This weekend I mustered my courage and read the Opinion of our esteemed SCOTUS in the Students for Fair Admissions case. In my forty years of practicing law in California, I have gotten good at seeing how Supreme Courts (state and federal) go about justifying their opinions, and this one is no surprise. The six of them were obviously salivating at the opportunity to be done with affirmative efforts to level a discriminatory playing field that has held minority people back from positions of influence in the professional ranks of our society. They latched onto language from the splintered Bakke decision, and others that followed, that expressed concern about the “ending date” of college admissions that would seek to correct a longstanding wrong that has left people of any color besides white (or sex besides male) behind the eight-ball. From there, it was easy-going for them to conclude that enough time has passed for that disagreeable thing to be fixed. From their vantage point, as white-skinned observers of a country controlled by white men (yes, I put Clarence Thomas in that category, for whatever mentally unbalanced reasons are true), people of color have had enough advantage on the backs of the “majority,” who have patiently shared their bounty with the losers of well-documented battles for control of the wealth of this land. After all, where is the gratefulness for the opportunities given to people of color for the food and clothing they were allowed to have after they were forced to enrich the lives of white people?
Enough is enough, so our SCOTUS in power has declared. Now they have asserted their view of the proper role of women, which is to bear children regardless of the means to raise them, and they have made clear they are coming after anyone who dares to claim that America is a place to be different from the straight, white men who want credit for all that is good in this country.
What I find most appalling, though – even as I try to contemplate what they are doing to affirmative action – is the patent and blatant willingness of the most revered jurists in our legal system to take and decide a hypothetical set of facts in order to declare that racist and homophobic and anti-religious members of the major ruling class in this country can refuse to honor our anti-discrimination statutes when it comes to public business services. When jurists can ignore the requirement for a controversy in a litigated case, we are sunk. This is first-year law school instruction in Civil Procedure courses, and they ignore it for their own ends. To me, that is the scariest thing of all. No one but someone schooled in the law will understand what they did. Even the smartest layperson will not understand the importance of a “case in controversy” requirement for a court dispute, and any person, elected or in the media, can talk about that case as though the issue was up for discussion. It wasn’t. When I see our highest court construct a reason to take a big shot at our LBGTQ community, we can see that anti-Semitism and other anti-sentiments are not far behind. As bad and dangerous as the erasure of affirmative action was with this Court’s sleight of hand, what they did for that fictional web designer was the scariest of all. They will stop at nothing if they can do that without blinking.
Everyone should read Rebecca Solnit’s “ Hope in the Dark” she is a bright light who can demonstrate the power that we do have. Thanks Robert for this timely essay today. The Supreme Court have become the Grand Inquisitors. With our three exceptional exceptions. It is time to act through our votes and voices.
Jul 5, 2023·edited Jul 5, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
"July 4th is meant to be about freedom — and the truth is, freedom has never been applied to us all equally.
"Patriotism is about more than just loving one's country; it's about active participation, a deep commitment to its betterment, and a profound sense of responsibility towards its people and shared values. It means questioning policies that are unjust, advocating for positive change, and speaking out for the rights and freedoms of all."
- Win Without War email today
My sweetheart and I listened this morning to
"What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?": James Earl Jones Reads Frederick Douglass's Historic Speech, at the start of
The rest of the Democracy Now! program caused us to reach for the tissues multiple times, moved by powerful stories of people taking action in service of liberty and justice for all -- patriotism.
Speaking of which: Hurray for readers pointing out Rebecca Solnit's July 2nd piece. Once again, like Craven, Hubbell, HCR, Joyce Vance, Simon Rosenberg and others, she informs and inspires!
I invite people to write to the Supreme Court. I have written them twice in the last 2 weeks. Both times I have made my approval of some and disapproval of other members of the court clear. In my first email I was able to find Chief [In]Justice Roberts email and I suggested that he ask Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas to resign and then resign himself to save the integrity of the court. The next time, I could no longer find his direct email, and had to be satisfied with using the court's email. I recommend that everyone let them know how you are feeling in a civil way. https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
I also am pleased to see that we have a group of students already bring suit against Harvard for legacy affirmative action enrollments.
This was predictable, as are suits that will talk about religious discrimination etc... I think we are going to see doors have been opened, and now the Democratic people are starting to get the picture that we need to be as organized as the largely Republican right-wing has been.
I was criticized for saying in the NYT that I also think that professor's children, mind you these are our friend's children, get free tuition and their admission is not as scrutinized as others. Someone responded, that professors children have to apply like everyone else, as if that makes all applications equal. Can people be that naive? At my local university, all of my daughter's friends whose parents have tenure there, consider the university their back up school. Since she and her friends are seniors I have been hearing this expression from them and their parents all year. Everyone knows that the university does not turn down faculty kids. It is a perk for the parents. In fact, many are going to go to this university because they did not get into their first choices. Everyone else is going to be paying extra tuition to support them. In the private school, which my daughter attended, they had a sliding scale for everyone which was quite a slide $5000-$35,000, and even at the bottom tuition, if that was too much, there was scholarship money available. In any case, the faculty at the school's children were in the same boat as everyone else with the sliding scale. That made everyone feel like it was fair. My own child is not going to a USA university because we refuse to pay into this system, and there we have the real segregation. INCOME! It ends up looking like skin color, which is a whole bigger situation that needs to be addressed in this country. Still, the Supreme Court opened a can of worms that I am sure most private universities would wish they hadn't. I believe we will see all kinds of lawsuits, around the door that the Supreme Court opened. If you want to have a better idea of why Germany, a country not as wealthy as the USA is able to provide not only its own citizens with tuition free university, but they also provide this for anyone else who wants to come and can get in. These expats explain 2 aspects well. How German Can Afford It, https://youtu.be/2Uc-ga6pYx4 and how the USA cannot. https://youtu.be/FGkuJPqyobU
So, on this independence day, I see that the Supreme Court has done a lot to help us define the issues for the next election. I keep reading the mainstream press talk about how all people care about is the economy and they don't think Biden is good on the economy. I think truer words would be they don't understand economics intellectually, it is all emotional. It is unfortunate, but the midterms proved that for the majority of people it was not economics but social issues that motivated them. The activist and unethical Supreme Court is going to help keep the social issues in the forefront. I believe that Biden would be better placed to expand the court if he waits to get a majority in both the House and the Congress. There is nothing happening with this group, and activism of this sort on his part might spook the middle of the road fence sitter. Let us focus them on how they do not like the Republican Party policies. The average American is not reading Substacks, or a paper for that matter. Given that, they are not necessarily going to understand expanding the court. Perhaps I am wrong, but playing it cautiously is a way to go. Work on the math. Who do we need to get? Where do we need to get votes to have simple majorities in both Senate and House, beyond Manchin and Sinema, and then we are in business. I suspect Biden, in a second term will look more activist than Biden in the first term.
How lucky I am to read these posts and the reactions of so many articulate allies in the struggle for full democracy for all. Thank you, Robert, for bringing us together. Thank readers and reactors for responding so generously.
Another great Today's Edition Newsletter; many thanks, Robert!
In regards to ChopWood/CarryWater, Jessica Craven makes our democracy come alive each day for me. My preferred method is to use my rep's contact page to write to them rather than calling. I take the provided script as a guide and then edit/personalize it to make it more my own. I write what I want to see happen with a particular issue. I thank the rep if they have co-sponsored a bill I am in favor of. I ask them to co-sponsor it if they have not. In this latest contact, if they have not co-sponsored the bill, I ask what their reason is for not co-sponsoring it.
I write conversationally as opposed to being confrontational. For instance, I started out in the last contact with: "Is it just me or are you as stunned and outraged as I am over SCOTUS' rulings last week?" Then came the pitch to expand the Court, etc. I ended by reminding them that 2024 was just around the corner, and that when we take back the House and expand the Senate, we will need to incorporate all these fixes.
Thanks again for the links you provide as well as for the excellent analyses that I use to help me do my job of contacting my Congress "critters!"
I dispute the idea that 18-year (or some other number) year term limits requires a constitutional amendment. The constitution says only that there shall be a supreme court, and that members of the federal judiciary shall hold office while exhibiting good behavior. What it does not say is that SC justices remain in active service until death or retirement.
Congress could say that after X years SC justices go back to any lower court that has a vacancy, or if they object to bring demoted, go to some honorary status when they could be called back if necessary. Do it while imposing ethics relations with teeth!
I'll simply note that impeachment as a remedy for unconscionable behavior in office has effectively been dropped from the constitution since it's rarely invoked and hasn't been successful since the 19th century. Add it to the emoluments clause, the complete distortion of the 2A, and more.
Excellent. Simply Excellent. I've seen a lot of patriotic posts today, but this is the one I've been waiting to hear. The Supreme Court has far surpassed TFG as The Biggest Threat to our country. We must keep and gain control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government in 2024, and Demand Reform. It can and will be done, and we are the foot soldiers of change.
During the Roman reign, the Stoics fought for freedom and to preserve Rome's traditions and values in light of years of decay and degenerate politics. Cato and small bands of men and women fought to keep the Republic intact as Caesar attempted to overthrow it. They fought later in mangy rebellions against tyranny and demented rulers. Battles were won and lost...mostly lost...but The "Stoic Opposition" persisted and fought on. These battles took place not only in the halls of justice but on the streets in villages and towns. They fought cultural battles for the minds and hearts of its people. They persevered through trumped up charges, public slander, severe punishments including exile and even death. Their thinking was clear. Their hearts were rational. They lived according to their philosophy. Then, in 161 AD, this relatively small troupe of rebels had its day. Marcus Aurelius became Emperor. One of the greatest of the Stoics. As unlikely a turn of events as one might expect; the Stoics simply endured and triumphed. The long struggle had not been in vain.
Admiral David Farragut fought similarly during the American Civil War, another fight against oppression of one's fellow human beings, which continued over years of internal strife and a massive death count to eventually "triumph over the evil of slavery". “What matters it, General, whether you and I are killed or not?” Farragut said as he raised his glass to a colleague. “We came here to die. It is our business and it must happen sooner or later. We must fight this thing out until there is no more than one man left and that man must be a Union man. Here’s to his health.”
We are currently living in a, likewise, perverse and dangerous environment, with a maniacal Supreme Court as judicial overseer seemingly out for vengeance, an apologist and listless Constitutionalist of a Chief Justice, a lunatic legislature willing to destroy the pillars of democracy led by a spineless Speaker of the House. Dare I say, we have our own problems today. If, history does not literally repeat itself, we can all hear the rhyme.
No doubt, we stand at a crossroads. Guns are not [yet] blazing, but the outcome of this battle for liberty and freedom and justice for all is no less consequential. We are that band of brothers and sisters who are looking out for each other. We are that corps of individuals standing for equality, fairness under the law and a national vision of virtue and inclusiveness. We will succeed. Not as victors waving rifles on high, rather as consoles providing comfort and peace.
Despite assurances to the contrary, I fret that enlarging the court will enable Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell to pack it even more with an unassailable hard right majority. I'm curious about why it's not better to pursue 1) the impeachment of Thomas and Alito, or 2) term limits.
I am so glad to see someone go beyond a four-seat increase in the size of the court! I've argued in favor of increasing the size to 188, an addition of 179. That is, by no coincidence, the number of seats on the courts of appeal. If we abolish the courts of appeal and direct all appeals now going to those courts to the supreme court, Biden will have a substantial pool of unemployed judges from which to make his appointments (filtering out those with the "Federalist Society" taint). Thereafter, the value of an appointment will be greatly reduced, and this will, I hope, de-politicize the court.
Jul 5, 2023·edited Jul 5, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Thank you, Robert, for your incisive comments rendered while traveling--and with a beautiful, on point landscape photo to boot!
And then there was 303 Creative LLC vs Elenis. As Joyce Vance wrote, the SCOTUS ruling created a slippery slope for exploitation of "free speech" against federally protected classes--which include all of us who are not white Christian heterosexual able-bodied men under age 40. News was that there was no gay man who requested the service of a website for a gay wedding, which raised questions about how the case went forward as a hypothetical based on wrong facts.
Coming out of a dive with a fellow reader of Joyce's Substack (and he's a lawyer, I'm not), it appears that standing was not a legal issue in this case, GOP CO AG at the time of filing stipulated to the "facts," SCOTUS ruling is narrow, and even if the current Dem CO AG succeeded in getting a rehearing by SCOTUS, are 2 reactionary justices going to change their position. However, some think CO AG Phil Weiss has an oath of office and a fiduciary duty to his client, the state of Colorado and its citizens. Keep your eyes and ears open.
Last evening, in place of Nicole Wallace’s “Deadline Whitehouse”, they ran an investigative special “Loan Wolves”. It is an excellent story of how the student loan situation got so out of control. One of the major points was that in a law enacted in 1998 and signed by Bill Clinton, someone inserted a clause stating that student debt not be discharged through bankruptcy. This is the ONLY debt that cannot be discharged that way. This, combined with compounding interest and the increasing cost of college has brought many to the edge of suicide. It is an excellent documentary. You can find it on NBC streaming, and the internet. It’s definitely worth your time.
Beautifully written. Thank you. I do what Jessica suggests and wish thousands of like-minded folks would do the same. Every time I phone my Republican representative, I’m dismayed to get right through. Let’s get those phones ringing folks!
This weekend I mustered my courage and read the Opinion of our esteemed SCOTUS in the Students for Fair Admissions case. In my forty years of practicing law in California, I have gotten good at seeing how Supreme Courts (state and federal) go about justifying their opinions, and this one is no surprise. The six of them were obviously salivating at the opportunity to be done with affirmative efforts to level a discriminatory playing field that has held minority people back from positions of influence in the professional ranks of our society. They latched onto language from the splintered Bakke decision, and others that followed, that expressed concern about the “ending date” of college admissions that would seek to correct a longstanding wrong that has left people of any color besides white (or sex besides male) behind the eight-ball. From there, it was easy-going for them to conclude that enough time has passed for that disagreeable thing to be fixed. From their vantage point, as white-skinned observers of a country controlled by white men (yes, I put Clarence Thomas in that category, for whatever mentally unbalanced reasons are true), people of color have had enough advantage on the backs of the “majority,” who have patiently shared their bounty with the losers of well-documented battles for control of the wealth of this land. After all, where is the gratefulness for the opportunities given to people of color for the food and clothing they were allowed to have after they were forced to enrich the lives of white people?
Enough is enough, so our SCOTUS in power has declared. Now they have asserted their view of the proper role of women, which is to bear children regardless of the means to raise them, and they have made clear they are coming after anyone who dares to claim that America is a place to be different from the straight, white men who want credit for all that is good in this country.
What I find most appalling, though – even as I try to contemplate what they are doing to affirmative action – is the patent and blatant willingness of the most revered jurists in our legal system to take and decide a hypothetical set of facts in order to declare that racist and homophobic and anti-religious members of the major ruling class in this country can refuse to honor our anti-discrimination statutes when it comes to public business services. When jurists can ignore the requirement for a controversy in a litigated case, we are sunk. This is first-year law school instruction in Civil Procedure courses, and they ignore it for their own ends. To me, that is the scariest thing of all. No one but someone schooled in the law will understand what they did. Even the smartest layperson will not understand the importance of a “case in controversy” requirement for a court dispute, and any person, elected or in the media, can talk about that case as though the issue was up for discussion. It wasn’t. When I see our highest court construct a reason to take a big shot at our LBGTQ community, we can see that anti-Semitism and other anti-sentiments are not far behind. As bad and dangerous as the erasure of affirmative action was with this Court’s sleight of hand, what they did for that fictional web designer was the scariest of all. They will stop at nothing if they can do that without blinking.
Everyone should read Rebecca Solnit’s “ Hope in the Dark” she is a bright light who can demonstrate the power that we do have. Thanks Robert for this timely essay today. The Supreme Court have become the Grand Inquisitors. With our three exceptional exceptions. It is time to act through our votes and voices.
"July 4th is meant to be about freedom — and the truth is, freedom has never been applied to us all equally.
"Patriotism is about more than just loving one's country; it's about active participation, a deep commitment to its betterment, and a profound sense of responsibility towards its people and shared values. It means questioning policies that are unjust, advocating for positive change, and speaking out for the rights and freedoms of all."
- Win Without War email today
My sweetheart and I listened this morning to
"What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?": James Earl Jones Reads Frederick Douglass's Historic Speech, at the start of
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/7/4/what_to_the_slave_is_the?utm_source=Democracy+Now%21&utm_campaign=a1229b879d-Daily_Digest_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fa2346a853-a1229b879d-192274497
The rest of the Democracy Now! program caused us to reach for the tissues multiple times, moved by powerful stories of people taking action in service of liberty and justice for all -- patriotism.
Speaking of which: Hurray for readers pointing out Rebecca Solnit's July 2nd piece. Once again, like Craven, Hubbell, HCR, Joyce Vance, Simon Rosenberg and others, she informs and inspires!
I invite people to write to the Supreme Court. I have written them twice in the last 2 weeks. Both times I have made my approval of some and disapproval of other members of the court clear. In my first email I was able to find Chief [In]Justice Roberts email and I suggested that he ask Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas to resign and then resign himself to save the integrity of the court. The next time, I could no longer find his direct email, and had to be satisfied with using the court's email. I recommend that everyone let them know how you are feeling in a civil way. https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
I also am pleased to see that we have a group of students already bring suit against Harvard for legacy affirmative action enrollments.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/harvard-legacy-admissions-supreme-court-b2368550.html
This was predictable, as are suits that will talk about religious discrimination etc... I think we are going to see doors have been opened, and now the Democratic people are starting to get the picture that we need to be as organized as the largely Republican right-wing has been.
I was criticized for saying in the NYT that I also think that professor's children, mind you these are our friend's children, get free tuition and their admission is not as scrutinized as others. Someone responded, that professors children have to apply like everyone else, as if that makes all applications equal. Can people be that naive? At my local university, all of my daughter's friends whose parents have tenure there, consider the university their back up school. Since she and her friends are seniors I have been hearing this expression from them and their parents all year. Everyone knows that the university does not turn down faculty kids. It is a perk for the parents. In fact, many are going to go to this university because they did not get into their first choices. Everyone else is going to be paying extra tuition to support them. In the private school, which my daughter attended, they had a sliding scale for everyone which was quite a slide $5000-$35,000, and even at the bottom tuition, if that was too much, there was scholarship money available. In any case, the faculty at the school's children were in the same boat as everyone else with the sliding scale. That made everyone feel like it was fair. My own child is not going to a USA university because we refuse to pay into this system, and there we have the real segregation. INCOME! It ends up looking like skin color, which is a whole bigger situation that needs to be addressed in this country. Still, the Supreme Court opened a can of worms that I am sure most private universities would wish they hadn't. I believe we will see all kinds of lawsuits, around the door that the Supreme Court opened. If you want to have a better idea of why Germany, a country not as wealthy as the USA is able to provide not only its own citizens with tuition free university, but they also provide this for anyone else who wants to come and can get in. These expats explain 2 aspects well. How German Can Afford It, https://youtu.be/2Uc-ga6pYx4 and how the USA cannot. https://youtu.be/FGkuJPqyobU
I also am heartened to see the Children's environmental lawsuit against the state of Montana. I hope this leads to more of this sort of legislation. https://www.vox.com/climate/2023/6/12/23755678/montana-climate-change-lawsuit-young-people-coal-global-warming
So, on this independence day, I see that the Supreme Court has done a lot to help us define the issues for the next election. I keep reading the mainstream press talk about how all people care about is the economy and they don't think Biden is good on the economy. I think truer words would be they don't understand economics intellectually, it is all emotional. It is unfortunate, but the midterms proved that for the majority of people it was not economics but social issues that motivated them. The activist and unethical Supreme Court is going to help keep the social issues in the forefront. I believe that Biden would be better placed to expand the court if he waits to get a majority in both the House and the Congress. There is nothing happening with this group, and activism of this sort on his part might spook the middle of the road fence sitter. Let us focus them on how they do not like the Republican Party policies. The average American is not reading Substacks, or a paper for that matter. Given that, they are not necessarily going to understand expanding the court. Perhaps I am wrong, but playing it cautiously is a way to go. Work on the math. Who do we need to get? Where do we need to get votes to have simple majorities in both Senate and House, beyond Manchin and Sinema, and then we are in business. I suspect Biden, in a second term will look more activist than Biden in the first term.
How lucky I am to read these posts and the reactions of so many articulate allies in the struggle for full democracy for all. Thank you, Robert, for bringing us together. Thank readers and reactors for responding so generously.
Another great Today's Edition Newsletter; many thanks, Robert!
In regards to ChopWood/CarryWater, Jessica Craven makes our democracy come alive each day for me. My preferred method is to use my rep's contact page to write to them rather than calling. I take the provided script as a guide and then edit/personalize it to make it more my own. I write what I want to see happen with a particular issue. I thank the rep if they have co-sponsored a bill I am in favor of. I ask them to co-sponsor it if they have not. In this latest contact, if they have not co-sponsored the bill, I ask what their reason is for not co-sponsoring it.
I write conversationally as opposed to being confrontational. For instance, I started out in the last contact with: "Is it just me or are you as stunned and outraged as I am over SCOTUS' rulings last week?" Then came the pitch to expand the Court, etc. I ended by reminding them that 2024 was just around the corner, and that when we take back the House and expand the Senate, we will need to incorporate all these fixes.
Thanks again for the links you provide as well as for the excellent analyses that I use to help me do my job of contacting my Congress "critters!"
I dispute the idea that 18-year (or some other number) year term limits requires a constitutional amendment. The constitution says only that there shall be a supreme court, and that members of the federal judiciary shall hold office while exhibiting good behavior. What it does not say is that SC justices remain in active service until death or retirement.
Congress could say that after X years SC justices go back to any lower court that has a vacancy, or if they object to bring demoted, go to some honorary status when they could be called back if necessary. Do it while imposing ethics relations with teeth!
I'll simply note that impeachment as a remedy for unconscionable behavior in office has effectively been dropped from the constitution since it's rarely invoked and hasn't been successful since the 19th century. Add it to the emoluments clause, the complete distortion of the 2A, and more.
Excellent. Simply Excellent. I've seen a lot of patriotic posts today, but this is the one I've been waiting to hear. The Supreme Court has far surpassed TFG as The Biggest Threat to our country. We must keep and gain control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government in 2024, and Demand Reform. It can and will be done, and we are the foot soldiers of change.
During the Roman reign, the Stoics fought for freedom and to preserve Rome's traditions and values in light of years of decay and degenerate politics. Cato and small bands of men and women fought to keep the Republic intact as Caesar attempted to overthrow it. They fought later in mangy rebellions against tyranny and demented rulers. Battles were won and lost...mostly lost...but The "Stoic Opposition" persisted and fought on. These battles took place not only in the halls of justice but on the streets in villages and towns. They fought cultural battles for the minds and hearts of its people. They persevered through trumped up charges, public slander, severe punishments including exile and even death. Their thinking was clear. Their hearts were rational. They lived according to their philosophy. Then, in 161 AD, this relatively small troupe of rebels had its day. Marcus Aurelius became Emperor. One of the greatest of the Stoics. As unlikely a turn of events as one might expect; the Stoics simply endured and triumphed. The long struggle had not been in vain.
Admiral David Farragut fought similarly during the American Civil War, another fight against oppression of one's fellow human beings, which continued over years of internal strife and a massive death count to eventually "triumph over the evil of slavery". “What matters it, General, whether you and I are killed or not?” Farragut said as he raised his glass to a colleague. “We came here to die. It is our business and it must happen sooner or later. We must fight this thing out until there is no more than one man left and that man must be a Union man. Here’s to his health.”
We are currently living in a, likewise, perverse and dangerous environment, with a maniacal Supreme Court as judicial overseer seemingly out for vengeance, an apologist and listless Constitutionalist of a Chief Justice, a lunatic legislature willing to destroy the pillars of democracy led by a spineless Speaker of the House. Dare I say, we have our own problems today. If, history does not literally repeat itself, we can all hear the rhyme.
No doubt, we stand at a crossroads. Guns are not [yet] blazing, but the outcome of this battle for liberty and freedom and justice for all is no less consequential. We are that band of brothers and sisters who are looking out for each other. We are that corps of individuals standing for equality, fairness under the law and a national vision of virtue and inclusiveness. We will succeed. Not as victors waving rifles on high, rather as consoles providing comfort and peace.
Despite assurances to the contrary, I fret that enlarging the court will enable Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell to pack it even more with an unassailable hard right majority. I'm curious about why it's not better to pursue 1) the impeachment of Thomas and Alito, or 2) term limits.
Your message today is beautiful, almost poetic! Thank you so much. You have made my day!
I am so glad to see someone go beyond a four-seat increase in the size of the court! I've argued in favor of increasing the size to 188, an addition of 179. That is, by no coincidence, the number of seats on the courts of appeal. If we abolish the courts of appeal and direct all appeals now going to those courts to the supreme court, Biden will have a substantial pool of unemployed judges from which to make his appointments (filtering out those with the "Federalist Society" taint). Thereafter, the value of an appointment will be greatly reduced, and this will, I hope, de-politicize the court.
Thank you, Robert, for your incisive comments rendered while traveling--and with a beautiful, on point landscape photo to boot!
And then there was 303 Creative LLC vs Elenis. As Joyce Vance wrote, the SCOTUS ruling created a slippery slope for exploitation of "free speech" against federally protected classes--which include all of us who are not white Christian heterosexual able-bodied men under age 40. News was that there was no gay man who requested the service of a website for a gay wedding, which raised questions about how the case went forward as a hypothetical based on wrong facts.
Coming out of a dive with a fellow reader of Joyce's Substack (and he's a lawyer, I'm not), it appears that standing was not a legal issue in this case, GOP CO AG at the time of filing stipulated to the "facts," SCOTUS ruling is narrow, and even if the current Dem CO AG succeeded in getting a rehearing by SCOTUS, are 2 reactionary justices going to change their position. However, some think CO AG Phil Weiss has an oath of office and a fiduciary duty to his client, the state of Colorado and its citizens. Keep your eyes and ears open.
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/enough-with-the-court/
https://twitter.com/walterolson/status/1676193174212018176?s=20 https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1675646942498390017?s=20 https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1676030924075540480?s=20
How can you mention the stone walls in New England and not have me share Robert Frost's "Mending Wall"?
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
Last evening, in place of Nicole Wallace’s “Deadline Whitehouse”, they ran an investigative special “Loan Wolves”. It is an excellent story of how the student loan situation got so out of control. One of the major points was that in a law enacted in 1998 and signed by Bill Clinton, someone inserted a clause stating that student debt not be discharged through bankruptcy. This is the ONLY debt that cannot be discharged that way. This, combined with compounding interest and the increasing cost of college has brought many to the edge of suicide. It is an excellent documentary. You can find it on NBC streaming, and the internet. It’s definitely worth your time.
Beautifully written. Thank you. I do what Jessica suggests and wish thousands of like-minded folks would do the same. Every time I phone my Republican representative, I’m dismayed to get right through. Let’s get those phones ringing folks!