I’m writing this comment after reading the first part of today’s message, about lying and it’s ill effects. Your email, Robert, arrived right after my late night browsing of the highlights of the day’s news. And learning of Mitch McConnell’s brief speechless moments. And he brings to mind another sidekick to that of lying: lack of courage.
At the conclusion of the post January 6th impeachment hearing, didn’t McConnell more less outright state Trump’s guilt?
And yet he kicked the can down the road saying it would be up to future proceedings to bring Trump to Justice. That could have been a moment of courage. And as with repeated lying, repeated omissions of courage eat at the sinews of democracy, as you well express it. And citizens are experiencing that long and winding road that may or may not result in a due and just outcome. It is shocking even to imagine that the instigator and catalyst of an attack on the heart of our democracy remains free and poised to be a candidate for the presidential office of the democracy he attacked (and continues to do so). Thanks to men and women of courage who step in where McConnell stepped out.
There are several keys to making the Supreme Court once again legitimate. Right now illegitimate is a legitimate description of the present Court -- at least 2/3's of it. We do have three Justices - Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson (note all women) -- who are working hard to pull the Court back to its mission of defending the Constitution and its precedents and protection of freedoms. Yes, establishing ethics as Senator Whitehouse is leading is something that perhaps can be done in this Congress. The next Congress needs to make the John Lewis Voting Rights Act into law as one of its highest priorities. With in the Voting Rights Act is campaign reform and the end of Citizens United which is basically legalized corruption of our elected officials. The Alabama legislature defying the Supreme Court even as I abhor its bias and unfairness, almost gets an attaboy from me for telling the Supreme Court to go pound sand. I will NOT live in the theocratic oligarchic kleptocracy - a theolikle -- and feel civil disobedience (with an acceptance of its consequences) has a legitimate role of defiance under this Court's blatant and knowingly twisted rulings taking away the freedoms that the Constitution guarantees. No, Robert, please stand your ground on the illegitimacy of two-thirds of this Court. Let's get legitimate defenders of the People elected to the Congress to put the much needed checks to give us back a legitimate Supreme Court. We, the People, all of us this time!
Yes! The Supreme Court is the negligent gatekeeper in a nation that is becoming an out of control zoo.
Perhaps if the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was in effect, we would raise the intelligence factor in Congress. The Oligarchs have used their incredible wealth to put in place mentally deficient puppets like MTG. With a thoughtful smart Congress, we could get to work on everything from Supreme Court corruption and the BIG one. The Climate Crisis.
Every election is called the most important one ever - but 2024 truly is.
Living in NYC in 2001 I worked with local, state and national authorities dealing with the aftermath of 9/11. I don't remember Rudy Giuliani playing any significant or memorable role. He simply did his job and didn't have a nervous breakdown or stroke. But that was enough for him to systematically nurture a narrative that elevated him to the quite profitable hero status of 'America's Mayor'.
Whereas his activities in the wake of 9/11 are rather questionable his role in the insurrection is not. To quote you, Robert, he "was a key conspirator in the attempted coup." From various strange (or telling) voice messages he left during the insurrection it can be assumed that he used his phone rather carelessly. So it must be a true treasure trove for prosecutors.
I hope Freeman and Moss sue the pants off of Giuliani but he shouldn't get away with not having to surrender his phone and its content. It surely would be quite valuable for Jack Smith as well as the coming indictment in Georgia.
Rudy was a camera hog from day one of his mayoral terms. Any fire, gas leak, water break or car accident, Rudy went on camera to try to convince people that he was in charge.
When he was suppose to be in charge, he fled from collapsing buildings where he had his emergency headquarters!
I watched the movie “Battleship” and yes there are aliens (recommended viewing!) they have invaded the earth and have taken earthly forms like Giuliani, Trump, DeSantis, Greene, Gaetz, Boebert and countless more.... we are all doomed ...please all spread this info before it’s too late!!!!!
Two things come to my mind after reading todays powerful newsletter. The first is that we individual Americans must keep working for serious Climate Solutions from our government, for sure. But none of us can wait another minute to alter the way we choose to live in order to participate in healing this mess. I beg of my fellow readers to keep asking ourselves if we need to flush every time, need to take an extra ride out to a movie, remember to turn lights off, use less AC, solarize if we can, take fewer airborne vacations and purchase local and sustainable and reduce plastic and generally do we really need to live the way we do? Our power of the purse can render bad companies impotent to continue. We can’t wait for good legislation and keep contributing to Climate Change ourselves. We do have a lot of power, together and collectively as consumers and in the way we live. Perhaps the Pursuit of Happiness needs a bit of a re-think.
The second point is that the other issue with Conspiracy theorist voters is that they vote on one issue, their pet issue and only that issue. If we can possibly help our anti-vax friends to consider other issues such as the environment, at least we will have tried to nudge them out of the rut of single-issue thinking. It’s not easy in my experience, but worth a try. If we have no planet we won’t even be able to address having vaccines or not.
I am so grateful for these newsletters and the knowing that all of you fellow readers are out there caring and working.
This is a very good point. I should have made it: "The second point is that the other issue with Conspiracy theorist voters is that they vote on one issue."
Thank you very much for your comment, Amy. I agree with you and I do try to do what I can. I again want to make two recommendations. My electricity comes from solar and wind energy through clean Choice energy. It is a little more expensive but it's a very good option and way to combat climate change and use renewables. I also recommend again the climate Action Now app which is incredibly easy to use and well informed. Thank you again
. . .and forego the use of fossil fuels. You are spot-on Amy, and oh, how I hope Robert's Dear Readers take it to heart. Every time I've suggested giving up overseas travel for good ole USofA roadtrips, I get a stink-eye. Not ONE of my otherwise proactive environmentalist friends is willing to give up Europe, or any other exotic location. I have pointed out that a picture off the internet is as good as any self taken picture, and much cheaper! But no bites. Ditto, the 360-degree interior scans of loads of famous buildings. How is that not an incentive??? Our habits and loves run deep.
I don't think citizens can stop climate change without gov't help. So much is simply too expensive for many of us--insulating and solarizing homes, electrifying cars (they need ubiquitous fast chargers), greed, etc.
But this is one of the more imaginative, hopeful projects
"In a culture where leading members of a major political party do not condemn lies but celebrate them, lies become a solvent that dissolves the sinew of truth that binds our nation."
Today's column is a terrific report about the legitimacy and lack of it of our institutions. The corrosive effect on our belief in our institutions is created and supported by lies like those that Rudy Giuliani admitted to. The foolishness of believing that the government has spent 75 years covering up visits by space aliens. More corrosive in our belief in the credibility of our insitutions is that some of them have earned the skepticism they get. The propriety of questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court -- both for its irresponsible decisions (It is too late to fix Alabama's congressional districts) and the illegitimate appointment of two of its members. Finally, it is no wonder charlatans like RFK Jr can make us skeptical of pharmaceuticals when the Sacklers' Purdue Pharma and a slew of other drug manufacturers and distributers can be sued, required to make large payments for their responsibility for the damage caused by opioids, and, somehow, still be standing as enormously wealthy people and corporations.
On the Supreme Court, I agree we should not call it illegitimate. A better word for this Court, which I learned from Katie Porter (who I believe picked up the idea from Sen. Whitehouse) is corrupt. The Court is corrupt in the way some of its members were appointed and in the way some of its members conduct themselves. That label, unlike “illegitimate”, would not follow the Court once it reforms or has new members.
I understand your reasoning. But I disagree that corrupt applies to the appointments of Gorsuch and Barrett. But you should use that term if you are comfortable with it.
Thank you. An institution that was created as part of a carefully designed democracy can't be illegitimate. But its members could have been placed there through an illegitimate process. And their personal behavior and the attitudes reflected in their decisions renders them to be puppets and corrupt. They define the idea of an "activist" court. What kind of court entertains a fake case where there is no standing and no harm to the person involved? What judge does not recuse himself when there is an obvious conflict of interest and often, the clear perception of conflict?
Corrupt criminals - placed there by the uber rich puppet masters who disdain democracy and want to ram a religion down our throats. They should be in prison.
It is incredible that Hunter got huge large type headline in our newspaper and Giuliani got a tiny article small type headline on page 6 upper left easy to miss. Hunter headline next to it was 4 columns and about 20 times the font headline 1/3 in length of the page. Giuliani was 1 column 1/6 in length on the page. Trying to give you a visual. If you didn’t mention it today I would have totally missed it thinking it was just another Giuliani lie not this huge deal. It should have been front page above the fold!!!
Your piece fills me with great sadness as I approach my 78th birthday. Are these not the “best of times and the worst of times.”Personally, I was born in the sweet spot of gay liberation. But politically my era has been fighting one rear guard action after another starting with the Republicans of Nixon and Reagan and on to George W and Trump. Now another battle to save democracy. Gone is my dream of a nation more like Western Europe. I will not live to see it. We seem more than ever back in ante bellum America. There was a Big Lie then, more hideous than the Trump Big Lie. It resided in a South still today fertile ground for lies, fear and white Christian nationalism. So little has changed. Of course there has been progress but it remains a question of how many more decades should America be graced with them before we have anything approaching the norms and habits of a progressive nation.
Hi, John. don't give up. Most people reading my newsletter will not live to see the full promise of the Constitution come to fruition. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight the good fight, like those who came before did for us!
Your comment reminded me that my mom died in the spring of '16 believing that Hillary would be our first woman elected President and trump was a joke of a candidate. I am glad she didn't have to see what consequences that election unleashed.
I'm 79 and I approve your message. Looking at the world in general--including Orban, the government of Italy, the surge of far right autocracy in so many places, I can only say that we lived in the brief, shining moment where American ideals seemed within our grasp.
My favorite paragraph in your letter today- especially the part citing bored teenagers:
“And then there is this: Are we to believe that alien spacecraft can navigate across tens of thousands of light years of space, but crash with alarming regularity on Earth? Or how about the fact that there are 15 billion cellphones with cameras on Earth, but we still have nothing more than fuzzy, shaky, pixelated photos of objects that could be alien spacecraft or hubcaps thrown into the air by bored teenagers?”
Having so much respect both for you, Robert, and for Mr. Sykes, I feel almost like I'm having to choose one child or one parent over the other, regarding the question of Supreme Court "legitimacy."
But I think the issue ultimately comes down to a question of whether it's the institution or the individuals who are illegitimate.
1) Would increasing the number of Justices guarantee that future nominees will be truthful during their Congressional testimony? No.
2) Would term limits cause Justices to decide cases more fairly and honestly? No.
3) Would an ethics code limit the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations? Marginally.
Like Mr. Sykes, I don't deny that there's a crisis of trust at the Supreme Court. But the reason is not because of structural flaws in the Court's design. Tempting as it may be to do "something" about this crisis, the only way any institution can retain legitimacy is if those within it act with integrity. Pretending otherwise will only weaken the institution further.
I agree with your comment "the reason is not because of structural flaws in the Court's design." But we CAN correct the problems at the Court by resorting to "structural" changes. Why wouldn't we do that?
Thank you for noting my comment, Robert -- very much appreciated.
My answer is the same as it is for those calling for a Constitutional Convention to address the Citizens United decision:
That is, there is an essential core of stability residing in institutions that withstand temporary crises of legitimacy. This is especially true when the crisis is caused by flawed individuals rather than flawed structure.
Jul 27, 2023·edited Jul 27, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I usually have a full appreciation for what Charlie Sykes writes, but completely disagreed with his Op Ed regarding being cautious about citing the illegitimacy of this court. I was happy to hear Robert speak today to the importance of us speaking out in regard to this vitally important matter
Your questions are answered as you see it. Here is how I see it.
1) Quite possibly. As a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population with the sample being more representative of the population. The chance for having honest people who have an interest in standing up in promoting justice for all under the guidance of our constitution will be greater with more justices rather than just a few . Especially when a few can be bought off quite easily.
2) No, but we will not be stuck with dishonest justices in their lifetime appointments. This is just a no-brainer in any position, and most certainly in this one, especially when justices are appointed while still in their 50's.
3) Quite possibly to a large degree, as this represents a full branch of our government. Again, look to the probability brought by larger numbers. It's quite easy for dark money with specific agendas to infiltrate 5 justices as compared to buying off , say, a majority of 435 in the House. (This would also require buying off more than half the Senate)
The presence of this reactionary court was Mitch McConnell's main agenda in supporting a reality TV star in the position of POTUS. So far he won this one, but we must fight back if we are to enforce justice for all under the eyes of our constitution.
Very good point, and argues for a much larger Court: "As a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population with the sample being more representative of the population."
Unless you're arguing for a very much larger Court, sample size would not be appreciably greater than it is now. And a very much larger Court would actually undermine its authority, making it more of a super-legislature than an arbiter of law.
The court certainly would not have to be a "much larger" court for this to be more representative. The court has not grown in relation to the population of this country, and needs to at least move in that direction.
Term limits would certainly help a great deal as well. The fact that these justices sit on that bench for decades should be an outrage to all.
Sorry to take so long before responding to your thoughtful observations, Lynn. You make some good points, worthy of an answer.
The issue for me, as for Mr. Sykes, is the danger of undermining the legitimacy of the Supreme Court while advocating for needed revisions to its current structure. We should suggest improvements without the rhetoric of "illegitimacy", in order to preserve respect for the institution's role as protector of our Constitution.
For example, there's nothing more or less legitimate about a 9 member Court or a 15 member Court. What matters, as you note, is whether the individuals are honest and promote justice. Since all are appointed, not picked at random, who does the appointing is really the determining factor, not sample size. Six Donald Trump appointees would be no more honest than three. And unlike the legislature, Supreme Court Justices are not intended to represent the people, but only the Constitution. In my opiinion, increasing their number would only make the Court more unwieldy.
I do agree that implementing a system of staggered limited terms is a good idea. But the current practice of life-time terms has been in place for the entire history of the Court, so it's hardly illegitimate. What is "an outrage" is the prospect of certain Justices (like Neil Gorsuch) serving for decades. On the other hand, Thurgood Marshall was on the bench for 24 years, John Paul Stevens for 35 years, Ruth Ginsberg for 27 years.
With regard to the influence of wealth, I agree that there should be a defined code of ethics. But again, it's really about individual honor. Corporate influence is much more insidious than blatant bribery, which can easily be prohibited. The problem is that certain Justices socialize in exclusive circles, and have friends whose interests regularly come before the Court even though they aren't themselves directly parties to the case. No ethics code can regulate who one chooses to befriend.
So these are all changes worth considering. But in the end, we need to elect an honorable President and honorable Senators in order to have a legitimately honorable Supreme Court.
Structural flaws are the essence of the crisis! Consider lifetime appointments, no ethics rules, no accountability for craven actions! The court stinks!
I’m writing this comment after reading the first part of today’s message, about lying and it’s ill effects. Your email, Robert, arrived right after my late night browsing of the highlights of the day’s news. And learning of Mitch McConnell’s brief speechless moments. And he brings to mind another sidekick to that of lying: lack of courage.
At the conclusion of the post January 6th impeachment hearing, didn’t McConnell more less outright state Trump’s guilt?
And yet he kicked the can down the road saying it would be up to future proceedings to bring Trump to Justice. That could have been a moment of courage. And as with repeated lying, repeated omissions of courage eat at the sinews of democracy, as you well express it. And citizens are experiencing that long and winding road that may or may not result in a due and just outcome. It is shocking even to imagine that the instigator and catalyst of an attack on the heart of our democracy remains free and poised to be a candidate for the presidential office of the democracy he attacked (and continues to do so). Thanks to men and women of courage who step in where McConnell stepped out.
So, what IS on his phone he's so desperate to save?
The recipe for his hair dye.
And the contact info for Four Seasons in Philly!
🤣
And, why has Jack Smith not obtained this info (perhaps he has)?
probably evidence of multiple other wrongdoing that could lead to separate convictions. But I like Jon Margolis' and Bob Morgan's answers!
I know. My need to find out just skyrocketed.
There are several keys to making the Supreme Court once again legitimate. Right now illegitimate is a legitimate description of the present Court -- at least 2/3's of it. We do have three Justices - Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson (note all women) -- who are working hard to pull the Court back to its mission of defending the Constitution and its precedents and protection of freedoms. Yes, establishing ethics as Senator Whitehouse is leading is something that perhaps can be done in this Congress. The next Congress needs to make the John Lewis Voting Rights Act into law as one of its highest priorities. With in the Voting Rights Act is campaign reform and the end of Citizens United which is basically legalized corruption of our elected officials. The Alabama legislature defying the Supreme Court even as I abhor its bias and unfairness, almost gets an attaboy from me for telling the Supreme Court to go pound sand. I will NOT live in the theocratic oligarchic kleptocracy - a theolikle -- and feel civil disobedience (with an acceptance of its consequences) has a legitimate role of defiance under this Court's blatant and knowingly twisted rulings taking away the freedoms that the Constitution guarantees. No, Robert, please stand your ground on the illegitimacy of two-thirds of this Court. Let's get legitimate defenders of the People elected to the Congress to put the much needed checks to give us back a legitimate Supreme Court. We, the People, all of us this time!
Yes! The Supreme Court is the negligent gatekeeper in a nation that is becoming an out of control zoo.
Perhaps if the John Lewis Voting Rights Act was in effect, we would raise the intelligence factor in Congress. The Oligarchs have used their incredible wealth to put in place mentally deficient puppets like MTG. With a thoughtful smart Congress, we could get to work on everything from Supreme Court corruption and the BIG one. The Climate Crisis.
Every election is called the most important one ever - but 2024 truly is.
Living in NYC in 2001 I worked with local, state and national authorities dealing with the aftermath of 9/11. I don't remember Rudy Giuliani playing any significant or memorable role. He simply did his job and didn't have a nervous breakdown or stroke. But that was enough for him to systematically nurture a narrative that elevated him to the quite profitable hero status of 'America's Mayor'.
Whereas his activities in the wake of 9/11 are rather questionable his role in the insurrection is not. To quote you, Robert, he "was a key conspirator in the attempted coup." From various strange (or telling) voice messages he left during the insurrection it can be assumed that he used his phone rather carelessly. So it must be a true treasure trove for prosecutors.
I hope Freeman and Moss sue the pants off of Giuliani but he shouldn't get away with not having to surrender his phone and its content. It surely would be quite valuable for Jack Smith as well as the coming indictment in Georgia.
Rudy was a camera hog from day one of his mayoral terms. Any fire, gas leak, water break or car accident, Rudy went on camera to try to convince people that he was in charge.
When he was suppose to be in charge, he fled from collapsing buildings where he had his emergency headquarters!
Rudy’s life is a lie!
I watched the movie “Battleship” and yes there are aliens (recommended viewing!) they have invaded the earth and have taken earthly forms like Giuliani, Trump, DeSantis, Greene, Gaetz, Boebert and countless more.... we are all doomed ...please all spread this info before it’s too late!!!!!
(;<{)
I don’t know where else the MAGA crowd comes from because none of them act like human beings.
It's the best explanation I've heard!!! LOL :)
🤣🤣🤣
Two things come to my mind after reading todays powerful newsletter. The first is that we individual Americans must keep working for serious Climate Solutions from our government, for sure. But none of us can wait another minute to alter the way we choose to live in order to participate in healing this mess. I beg of my fellow readers to keep asking ourselves if we need to flush every time, need to take an extra ride out to a movie, remember to turn lights off, use less AC, solarize if we can, take fewer airborne vacations and purchase local and sustainable and reduce plastic and generally do we really need to live the way we do? Our power of the purse can render bad companies impotent to continue. We can’t wait for good legislation and keep contributing to Climate Change ourselves. We do have a lot of power, together and collectively as consumers and in the way we live. Perhaps the Pursuit of Happiness needs a bit of a re-think.
The second point is that the other issue with Conspiracy theorist voters is that they vote on one issue, their pet issue and only that issue. If we can possibly help our anti-vax friends to consider other issues such as the environment, at least we will have tried to nudge them out of the rut of single-issue thinking. It’s not easy in my experience, but worth a try. If we have no planet we won’t even be able to address having vaccines or not.
I am so grateful for these newsletters and the knowing that all of you fellow readers are out there caring and working.
This is a very good point. I should have made it: "The second point is that the other issue with Conspiracy theorist voters is that they vote on one issue."
Thank you very much for your comment, Amy. I agree with you and I do try to do what I can. I again want to make two recommendations. My electricity comes from solar and wind energy through clean Choice energy. It is a little more expensive but it's a very good option and way to combat climate change and use renewables. I also recommend again the climate Action Now app which is incredibly easy to use and well informed. Thank you again
Some great ideas, Amy. Consciousness is the first step toward enlightenment.
. . .and forego the use of fossil fuels. You are spot-on Amy, and oh, how I hope Robert's Dear Readers take it to heart. Every time I've suggested giving up overseas travel for good ole USofA roadtrips, I get a stink-eye. Not ONE of my otherwise proactive environmentalist friends is willing to give up Europe, or any other exotic location. I have pointed out that a picture off the internet is as good as any self taken picture, and much cheaper! But no bites. Ditto, the 360-degree interior scans of loads of famous buildings. How is that not an incentive??? Our habits and loves run deep.
What if the Supreme Court said to Alabama “You MUST redraw your maps to meet the proper requirements, and you must do it now (wink wink).”
I don't think citizens can stop climate change without gov't help. So much is simply too expensive for many of us--insulating and solarizing homes, electrifying cars (they need ubiquitous fast chargers), greed, etc.
But this is one of the more imaginative, hopeful projects
https://www.freethink.com/series/future-of-cities/amsterdam-circular-city
I sincerely hope there's intelligent life on other planets, because there's clearly a dearth of it on our own!
“Beam me up, Scotty; there is no intelligent life on this planet.”
"In a culture where leading members of a major political party do not condemn lies but celebrate them, lies become a solvent that dissolves the sinew of truth that binds our nation."
See, you do write good!
I try!
There probably is, but the universe is so vast that we'll probably never encounter them.
Today's column is a terrific report about the legitimacy and lack of it of our institutions. The corrosive effect on our belief in our institutions is created and supported by lies like those that Rudy Giuliani admitted to. The foolishness of believing that the government has spent 75 years covering up visits by space aliens. More corrosive in our belief in the credibility of our insitutions is that some of them have earned the skepticism they get. The propriety of questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court -- both for its irresponsible decisions (It is too late to fix Alabama's congressional districts) and the illegitimate appointment of two of its members. Finally, it is no wonder charlatans like RFK Jr can make us skeptical of pharmaceuticals when the Sacklers' Purdue Pharma and a slew of other drug manufacturers and distributers can be sued, required to make large payments for their responsibility for the damage caused by opioids, and, somehow, still be standing as enormously wealthy people and corporations.
We are a nation of laws and when laws do not matter that’s the decadence that Gibbon wrote about Rome
Indeed. If you are interested, consider my newsletter about political candidates: Len's Political Notes. https://lenspoliticalnotes.com
I subscribe to Len's Political Notes and highly recommend it!
Thanks.
;
Len
Just did, thanks!
On the Supreme Court, I agree we should not call it illegitimate. A better word for this Court, which I learned from Katie Porter (who I believe picked up the idea from Sen. Whitehouse) is corrupt. The Court is corrupt in the way some of its members were appointed and in the way some of its members conduct themselves. That label, unlike “illegitimate”, would not follow the Court once it reforms or has new members.
I understand your reasoning. But I disagree that corrupt applies to the appointments of Gorsuch and Barrett. But you should use that term if you are comfortable with it.
Thank you. An institution that was created as part of a carefully designed democracy can't be illegitimate. But its members could have been placed there through an illegitimate process. And their personal behavior and the attitudes reflected in their decisions renders them to be puppets and corrupt. They define the idea of an "activist" court. What kind of court entertains a fake case where there is no standing and no harm to the person involved? What judge does not recuse himself when there is an obvious conflict of interest and often, the clear perception of conflict?
Corrupt criminals - placed there by the uber rich puppet masters who disdain democracy and want to ram a religion down our throats. They should be in prison.
It's both illegitimate (due to McConnell's machinations) and corrupt (due to Leonard Leo's corrupting influence and certain justices' own weaknesses).
With the caveat of 2/3 being corrupt
It is incredible that Hunter got huge large type headline in our newspaper and Giuliani got a tiny article small type headline on page 6 upper left easy to miss. Hunter headline next to it was 4 columns and about 20 times the font headline 1/3 in length of the page. Giuliani was 1 column 1/6 in length on the page. Trying to give you a visual. If you didn’t mention it today I would have totally missed it thinking it was just another Giuliani lie not this huge deal. It should have been front page above the fold!!!
Your piece fills me with great sadness as I approach my 78th birthday. Are these not the “best of times and the worst of times.”Personally, I was born in the sweet spot of gay liberation. But politically my era has been fighting one rear guard action after another starting with the Republicans of Nixon and Reagan and on to George W and Trump. Now another battle to save democracy. Gone is my dream of a nation more like Western Europe. I will not live to see it. We seem more than ever back in ante bellum America. There was a Big Lie then, more hideous than the Trump Big Lie. It resided in a South still today fertile ground for lies, fear and white Christian nationalism. So little has changed. Of course there has been progress but it remains a question of how many more decades should America be graced with them before we have anything approaching the norms and habits of a progressive nation.
Hi, John. don't give up. Most people reading my newsletter will not live to see the full promise of the Constitution come to fruition. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight the good fight, like those who came before did for us!
Thanks Robert. You are right of course. Its not in my nature to give up.
Your comment reminded me that my mom died in the spring of '16 believing that Hillary would be our first woman elected President and trump was a joke of a candidate. I am glad she didn't have to see what consequences that election unleashed.
I'm 79 and I approve your message. Looking at the world in general--including Orban, the government of Italy, the surge of far right autocracy in so many places, I can only say that we lived in the brief, shining moment where American ideals seemed within our grasp.
But--bravo Spain!
Thanks for combing all the knots out of the confusing news!
Well stated!
My favorite paragraph in your letter today- especially the part citing bored teenagers:
“And then there is this: Are we to believe that alien spacecraft can navigate across tens of thousands of light years of space, but crash with alarming regularity on Earth? Or how about the fact that there are 15 billion cellphones with cameras on Earth, but we still have nothing more than fuzzy, shaky, pixelated photos of objects that could be alien spacecraft or hubcaps thrown into the air by bored teenagers?”
If there is intelligent life “out there”. I hope they run for Congress and get rid of some of the MAGA lunacy
Having so much respect both for you, Robert, and for Mr. Sykes, I feel almost like I'm having to choose one child or one parent over the other, regarding the question of Supreme Court "legitimacy."
But I think the issue ultimately comes down to a question of whether it's the institution or the individuals who are illegitimate.
1) Would increasing the number of Justices guarantee that future nominees will be truthful during their Congressional testimony? No.
2) Would term limits cause Justices to decide cases more fairly and honestly? No.
3) Would an ethics code limit the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations? Marginally.
Like Mr. Sykes, I don't deny that there's a crisis of trust at the Supreme Court. But the reason is not because of structural flaws in the Court's design. Tempting as it may be to do "something" about this crisis, the only way any institution can retain legitimacy is if those within it act with integrity. Pretending otherwise will only weaken the institution further.
.
I agree with your comment "the reason is not because of structural flaws in the Court's design." But we CAN correct the problems at the Court by resorting to "structural" changes. Why wouldn't we do that?
Thank you for noting my comment, Robert -- very much appreciated.
My answer is the same as it is for those calling for a Constitutional Convention to address the Citizens United decision:
That is, there is an essential core of stability residing in institutions that withstand temporary crises of legitimacy. This is especially true when the crisis is caused by flawed individuals rather than flawed structure.
.
I usually have a full appreciation for what Charlie Sykes writes, but completely disagreed with his Op Ed regarding being cautious about citing the illegitimacy of this court. I was happy to hear Robert speak today to the importance of us speaking out in regard to this vitally important matter
Your questions are answered as you see it. Here is how I see it.
1) Quite possibly. As a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population with the sample being more representative of the population. The chance for having honest people who have an interest in standing up in promoting justice for all under the guidance of our constitution will be greater with more justices rather than just a few . Especially when a few can be bought off quite easily.
2) No, but we will not be stuck with dishonest justices in their lifetime appointments. This is just a no-brainer in any position, and most certainly in this one, especially when justices are appointed while still in their 50's.
3) Quite possibly to a large degree, as this represents a full branch of our government. Again, look to the probability brought by larger numbers. It's quite easy for dark money with specific agendas to infiltrate 5 justices as compared to buying off , say, a majority of 435 in the House. (This would also require buying off more than half the Senate)
The presence of this reactionary court was Mitch McConnell's main agenda in supporting a reality TV star in the position of POTUS. So far he won this one, but we must fight back if we are to enforce justice for all under the eyes of our constitution.
Very good point, and argues for a much larger Court: "As a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population with the sample being more representative of the population."
Unless you're arguing for a very much larger Court, sample size would not be appreciably greater than it is now. And a very much larger Court would actually undermine its authority, making it more of a super-legislature than an arbiter of law.
.
The court certainly would not have to be a "much larger" court for this to be more representative. The court has not grown in relation to the population of this country, and needs to at least move in that direction.
Term limits would certainly help a great deal as well. The fact that these justices sit on that bench for decades should be an outrage to all.
Sorry to take so long before responding to your thoughtful observations, Lynn. You make some good points, worthy of an answer.
The issue for me, as for Mr. Sykes, is the danger of undermining the legitimacy of the Supreme Court while advocating for needed revisions to its current structure. We should suggest improvements without the rhetoric of "illegitimacy", in order to preserve respect for the institution's role as protector of our Constitution.
For example, there's nothing more or less legitimate about a 9 member Court or a 15 member Court. What matters, as you note, is whether the individuals are honest and promote justice. Since all are appointed, not picked at random, who does the appointing is really the determining factor, not sample size. Six Donald Trump appointees would be no more honest than three. And unlike the legislature, Supreme Court Justices are not intended to represent the people, but only the Constitution. In my opiinion, increasing their number would only make the Court more unwieldy.
I do agree that implementing a system of staggered limited terms is a good idea. But the current practice of life-time terms has been in place for the entire history of the Court, so it's hardly illegitimate. What is "an outrage" is the prospect of certain Justices (like Neil Gorsuch) serving for decades. On the other hand, Thurgood Marshall was on the bench for 24 years, John Paul Stevens for 35 years, Ruth Ginsberg for 27 years.
With regard to the influence of wealth, I agree that there should be a defined code of ethics. But again, it's really about individual honor. Corporate influence is much more insidious than blatant bribery, which can easily be prohibited. The problem is that certain Justices socialize in exclusive circles, and have friends whose interests regularly come before the Court even though they aren't themselves directly parties to the case. No ethics code can regulate who one chooses to befriend.
So these are all changes worth considering. But in the end, we need to elect an honorable President and honorable Senators in order to have a legitimately honorable Supreme Court.
.
Structural flaws are the essence of the crisis! Consider lifetime appointments, no ethics rules, no accountability for craven actions! The court stinks!