The only way the "reactionary majority" is going to be when they die and there are new justices seated. Either that or get 55 Democrats elected to the Senate, kill the filibuster and enlarge the court. (I recommend more than 51, due to the fact some "Democrats" aren't Democrats)
TC, Despite the host of justified arguments for expanding the Court (Robert previously and eloquently has presented all of them), I write to report that the Presidential Commission to study the Court unanimously agreed on only I remedy: 18-year term limits. President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law Michael Waldman, who served on the Commission, maintains that term limits could be enacted by statute, wherein, after serving 18 years, Justices, elevated to “Senior Justices,” would serve in the Appellate Courts and step up to the High Court in the event of a recusal, retirement, sickness, death, and so forth. With justices rotating, with regularity, out of the High Court, every President in his or her first term would get to appoint 2 justices, a far cry from a system wherein Trump appointed 3 justices while Jimmy Carter appointed none.
I further would note, in Waldman’s view, were the Supreme Court to overturn the Statute, a constitutional amendment would get passed. Whether or not I am as confident that the requisite two-thirds majority in both Houses followed by approval from three-fourths of the states would be achievable, my high regard for Waldman compels me seriously to consider this proposal.
Barbara, as your note implies, term limits requires a constitutional amendment --2/3 votes in both chambers, approval by 3/4 of the states. It is hard to imagine any set of circumstances in which 14 state legislatures controlled by Republicans in both houses would vote to approve the amendment (24 Democratic controlled legislatures, plus 14 to get to 38)>
I have read the arguments that say that imposing term limits can be done by statute. They seem very weak to point of wishful thinking. The Commission based its reasoning on the fact that other federal judges may take senior status based on a years of service / age calculation set forth in a statute. 28 U.S. Code § 371. But taking senior status is voluntary, not mandatory. "(1)Any justice or judge of the United States appointed to hold office during good behavior may retain the office but retire from regular active service ."
The Constitution says that judges serve "during good behavior." Saying that congress can impose and age or time limit seems to fly in the plain language of the Constitution. While I am no "originalist," we tread on dangerous ground when we say that the words of the Constitution do not mean what the plain words say and what the Framers experienced in their lifetimes when those words were in place.
Robert, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to provide such comprehensive clarification. Indeed, you and veteran attorney Jon Margolis, also part of this thread, agree on the powers the Constitution affords Congress. As a final point, I would note my disappointment in the Commission’s rather weak response to expanding the Court, particularly in light of the unimpeachable justifications experts like yourself have presented.
While Waldman’s recommended approach has merit unless there is a burning will on the part of voters these changes will not see the light of day. The same billionaire contributors that have tilted the court will fight like hell to insure these type of changes do not happen.
Agreed. The good news, if one can call it that, is that Democrats are finally waking up to the critical impact of the courts and the necessity that judicial appointments be a crucial factor in how we vote.
I am truly sorry to be repetitive and redundant however the first thing I think of when you mention 18-year term limits is what about integrity? Let’s say ‘we’ go with Walkman’s approach but how do ‘we’ ensure 18 years of integrity from each justice? They have shown us that they do not need to follow their own rules.
I use the word ‘need’ with purpose. They haven’t felt compelled in anyway to follow their own rules. There is nothing internal or external to the court that gives them pause in doing what they want, hence they don’t need to follow rules.
Sarcasm or not, makes you wonder what volume the GOP outrage would have been if Elena Kagan had accepted that basket of lox and bagels. Or gone on a $100,000 Alaskan fishing trip.
Karen, Your concern is valid and largely rests with the fact that we don’t have ethics rules for Supreme Court Justices the way we do for other federal courts. In my view, all of us should be terrified by a High Court that seems to view itself as above the law. Still, term limits that ensure each President two nominations would help to balance the Court.
That would be a twisted and awkward way around the plain language of the Constitution. Congress may change the number of justices, it may alter the court’s jurisdiction, but to impose term limits tortures (or worse) the words of Article III. It’s the kind of thing Republicans would do.
Jon, Before I started following Michael Waldman I might have agreed with you. That said, Waldman writes (and I quote), “Congress has broad authority to shape the Supreme Court’s structure and the Justice’s duties.” Term limits, he notes, “can be implemented by statute as long as the Justices retain their judicial office after their 18-year term, which is what the senior justice system provides.”
Considering Waldman was recruited to serve on the President’s Commission to study the Court and given that term limits was the only remedy that received unanimous support, I would strongly advise we not dismiss it out of hand.
I'm not dismissing him out of hand. I've been a lawyer for more than 50 years, some of it dealing with civil rights. I took constitutional law from Leonard Levy (historian) and Paul Freund. That doesn't mean that I speak with absolute authority, but I have some knowledge and I think he's wrong.
Jon, I appreciate your perspective so much so that I wish you or Robert (who agrees with you) could sit in public with Waldman so the country would better grasp what’s possible.
Do presidents who cheat to win (Bush and chump in my lifetime) get two justices. And as republicans are currently cheating to win next year, two more for them.
Jeri, I imagine, barring removal from office, whoever is inaugurated would get to nominate two justices in her or his first term. As for someone illegitimately becoming President, I would contend every one of us is obliged to engage in every way possible to diminish that possibility. I know for certain in 2000-2001 Ron Klain labored 24/7 to try and get the legitimately elected candidate seated. Indeed, we don’t always succeed. Hence, the rock my parents gave me that sits on my desk and reads, “Never, Never Quit.”
It’s why, in my dotage, I’m still at it. My resources have diminished but I can’t let the bastards win if I Am still breathing. They will never quit either. It is truly a battle for the soul of the country.
Walden’s notwithstanding, our country has seen many presidential or congressional commissions that did not carry the day, regretfully so, take the Kerner Commission as a significant example. Some have been saying the courts commission did not offer a strong option.
John, Admittedly, my preceding comments on this thread notwithstanding, I was disappointed to learn the Commission’s weak response to expanding the Court, a maneuver that experts far more credentialed than I have justified with arguments I would deem unimpeachable.
Sheila, If you review the thread for Robert’s and Jon Margolis’s replies to Waldman’s arguments for term limits, you will find they disagree with Waldman’s interpretation of the Constitution. I would note I mentioned to Jon the value of someone like himself or Robert sitting in public with Waldman to help the country grasp what’s possible.
While reading the substitution of names, I recalled the sainted Antonin readily made himself available for sponsored ‘hunting and fishing’ trips! Makes me wonder, who paid for his seats at the opera performances!
Ya, freaky. I typically don’t ‘get’ this stuff so thoroughly and sometimes have to read twice. But I was switching back and forth (Scalia/Alito) without skipping a beat!
And for Ruth Bader Ginberg's? They shared a love of opera, though their ideologies were different. (And I sincerely doubt she would have accepted such a gift.)
Robert, I appreciated your comments about the Modi visit. I am grateful to have a President and team who understand complexity and competing interests, and I also recognize that there are obviously many facts we do not know. I also respect a party that tolerates disagreement within its ranks--healthy, as you say. Finally, it occurs to me that folks around the world are looking at the US as a country withdrawing women’s rights, banning books, outlawing healthcare, making it more difficult to vote, etc. Their leaders, too, must struggle with their messaging regarding the US. More motivation to turn this around!
Modi is a Hindu Nationalist (his party was responsible for the assassination of Gandhi in 1948). A Hindu Nationalist is no different from a Christian Nationalist is no different from a Jewish Nationalist. With the Christian Nationalists you get the "democracies" of Poland and Hungary. With the Jewish Nationalists you get the current Israeli government. Religious Nationalists of whatever imaginary skyguy are The Enemy.
Sorry we are not spiraling downward but moving ahead in a democracy that while not perfect works and our nation saved thousands of lives with the use of nuclear weapons which for over 60 has been a deterrent for additional wars.
Engaging with Modi is smart diplomacy. Working to move his sympathies away from Russia (buying all that oil from Putin!) and back to the US is important.
But hosting him for a fancy and expensive state dinner is a bit hard to digest. TCinLA describes him well. He is a bigot and a supremacist.
I would have bought him lunch and offered to sell him some oil.
Unfortunately, “hosting him [Modi] for a fancy … state dinner” is part of “smart diplomacy”. Not doing so would have been taken by many as slighting India, not rebuking Modi the individual.
Unfortunately most voters do not pay much attention to Supreme Court rulings unless they are major changes in the law that impact them personally. A group of billionaire conservative Republicans over many years have built and implemented a vast network to train, groom and help select Supreme Court justices and then ply them with gifts and favors to continue the influence. Until we demand and implement ethics rules and regulations changes that are enforced this will continue. For a select group of voters this could be a burning issue. On another note Heather Cox Richardson brought to light this fact which I am sharing with you. “ ,”A study out today by Media Matters shows that cable news networks are “obsessed over Biden’s age while overwhelmingly ignoring Trump’s.” Biden is only three years older than Trump—80 and 77, respectively—and apparently in significantly better health, but in the week after Biden announced his reelection campaign, CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC mentioned his age 588 times, suggesting it is a negative attribute rather than a positive reflection on his experience, while mentioning Trump’s only 72 times. Stay dry.
Re “Modi” Operandi (nice word play BTW), I too am disappointed that we need to make peace w autocrats in service of long term interests. But at 77, I’ve come to accept the world as messy, despite my personal preferences. I have no quarrel w AOC and others walking out on Modi’s address—in fact I’m proud to identify w a party whose members compete for the moral high ground rather than for being the best groveller.
Winston Churchill was a dedicated, lifelong anti-Communist. (In 1918, he ordered British troops into Russia in an attempt to oust the Bolsheviks.). But when asked in 1941 whether Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union would make that country an ally of Britain, he replied, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I should at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” So it is with Modi’s state visit. In foreign affairs, Biden’s opportunities for righteousness are few and far between.
Thank you for correctly referring to the right wing as “reactionary”. That is entirely correct. I cringe when people refer to the right wing as “radical”. Radical proudly refers to the Left. I am a Radical.
A similar distinction that, too often, is not made these days is the distinction between ‘conservative’ and ‘reactionary’. Too often, media refer to reactionaries as ‘conservatives’.
You got my heart beating and my blood pressure rising again, Robert. Today, I watched Biden welcome Modi and then I waited for him to say something about the human tragedies happening in India. He skated through that part. Also news reporters have had their credentials, film, and interviews seized by the “authorities” there. That’s hardly a democracy! Modi is talking with forked tongue, in my opinion. I worry for India’s people who have been oppressed. Jobs will be created with our help, but at what cost?
So let me just indulge in the subject of Fake 45’s lawyers getting Jack Smith’s information as to who will be testifying against him. He has now seen the list and I imagine it is quite extensive. I imagine Fake 45 throwing ketchup everywhere. Anyhow, it’s delicious!
Hi, Marlene. I recognize your anger at Biden's welcome for Modi. As I wrote, reasonable people can disagree about what we should do with Modi's track record. I would not have sponsored a state dinner or address to Congress. But if we rebuffed Modi and China or Russia gave him the welcoming treatment we refused, would that benefit the international security of America? hard question.
I totally get what you’re saying, Robert. In fact, I had that same thought after I wrote back to you. I call it “walking on a thin ice” and I suppose Biden did it gracefully while keeping in mind of those issues you brought up. But thanks for letting me steam a little.
I find a terrifying. Robert, what is going to going to happen to these people? With their lives be threatened? Will they be offered money not to testify? Will they lose employment? Will trump turn his hordes against them?
Robert, you did an absolutely beautiful job of describing why the Modi visit was a good thing, and yet, why it was reasonable for a handful of left wing congresspeople not to attend. You caught the complexity of governing a nation in a wild world, and how both Biden, and Tlaib et al. did admirably.
Your legal expertise certainly gives me lots to "chew on" in these complicated times, particularly since the SCOTUS in my opinion is illegitimate. I won't even vent about my disgust on who is writing the majority opinion these days (after years of silent presence and not recusing himself on major cases directly involving his wife's actions and influence.)
HOW I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BRYAN STEVENSON appointed as a Supreme Court Justice!!!
Wow! The "reactionary majority" is now showing how the chaos of the Dobbs "mandate" (it isn't a decision in the sense of applying logic and the Constitution) is spreading to every "mandate" the Court is now making. The chaos of the military if you allow the legislators the power to override the military leaders! The chaos of drugs where the legislators override the doctors. The cruelty and unfairness of a person not ever being proven innocent after once being proven guilty. Of course, there is never a person who was wrongly accused and found guilty! The government isn't fallible! Wow! The Affirmative Action case will be the same because Injustice Thomas has a personal vendetta against it. He feels that he didn't get any job offers from top law firms when he graduated from Yale Law School because he was considered by affirmative action to be the token black that got into Yale without merit. See the PBS exposee of the Thomases: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/clarence-and-ginni-thomas/ Then if they go with the independent legislature so the state courts cannot pass judgement on anything the legislature does we're in heap big trouble, as if we weren't already with this clown court. -- This anti-democracy court. This theolikle court. We need to quit talking among ourselves and convince every person we know no matter what their political persuasion is to hold the Republicans accountable by not voting for them. We need a House and Senate capable of impeaching Alito, Thomas and Roberts! Also term limits and a non-partisan process for nominating and confirming Justices. We, the People, ALL OF US, this time.
I appreciate the measured way Robert discussed President Biden's handling of the Modi visit to Washington. He insightfully describes the president's challenges as our supreme diplomat while acknowledging the risks he takes to our reputation as a great democracy.
Robert, do you know how SCOTUS determines which cases they will hear ? Jones V Hendrix…😥
SCOTUS recently declined to hear heartbreaking case of a local FL man and he was just denied parole.
Florida leads the nation in death penalty exonerations. Thanks to DeSantis, Florida now requires only 8 of 12 jurors for capital punishment.
“ In April 2021, Mr. Green was released from prison on conditional release (house arrest) while his case was pending appeal. While living in Titusville, Fla. during the past two years, Mr. Green has held full-time employment, become part of a church community, and spent time with family—including meeting grandkids for the first time. The state of Florida appealed the decision, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Green's victory. The Supreme Court declined to take up Mr. Green's case on February 27, 2023. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District for Florida ordered Mr. Green to return to custody of the Florida Department of Corrections to complete his sentence.”
parties petition the Court for review. The justices meet once a week to consider granting review. There are thousands of petitions presented each year. The Court (because of its small size) grants review in only a few dozen cases a year. They look for cases that present novel legal questions about which the lower courts disagree. At least, that is how it is supposed to work.
As others have written, thank you for calling out the SC majority as “reactionary” and not “radical”. Similarly, the media generally is being far too generous in referring to certain GOP reactionaries (or, as I prefer, “whackos”) as “conservatives.” Although being generally liberal in my views, I have no quarrel with true conservatives, as defined by Oakeshott:
“To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”
The only way the "reactionary majority" is going to be when they die and there are new justices seated. Either that or get 55 Democrats elected to the Senate, kill the filibuster and enlarge the court. (I recommend more than 51, due to the fact some "Democrats" aren't Democrats)
TC, Despite the host of justified arguments for expanding the Court (Robert previously and eloquently has presented all of them), I write to report that the Presidential Commission to study the Court unanimously agreed on only I remedy: 18-year term limits. President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law Michael Waldman, who served on the Commission, maintains that term limits could be enacted by statute, wherein, after serving 18 years, Justices, elevated to “Senior Justices,” would serve in the Appellate Courts and step up to the High Court in the event of a recusal, retirement, sickness, death, and so forth. With justices rotating, with regularity, out of the High Court, every President in his or her first term would get to appoint 2 justices, a far cry from a system wherein Trump appointed 3 justices while Jimmy Carter appointed none.
I further would note, in Waldman’s view, were the Supreme Court to overturn the Statute, a constitutional amendment would get passed. Whether or not I am as confident that the requisite two-thirds majority in both Houses followed by approval from three-fourths of the states would be achievable, my high regard for Waldman compels me seriously to consider this proposal.
Barbara, as your note implies, term limits requires a constitutional amendment --2/3 votes in both chambers, approval by 3/4 of the states. It is hard to imagine any set of circumstances in which 14 state legislatures controlled by Republicans in both houses would vote to approve the amendment (24 Democratic controlled legislatures, plus 14 to get to 38)>
I have read the arguments that say that imposing term limits can be done by statute. They seem very weak to point of wishful thinking. The Commission based its reasoning on the fact that other federal judges may take senior status based on a years of service / age calculation set forth in a statute. 28 U.S. Code § 371. But taking senior status is voluntary, not mandatory. "(1)Any justice or judge of the United States appointed to hold office during good behavior may retain the office but retire from regular active service ."
The Constitution says that judges serve "during good behavior." Saying that congress can impose and age or time limit seems to fly in the plain language of the Constitution. While I am no "originalist," we tread on dangerous ground when we say that the words of the Constitution do not mean what the plain words say and what the Framers experienced in their lifetimes when those words were in place.
Robert, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to provide such comprehensive clarification. Indeed, you and veteran attorney Jon Margolis, also part of this thread, agree on the powers the Constitution affords Congress. As a final point, I would note my disappointment in the Commission’s rather weak response to expanding the Court, particularly in light of the unimpeachable justifications experts like yourself have presented.
While Waldman’s recommended approach has merit unless there is a burning will on the part of voters these changes will not see the light of day. The same billionaire contributors that have tilted the court will fight like hell to insure these type of changes do not happen.
Agreed. The good news, if one can call it that, is that Democrats are finally waking up to the critical impact of the courts and the necessity that judicial appointments be a crucial factor in how we vote.
B.I.N.G.O.
I am truly sorry to be repetitive and redundant however the first thing I think of when you mention 18-year term limits is what about integrity? Let’s say ‘we’ go with Walkman’s approach but how do ‘we’ ensure 18 years of integrity from each justice? They have shown us that they do not need to follow their own rules.
I use the word ‘need’ with purpose. They haven’t felt compelled in anyway to follow their own rules. There is nothing internal or external to the court that gives them pause in doing what they want, hence they don’t need to follow rules.
Perhaps we need some liberal justices to go on a fishing trip to get some common sense ethical rules put in place. I might take that trade.
Sarcasm or not, makes you wonder what volume the GOP outrage would have been if Elena Kagan had accepted that basket of lox and bagels. Or gone on a $100,000 Alaskan fishing trip.
That was a bit of sarcasm. (I was told to make sure to add that).
Karen, Your concern is valid and largely rests with the fact that we don’t have ethics rules for Supreme Court Justices the way we do for other federal courts. In my view, all of us should be terrified by a High Court that seems to view itself as above the law. Still, term limits that ensure each President two nominations would help to balance the Court.
That would be a twisted and awkward way around the plain language of the Constitution. Congress may change the number of justices, it may alter the court’s jurisdiction, but to impose term limits tortures (or worse) the words of Article III. It’s the kind of thing Republicans would do.
Jon, Before I started following Michael Waldman I might have agreed with you. That said, Waldman writes (and I quote), “Congress has broad authority to shape the Supreme Court’s structure and the Justice’s duties.” Term limits, he notes, “can be implemented by statute as long as the Justices retain their judicial office after their 18-year term, which is what the senior justice system provides.”
Considering Waldman was recruited to serve on the President’s Commission to study the Court and given that term limits was the only remedy that received unanimous support, I would strongly advise we not dismiss it out of hand.
I'm not dismissing him out of hand. I've been a lawyer for more than 50 years, some of it dealing with civil rights. I took constitutional law from Leonard Levy (historian) and Paul Freund. That doesn't mean that I speak with absolute authority, but I have some knowledge and I think he's wrong.
Jon, I appreciate your perspective so much so that I wish you or Robert (who agrees with you) could sit in public with Waldman so the country would better grasp what’s possible.
Do presidents who cheat to win (Bush and chump in my lifetime) get two justices. And as republicans are currently cheating to win next year, two more for them.
Jeri, I imagine, barring removal from office, whoever is inaugurated would get to nominate two justices in her or his first term. As for someone illegitimately becoming President, I would contend every one of us is obliged to engage in every way possible to diminish that possibility. I know for certain in 2000-2001 Ron Klain labored 24/7 to try and get the legitimately elected candidate seated. Indeed, we don’t always succeed. Hence, the rock my parents gave me that sits on my desk and reads, “Never, Never Quit.”
It’s why, in my dotage, I’m still at it. My resources have diminished but I can’t let the bastards win if I Am still breathing. They will never quit either. It is truly a battle for the soul of the country.
Jeri, I wish more of the country shared your attitude and understood that we’re at war against an increasingly fascist threat.
Lord, so do i
We for got to mention Nixon who cheated in another way.
Agreed. His sabotaging the peace talks not only contributed to Humphrey’s defeat but also expanded the war.
Walden’s notwithstanding, our country has seen many presidential or congressional commissions that did not carry the day, regretfully so, take the Kerner Commission as a significant example. Some have been saying the courts commission did not offer a strong option.
John, Admittedly, my preceding comments on this thread notwithstanding, I was disappointed to learn the Commission’s weak response to expanding the Court, a maneuver that experts far more credentialed than I have justified with arguments I would deem unimpeachable.
Term limits would be good. Mix it up!!
Sheila, If you review the thread for Robert’s and Jon Margolis’s replies to Waldman’s arguments for term limits, you will find they disagree with Waldman’s interpretation of the Constitution. I would note I mentioned to Jon the value of someone like himself or Robert sitting in public with Waldman to help the country grasp what’s possible.
You know you're really good, Robert, when you mis-speak (Scalia/Alito) and the universe adjusts the news to make you right! 🤣
LOL!
While reading the substitution of names, I recalled the sainted Antonin readily made himself available for sponsored ‘hunting and fishing’ trips! Makes me wonder, who paid for his seats at the opera performances!
Ya, freaky. I typically don’t ‘get’ this stuff so thoroughly and sometimes have to read twice. But I was switching back and forth (Scalia/Alito) without skipping a beat!
And for Ruth Bader Ginberg's? They shared a love of opera, though their ideologies were different. (And I sincerely doubt she would have accepted such a gift.)
Robert, I appreciated your comments about the Modi visit. I am grateful to have a President and team who understand complexity and competing interests, and I also recognize that there are obviously many facts we do not know. I also respect a party that tolerates disagreement within its ranks--healthy, as you say. Finally, it occurs to me that folks around the world are looking at the US as a country withdrawing women’s rights, banning books, outlawing healthcare, making it more difficult to vote, etc. Their leaders, too, must struggle with their messaging regarding the US. More motivation to turn this around!
Modi is a Hindu Nationalist (his party was responsible for the assassination of Gandhi in 1948). A Hindu Nationalist is no different from a Christian Nationalist is no different from a Jewish Nationalist. With the Christian Nationalists you get the "democracies" of Poland and Hungary. With the Jewish Nationalists you get the current Israeli government. Religious Nationalists of whatever imaginary skyguy are The Enemy.
Skyguy I like but what about skywoman
sky any of them
And these are just what popped up to the top of Google
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/30/india/india-delhi-girl-murder-video-outrage-intl-hnk/index.html
https://newindian.in/in-a-viral-video-a-man-from-mps-rewa-was-seen-mercilessly-beating-a-woman-for-rejecting-his-advances-for-marriage/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/08/15-year-old-girl-raped-and-set-fire-left-fight-life-india/81503728/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-girls-beaten-boys-sexual-harassment-school-bihar-arrest-a8574436.html
https://nextshark.com/indian-men-stood-and-filmed-assaulted-12-year-old
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/08/indian-schoolgirls-beaten-for-resisting-boys-sexual-advances
good observations, Cathy.
The USA is spiraling downward.
Perhaps we should heed Matthew 7:3-5 (about a speck in your neighbor's eye but a beam or plank in your own)
and remember the saying "when you point a finger at someone else, four are pointing back at you."
We are the only nation that ever dropped atomic bombs on a civilian population.
Sorry we are not spiraling downward but moving ahead in a democracy that while not perfect works and our nation saved thousands of lives with the use of nuclear weapons which for over 60 has been a deterrent for additional wars.
Engaging with Modi is smart diplomacy. Working to move his sympathies away from Russia (buying all that oil from Putin!) and back to the US is important.
But hosting him for a fancy and expensive state dinner is a bit hard to digest. TCinLA describes him well. He is a bigot and a supremacist.
I would have bought him lunch and offered to sell him some oil.
Unfortunately, “hosting him [Modi] for a fancy … state dinner” is part of “smart diplomacy”. Not doing so would have been taken by many as slighting India, not rebuking Modi the individual.
Unfortunately most voters do not pay much attention to Supreme Court rulings unless they are major changes in the law that impact them personally. A group of billionaire conservative Republicans over many years have built and implemented a vast network to train, groom and help select Supreme Court justices and then ply them with gifts and favors to continue the influence. Until we demand and implement ethics rules and regulations changes that are enforced this will continue. For a select group of voters this could be a burning issue. On another note Heather Cox Richardson brought to light this fact which I am sharing with you. “ ,”A study out today by Media Matters shows that cable news networks are “obsessed over Biden’s age while overwhelmingly ignoring Trump’s.” Biden is only three years older than Trump—80 and 77, respectively—and apparently in significantly better health, but in the week after Biden announced his reelection campaign, CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC mentioned his age 588 times, suggesting it is a negative attribute rather than a positive reflection on his experience, while mentioning Trump’s only 72 times. Stay dry.
It says a lot when the best they can criticise is Biden's age. Clearly with Trump there's so much more fodder.
*criticize
Re “Modi” Operandi (nice word play BTW), I too am disappointed that we need to make peace w autocrats in service of long term interests. But at 77, I’ve come to accept the world as messy, despite my personal preferences. I have no quarrel w AOC and others walking out on Modi’s address—in fact I’m proud to identify w a party whose members compete for the moral high ground rather than for being the best groveller.
Winston Churchill was a dedicated, lifelong anti-Communist. (In 1918, he ordered British troops into Russia in an attempt to oust the Bolsheviks.). But when asked in 1941 whether Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union would make that country an ally of Britain, he replied, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I should at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” So it is with Modi’s state visit. In foreign affairs, Biden’s opportunities for righteousness are few and far between.
Thank you for correctly referring to the right wing as “reactionary”. That is entirely correct. I cringe when people refer to the right wing as “radical”. Radical proudly refers to the Left. I am a Radical.
Justice Thomas et. al., are reactionaries.
I, too, subscribe to your distinction between "radical" and "reactionary."
"Radical" as espoused by Angela Davis: "to the root."
"Reactionary" connotes reactivity, lack of critical thinking, and/or lack of consideration for contemporary fairness.
A side note. The radical sign used in mathematics is an extended ‘r’ from ‘radix’ or root, as in square root, cube root, etc. But I digress!
Love that digression--did not know "radical" in mathematics, or suppressed it from college calculus PTSD!
A similar distinction that, too often, is not made these days is the distinction between ‘conservative’ and ‘reactionary’. Too often, media refer to reactionaries as ‘conservatives’.
Reactionaries don’t want to conserve.
You got my heart beating and my blood pressure rising again, Robert. Today, I watched Biden welcome Modi and then I waited for him to say something about the human tragedies happening in India. He skated through that part. Also news reporters have had their credentials, film, and interviews seized by the “authorities” there. That’s hardly a democracy! Modi is talking with forked tongue, in my opinion. I worry for India’s people who have been oppressed. Jobs will be created with our help, but at what cost?
So let me just indulge in the subject of Fake 45’s lawyers getting Jack Smith’s information as to who will be testifying against him. He has now seen the list and I imagine it is quite extensive. I imagine Fake 45 throwing ketchup everywhere. Anyhow, it’s delicious!
Hi, Marlene. I recognize your anger at Biden's welcome for Modi. As I wrote, reasonable people can disagree about what we should do with Modi's track record. I would not have sponsored a state dinner or address to Congress. But if we rebuffed Modi and China or Russia gave him the welcoming treatment we refused, would that benefit the international security of America? hard question.
I totally get what you’re saying, Robert. In fact, I had that same thought after I wrote back to you. I call it “walking on a thin ice” and I suppose Biden did it gracefully while keeping in mind of those issues you brought up. But thanks for letting me steam a little.
I find a terrifying. Robert, what is going to going to happen to these people? With their lives be threatened? Will they be offered money not to testify? Will they lose employment? Will trump turn his hordes against them?
Scalia - Alito ... tomato-tomahto
Let US call the whole SCOTUS off
Scalia had redeeming qualities, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed. I see no redeeming qualities for Alito … or Thomas.
Robert, you did an absolutely beautiful job of describing why the Modi visit was a good thing, and yet, why it was reasonable for a handful of left wing congresspeople not to attend. You caught the complexity of governing a nation in a wild world, and how both Biden, and Tlaib et al. did admirably.
Your legal expertise certainly gives me lots to "chew on" in these complicated times, particularly since the SCOTUS in my opinion is illegitimate. I won't even vent about my disgust on who is writing the majority opinion these days (after years of silent presence and not recusing himself on major cases directly involving his wife's actions and influence.)
HOW I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BRYAN STEVENSON appointed as a Supreme Court Justice!!!
Wow! The "reactionary majority" is now showing how the chaos of the Dobbs "mandate" (it isn't a decision in the sense of applying logic and the Constitution) is spreading to every "mandate" the Court is now making. The chaos of the military if you allow the legislators the power to override the military leaders! The chaos of drugs where the legislators override the doctors. The cruelty and unfairness of a person not ever being proven innocent after once being proven guilty. Of course, there is never a person who was wrongly accused and found guilty! The government isn't fallible! Wow! The Affirmative Action case will be the same because Injustice Thomas has a personal vendetta against it. He feels that he didn't get any job offers from top law firms when he graduated from Yale Law School because he was considered by affirmative action to be the token black that got into Yale without merit. See the PBS exposee of the Thomases: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/clarence-and-ginni-thomas/ Then if they go with the independent legislature so the state courts cannot pass judgement on anything the legislature does we're in heap big trouble, as if we weren't already with this clown court. -- This anti-democracy court. This theolikle court. We need to quit talking among ourselves and convince every person we know no matter what their political persuasion is to hold the Republicans accountable by not voting for them. We need a House and Senate capable of impeaching Alito, Thomas and Roberts! Also term limits and a non-partisan process for nominating and confirming Justices. We, the People, ALL OF US, this time.
"____________ has chosen finality over error correction." Fill in the blank. How sad. How awful.
Another way of expressing the warped vision: *convenience* over correction.
There’s something seriously – morally – wrong with people who refuse to correct a human injustice because it’s slightly inconvenient.
I appreciate the measured way Robert discussed President Biden's handling of the Modi visit to Washington. He insightfully describes the president's challenges as our supreme diplomat while acknowledging the risks he takes to our reputation as a great democracy.
Robert, do you know how SCOTUS determines which cases they will hear ? Jones V Hendrix…😥
SCOTUS recently declined to hear heartbreaking case of a local FL man and he was just denied parole.
Florida leads the nation in death penalty exonerations. Thanks to DeSantis, Florida now requires only 8 of 12 jurors for capital punishment.
“ In April 2021, Mr. Green was released from prison on conditional release (house arrest) while his case was pending appeal. While living in Titusville, Fla. during the past two years, Mr. Green has held full-time employment, become part of a church community, and spent time with family—including meeting grandkids for the first time. The state of Florida appealed the decision, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Green's victory. The Supreme Court declined to take up Mr. Green's case on February 27, 2023. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District for Florida ordered Mr. Green to return to custody of the Florida Department of Corrections to complete his sentence.”
https://www.nbc12.com/prnewswire/2023/06/22/florida-commission-denies-parole-crosley-green/
parties petition the Court for review. The justices meet once a week to consider granting review. There are thousands of petitions presented each year. The Court (because of its small size) grants review in only a few dozen cases a year. They look for cases that present novel legal questions about which the lower courts disagree. At least, that is how it is supposed to work.
This story and so many like it make my heart hurt. It seems to me the lying prosecutors should be the ones in jail, not Mr. Green.
I truly admire the lawyers who continue to work on cases like this day after day despite the injustice. I would be screaming and tearing my hair out.
In what universe does it make sense for a man proven innocent to spend the rest of his life in jail?
As others have written, thank you for calling out the SC majority as “reactionary” and not “radical”. Similarly, the media generally is being far too generous in referring to certain GOP reactionaries (or, as I prefer, “whackos”) as “conservatives.” Although being generally liberal in my views, I have no quarrel with true conservatives, as defined by Oakeshott:
“To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”