Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Future of the U.S Supreme Court

2016 Election U.S. Supreme Court Labor Unions Corporate Personhood Voting Rights Act

  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#81
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

A New Era for the Supreme Court

 

http://prospect.org/...supreme-court-0

 

Introduction:

 

(American Prospect) The just completed Supreme Court term will come to be regarded as the beginning of a new era in constitutional history: a time of a very activist Court that aggressively follows the conservative political agenda. This term was the most conservative since October 1935, when the Supreme Court repeatedly declared unconstitutional key New Deal laws. The 2017–2018 term was a year filled with cases of unusual importance, and the conservative position prevailed in almost every case.

 

One measure of this term’s conservatism is found by looking at the 5–4 decisions. There were 19 5–4 rulings out of 63 decisions. Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch in 14 of them. He voted with the liberal justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—zero times. A year ago, in the ideologically divided cases, Kennedy was with the liberals 57 percent of the time. Two years ago, Kennedy was the key vote to uphold the University of Texas’s affirmative action program and to strike down key provisions of Texas’s restrictive abortion law.

 

Now, there is every reason to believe that Kennedy’s replacement will be in the mold of Neil Gorsuch: young and very far to the right. All of the names on the Trump list would be more conservative than Kennedy has been over the past three decades. In that way, this term, where Kennedy always voted with the conservatives, is the harbinger of what is to come.

 

What explains the decisions of October term 2017 is not any principle like judicial restraint or originalism, but simply the conservative values of the majority of the justices. The justices were adhering to the vision of the Republican platform. As Justice Kagan expressed in her powerful dissent in Janus v. American Federation, where the Court overruled a 40-year-old precedent and held that non-union members cannot be forced to pay the share of the union dues that support collective bargaining, the Court’s decision was rooted in neither precedent nor sense. The Court ruled for Janus “because it wanted to.”


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#82
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

It is so sad to see that which I admire and cherish about our society going down the tubes.

 

 

Kavanaugh Would Advance DeVos’s Religious Agenda for Schools

 

 

https://ourfuture.or...nda-for-schools

 

Introduction:

 

 

(OurFuture.org) Immediately after Betsy DeVos took over as U.S. Secretary of Education, numerous education policy experts expressed doubts she’d have much success in enacting her well-documentedagenda to impose her brand of Christian religion on public schools and direct more public money to private religious schools.

 

President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, however, is yet another indicator that DeVos’s detractors were wrong, as he would surely support a legal pathway to what DeVos wants.

 

In private practice, Kavanaugh backed the government when it sought to support religious interests and challenged schools when they attempted to exclude religious groups,” the Washington Post reports, citing his defense of student-led prayers at high school football games and a religious school club from being barred by school administrators.

 

In tracing a potential legal pathway from taxpayer money for school prayer and religious clubs to “more sweeping voucher programs,” the Post reporter points to a narrow ruling from the court last year, in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, that said denying a church-affiliated preschool from receiving a general public benefit, in this case funding for playground resurfacing, violates constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion.

 

But Kavanaugh’s support of the DeVos agenda for school vouchers and religious education goes way beyond that narrow ruling, and it relies on a bizarre, but long-held view of conservative jurists.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#83
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Who Is Brett Kavanaugh? A Supreme Court Reading Guide

 

https://www.propubli...t-reading-guide

 

Introduction:

 

President Trump on Monday night nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vacate at the end of the month. Kavanaugh is a judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Below, we’ve gathered some of the best reporting on Kavanaugh.

 

Did we miss anything? Leave a link in the comments or tweet to us with #scotusnominee.

 

Potential Nominee Profile: Brett Kavanaugh

 

SCOTUSblog, June 2018

 

SCOTUSblog’s profile of Kavanaugh provides a comprehensive summary of the judge’s background, from his upbringing in the Washington area to his college and law school years at Yale to his prestigious positions in various parts of the federal government. As the profile notes, Kavanaugh was a law clerk for Kennedy, whom he has been nominated to replace. The piece offers a highlight reel of Kavanaugh’s time on the federal appeals court in Washington. Ultimately, the article concludes, Kavanaugh “brings a pragmatic approach to judging,” albeit with a serious conservative bent.

 

 

The cited article also discusses other news articles on the subject of Kavanaugh.

 

Dedicated web surfers should take their request to heart and call ProPublica's attention to other quality articles concerning Mr. Kavanaugh.   Of course, (please) be sure you cite those articles in this thread as well.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#84
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Here’s How Democrats Can Expose What Kavanaugh Threatens

 

http://prospect.org/...naugh-threatens

 

 

Introduction:

 

(American Prospect) If President Donald Trump wished to replace retired Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy with a successor likely to back the White House in any Russia investigation showdown with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or, more broadly, to legitimate Trump’s penchant for sabotaging laws he disfavors, he could not have done better than nominate Brett Kavanaugh.

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated that his caucus’s campaign to contest Kavanaugh’s nomination will target two issues—the threat to authorize states to ban abortion by overruling Roe v. Wade, and the threat to gut health insurance or even invalidate the Affordable Care Act. Both issue areas are priority concerns for progressive constituencies, and progressive views on them command considerable support among the electorate. But Democrats and progressives should not neglect the nominee’s absolutist vision of presidential power. Indeed, they should lead with that punch, to initially frame the debate.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#85
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Here is another example of how much worse Republican nominees can be than Democrat judicial appointees.

 

Judge Kavanaugh’s Deregulatory Agenda

 

http://prospect.org/...gulatory-agenda

 

Introduction:

 

(American Prospect) Most of us take for granted the federal regulations that make our air cleaner, our drinking water purer, our food, highways, and workplaces safer, and our economic transactions less vulnerable to fraud and abuse. And few of us realize the extent to which those protections are subject to reversal by federal courts applying legal principles prescribed by the Supreme Court. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be a fervent vote against even well-established forms of regulation.

 

A telling example of Kavanaugh’s ideological aversion to even minimal government regulation is his dissent in a case in which the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined SeaWorld of Florida following a tragic incident at its Orlando facility in which a killer whale named Tilikum pulled a trainer off a platform and held her underwater until she drowned. A panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by Judge Merrick Garland, upheld OSHA’s conclusions that training killer whales was a recognized occupational hazard and that there were feasible ways to reduce that hazard. Tilikum had previously killed another trainer. The hazard could be substantially reduced by requiring trainers to keep a greater distance from the whales or providing a clear plastic barrier that would allow them to guide the movements of whales without risking attacks. The Court therefore upheld OSHA’s modest $7,000 penalty.

 

Kavanaugh’s dissent did not focus on the facts. Instead, he attacked the proposition that Congress meant to empower OSHA to regulate the professional sports and entertainment industries. In his mind, the real questions before the court were when “should we as a society paternalistically decide that the participants in ... sports and entertainment activities must be protected from themselves” and, more important, “who decides that the risk to participants is too high?” Kavanaugh argued that the participants in those activities were well aware of the risks and elected to participate anyway, and he suggested that government efforts to make those activities safer would cause employers to abandon them altogether.

  

This is the same argument that employers raised in the early 20th century when progressive state governments wanted to protect workers from the frightful hazards of industrial workplaces.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#86
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Brett Kavanaugh: The Most Unpopular Supreme Court Nominee in Decades

 

https://www.motherjo...nee-in-decades/

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) When Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week for the hearing to consider his nomination to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, he will officially become the most unpopular person to sit in that seat since Robert Bork. Bork’s nomination was scuttled in 1987 because of what were seen as his extreme legal views. 

 

Polls continue to show that, of those paying attention, few Americans are supportive of Kavanaugh’s nomination. In the week or so after President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to fill Kennedy’s seat in July, polls from Fox News to Gallup to Pew showed that fewer than 40 percent of respondents thought he should be confirmed. According to the polling site FiveThirtyEight, those numbers ranked him alongside Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, whose name was withdrawn after massive opposition from her own party, and far worse than even Clarence Thomas, whose nomination was dogged by sexual harassment allegations against him. Kavanaugh is even less popular than Trump’s previous Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

 

A month and a half after his nomination, after massive advertising and political campaigns from advocacy groups on both sides of the spectrum, Kavanaugh’s approval ratings aren’t much better, and in some cases, they’re worse. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted at the end of August found that only 33 percent of voters supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation, while 29 percent opposed it. 

 

Those unfavorable ratings are driven in large part by women, who rightfully see Kavanaugh as a threat to reproductive rights. The White House and Kavanaugh’s backers have tried to push back on that narrative by highlighting his hiring of female clerks and his record coaching his daughters’ basketball team, but those efforts don’t seem to making much of an impact.

kavanaugh-protest-09012018.jpg?w=990

Demonstrators attend the Unite for Justice rally held in the courtyard of City Hall, organized by progressive activists to oppose the confirmation of President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh.

 Michael Candelori/Pacific Press/Sipa via AP Images


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#87
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Nomination Spotlight: Judge Brett Kavanaugh

 

https://www.courthou...rett-kavanaugh/

 

Extract:

 

WASHINGTON (Courthouse News) – Hungry for insight into the mind of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, legal scholars and interest groups have devoted weeks to dissecting the judge’s writings from a tenure with the D.C. Circuit that spans over a decade.

 

... the 2017 statement Kavanaugh gave when the D.C. Circuit opted not to hold an en banc rehearing of a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 net neutrality rule, which altered how the government regulated the internet.

 

Kavanaugh was one of two judges on the court who wrote separate dissenting statements, with Kavanaugh insisting that the rule was too major for the FCC to enact without “clear congressional authorization.”

 

“The FCC adopted the net neutrality rule because the agency believed the rule to be wise policy and because Congress would not pass it,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The net neutrality rule might be wise policy. But even assuming that the net neutrality rule is wise policy, congressional inaction does not license the executive branch to take matters into its own hands. Far from it.”


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#88
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Kavanaugh Threatens the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy

 

https://ourfuture.or...e-supreme-court

 

Introduction:

 

(OurFuture.org) If the Republican-controlled Senate proceeds with hearings scheduled Sept. 4 to confirm Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, it will delegitimize the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government, and lead the nation towards an authoritarianism which undermines the rule of law.

Confirming such a Justice would be a travesty to American democracy.

 

With the Senate currently split 50-49 in favor of Republicans, is there not a single Republican Senator who will stand up for the principles of the Constitution and block this confirmation?

 

A Hand-Picked Extremist

 

Kavanaugh comes from a list of potential judicial nominees hand-picked for Trump by The Federalist Society. This discreet organization has spent the past several decades recruiting and grooming jurists with extreme right-wing views for lifetime appointments to the the Federal Bench. The society’s longtime executive vice president, Leonard Leo, is on leave from the organization so he can advise President Trump directly on his judicial appointments.

 

The views Federalist Society members espouse include reversing the rights of women and gay people, overturning Roe v. Wade, suppressing minority voters, blocking attempts to curtail partisan gerrymandering, closing courthouse doors to citizens while favoring corporations, opening American elections to unlimited monetary contributions from corporations and individuals, and undermining government agencies abilities to regulate the economy and the environment.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#89
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Kavanaugh's Supreme Court hearing gets off to a chaotic start as Democrats protest the process

 

http://www.latimes.c...0904-story.html

 

Introduction:

 

(Los Angeles Times) Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh got off to a noisy, chaotic start Tuesday as Democrats tried to shut down the proceeding and protesters were repeatedly removed for shouting and interrupting.

 

Just moments after the hearing began, California Sen. Kamala Harris led other Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in refusing to let committee Chairman Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) proceed. They repeatedly interrupted with motions to adjourn or postpone the hearing.

 

Democrats accused Republicans and the Trump administration of refusing to release tens of thousands of pages of documents that might reveal more about Kavanaugh’s role as a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, particularly concerning his views about torturing terrorist suspects.

 

“What is being hidden?” asked Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a former committee chairman.

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Democratic frustration was rooted in their losing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump. “You can't lose the election and pick judges,” he told them.


  • Cody930, Futurist and rennerpetey like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#90
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Democrat Leahy Just Hinted at a Smoking Gun to Kavanaugh Perjury Before the Senate in Hidden Documents

 

https://www.alternet...idden-documents

 

Introducrtion:

 

(Alternet) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) used those reams of hidden and confidential documents related to Supreme Court nominee's Brett Kavanaugh tenure with the George W. Bush administration to the best use he could Wednesday. The line of questioning goes back to 2004, when a senior staffer for then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist stole emails and memos from Judiciary Committee senators, including Leahy about their opposition to Bush's judicial nominees.

 

The staffer, Manuel Miranda, shared the memos with Republican senators and with the White House where at the time, Kavanaugh was shepherding judicial nominees through the confirmation process. Leahy pressed Kavanaugh, who initially insisted that he didn't know the information he received from Miranda was stolen. This was a line of questioning for which Kavanaugh was clearly not prepared. Leahy pressed him, asking whether Kavanaugh though it was "at all unusual to receive a draft letter from Democratic senators to each other before any mention of it was made public?"

 

Here's where we get to the potential perjury Kavanaugh committed before the Senate Judiciary Committee previously. There is apparently evidence in the materials that Grassley has marked "Committee Confidential" that would show it. Leahy says so: "I'm concerned because there is evidence that Mr. Miranda provided you with materials that were stolen from me. And that would contradict your prior testimony... there is no reason [those emails] can't be made public."

 

Leahy argued then with an enraged Grassley over his request to make public the Bush-era emails that Leahy is all but shouting well contain that evidence. "There are at least 6 documents that are marked committee confidential" related to this, Leahy said.

 

Those documents, judging by the remainder of Leahy's questioning, relate to potential perjury from Kavanaugh on warrantless wiretapping and torture.

 

 


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#91
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

No Grassroots Energy Rallying for Kavanaugh

 

https://theintercept...nergy-rallying/

 

Introduction:

 

(The Intercept) LAST SUNDAY, SEVERAL hundred protesters rallied in Civic Center Park in Denver, Colorado, against President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh. Local reporters were on hand, and the protest earned a two-minute segment on that night’s local CBS broadcast. The “Unite for Justice” rally in Denver was just one of dozens held across the country that same day, and viewers of that evening’s news learned that the rally-goers were taking a stand against confirming a justice who would be the fifth vote to repeal Roe v. Wade.

 

The network’s attempt at balance, however, was foiled by advocates of Kavanaugh — or, more precisely, the lack of them. The anchor, at the end of the segment, deadpanned to the Denver metro viewership and said, “A pro-life rally was scheduled to run in opposition to the protest, but no one attended.”

 

Abortion opponents’ inability to gather even a handful of counter protesters in Denver made for an awkward aside, but it also underscored the near total absence of organic grassroots energy from a supposedly rabid anti-choice movement. As the Senate began confirmation hearings Tuesday, the politics of the nomination are being shaped by a myth that has been constructed over decades by a small minority of fervent abortion rights opponents: that the country is evenly divided when it comes to abortion.

 

In reality, the politics are lopsided. Voters want Roe protected by more than a 2-1 margin, and even oppose overturning it in states like North Dakota, where Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp is up for re-election. The opposition that does exist, meanwhile, is concentrated among a minority of hardcore Republicans who consider it a moral travesty to vote for Democrats — not the kind of voter Heitkamp could win over by supporting Kavanaugh.

 

All of this has been evident for years, yet the sophisticated political antenna of Democratic leaders in Washington suddenly fail them when it comes to reading polls on the question of abortion. Instead, Democratic leadership is worried about the political consequences for Democrats in red states who vote no. If all Democrats vote no, Republicans would need to win Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Republicans from Maine and Alaska, respectively, who publicly support abortion rights.

 


  • Futurist and Alislaws like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#92
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached, not elevated.

 

https://slate.com/ne...impression=true

 

Introduction:

 

(Slate) Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary.

 

I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.

 

Newly released emails show that while he was working to move through President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in the early 2000s, Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. That includes research and talking points Miranda stole from the Senate server after I had written them for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority.

 

Receiving those memos and letters alone is not an impeachable offense.

 

No, Kavanaugh should be removed because he was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#93
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Caltrek, what are your thoughts on court-packing if the Democrats will reacquire both houses of the U.S. Congress (and the Presidency as well)?



#94
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

^^^I could go the route of nominees and say that I don't answer hypothetical questions. 

 

Given this is a futurists forum in which speculation is expected, I suppose that would not be very satisfying.

 

First priority is to stop Kavanaugh's appointment in the first place. If the Republicans could block Obama's appointment based on the idea that an election was upcoming, then a Trump appointment should be blacked based on the idea that Trump's many legal problems should be cleared before another of his appointments is allowed.  Especially an appointment that seems willing to give maximum deference to presidential power.

 

Beyond that, in my laziness it is easier to cut and paste than to do original composition:

 

Democrats must consider court-packing when they regain power. It’s the only way to save democracy.

 

https://www.washingt...m=.20e486a7950e

 

Introduction:

 

(Washington Post) Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court, and President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to succeed him, is the doomsday scenario liberals feared when Senate Republicans thwarted the appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016: The GOP’s brazen act of democratic sabotage will almost certainly deliver the high court to the far right for a generation. In the years ahead, the court will probably further erode reproductive rights, gay rights and voting rights, ushering in the darkest era in American history since the post-Reconstruction period.

 

Sounds hysterical, right? After all, Democrats will get their chance at reversing the court’s majority when they get back in power, as early as 2021. Except court appointments don’t work like elections. The remaining conservatives on the court are young — Clarence Thomas is the oldest at 70 — and Trump is insistent on naming young justices. It is possible that a two-term Democratic president could serve from 2021 to 2029 without being able to replace a single Republican-appointed justice.

 

That grim reality is leading many on the left to contemplate radical ideas, including an idea considered and discarded 80 years ago: court-packing. The idea of court-packing — adding extra justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological makeup — causes most Americans to blanch. But if done right, it would actually offer a crucial avenue for safeguarding American democracy.

 

Court-packing has a dim reputation in American politics, largely because of a flawed understanding about President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 effort to pass a law authorizing the president to add a justice to the Supreme Court for every existing justice over the age of 70. His proposed bill would have allowed Roosevelt to add six justices to the court immediately, instantly transforming it.

 

Roosevelt’s motives stemmed from the way that the conservative-dominated court had thwarted his agenda — striking down several key New Deal measures during Roosevelt’s first term — despite historically large majorities in both houses of Congress and overwhelming popular support.

 

So, a lot depends on how a future court were to behave.  If they confine themselves to an honest interpretation of the Constitution, at worse nibbling at the edges, then their actions can be tolerated.  If they go hog wild down an activist path, then perhaps dramatic forms of remedy might be justified.  A lot will depend on public opinion.  If the public can be persuaded that the court is acting  beyond its rightful boundaries, that would make a court-packing scheme more viable.  I believe that latest polls show that the court is probably the most respected of the major branches of government, so  major deterioration of its image would have to occur. The threat of dramatic restructuring of the court might help to keep the court honest.  


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#95
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,883 posts
  • LocationLondon

If the supreme court stops reflecting the values of the people of the USA eventually the popular will would exist to change it. 

 

The closer the court reflects the will of Americans the longer it will last in its current form. 



#96
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Mainers Tell Senator Collins "No!" on Kavanaugh

 

https://ourfuture.or...no-on-kavanaugh

 

Introduction:

 

(OurFuture.com) As the confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh nears, Senator Susan Collins’ approval rating has fallen to a new low of 35 percent, according to a recent poll.

 

Comments from some of the over 500 attendees at a Unite for Justice rally in Portland reflect Mainers’ growing disillusionment with the senator, who is sometimes hailed as a “moderate” capable of challenging Republican leadership, and her noncommittal statements about whether or not she will vote for Kavanaugh.

 

 “Maine has a strong tradition of people who are centrist and that all Mainers can trust,” said Portland resident Emily Wall.  “I think Susan Collins has been betraying that [trust] for a couple of years now, and if she votes to confirm Kavanaugh, that will be the last straw.”

 

Organized by Maine People’s Alliance, a People’s Action affiliate, with Mainers for Accountable Leadership, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Planned Parenthood Maine Action Fund, the Portland rally was one of more than 100 planned for the national day of action, and was attended by Mainers from across the state who called on Senator Susan Collins to stand with them and vote to not confirm Kavanaugh, whose record on a number of issues has many concerned.

 

South Portland resident Bill Matthews remarked that a vote for Kavanaugh, in his mind, would forever define Collins’ legacy, especially on women’s rights.

 

“Susan Collins has been wishy-washy so often that it will cement her legacy as a woman who doesn’t stand up for the women of Maine and the country,” he said. “Kavanaugh’s record is sketchy on not just women’s rights, but so many other issues, such as disability rights and whether a president can be held accountable for his crimes.”


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#97
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

20_215632.jpg?resize=807x807

 

http://theweek.com/c...ation-democrats


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#98
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

70fed4ae-6f3d-4154-b566-027d0437a30a.jpg

 

http://theweek.com/c...t-hearing-trump


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#99
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Stop the “Kavanaugh Coup” By Any Means Necessary

 

https://ourfuture.or...means-necessary

 

Introduction:

 

(OurFuture.org) The biggest reason Republicans are frantically trying to rush Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation through, despite credible charges of sexual harassment and perjury, is that his confirmation would complete a slow-moving coup by their oligarchic donor class to turn American law back a hundred years.

 

That was a time when, among other things:

  • The Supreme Court blocked the enforcement of laws regulating the economy and the environment, including child labor laws and minimum wages.

  • States were allowed the suppress the vote of African Americans and other minorities.

  • Women and gays were not entitled the equal protection of the laws.

  • Women were denied the right to control their own bodies.

So there is nothing more important, right now, to the future of American democracy than blocking Kavanaugh’s confirmation, by any means necessary.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#100
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,218 posts

Below, I have linked a transcript of Christine Blasy Ford's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I have actually not read that transcript.  However, I have been watching substantial portions of that hearing on television.

 

 

Kavanaugh hearing: Transcript (see link provided below)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.e570206b02b3


  • rennerpetey likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users