Win the Senate in 2022 (the House, too -- but that's harder to write about briefly). 1. Defend the four vulnerable seats: Kelly in Arizona, Warnock in Georgia, Cortez Masto in Nevada, and Hassan in New Hampshire. 2. Flip a bunch of Republican seats: Start with Demings over Rubio in Florida, Ryan over whoever in Ohio, even Booker over Paul in Kentucky. Lots of choices in Pennsylvania to flip the open Republican seat, Lots of choices in Wisconsin to flip Johnson. 3. It gets harder. In Missouri, if the Rs nominate Greitens, a Democrat could win. North Carolina keeps promising us a win. Maybe this time. It seems impossible to consider a win in Alabama, but it is nearly impossible to think of Mo Brooks (if he is the nominee) as a US Senator. Give money, write postcards, campaign as if the country's future depends on what you do.
Len, we need to keep in mind that we also need to overcome the third coup: Republican manipulation of our elections. We are pulling the cart uphill but when we get there, hopefully, gravity will take over!
We certainly do need to keep that in mind. We would do better if the Senate can find a way to pass voting rights legislation. To get there, though, we need Manchin and Sinema to be willing to make an exception to the rules and prohibit a filibuster. There is a lot I'd give up for that to happen. But if the Senate can't pass get us voting rights legislation, we've got to face 2022 with states suppressing the vote and still win.
The preliminary decision in Whole Women's Health is likely to be the Dred Scott decision of our time. At the time, that case to signal the ascendence of the South, and slavery, over the whole nation, but in the end it doomed its proponents. (I have sometimes cited Dred Scott v. Sandford, 69 US 393 (1857), rev'd sub nom, The Civil War--the lawyers out there will get it.) For many years, I thought that the battles over unionization and free speech and civil rights had been won. In the past 20-30 years I've come to realize that they have to be re-fought over and over. This is our time. And the ultra-reactionary wing of the court has, I hope, just galvanized the majority of our citizens to take up the battle seriously. (On a somewhat lighter note, the anti-women forces in Texas have set up one or more tip lines to report those who connive at women's rights, which apparently have already been overwhelmed by false reports (Ted Cruz? Greg Abbott?), memes and porn. They deserve it.)
And you, Robert, deserve a long weekend. Enjoy it! Let's all use Labor Day to gird for our labors ahead.
Thanks. If I had more space in the newslsetter, I would have included the Dred Scott decision comparison. It is on point, sadly. And I hope that you are right about the decision galvanizing Democrats.
In 1965-66, I took a Political Science course at American University, The biggest problem then was voter apathy, and it still is, now compounded by new iterations of voter suppression laws. Manchin and Sinema both should affiliate themselves with the GOP. Roberts & Co. should receive thank you notes for showing all of us what they are made of: hypocrisy and ambition. I am not discouraged: at 74, I am just getting started. Have a wonderful weekend, Robert and Jill: rest and relaxation is the sweetest revenge.
At end of June, Terri Peretti, a law professor at SCU, presented eloquently about the Supreme Court to Bay Area Swing Left group. This is my brief summary of her presentation.
Dr. Peretti described 4 options to bring the Supreme Court back into balance:
1. Increase the number of total supreme court judges
2. Abolish the electoral college
3. Improve (balance) representation in the Senate
4. Regularize the Supreme Court vacancy rate, replace life term with 18-year terms
At this point, Democrats have reason to take a firm stand, but not the political will. If conservative SC judges get aggressive (ex., abolish Roe v. Wade), Democrats may get angry enough to act; but Roberts keeps the court from such radical rulings.
Democrats have no visionary leader. For all his faults, McConnell is very strategic in his actions; Democrats need someone like this, but no one is stepping up.
The only current viable option: Democrat groups need to mobilize & voters need to get angry enough to vote.
Hi, Ela. I agree 100% with your conclusion. Peretti has laid out good options, but options 2, 3, and 4 require Constitutional amendments--and ratification by 38 state legislatures. I do not believe that will ever happen. So, the only realistic path forward is to enlarge the Court, in my view at least.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett: Allow me to generalize, but I seem to remember that there was a reverence for the Supreme Court. When appointed to the Court after many years of practicing law, new justices approached their role with awe and respect for the law and reverence for legal traditions of the Supreme Court.
The former guy only cared about what would help him get re-elected and named three people to the Court because of their political views. They have not disappointed; they have helped to further politicize the Court.
Thanks again for reminding us about Susan Collins and her self-serving promises that we could trust Kavanaugh to "do the right thing."
Bob, you wrote: "Will enlarging the Court diminish its stature and undermine it legitimacy? Yes." I'm not sure that's true, and would like you to expand on that comment. Regarding other issues, your post today was full of the issues that are disheartening those of us who have been in the fight for many years. I guess I (cynically) think that too many young women, and men, have taken the right to reproductive choice for granted. I hope the Supreme Court's anti-women non-decision will wake many of them up not just to the danger to reproductive rights the the right wing represents, but to voting rights, climate change and the host of other issues facing us.
Hi, Terry. Thanks for your question. My thought is that enlarging the Court will be an express acknowledgement that it is not a judicial institution, but a quasi-partisan extension of the Senate. Democrats will appoint Democrats to overwhelm the reactionary majority, Republicans will appoint more justices to create a new conservative majority. The Court will balloon in size and become unwieldy and ineffective. That is a tragedy, but it is what the Federalist Society started by rigging the process.
1. Robert is 100% correct when he states: "The reactionary majority has served notice that it does not care an iota about precedent or fairness or the appearance of objectivity."
2. After that correct observation, there's not much left to say. A three legged stool isn't worth a darn with one leg gone.
This is a horrible event for women and I don't understand why rights for women are not as important as religious beliefs favoring the idea of pro-life. I commend those women who wrote you about their efforts. I was in college during those years and knew girls who had experienced illegal abortions or had a D&C procedure. For my age group Roe v. Wade was another civil rights moment and our right to make decisions that were not dictated by men. Please don't take offense but it was, still is, although less, and is returning to a world of men in charge and women relegated to "bare foot and pregnant days" and staying home and let men make decisions. Now the Supreme Court has allowed the TX law allowing a person I don't even know to stop me or any woman from making a personal choice decision. My heart is sad for women and for my country. One more thing - you wrote that the Republicans have been working to reverse Roe since 1973. What is so ironic, and I might be incorrect, is that the majority of members on the Supreme Court in 1973 were nominated by Republican presidents and the court's vote was 7-2 in favor. Often I have asked if Ronald Reagan would be pleased with the undermining of the rule of law and the US Constitution. Is America really great? Is America living up to the ideals that I learned and taught in the classroom? Thanks for your daily edition and have a great Labor Day weekend.
Conservative courts seem to frequently deny progressive cases based on "standing." Not being a lawyer, I do not understand the concept, and it may not be relevant here. But what legitimate compelling interest do private citizens have in the operations of abortion clinics? Though I've little doubt that the evil geniuses behind this atrocity of law and justice have this figured out. And our conservative justices wouldn't give a fig anyway. They rule by fiat.
Today in a town hall meeting with our senator (Bennet, CO), he quoted Sen. Jon Tester of Montana as saying," My daughter is having to fight for rights that my wife didn't have to fight for because her mother fought for them." That struck home for me. I never thought that things would be worse for my daughters than they were for me, but they are. My daughters have to fight for things I took for granted like maternity leave and pre-natal care. Really? And now we're going back to forcing women to travel long distances to end a pregnancy - women who are also denied ready access to contraceptives.
Win the Senate in 2022 (the House, too -- but that's harder to write about briefly). 1. Defend the four vulnerable seats: Kelly in Arizona, Warnock in Georgia, Cortez Masto in Nevada, and Hassan in New Hampshire. 2. Flip a bunch of Republican seats: Start with Demings over Rubio in Florida, Ryan over whoever in Ohio, even Booker over Paul in Kentucky. Lots of choices in Pennsylvania to flip the open Republican seat, Lots of choices in Wisconsin to flip Johnson. 3. It gets harder. In Missouri, if the Rs nominate Greitens, a Democrat could win. North Carolina keeps promising us a win. Maybe this time. It seems impossible to consider a win in Alabama, but it is nearly impossible to think of Mo Brooks (if he is the nominee) as a US Senator. Give money, write postcards, campaign as if the country's future depends on what you do.
Len, thanks. You made me feel better knowing that there is a path to victory. I am going to save this for future reference.
Len, we need to keep in mind that we also need to overcome the third coup: Republican manipulation of our elections. We are pulling the cart uphill but when we get there, hopefully, gravity will take over!
We certainly do need to keep that in mind. We would do better if the Senate can find a way to pass voting rights legislation. To get there, though, we need Manchin and Sinema to be willing to make an exception to the rules and prohibit a filibuster. There is a lot I'd give up for that to happen. But if the Senate can't pass get us voting rights legislation, we've got to face 2022 with states suppressing the vote and still win.
The preliminary decision in Whole Women's Health is likely to be the Dred Scott decision of our time. At the time, that case to signal the ascendence of the South, and slavery, over the whole nation, but in the end it doomed its proponents. (I have sometimes cited Dred Scott v. Sandford, 69 US 393 (1857), rev'd sub nom, The Civil War--the lawyers out there will get it.) For many years, I thought that the battles over unionization and free speech and civil rights had been won. In the past 20-30 years I've come to realize that they have to be re-fought over and over. This is our time. And the ultra-reactionary wing of the court has, I hope, just galvanized the majority of our citizens to take up the battle seriously. (On a somewhat lighter note, the anti-women forces in Texas have set up one or more tip lines to report those who connive at women's rights, which apparently have already been overwhelmed by false reports (Ted Cruz? Greg Abbott?), memes and porn. They deserve it.)
And you, Robert, deserve a long weekend. Enjoy it! Let's all use Labor Day to gird for our labors ahead.
Thanks. If I had more space in the newslsetter, I would have included the Dred Scott decision comparison. It is on point, sadly. And I hope that you are right about the decision galvanizing Democrats.
In 1965-66, I took a Political Science course at American University, The biggest problem then was voter apathy, and it still is, now compounded by new iterations of voter suppression laws. Manchin and Sinema both should affiliate themselves with the GOP. Roberts & Co. should receive thank you notes for showing all of us what they are made of: hypocrisy and ambition. I am not discouraged: at 74, I am just getting started. Have a wonderful weekend, Robert and Jill: rest and relaxation is the sweetest revenge.
I like your attitude!
At end of June, Terri Peretti, a law professor at SCU, presented eloquently about the Supreme Court to Bay Area Swing Left group. This is my brief summary of her presentation.
Dr. Peretti described 4 options to bring the Supreme Court back into balance:
1. Increase the number of total supreme court judges
2. Abolish the electoral college
3. Improve (balance) representation in the Senate
4. Regularize the Supreme Court vacancy rate, replace life term with 18-year terms
At this point, Democrats have reason to take a firm stand, but not the political will. If conservative SC judges get aggressive (ex., abolish Roe v. Wade), Democrats may get angry enough to act; but Roberts keeps the court from such radical rulings.
Democrats have no visionary leader. For all his faults, McConnell is very strategic in his actions; Democrats need someone like this, but no one is stepping up.
The only current viable option: Democrat groups need to mobilize & voters need to get angry enough to vote.
Hi, Ela. I agree 100% with your conclusion. Peretti has laid out good options, but options 2, 3, and 4 require Constitutional amendments--and ratification by 38 state legislatures. I do not believe that will ever happen. So, the only realistic path forward is to enlarge the Court, in my view at least.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett: Allow me to generalize, but I seem to remember that there was a reverence for the Supreme Court. When appointed to the Court after many years of practicing law, new justices approached their role with awe and respect for the law and reverence for legal traditions of the Supreme Court.
The former guy only cared about what would help him get re-elected and named three people to the Court because of their political views. They have not disappointed; they have helped to further politicize the Court.
Thanks again for reminding us about Susan Collins and her self-serving promises that we could trust Kavanaugh to "do the right thing."
Bob, you wrote: "Will enlarging the Court diminish its stature and undermine it legitimacy? Yes." I'm not sure that's true, and would like you to expand on that comment. Regarding other issues, your post today was full of the issues that are disheartening those of us who have been in the fight for many years. I guess I (cynically) think that too many young women, and men, have taken the right to reproductive choice for granted. I hope the Supreme Court's anti-women non-decision will wake many of them up not just to the danger to reproductive rights the the right wing represents, but to voting rights, climate change and the host of other issues facing us.
Hi, Terry. Thanks for your question. My thought is that enlarging the Court will be an express acknowledgement that it is not a judicial institution, but a quasi-partisan extension of the Senate. Democrats will appoint Democrats to overwhelm the reactionary majority, Republicans will appoint more justices to create a new conservative majority. The Court will balloon in size and become unwieldy and ineffective. That is a tragedy, but it is what the Federalist Society started by rigging the process.
1. Robert is 100% correct when he states: "The reactionary majority has served notice that it does not care an iota about precedent or fairness or the appearance of objectivity."
2. After that correct observation, there's not much left to say. A three legged stool isn't worth a darn with one leg gone.
Well said, recognizing that one leg is already gone.
This is a horrible event for women and I don't understand why rights for women are not as important as religious beliefs favoring the idea of pro-life. I commend those women who wrote you about their efforts. I was in college during those years and knew girls who had experienced illegal abortions or had a D&C procedure. For my age group Roe v. Wade was another civil rights moment and our right to make decisions that were not dictated by men. Please don't take offense but it was, still is, although less, and is returning to a world of men in charge and women relegated to "bare foot and pregnant days" and staying home and let men make decisions. Now the Supreme Court has allowed the TX law allowing a person I don't even know to stop me or any woman from making a personal choice decision. My heart is sad for women and for my country. One more thing - you wrote that the Republicans have been working to reverse Roe since 1973. What is so ironic, and I might be incorrect, is that the majority of members on the Supreme Court in 1973 were nominated by Republican presidents and the court's vote was 7-2 in favor. Often I have asked if Ronald Reagan would be pleased with the undermining of the rule of law and the US Constitution. Is America really great? Is America living up to the ideals that I learned and taught in the classroom? Thanks for your daily edition and have a great Labor Day weekend.
Conservative courts seem to frequently deny progressive cases based on "standing." Not being a lawyer, I do not understand the concept, and it may not be relevant here. But what legitimate compelling interest do private citizens have in the operations of abortion clinics? Though I've little doubt that the evil geniuses behind this atrocity of law and justice have this figured out. And our conservative justices wouldn't give a fig anyway. They rule by fiat.
Today in a town hall meeting with our senator (Bennet, CO), he quoted Sen. Jon Tester of Montana as saying," My daughter is having to fight for rights that my wife didn't have to fight for because her mother fought for them." That struck home for me. I never thought that things would be worse for my daughters than they were for me, but they are. My daughters have to fight for things I took for granted like maternity leave and pre-natal care. Really? And now we're going back to forcing women to travel long distances to end a pregnancy - women who are also denied ready access to contraceptives.