion that would add more Alitos and Kavanaughs.
I favor (Biden would absolutely hate this) adding 179 seats to the court. Cases would be heard by randomly-selected panels, just as they are by the Courts of Appeal today. And the Courts of Appeal themselves would be abolished, creating a pool of 179 ex-appeals judges from which the new members of the Supreme Court would be chosen (dropping along the way those with Federalist Society connections).
This would be a reform, not simply an expansion. Seats on the court would no longer be so valuable, either to aspirants or to the politicians who appoint and confirm them. It would, I hope, de-politicise the court.
Enlarging the Court substantially makes perfect sense. When America was 4 million people and 13 states, we had six justices. If we kept that ratio constant, we would have over 400 justices. While we need not go that big, having 33 justices or 50 justices would not be unreasonable. They could operate like the 9th Circuit, 5th Circuit, etc with panels that dispose of most cases, with an appeal to the full court if necessary.
My understanding is the number of current SCOTUS justices was determined by the number of district courts which was nine at the time. It makes sense to me to enlarge the Supreme Court to the number of district courts which is currently thirteen and tie the number of Supreme Court justices to the district courts in the future. Would that take a constitutional amendment?
Jun 30, 2023·edited Jun 30, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
The truth about "Affirmative Action" is that someone undeserving is, unfortunately, always going to get hurt. [read on] It is a side-effect. When the human body is diseased, we identify as being sick. The doctor prescribes a pill, the administration of medicine, that leads to a cure. On the label, or attached to the prescription container, is pasted a small paper tome of side effects describing a degree of potential damage to the same body by the pill's ingestion. If the statistical likelihood of having the side effect be more injurious than the disease that initiated the cure is small, the FDA will approve the drug - the corrective. Yet, a few will respond negatively to the use of the drug. That does not pull the drug from the shelves of pharmacies. We take risks on balance...and for the greater good.
So it is with Affirmative Action, a form of 'Truth and Reconciliation'. First comes recognitiion and AWARENESS of the problem. [Racism exists]. Then follows ACCEPTANCE that the problem is endemic; it is historically evidenced, exists culture-wide and is relevant to us all. [Racism continues] Finally, there is ACTION. Those action steps are determined to be legal and necessary. They are also going to hurt. This is understood in the regime and administration of rule-based correctives. In this case, someone will be left out because someone is let in. But, even in that instance, it has been determined that the making right of centuries of wrong will contribute to society-at-large in way and within a time frame that will enhance society as a whole.
No generation is responsible for the ills of past. However, we are accountable for the right and corrective actions. That, in itself, is a form of hurt. The feeling that such is required at so distant a time from the original, contemptible act; facing the realization that the challenge persists now as in the past; and the ultimate, real impact on the few is regrettable yet unavoidable. Without these 'insults' though, the consequences of inaction demean us, relegate us to a perilous and unstable status quo, and forestall the inevitable emendation.
I feel like this Court is attacking us with each of its horrific judgements. This is personal for us. Overturning Roe, ending affirmative action, etc. -- it all feels like a stab in the gut. I am fortunate to live in Vermont, where my representatives agree with me, but overall I fear this gigantic lurch to the right is leading this country right down to hell. All of us need to get loud.
Jun 30, 2023·edited Jun 30, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
There is little in this country that is the same as it was in 1869 when, with 1/10 of our current population, the number of Justices on the Supreme Court was settled at 9. Reason would dictate that with ten times more people, never mind the increased number and complexity of our laws, 9 Justices are simply inadequate to the task of delivering justice. They hear fewer than 3 out of every 100 cases that seek review! The SCOTUS must be expanded to reflect this reality. Had it expanded with our population, there would be 90 justices on the Court today.
Agreed - or at least one Justice per district? I think if the court expansion is pegged to something such as districts or population we could avoid the escalation effect that many worry about.
Exactly! If we were to press the population point—driving the RepubliQans into a hair-on-fire frenzy— then settle for the district point, we may prevail.
Sorry – I don’t get it. The number of Supreme Court Justices should bear some relation to the number of worthy, important cases and the ability of that number to adjudicate the cases effectively. I see no reason why the number of such cases should be proportional to population.
Two directions for action regarding reactionary SCOTUS:
1. Like Robert says repeatedly, 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
2. President Obama’s Statement:
"Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions–it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our efforts. So, if you’re looking for ways to help right now, here are some organizations doing important work:
UNCF
Hispanic Scholarship Fund
APIA Scholars
American Indian College Fund
TheDream.US
Thurgood Marshall College Fund
DC CAP
Hope Chicago"
https://barackobama.medium.com/our-statements-on-the-u-s-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-affirmative-action-2e161f52b5d1
Thanks, Ellie. Promoting to the top.
Just watched the Movement Briefing where Senator Whitehouse who is strongly in favor of expanding the court says it is better messaging to say "Balance the Court" rather than expand.
To add to what I got out of the Movement Briefing: The aha moment for me was when he said the reason the Extreme Court ruled against the independent legislature theory is that the "creepy" billionaires who have captured this court does not want any government control over what they are doing and they want to keep the captured courts to counter them. So the Captured Court is being consistent in doing what dark money wants them to! The Captured Court has more than an ethics problem; it has a Federalist Society backed by billionaire dark money that is the problem. We, the People, all of us this time!
With the utmost of respect for Sen. Whitehouse and his brilliance, to me, "balance" connotes changes within the existing 9 seats on SCOTUS, whereas "expand" clearly connotes add to the 9 seats.
Ellie, Thank you for the resources. Many volunteer opportunities in these orgs. Action is the only way forward. Angela
Thank you for these.
Robert, a most powerful and thoughtful post. I agree - the Court has been politicized. It is time to take it back. Hopefully, this decision, which mocks stare decisis and is therefore neither based on the law or the Constitution but rather the radical right’s disdain for those less fortunate than themselves, will hasten the day when voters will support modifying the Court either through expansion or, in the case of Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, impeachment for ethics violations.
One additional thought among many - I’ve been writing counter-commentaries all night to what appears to be a concerted effort by Republican operatives to suck the air out of The NY Times comments section - let us not forget that women are also beneficiaries of affirmative action. If the radical right could have its way, women would be baby-making housewives again.
Like: let us not forget that women are also beneficiaries of affirmative action
I am with you, Andrew ... 'a most powerful and thoughtful post.'
I am heartsick about what this decision means for the stain of racism in America, still. I also appreciate your naming 'women as beneficiaries of affirmative action.' Earlier this evening, I wondered how this devastating ruling will impact woman, of every race.
True enough; and with way too many women seeming to abide by the Republican positions.
So true. As a Catholic and a woman, I detest their backwards-thinking decision-making. We must do something!
Thank you for your work.
Pardon my totally mundane comment tonight. But I was caught unaware until today that our postage stamps are going up AGAIN (Is DeJoy literally glued to his seat as Postmaster General or what!) as of this July 9. Postcards will be three cents more, as will first class letters. If anyone is planning to write a lot of postcards for various campaigns in this next year and would just as soon not pay any more than necessary, buy them now. I may be the only one who didn't know about the increase. But I'd rather make an unnecessary comment than have anyone go to buy a big pile of stamps only to find out at that point that there was another hike in prices. Sending my best to Robert, Jill and all the followers of this Hubbell newsletter.
Thank you for this! I'll alert our Postcards to Voters writers.
You're very welcome. By the way, there are finally new postcard stamps that are very pretty and do not include any Moray eels or "an odd-shaped barn." : ) They have sailboats in light colors. As one who thinks these postcards should be as appealing as possible, I was pleased to be able to order the new stamps.
Some of us already knew. My local P.O. is preparing for the increase by not having much inventory. I agree that the sailboats are quite nice.
Funny how that works. Last increase I went to buy postcards, and magically, Surprise; "our stock is out, we'll get more after the increase."
We get no JOY with deJoy.
Somebody must be getting some though, otherwise he'd be gone by now.
Yes, Yes, C C. Buy postage stamps - postcard and first class - BEFORE July 9!
Speaking of postcards, there are campaigns going on right now. PostcardstoVoters.org has a campaign for the Ohio August election, so important. ActivateAmerica.vote has a campaign supporting Ruben Gallego and for gun safety.
I knew about it CC but appreciate the reminder! July 9 will be here and gone in no time flat!
Wow! Incredible to see .48 cents for post ads in our future.
A domestic stamp for postcards will be 51 cents after July 9. "Wow" was my first thought too. It's not surprising that we can get confused. The last increase in our postage took effect about five and a half months ago on January 22, 2023.
Many countries around the world have been paying much more, for much longer. We’re just spoiled.
Am old enough to remember 2 mail deliveries per day to your mailbox where you lived
I have until recent years been a fan of the USPS but no longer. I do not object to paying but am offended when I go the my mailbox almost every day to find junk sent by corporate America and non-profits not once but routinely. Let them pay at the same rate the average household does and we’d see a lot (LOT) less junk. I am not spoiled. Capitalism is NOT fair or consumer friendly.
Robert, yours is one of the best critiques of the SCOTUS decision I've read, and I can only imagine your voice ringing with outrage had you been able to do an audio. Many thank yous for taking time once again to guide and encourage your readers, even in the midst of travel and the rest of your life.
“We can fix the Court. We need only be as bold and dogged as Republicans have been over the last twenty-five years.”
Robert, so many of us are with you on this point. Democrats have not stepped up to play hardball. That must stop. They left it up to the voters in 2020 and we elected a trifecta. That wasn’t enough to expand the Supreme Court with its stolen seat or safeguard voting rights and elections.
Republicans came to the midterms with voter suppression, gerrymandering and a corrupt Supreme Court and took the House majority. The DOJ and FBI dithered instead of going after seditionists, including 45.
If they keep leaving it up to voters, we won’t be able to overcome Republican rigging of the system, including monopoly media ownership, tax breaks for the oligarchs funding them and so much more.
President Biden and all Democratic electeds, you must stand with us to preserve democracy or more and more of your voters will flee the country as it sinks into the abyss.
I would just ask one question. With a razor small majority in the Senate and the minority in the House is it possible that Biden might be smart to speak little of expansion, hold his cards close and work like hell to get those majorities?
Excellent point, John. "Packing the Court" is not a good campaign tool. He would indeed be wise to cool it on this subject. Then...upon re-election sign the bill that comes from our new majorities on the Hill.
And the Blue Trifecta will allow for the impeachment of at least two justices. 3 or 4 would be justified. Thomas and Alito for being bought. Gorsuch for non-recusal. And Roberts for mingling his wife's very lucrative work with his own.
First, a majority of Americans--and 70% of Democrats 51% of Independent--support enlarging the Court. https://abovethelaw.com/2022/09/whaddya-know-a-majority-of-americans-support-expanding-the-supreme-court/
If we win 51% of Independents, Biden wins by 15 million votes.
And no one would run on a platform of "Pack the Court." It would be "restore the right to reproductive liberty, allow gun safety legislation to be passed by the states, protect voting rights of Black voters," etc. We campaign on the RESULTS of enlarging the Court.
Works for me! Any package, any campaign strategy that speaks the truth and will help us win!
Balance the court a great mantra.
Conservatives will not be silent in the face of “restore the right to reproductive liberty” (an abstract phrasing that goes over most people’s heads) and similar slogans. They will counterattack with allegations that Democrats want to “pack the Court”, etc., painting Democrats as radicals who want to spread judicial, social, and political disruption. That could be quite effective, as people are sick of repeated disruptions, and fear more.
Democrats must prepare effective counter-arguments (propaganda, in reality).
A related thought (question): What donpolls say about the popularity of affirmative action?
Court has already been packed by Grand klansman Leo of the federalist society!
The court needs to be ReBalanced!
Agreed. And for sure. But we can't do a thing if we don't achieve the Blue Trifecta. Without that, all we can do is complain.
When we win in 2024, the first order of business should be to "rebalance" or impeach or both.
The 6 were, and are, bought. We just don’t yet know Coney-Barrett and Kavanaugh’s forms of compensation
Possibly. It comes down to analyzing those eligible to vote and determining when strident pushback might engage Democratic voters who have tuned out. 45 and his enablers have no qualms mobilizing their constituents with outrage. We, the majority, are justified in our anger at injustice after injustice after cheating, etc.
Yes, you are so right. Say what you will about Republicans, they come to play hardball every time with gloves off. For all the good that he has done and is doing, Biden must counter with these same tactics minus the lying and sadism. The SCOTUS needs to be expanded or everything that we hold dear will be in these corrupt judges crosshairs. I am somewhat bewildered as to why Biden would work so diligently to help average Americans but leave this putrid SCOTUS door open so it can all come to nigh. He needs to fight fire with fire and I am going to write him daily to say so starting today.
Two stolen seats.
Here's an espresso to you! Whatever label we put on it, the Barrett seat was at least layering hypocrisy on hypocrisy, and there outa be a law! McConnell's setting a precedent and then violating his own precedent for the second seat is throwing a spitball for sure. But there's no umpire to override this and again it comes down to getting out the vote.
Indeed. And thanks for the virtual espresso!
🇺🇸 Ketanji Brown Jackson for Chief Justice
Or Justice Soto-Mayor.
Rather than expanding the court, we need to impeach some of those corrupt justices. Clarence Thomas is at the top of my list. Either way, we need more democrats in Congress and the Senate.
Enlarging the Court requires a majority vote in each chamber of Congress.
Impeachment of a justice requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
Which is more achievable?
I'd like that as well, but where do you get the two-thirds of the malapportioned-by-design Senate? That's the problem.
An aside: while I much prefer hearing Robert’s voice present the audio version of his nightly newsletter, one can access audio as with Joyce Vance’s Civil Discourse, Heather Cox Richardson, and others. Once on the Substack page, in the upper right hand corner, a headphones symbol shows. Click on it and you have the option to play now. I did that tonight. It’s not the same as Robert’s voice but ever so handy if you are driving or perhaps doing a power walk but listening nonetheless. I took a picture to post, but this app doesn’t allow the photo.
Spot on, Robert Hubbell! This is no time for Democrats to wring their hands and say, 'Woe is us". It's time to take off the gloves, and go bare-knuckled into the ring, playing hard ball with all the skill, savvy, and determination that our GOP opponents have been wielding for decades. Let's get at it!
So well said, Robert. We must be as dogged as the previous administration and the right wing Federalist Society has been. Our reality is that six justices have taken up the cause of far right racist and privileged billionaires to cut loose from the constitutional foundations of this country’s democratic principle. Moreover, as we saw in another case reported today, they are dedicated to tearing down the wall of separation of church and state.
The six have been cultivated as the instruments of religious zealots and deregulation capitalists who are driven by power and wealth - the very inequities that have brought us to this moment. I fear they are prepared to take the United States down the path of Hungary and Turkey.
I would simply add that it was why the C-PAC held its annual meeting in Hungary the last two years and had Viktor Orban speak, if I am not mistaken at both as well as bring him here to the US to speak to their conference. Regretfully, he is their role model for a Christian Country. Let's be clear we use the wording "culture wars" but a BIG part of it is "religiously driven."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/04/viktor-orban-cpac-00049935
Follow the hypocrisy of Clarence Thomas who benefited from opportunities to get to the Supreme Court, voted to deny others the same opportunities. Could his billionaire friends and luxury trips have changed his mind? https://thedemlabs.org/2023/06/29/supreme-court-hypocrite-clarence-thomas-benefit-affirmative-action-struck-down/
Jessica Craven of ChopWood/CarryWater fame posted this link from Reuters highlighting the more than 100 "political elites" with family ties to slavery. Many surprising members of this family.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-slavery-lawmakers-overview/
Very interesting! Meaningful replies were, in the overwhelming majority, from Democratic politicians. Thank you for sharing!
Of course the court must be expanded. Adding four or six new members is the only way to balance out the six political hacks who now dominate it. But that is a short-term solution; we'd be just one election away from an counter-expansion that would add more Alitos and Kavanaughs.
I favor (Biden would absolutely hate this) adding 179 seats to the court. Cases would be heard by randomly-selected panels, just as they are by the Courts of Appeal today. And the Courts of Appeal themselves would be abolished, creating a pool of 179 ex-appeals judges from which the new members of the Supreme Court would be chosen (dropping along the way those with Federalist Society connections).
This would be a reform, not simply an expansion. Seats on the court would no longer be so valuable, either to aspirants or to the politicians who appoint and confirm them. It would, I hope, de-politicise the court.
Enlarging the Court substantially makes perfect sense. When America was 4 million people and 13 states, we had six justices. If we kept that ratio constant, we would have over 400 justices. While we need not go that big, having 33 justices or 50 justices would not be unreasonable. They could operate like the 9th Circuit, 5th Circuit, etc with panels that dispose of most cases, with an appeal to the full court if necessary.
Wouldn’t that encourage an increase in the number of appeals taken to the Supreme Court? More work for litigators? And more judge-shopping?
My understanding is the number of current SCOTUS justices was determined by the number of district courts which was nine at the time. It makes sense to me to enlarge the Supreme Court to the number of district courts which is currently thirteen and tie the number of Supreme Court justices to the district courts in the future. Would that take a constitutional amendment?
The truth about "Affirmative Action" is that someone undeserving is, unfortunately, always going to get hurt. [read on] It is a side-effect. When the human body is diseased, we identify as being sick. The doctor prescribes a pill, the administration of medicine, that leads to a cure. On the label, or attached to the prescription container, is pasted a small paper tome of side effects describing a degree of potential damage to the same body by the pill's ingestion. If the statistical likelihood of having the side effect be more injurious than the disease that initiated the cure is small, the FDA will approve the drug - the corrective. Yet, a few will respond negatively to the use of the drug. That does not pull the drug from the shelves of pharmacies. We take risks on balance...and for the greater good.
So it is with Affirmative Action, a form of 'Truth and Reconciliation'. First comes recognitiion and AWARENESS of the problem. [Racism exists]. Then follows ACCEPTANCE that the problem is endemic; it is historically evidenced, exists culture-wide and is relevant to us all. [Racism continues] Finally, there is ACTION. Those action steps are determined to be legal and necessary. They are also going to hurt. This is understood in the regime and administration of rule-based correctives. In this case, someone will be left out because someone is let in. But, even in that instance, it has been determined that the making right of centuries of wrong will contribute to society-at-large in way and within a time frame that will enhance society as a whole.
No generation is responsible for the ills of past. However, we are accountable for the right and corrective actions. That, in itself, is a form of hurt. The feeling that such is required at so distant a time from the original, contemptible act; facing the realization that the challenge persists now as in the past; and the ultimate, real impact on the few is regrettable yet unavoidable. Without these 'insults' though, the consequences of inaction demean us, relegate us to a perilous and unstable status quo, and forestall the inevitable emendation.
I feel like this Court is attacking us with each of its horrific judgements. This is personal for us. Overturning Roe, ending affirmative action, etc. -- it all feels like a stab in the gut. I am fortunate to live in Vermont, where my representatives agree with me, but overall I fear this gigantic lurch to the right is leading this country right down to hell. All of us need to get loud.
There is little in this country that is the same as it was in 1869 when, with 1/10 of our current population, the number of Justices on the Supreme Court was settled at 9. Reason would dictate that with ten times more people, never mind the increased number and complexity of our laws, 9 Justices are simply inadequate to the task of delivering justice. They hear fewer than 3 out of every 100 cases that seek review! The SCOTUS must be expanded to reflect this reality. Had it expanded with our population, there would be 90 justices on the Court today.
Agreed - or at least one Justice per district? I think if the court expansion is pegged to something such as districts or population we could avoid the escalation effect that many worry about.
Exactly! If we were to press the population point—driving the RepubliQans into a hair-on-fire frenzy— then settle for the district point, we may prevail.
Sorry – I don’t get it. The number of Supreme Court Justices should bear some relation to the number of worthy, important cases and the ability of that number to adjudicate the cases effectively. I see no reason why the number of such cases should be proportional to population.
The more people the more worthy and important cases.