To All on this blog: Please consider pitching in to help candidates in the midterm elections by writing postcards to registered voters in key districts. In the age of COVID, sending postcards to registered voters is the functional equivalent of door-to-door precinct work. It’s a lot easier—I like to do this while watching the news. You just hand-write a prepared short message on a postcard, address it, and post. Right now, I'm writing in support of re-electing Senator Cortez Masto in Arizona. There are many such opportunities throughout the country.
Here is contact information for people and groups organizing postcard efforts in upcoming elections:
Mary Boergers mary.boergers@yahoo.com is willing to be contacted; she and others are focused currently in the Milwaukee, WI, area. She may be able to put you in touch with people working in other places, if that is your preference.
Billy McDonald billymcdonaldnp@gmail.com can provide email lists of registered voters and postcard text and instructions, and is willing to be contacted. The lists I’ve gotten from him have involved campaigns in California and Arizona. He will have others.
Postcardstovoters.com is a site originated by Tony the Democrat. He began a postcard campaign in Jon Ossoff’s first campaign for special election in June of 2017. Anyone can now go to the site and follow the steps. Tony usually runs a few postcard campaigns at a time and each campaign is vetted. Most are down-ballot races. Folks could check that out for postcard writing to other states.
You're right. Sorry for the mix-up, and thanks for the correction. I've actually done in-person work for her in NV, and now I'm writing postcards for her.
jeebuz. GQP is like whack-a-mole. or worse, like an infestation of cockroaches. it just never ever ends.
but tell me, robert, i know biden is a busy man (and that he's currently ill with COVID) but why has he never raised the likelihood of increasing the numbers of justices on the supreme court? or term limits? or rotating justices? why does the supreme court have NO ETHICS STANDARDS? why does the supreme court have no MINIMUM PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS that the appointed lawyers must meet?
and why has biden never openly discussed the effects of gerrymandering?
North Carolina Republicans are arguing that no other state body, including the state supreme court, has the power to restrict the legislature’s ability to set voting rules—specifically ones allowing legislators to gerrymander the state, in defiance of a ruling by the state supreme court finding that their plan violated the state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote. In his amicus brief in this case, Neal Katyal, said that the applicants failed to raise their federal Constitutional argument before the trial court. "As a result, the North Carolina Supreme Court observed that they waived it on appeal. Applicants have made no showing that five Justices would find any error in the North Carolina Supreme Court’s conclusion that the claim was waived."
In Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) the North Carolina legislature adopted an overt partisan gerrymander. "There, as here, the legislature’s plan diluted North Carolinians’ voting power based on political affiliation. There, as here, Common Cause sought judicial relief from that denial of rights. In Rucho, this Court decided that federal judges were not authorized to provide that relief, but that resort to state courts was available."
Oral argument won't take place until right before the election. The North Carolina General Assembly enacted a new map for congressional elections in November 2021. Respondent North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.[Democrats] and several individuals (“NCLCV Respondents”) and a group of individuals (“Harper Respondents”) [Republicans] immediately challenged that map in state court as unconstitutional and sought a preliminary injunction.
In the internet some people argue that the Democrats could withdraw their objection to the map and the case will disappear.
Katyal doesn't represent the Democratic class in this case. He once was Acting Solicitor General and is a partner at a DC la firm and is Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown. He is not in a position to tell them what to do. But I wonder whether he would suggest withdrawal.
I don't think this is the case for him to risk his relationship with SCOTUS, but some of the other lawyers could file motions to voir dire on bias. 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness.
Rucho did not directly address the independent state legislature theory. Of the three suggestions by Robert, if Congress restores federal voting rights protections and expands access to the ballot box AND ensures one man one vote it can be fixed.
Thank you, Daniel, for relieving my panic. I am in favor of term limits that would in total allow any Justice to serve no more than 20 years, but I'm skeptical about packing the Court. Too many Justices could lead to the inability to make any decision
Fay Reid ; I agree 'that too many cooks spoil the broth!' It would be great to remove some of the illegitimates on the court who lied about their intent, and violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and are obvious partisan hacks. Impeach them! (Or scale the wall and scare the $#iT out of them!!!) If things get bad enough the 'right should not think they have a corner on anger! Time for some real witches!
Hey Fay and Laurie. Maybe it's not the specific number of justices that is the problem. Maybe it is the Court's procedures. I read an article in "The Nation" Magazine for June 27th (I think) that suggested there be a point when the draft decision is written, it be made public and people can come to the Court to challenge the justices on their reasoning and explain the potential outcomes for their decision. The lawyers and others could ask the justices questions and put them on the spot and get their thinking on the record. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Court's procedingts must be secret and only sprung on the American people when the justices decided it would do the most harm and distract people from something else important going on. That along with a few more justices, like 4, term limits of about 18 years, nominees must be approved by the ABA and other non-partisan legal organizations and must have some judging experience, and impeachment of the justices who perjured themselves before Congress might clean up some of the partisanship that is undermining our democracy.
Ruth Sheets ; Nice work if you can get it. What if the obstructionists decide to use that process against the majority, like they do so many other things? Who decides if a petitioner is authentic, and not just someone causing mischief?
I've been at this a long time. One would think that of all people, Roberts would want to defend his reputation. Thomas may very well become the center of a firestorm. Consider how many 5-4 decisions he bent the wrong way. Several others will be embarrassed if personal matters come to light.
Fay, Regarding the number of Justices serving on the High Court, I would note that in 1789 there were 6 Federal Circuit Courts and 6 Supreme Court Justices, 1 assigned to each Court. Today there are 13 Federal Circuit Courts but only 9 Justices, reducing the number of cases, relatively speaking, the High Court can hear. I mention these figures mostly because, in my view, they justify adding 4 Justices to the High Court. Additionally, I would submit that expanding the High Court affords an opportunity to rebalance it, a reform I view as productive to a society that wishes its High Court to reflect the population it serves.
Thank you, Barbara, If we could balance the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of Federal Circuit Court justices I think most Americans would readily agree. Presenting it as logical and historical significance sounds much better than packing the court.
Fay, Thank you for your reply. I merely would note the proposal calls for balancing the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of Federal Circuit Courts, of which there currently are 13.
Please review the procedure for adding or subtracting Justices to the Supreme Court. What happened when President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to add Justices? What are the obstacles to adding Justices today? What is the probability of success between now and 2024? What are some alternate ways to achieve the goals being sought? Which path has the higher probability of success within the shortest time frame?
Martha, The proposal to balance the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of Federal Circuit Courts is a matter of precedent, contrary to FDR, who arbitrarily tried to expand the Court to 15 to usher in more of his New Deal provisions.
Expanding the Court requires only that the Dems hold the House and pick up at least 2 Senators, who are receptive either to modifying or abolishing the filibuster. There are no alternatives if we are to preserve fundamental human rights that give each person a dignified voice in the decision-making processes that guide and regulate their lives.
At this point, given the public record, no-one would believe the Biden administration is trying to do anything different than FDR's administration was trying to do which is to pack the court to subvert its function. No matter how much lipstick the pig is painted with it will still be a pig.
As far as term limits go, that would require a change to the Constitution. It is highly unlikely 3/4s of the states would ratify such a change... it is unlikely 2/3 of the states would allow it to even get that far.
Barbara Jo, would you please provide a citation for your statement that balancing the number of SCOTUS justices with number of Federal Circuit Courts is a matter of precedent? Based on good polling data, what do you think is the probability of the Democrats holding the House in 2022? What do you think is the probability of picking up at least 2 senators in 2022? Do you have a time line in mind for adding justices to the SCOTUS?
I also want to know how the people living in States across the United States can change Federal Political law WITHOUT going through their elected legislatures. Term Limits on ALL appointed judges should be a priority and U.S. Supreme Court judges should be termed out at ten years, NOT twenty. Term Limits should also be instituted for ALL elected officials, and they should cycle out after TWO terms. Period. How do we accomplish this? Is there some kind of people's proposition that can be added to the ballot in each State, such as California does now?
A recognition that nobody is above the law and some kind of ethics rules that are enforceable so the justices are accountable. Right now, criminal behavior seems to go unpunished! When a justice does not even recuse himself even though his wife was a participant in a seditious movement, that is concerning. Of course, if he did it would be an admission of impropriety, wouldn't it? Impeach 'Judge' Thomas!
"I also want to know how the people living in States across the United States can change Federal Political law WITHOUT going through their elected legislatures."
You could research how that might occur.
Please note that term limits have a serious, anti-democratic down side. Can you figure out what that might be?
The root problem we have today, and since the beginning of this nation though much more accelerated today, is that the root of the evil in our political system is private MONEY. Simply put, those with the most cash are purchasing THEIR representatives. You see this when legislature is passed that overwhelmingly helps those who provide campaign contributions. The American people too often ask what are MY representatives doing FOR me? As time and time again "their" Representatives are doing things TO them. Interesting article today from the L.A. Times on Blake Masters running for Senate in Arizona and his "obedience" to his puppet master, Peter Thiel. One of the eye-opening lines from this article: "Tax evasion by elites like Thiel, if left unchecked, could turn that story into a self-fulfilling prophecy: shielding billions from taxation, they erode the power of nation-states to improve lives — turning citizens into slaves or exiles." Scary stuff. Sorry Mitt Romney, but corporations are NOT people.
Yes, it would be great and more democratic if people were freely able to vote for the candidate that best met their interests, but too often that candidates voice is NOT heard. Instead, as in Trump, we get someone who SAYS he will be the "greatest" and provide for everyone in a "bigly" way and once elected turns out was the wolf in sheep's clothing looking out for only HIMSELF and his very large campaign donors. The other problem was that the Democrats foisted Hillary onto us as the other choice. Through her philanderer husband's trade deals and hundreds of thousands of middle-class paying jobs outsourced, people did NOT want any more of that. I actually believe the RNC and DNC (Just read why a Federal Court dismissed Bernie Sanders lawsuit against the DNC for unfairness in 2016 when up against Hillary. Head of DNC Wasserman-Shultz says the DNC is a private corporation and as such, does NOT need to follow their OWN rules. WTF??) should be investigated thoroughly as these organizations are beyond corrupt. Just look at what they DO, forget about what they SAY.
Once elected, the politicians take care of each other and never expose the corruption taking place within the institution. Examples are plentiful, though a couple recent examples include: Illegal insider dealings such as trading on stock based on insider information or having immediate family members making millions off the politician's position and the price of access. You NEVER hear of a member of Congress reporting wrongdoing on another member. If that actually did happen, Manchin and Sinema would be scrambling to continue to stay in office. In Manchin's case, he would resign in disgrace based on the corruption within his family that literally damaged his constituent's lives in West Virginia. (Read about the Mylan corporation and their EpiPen product and how Joe's daughter (Heather Bresch) and his wife played crucial roles in their personal money-making scheme). Or, just maybe, Manchin would NOT be so obstinate and vote WITH the political party he claims to be a member of. But too few people actually know of the corruption.
Hell, we do NOT even have any ETHICS STANDARD for U.S. Supreme Court Justices (Extremists Clarence Thomas and his wife) even when the justice KNOWS he should recuse himself from certain decisions. But why should it matter as there will be NO consequences and, even if there might be, by the time "our" Representatives ACTS on it, he will pass on from old age. This system, especially the U.S. Supreme Court is the last bastion for the wealthy string pullers.
The system has spiraled downward over the last forty years (led by Ronnie Reagan). Government IS good and the real public servants do a great job. But politicians??? The FIRST step is to BAN private money from campaigns. And BAN lobbyists (lobbyists are similar to Unions. Unions represent worker's interests; lobbyists represent business interests). Representatives should NOT (as they are doing today) have to spend an inordinate amount of their time begging for cash, and as payback for that cash, carry bills from lobbyists onto the Congress floor for support and passage. ALL campaigns MUST be PUBLICLY funded. Higher taxes on the UNPATRIOTIC wealthy and corporations, especially corporate media, can pay for this. (The airwaves belong to the people.) For those who do not get the connection, paying taxes is a form of PATRIOTISM. Look around and see those who are actively AVOIDING paying ANY taxes (read the Pro-Publica article on how the wealthy avoid paying taxes.) Interesting that those who can afford to pay the most (Musk, Bezos), don't. UNPATRIOTIC to the country who gave THEM the opportunity through grants and other forms of American Taxpayer support money. Corporate BAILOUTS is a form of socialism for the rich. (Odd that we are told by the politicians that Communism is so horrible, yet if corporations can save a nickel per widget by moving their corporation's production, and your middle-class paying job, to COMMUNIST China, YOUR politician's make that happen for them lickity split.)
Because Courts of Law are not supposed to be legislative bodies (which the current SCOTUS is trying to be) They are supposed to be deliberative. They need time to research precedence, to convince all members of their forum as to the legality of their decision. To make sure their personal biases (and religious beliefs) do not prejudice their deliberations. That takes time.
Daniel, Because state legislatures are not exempt from federal regulations, I agree that instating federal voter protection safeguards is critical. Still, I wish to add a word from Democracy Docket Founder Marc Elias regarding a Republican election subversion plan he expects will be enacted as early as this fall.
Admittedly, Elias is not suggesting that Republican election officials are laying the groundwork blatantly to declare their candidates the winner whether or not the candidate wins enough votes. He views the Republican election subversion plan as more sophisticated than that. Instead, Elias anticipates that Republicans will use “false allegations of fraud as a pretext to remove ballots from the vote totals and then certify those incomplete results.”
Though I don’t doubt that when litigation ensues Elias and his team will mount arguments whose conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence, I am not as confident that our courts will stand for the beacons of democracy that we need them to be. Hence, I would suggest that federal voter protection legislation, no matter how comprehensive, might not be sufficient.
Mimi, My sentiments exactly. Additionally, I would note, that because voting rights attorneys generally can be plain spoken, I continue to press the relevant parties to find a way to enable them to be more visible to the public-at-large.
Daniel, This reply bears no connection to my comment, wherein I methodically aimed to show that federal voter protection legislation, while necessary, might not be sufficient given the Republican election subversion plan expected to be enacted as early as this fall.
Daniel, My original comment was based on an entirely different subject—Elias’s thoughts regarding the Electoral Count Act and his concern that Republicans at the local and state levels simply won’t include all the ballots in the certified results, which comes way before we get to counting electors in the chambers of the House and Senate.
This is excellent Daniel, again, thank you. I was aware of what is happening in NC, however both Robert and you really filled in details I didn't know. I have long believed that THIS election is one of the most important ever. It would be catastrophic for the country to have our government taken over by GOP Nazi's....please America, KNOW THIS! Take a look at the protests over the weekend in Florida, DeSantis's face on the flags just like January 6th with Trump. Neo Nazi's, the Goyim Defense League, is holding protests across the country. Billionaire right-wing money is pouring into races. Right wing pacs are devastating primary races of democrats. Donna Edwards of Maryland for one taken down by AIPAC. VOTING is all you have!
My guess is that he’s been hit with so many other pressing issues, that he or his aides/advisors haven’t taken the time to discuss them & form some opinions about how to handle these issues. I would think he or Kamala would form some committees in the House or Senate to work on several @ a time. Maybe Biden didn’t bring in enough advisors to push these issues along. It seems like there’s too much to fix from tRumps reign of terror that there’s not enough time to work on these newer issues that are arising!! I wish he would bring Obama in as an advisor and give Kamala more issues to work on. He may not get his energy back quickly after he recovers from Covid so I believe he needs more help. He’s been so focused on inflation & our economy but there’s little more he can do to get inflation under control. We will just have to work through it like we did in the 80s I’m afraid!! Knowing European countries are have a worse inflationary time makes me feel that we aren’t in such bad shape as everyone is letting on. But we sure could use an influencing group of people to put pressure on Billionaire corporations to lower prices & absorb some of their increased costs of doing business! Pressure should work faster than any boycotting that American shoppers might be able to do!
It would be great if Prof Reich’s memo was sent to Biden with a request that he name some people to head up committees to work on all of the named issues herein! Bold action is needed for sure!
Shirley Roberts ; It would be interesting to see a massive march against the obscenely wealthy! They are the real enemy! They buy our representatives to put in bills to give them low or no taxes. their puppets block voting, and they create the chaos that prevents the focus that we need ; on the real problem! There should be regulation and restrictions on THEM!
SeekingReason ; Yes, it is. Hoarding wealth without paying any real taxes, and no regulation, no anti trust enforcement, while our 'representatives' are fat lap dogs getting treats at the country's peril. We need some good veterinarians to get them off the junk food! Or the bariatric surgery of being primaried!
Or we can prevent the need for treatment by only voting for and supporting candidates with good track records of not selling out to the oligarchs, and /or new candidates who have been mentored by leaders like Bernie Sanders and others who have shown an understanding of their oath of office and their jobs.
worst is yet to come. The wealthy have paid our representatives to loophole inheritance laws to the point that grand dynastic wealth now passes to heirs unencumbered. If you think the wealthy who now rule the nation are bad, just wait until their heirs take over.
We would love to have President Biden focus on the midterm elections the same way he has focused on inflation and the economy. If he is only half as successful with the elections as he has been with the economy/inflation, we might have a Republican Senator from Connecticut for the first time in over 30 years.
Simple because big money not only purchases politicians, but also what judges get nominated to the SC, for life no less ! Americans must fight tooth and nail for an end to Citizens United. True Democracy does not exist unless a country has one person, one vote, and every vote counts.
That requires the senate (or its power) to be abolished does it not? And requires non-partisan judges? And no more electoral college? And voting reps for people in DC, PR, and territories?
I've lost all respect for Biden since he refuses to come out and call for the prosecution of tRump - America's most dangerous criminal who continues to roam the country spreading lies and further destruction to democracy.
Here's a good analogy - - The US was involved in a traumatic accident, and is headed to the hospital for life-saving treatment. Merrick Garland is driving the ambulance. Not only will he not exceed the speed limit, but he notices the odometer and pulls into the dealership for an oil change.
Dee Long ; Of course, if he advocated for the prosecution of tRump the oligarch owned media would scream 'Partisan!' In a country with only two parties, anything that is said could be 'partisan'. It is absurd! But if you were in his position with a compromised Secret Service, wouldn't you be careful? But you make a good point; tRump and Co. do not hesitate to say whatever they want, no matter how it looks. Even lies (mostly lies).
Biden is the friggin commander in chief - let him act like one - sick of all the excuses as to why it might be 'dangerous' to prosecute tRump - BULLSHIT - the reason so many people in this country suffer from depression and mental illness is that NOBODY HAS OUR BACKS!! Every damn Congressperson should be calling for the prosecution of everyone at any level of government involved in 1/6 -- including the evil ring leader.
You’re absolutely right about people suffering from depression. I have been thinking that the Republican Party is committing ongoing massive abuse and we’re all suffering from trauma. Unconscionable.
Paula B. We need to continue to call out every bad actor in power, (and any we can name behind the scenes, like traitor 'representatives' and too wealthy oligarchs who buy the evil!
Okay, here’s one for you: Mike Garcia, CA-27. He’s my congressman now but redistricting has moved him and thank goodness I’m going to have Julia Brownley from now on, assuming she wins. He’s terrible. If you have the chance to contact Dem voters in that district please tell them to vote for Christy Smith and defeat the insurrectionist Garcia.
Dee Long ; You are preaching to the choir! I would tell him 'Damn the torpedoes!' the ship of state is in peril! It's do or die! If things as they are continue on the course they are on ; disaster upon disaster will happen. Our ship could sink. You know what tRump would do, and is still doing; no holds barred ; If there is a lever to pull on the panel of power, he is on it with no apology!
Shara ; The fact that the congressional proceedings are happening at all is almost a miracle. I think most of the population support them, and want to see the DOJ and our Attorney General do their job.
Expanding the Supreme Court is a "fools errand" with Manchin and Synema in the Senate. Unless, as Mr. Reich has said, D's take full control of the Senate and maintain a majority in the house.
It helps to know what happened when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. And it helps to know the procedures for increasing the number of justices. You can look it up.
In a nutshell didn't have to as one of the right wingers acquiesced.
I think Obama was outplayed.
I think that there may be a kamikaze lawyer with the right kind of a pending SCOTUS case who could upset the applecart. Thomas' bias is legend. I think Coney Barrett has a lot to hide. As I keep saying the lawyers should ask for an open hearing on bias. Many of my colleagues had to undergo challenges as to their appointment based on a SCOTUS case - Luria v SEC - that has repercussions still before the Court. I seem to be the only one cognizant of 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
The Supreme Court will begin hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may also be vulnerable.
Consider E.G. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency is a case concerning how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines its regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Republicans attack the Clean Water Act.
What if Thomas et all have to recuse for bias? This could flip everything and restore deference to agency interpretations of law and reverse West Va v EPA from last term!!!
(If the people violating the rules - if not the norms - are stuck in a cycle defending their choices, then they should be protected from making bad choices; their reasons for persisting could only be stupidity i.e. in the first place - or sheer malice.)
Actually, Biden is a smart man, because he knows that the 'right' will find a way to get any more extra seats available. They are greedheads who just won't quit until everything is such a mess it's worthless.
Again you want to protect 'US democracy'. But what democracy there is is underpinned by undemocratic foundations. Elections and voting are a glamourous front to a system that is weighted heavily in favour of the rich and powerful and conservative.
I think the USA needs a huge movement to help every American understand the democratic deficits that exist and to encourage and promote democratic change.
The present issues arise I think from a general lack of understanding of what democracy should look like.
The slant towards the rich is because of the Citizens United (CU) ruling - that money is speech. So now whoever has the most money has the most speech, and anyone who has less doesn’t get to say anything.
Legislation overturning CU, or a new case before a balanced court to overturn CU, are the relevant solutions.
Did the slant towards the rich not come first from the constitution? My point is that the democratic deficits need to be addressed together by a united movement. And influential people who favour democracy should not publicly venerate the present faux democracy.
Ok in a general sense, inasmuch as the original document was written by “landed gentlemen”, who were by definition wealthy. But I’m not sure if there’s anything in the Constitution that necessarily gives greater power to wealth. I think it was written as one man = one vote, though the definition of “man” was somewhat restricted.
I'm gettingout of my depth here. But the senate, electoral college, and disenfranchised territories are three place one person one vote does not apply.
I am afraid there are only two choices.... either grow Supreme Court to 13 or dismiss the three judges that Trump appointed (he was already in the impeachment process and should have never appointed anyone) as there is nothing constitutional state about these 'justices'. We can not permit this atrocity and embarrassment of the US continue.
Just how do you think the justices would be removed? The only way to remove a Supreme Court Justice is by impeachment. That's not going to happen with 50/50 Senate. It wouldn't if the Democrats had more of a majority. What we are dealing with is the result of 30 years of Democrats asleep at the wheel when it comes to the federal courts and the SCOTUS. While the Republicans were laser focused on taking over the courts the Dems pretty much did nothing. Can you name any Liberal equivalent of the Federalist Society? You can't because there is none.
...and regarding the Federalist Society.... they pretty much sound like the problem. What we need is a constitutional state like in Germany. I question the functionality of the US system.
Is being asleep and not paying attention not a form of incompetence? The Democrats have spent the last 30 plus years ignoring and normalizing what the Republican party has become.
Newt Gingrich engaged in personal attacks, demonization of opponents, conspiracy theories, media manipulation to gain power. The Democrats were not paying attention in the 90's as they are not now. Now it's looking like it's too late. The Republicans own the SCOTUS, lower federal courts, and enough of state legislators to be in permanent control.
Derek - I was deeply troubled by this also and took the question to my brother who is a public defender. He clarified for me: apparently the wording of the now-justices' reply is critically important. They know how to avoid culpability by careful choice of language. This sickens me. Where is a person's honor and moral integrity? In the ditch, apparently.
Just because something is settled law doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned. We are all learning this the hard way. This explanation is not a justification. They didn’t lie when they said they agreed it was settled law. Settled law just means that is the current ruling and precedence be damned.
Thank you Professor Reich, for the reminder that voting is critical. And Not voting for repubs is also critical. “Obviously, these reforms can happen only if Democrats retain control of the House in the midterm elections and add at least two more Democratic senators — willing to reform or abolish the filibuster.” Paying attention and understanding our Democracy and the power of the courts, the need to expand the court, all critical. More than ever.
Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin literally created legislation which would give any governor the right to overturn their state’s U.S. Presidential election results and install the Governor’s choice as the winner instead. What could possibly go wrong?
Sen. Manchin wants to give Republican governors the unprecedented and unconstitutional authority to overturn federal election results and install the federal candidate of the Governor’s choice.
Manchin should be arrested for even presenting such an unconstitutional, subversive anti-democratic bill.
It is impossible to overstate just what kind of dangerous slimebucket Joe Manchin really is. What we need to do is ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALTOGETHER, but the Republican Party NEEDS the Electoral College because without it, Republicans could never steal or win a U.S. Presidential election again, because Republicans are the permanent minority party in America – always losing the popular vote.
I cannot believe anyone has taken this Electoral College bill co-written/sponsored by Joe Manchin seriously, but here it is.
Manchin is trying to sell this bill as enacting preventative meaures to stop a Vice-President from stealing a U.S. Presidential election, BUT THE TRUTH IS, Manchin’s bill would give a red state governor unprecedented power to completely DISREGARD state election results for President and authorize the Governor to select the winner of the U.S. Presidential election in their state.
If you haven’t noticed this is not the only bill that REMOVES AND REPLACES the will of the voter with the legislature or governor’s choice for President.
Republicans have written dozens of crooked, undemocratic election law bills like this; but this time it is a DEMOCRAT who wrote a bill to give red state governors the power to disregard the will of the voters in their state and allow red state governors and GOP legislatures to select the winner of the U.S. Presidential election in their state.
So you want Senator Manchin arrested for writing legislation that may or may not pass. Do you have any idea how that sounds? You're against the authoritarian movement of the Republican party and yet you want to have political opponents arrested for being in the opposition.
I loath Manchin, he's a corrupt Senator who's doing the bidding of coal, oil and gas corporations. But when you start demanding people being arrested for things you don't like, that's authoritarianism.
This is on the Democrats for not winning more Senate seats and not paying attention to what is going on in red and purple states. The Democrats and the DNC let the Republicans take control of state legislations by not fighting for them and abandoning working class voters in key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They did this in the 90's when they shifted from a party that depended on labor for votes and moved towards Wall Street.
None of what you are on about happened in a vacuum. The Republicans took advantage of the weaknesses of the Democrats and the Democrats never fought back. What did the Democrats do... they normalized what the extreme right wing shit of the Republican party. When Biden goes on about 'bipartisanship" I have to wonder if he's an idiot or just incapable of understanding what he's dealing with. How could Joe Biden think 'bipartisanship" was even possible after 8 years as Obama's VP? Let alone what the GOP became after 4 years of Trump.
I realize you're not an attorney, didn't attend law school and obviously never won a federal lawsuit in U.S. District court, but I forgive you. Take a glance at Title 18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and its sister statute, 241 Conspiracy to Deprive.
Did you know you sound like a hillbilly? I'm glad you descended from the foothills long enough to make a comment. Congratulations.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
You're so far removed from educated society you don't even know your rights, much less the constitutional and statutory duties persons acting under color of law owe persons in America.
Have you ever heard of a criminal constitutional law violation? Nope.
Have you ever prosecuted a police officer for violating these federal statutes? I didn't think so.
You should employ an economy of words after consulting a dictionary and some law books.
Tell me again how I sound like I'm from Mars to you......wait, let me grab my iced tea.......
Let me tell you something: do not put words in my mouth: I do not want to arrest Joe Manchin for being political opposition...that is NOT what I said; what you just described is not a crime, genius. I abhor people like you who put words in someone's mouth because they do not understand the words coming out of one's mouth.
You have no idea what I was talking about, but that didn't stop you from bumping your gums 90 MPH.
You are completely unremarkable, inasmuch you are like most people who live their entire lives without knowing that it is a federal crime for any person acting under color of law to willfully and maliciously violate a person's U.S. Constitutional rights.
Since you did not know it is a federal crime, how can you make an informed opinion about the words coming out of my mouth?
Fuck Joe Biden and establishment neoliberal Democrats. I'm a progressive Democrat.
Wow. Talk about assumptions. You show your true colors and intolerance by using insults because you really don't know any better. I'm not a hillbilly, not that that's a bad thing.
This is what you wrote: "Manchin should be arrested for even presenting such an unconstitutional, subversive anti-democratic bill."
How is it illegal for presenting a bill even if it's unconstitutional? Is it not up to Congress to debate and pass or reject the bill? Then if the bill does becomes law is it not the courts that decide if it's unconstitutional?
You sir give a bad name to progressives by being an intolerant belligerent arse.
You're too uneducated to be speaking about politics, much less my comments re: politics & law.
You're not a hillbilly - you just have a hillbilly mindset. What do I have to do? Educate you? Buy you books and send you to law school? Go eat a KitKat bar.
While I agree with most of your comments, I fear that with the current political atmosphere nothing positive will occur. It is sad. I don't think that the Founding Fathers could envisage the technical, demographic, moral and scientific changes that have occurred since the founding of the nation. It is easy for me to look back and say what should have been done, but the biggest flaw in my mind was to give each state two senators regardless of their population. I know that compromise was necessary to get the ratification of the less populated states but how could have it been foreseen that a state such as Wyoming would have the same weight as California in the Senate. There are several other issues that I would comment on but I leave that for another day
I agree with you but remember from the beginning the first 8 of 12 Presidents all came from Virginia, if I’m not mistaken They knew what they were doing. They couldn’t have foreseen this country as it is today !
Again , it is important to look at our representation from the bottom up. Starting with our local communities, then statehouses and on up to our Federal representatives. So many people see this sort of 'stick figure' of the presidential election and the two candidates, seemingly unaware of the importance of where they came from or what they have for an agenda ; who they really work for.
Thank you, thank you. If This UnSupreme Court rules on this it will be the end of the American Experimemt. I can almost hear the jackboots coming. I hope we're not too late to prevent this disruption to our Constitutional Representative Democracy
Some time ago, I read about this possibility and have since had it at the top of my "red" worry list but haven't heard the Democrats say a word about it. To think that a solution depends on the 2022 election is extremely distressing. It seems the subject should be getting maximum publicity, especially in the direction of non-voting potential voters and independents, yet this is only the second time I've seen it discussed. What I haven't seen mentioned is an alternative plan for what blue states will do if the bad guys succeed. I'm hoping someone can come up with some answer short of secession and/or wealthier states withholding tax dollars from poor/red states and/or Civil War. Not only voters but especially SCOTUS need to know that there is/are reason(s) why they wouldn't like the outcome if they do take that route. Opting to keep head buried in sand doesn't seem the way for Biden/Democrats to go. Or is there no effective worst-case strategy? And can SCOTUS hear the case prior to the 2022 elections?
Daniel, Boy was that a confusing article! My take away is that our Democratic government cannot allow this radical Supreme Court to put forward their unconstitutional plan of state legislatures having the power to overturn the will of voters in their state. Who can or has the upper hand in preventing such a power grab by any state legislature! Doesn’t this make it absolutely necessary that the Dems work to abolish the Electoral College & only use the National Popular Vote Compact to elect our Presidents?? It seems to me that those 2 Repub favoring concepts, Citizens United & a disfunctional Electoral College must be focused on more intently if we are ever to continue to have free & fair elections & a working Democracy in our Country. Billionaire money & dark money in Repub PACS has become the downfall of fair elections! I watched a CNN special Sunday night about how 2 Billionaire oil men in Texas have been able to buy their favored candidates a seat in state Government. They also claimed that very few voters in Texas even knew about these 2 guys & how they influence all state elections. They evidently work in the shadows using paid spokespersons to accomplish their wishes! It was described as working just like a Russian Oligarchy!! I think their names were Dunn & Wilks & when Poll workers asked Texas voters if they knew who these 2 dudes were, they all answered No. There’s some dirty politics going on in Texas it seems!
It's not true that I haven't heard the Democrats say a word about it? That's an interesting statement. But my point: I didn't say they haven't commented on it. I said I hadn't heard it. I read a lot of political news. If I haven't heard it, then maybe a significant number of others also haven't heard about it. Maybe the Democrats aren't screaming loudly enough about this most crucial issue.
All true. We are in peril as a nation. And citizens contemplating violence are growing, particularly among the Republican Party and Independents. The Trumpists and the Supremes together are formidable. Biden could help by declaring prior to the midterms that he will not run again. Trump or DeSantis elected would rend the fabric of our country.
I also have be trying to write something on this case. Either for my book or for the redpill newsletter.
It represents. perhaps more than any other case, how close the USA is to losing the rule of law as I was taught in law school over 40 years ago.
Little coverage of this.
nothing will be heard for months,
sometime, after Oct SCOTUS will hear the case
and sometime before July 2023 they will issue an opinion.
I think can predict, what three justices will say
I think I can predict what 4 Justices will write.
That leaves 2 justices
the question is who writes the majority opinion.
While these questions are important, to the USA, I am not sure that my wrting about it will make much difference. I am not even sure that your writing about it will make much difference.
fighting my deep sense of hopelessness and helplessness.
This theory is evident happening now here in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected 6 gerrymandered maps but it didn’t matter to a Trump appointed Federal judge. I’m writing postcards
Thanks for writing this.
To All on this blog: Please consider pitching in to help candidates in the midterm elections by writing postcards to registered voters in key districts. In the age of COVID, sending postcards to registered voters is the functional equivalent of door-to-door precinct work. It’s a lot easier—I like to do this while watching the news. You just hand-write a prepared short message on a postcard, address it, and post. Right now, I'm writing in support of re-electing Senator Cortez Masto in Arizona. There are many such opportunities throughout the country.
Here is contact information for people and groups organizing postcard efforts in upcoming elections:
Mary Boergers mary.boergers@yahoo.com is willing to be contacted; she and others are focused currently in the Milwaukee, WI, area. She may be able to put you in touch with people working in other places, if that is your preference.
Billy McDonald billymcdonaldnp@gmail.com can provide email lists of registered voters and postcard text and instructions, and is willing to be contacted. The lists I’ve gotten from him have involved campaigns in California and Arizona. He will have others.
Postcardstovoters.com is a site originated by Tony the Democrat. He began a postcard campaign in Jon Ossoff’s first campaign for special election in June of 2017. Anyone can now go to the site and follow the steps. Tony usually runs a few postcard campaigns at a time and each campaign is vetted. Most are down-ballot races. Folks could check that out for postcard writing to other states.
Add Field Team Six, which das a database of non registered voters.
Contact Mervis Reissig
merv4peace@gmail.com
this too! thanks
Cortez Masto is in Nevada, not Arizona.
You're right. Sorry for the mix-up, and thanks for the correction. I've actually done in-person work for her in NV, and now I'm writing postcards for her.
this is great! I have been looking for a way to spread the word outside my state. thanks
I suppose it can't hurt, but the postcard campaign is not relational. It's a mixed bag. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/22/metro/some-boston-voters-say-postcards-they-received-about-voting-nov-2-election-felt-creepy/. Relational volunteering may have a higher success ratio. You might want to look into workingamerica.org/Volunteer. Also https://focusactionnetwork.org/
Writing postcards and calling are both great ways to reach voters these days. Well-done.
Working my 300 (get it ? 300 at Thermopylae) this a.m. Nothing on my cards suggest we're watching to see if they vote or not. https://indivisible.org/indivisible-postcard-program
jeebuz. GQP is like whack-a-mole. or worse, like an infestation of cockroaches. it just never ever ends.
but tell me, robert, i know biden is a busy man (and that he's currently ill with COVID) but why has he never raised the likelihood of increasing the numbers of justices on the supreme court? or term limits? or rotating justices? why does the supreme court have NO ETHICS STANDARDS? why does the supreme court have no MINIMUM PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS that the appointed lawyers must meet?
and why has biden never openly discussed the effects of gerrymandering?
Not true about Biden. Cut him a break!! https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/joe-biden-2/policies/domestic-policy/gerrymandering
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/11/remarks-by-president-biden-on-protecting-the-right-to-vote/
North Carolina Republicans are arguing that no other state body, including the state supreme court, has the power to restrict the legislature’s ability to set voting rules—specifically ones allowing legislators to gerrymander the state, in defiance of a ruling by the state supreme court finding that their plan violated the state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote. In his amicus brief in this case, Neal Katyal, said that the applicants failed to raise their federal Constitutional argument before the trial court. "As a result, the North Carolina Supreme Court observed that they waived it on appeal. Applicants have made no showing that five Justices would find any error in the North Carolina Supreme Court’s conclusion that the claim was waived."
In Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) the North Carolina legislature adopted an overt partisan gerrymander. "There, as here, the legislature’s plan diluted North Carolinians’ voting power based on political affiliation. There, as here, Common Cause sought judicial relief from that denial of rights. In Rucho, this Court decided that federal judges were not authorized to provide that relief, but that resort to state courts was available."
Oral argument won't take place until right before the election. The North Carolina General Assembly enacted a new map for congressional elections in November 2021. Respondent North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.[Democrats] and several individuals (“NCLCV Respondents”) and a group of individuals (“Harper Respondents”) [Republicans] immediately challenged that map in state court as unconstitutional and sought a preliminary injunction.
In the internet some people argue that the Democrats could withdraw their objection to the map and the case will disappear.
Katyal doesn't represent the Democratic class in this case. He once was Acting Solicitor General and is a partner at a DC la firm and is Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown. He is not in a position to tell them what to do. But I wonder whether he would suggest withdrawal.
I don't think this is the case for him to risk his relationship with SCOTUS, but some of the other lawyers could file motions to voir dire on bias. 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness.
Rucho did not directly address the independent state legislature theory. Of the three suggestions by Robert, if Congress restores federal voting rights protections and expands access to the ballot box AND ensures one man one vote it can be fixed.
Thank you, Daniel, for relieving my panic. I am in favor of term limits that would in total allow any Justice to serve no more than 20 years, but I'm skeptical about packing the Court. Too many Justices could lead to the inability to make any decision
Fay Reid ; I agree 'that too many cooks spoil the broth!' It would be great to remove some of the illegitimates on the court who lied about their intent, and violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and are obvious partisan hacks. Impeach them! (Or scale the wall and scare the $#iT out of them!!!) If things get bad enough the 'right should not think they have a corner on anger! Time for some real witches!
Hmmm Laurie Blair - Did you mean 'that too many CROOKS spoil the broth!' ?
Bob Palmer ; Very good! Either way! they ARE cooking the planet while they rob us blind!
Laurie ...you are a badass.
Hey Fay and Laurie. Maybe it's not the specific number of justices that is the problem. Maybe it is the Court's procedures. I read an article in "The Nation" Magazine for June 27th (I think) that suggested there be a point when the draft decision is written, it be made public and people can come to the Court to challenge the justices on their reasoning and explain the potential outcomes for their decision. The lawyers and others could ask the justices questions and put them on the spot and get their thinking on the record. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Court's procedingts must be secret and only sprung on the American people when the justices decided it would do the most harm and distract people from something else important going on. That along with a few more justices, like 4, term limits of about 18 years, nominees must be approved by the ABA and other non-partisan legal organizations and must have some judging experience, and impeachment of the justices who perjured themselves before Congress might clean up some of the partisanship that is undermining our democracy.
Ruth Sheets ; Nice work if you can get it. What if the obstructionists decide to use that process against the majority, like they do so many other things? Who decides if a petitioner is authentic, and not just someone causing mischief?
Pack the Court with decent human beings.
I'm not relieved myself.
I've been at this a long time. One would think that of all people, Roberts would want to defend his reputation. Thomas may very well become the center of a firestorm. Consider how many 5-4 decisions he bent the wrong way. Several others will be embarrassed if personal matters come to light.
Meanwhile we have more problems. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/25/why-two-democratic-lawyers-are-concerned-about-electoral-count-bill/
Fay, Regarding the number of Justices serving on the High Court, I would note that in 1789 there were 6 Federal Circuit Courts and 6 Supreme Court Justices, 1 assigned to each Court. Today there are 13 Federal Circuit Courts but only 9 Justices, reducing the number of cases, relatively speaking, the High Court can hear. I mention these figures mostly because, in my view, they justify adding 4 Justices to the High Court. Additionally, I would submit that expanding the High Court affords an opportunity to rebalance it, a reform I view as productive to a society that wishes its High Court to reflect the population it serves.
Thank you, Barbara, If we could balance the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of Federal Circuit Court justices I think most Americans would readily agree. Presenting it as logical and historical significance sounds much better than packing the court.
Fay, Thank you for your reply. I merely would note the proposal calls for balancing the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of Federal Circuit Courts, of which there currently are 13.
I have emailed my Congressman requesting legislation to re-balance the Supreme Court to historical precedents. emphasizing not court packing.
Please review the procedure for adding or subtracting Justices to the Supreme Court. What happened when President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to add Justices? What are the obstacles to adding Justices today? What is the probability of success between now and 2024? What are some alternate ways to achieve the goals being sought? Which path has the higher probability of success within the shortest time frame?
Martha, The proposal to balance the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of Federal Circuit Courts is a matter of precedent, contrary to FDR, who arbitrarily tried to expand the Court to 15 to usher in more of his New Deal provisions.
Expanding the Court requires only that the Dems hold the House and pick up at least 2 Senators, who are receptive either to modifying or abolishing the filibuster. There are no alternatives if we are to preserve fundamental human rights that give each person a dignified voice in the decision-making processes that guide and regulate their lives.
At this point, given the public record, no-one would believe the Biden administration is trying to do anything different than FDR's administration was trying to do which is to pack the court to subvert its function. No matter how much lipstick the pig is painted with it will still be a pig.
As far as term limits go, that would require a change to the Constitution. It is highly unlikely 3/4s of the states would ratify such a change... it is unlikely 2/3 of the states would allow it to even get that far.
Barbara Jo, would you please provide a citation for your statement that balancing the number of SCOTUS justices with number of Federal Circuit Courts is a matter of precedent? Based on good polling data, what do you think is the probability of the Democrats holding the House in 2022? What do you think is the probability of picking up at least 2 senators in 2022? Do you have a time line in mind for adding justices to the SCOTUS?
Please describe the procedures for creating term limits on the Supreme Court.
Martha Ture ; I would bet it is easier to change rules at the Vatican!
I also want to know how the people living in States across the United States can change Federal Political law WITHOUT going through their elected legislatures. Term Limits on ALL appointed judges should be a priority and U.S. Supreme Court judges should be termed out at ten years, NOT twenty. Term Limits should also be instituted for ALL elected officials, and they should cycle out after TWO terms. Period. How do we accomplish this? Is there some kind of people's proposition that can be added to the ballot in each State, such as California does now?
A recognition that nobody is above the law and some kind of ethics rules that are enforceable so the justices are accountable. Right now, criminal behavior seems to go unpunished! When a justice does not even recuse himself even though his wife was a participant in a seditious movement, that is concerning. Of course, if he did it would be an admission of impropriety, wouldn't it? Impeach 'Judge' Thomas!
"I also want to know how the people living in States across the United States can change Federal Political law WITHOUT going through their elected legislatures."
You could research how that might occur.
Please note that term limits have a serious, anti-democratic down side. Can you figure out what that might be?
The root problem we have today, and since the beginning of this nation though much more accelerated today, is that the root of the evil in our political system is private MONEY. Simply put, those with the most cash are purchasing THEIR representatives. You see this when legislature is passed that overwhelmingly helps those who provide campaign contributions. The American people too often ask what are MY representatives doing FOR me? As time and time again "their" Representatives are doing things TO them. Interesting article today from the L.A. Times on Blake Masters running for Senate in Arizona and his "obedience" to his puppet master, Peter Thiel. One of the eye-opening lines from this article: "Tax evasion by elites like Thiel, if left unchecked, could turn that story into a self-fulfilling prophecy: shielding billions from taxation, they erode the power of nation-states to improve lives — turning citizens into slaves or exiles." Scary stuff. Sorry Mitt Romney, but corporations are NOT people.
Yes, it would be great and more democratic if people were freely able to vote for the candidate that best met their interests, but too often that candidates voice is NOT heard. Instead, as in Trump, we get someone who SAYS he will be the "greatest" and provide for everyone in a "bigly" way and once elected turns out was the wolf in sheep's clothing looking out for only HIMSELF and his very large campaign donors. The other problem was that the Democrats foisted Hillary onto us as the other choice. Through her philanderer husband's trade deals and hundreds of thousands of middle-class paying jobs outsourced, people did NOT want any more of that. I actually believe the RNC and DNC (Just read why a Federal Court dismissed Bernie Sanders lawsuit against the DNC for unfairness in 2016 when up against Hillary. Head of DNC Wasserman-Shultz says the DNC is a private corporation and as such, does NOT need to follow their OWN rules. WTF??) should be investigated thoroughly as these organizations are beyond corrupt. Just look at what they DO, forget about what they SAY.
Once elected, the politicians take care of each other and never expose the corruption taking place within the institution. Examples are plentiful, though a couple recent examples include: Illegal insider dealings such as trading on stock based on insider information or having immediate family members making millions off the politician's position and the price of access. You NEVER hear of a member of Congress reporting wrongdoing on another member. If that actually did happen, Manchin and Sinema would be scrambling to continue to stay in office. In Manchin's case, he would resign in disgrace based on the corruption within his family that literally damaged his constituent's lives in West Virginia. (Read about the Mylan corporation and their EpiPen product and how Joe's daughter (Heather Bresch) and his wife played crucial roles in their personal money-making scheme). Or, just maybe, Manchin would NOT be so obstinate and vote WITH the political party he claims to be a member of. But too few people actually know of the corruption.
Hell, we do NOT even have any ETHICS STANDARD for U.S. Supreme Court Justices (Extremists Clarence Thomas and his wife) even when the justice KNOWS he should recuse himself from certain decisions. But why should it matter as there will be NO consequences and, even if there might be, by the time "our" Representatives ACTS on it, he will pass on from old age. This system, especially the U.S. Supreme Court is the last bastion for the wealthy string pullers.
The system has spiraled downward over the last forty years (led by Ronnie Reagan). Government IS good and the real public servants do a great job. But politicians??? The FIRST step is to BAN private money from campaigns. And BAN lobbyists (lobbyists are similar to Unions. Unions represent worker's interests; lobbyists represent business interests). Representatives should NOT (as they are doing today) have to spend an inordinate amount of their time begging for cash, and as payback for that cash, carry bills from lobbyists onto the Congress floor for support and passage. ALL campaigns MUST be PUBLICLY funded. Higher taxes on the UNPATRIOTIC wealthy and corporations, especially corporate media, can pay for this. (The airwaves belong to the people.) For those who do not get the connection, paying taxes is a form of PATRIOTISM. Look around and see those who are actively AVOIDING paying ANY taxes (read the Pro-Publica article on how the wealthy avoid paying taxes.) Interesting that those who can afford to pay the most (Musk, Bezos), don't. UNPATRIOTIC to the country who gave THEM the opportunity through grants and other forms of American Taxpayer support money. Corporate BAILOUTS is a form of socialism for the rich. (Odd that we are told by the politicians that Communism is so horrible, yet if corporations can save a nickel per widget by moving their corporation's production, and your middle-class paying job, to COMMUNIST China, YOUR politician's make that happen for them lickity split.)
Why not 6 years?
Because Courts of Law are not supposed to be legislative bodies (which the current SCOTUS is trying to be) They are supposed to be deliberative. They need time to research precedence, to convince all members of their forum as to the legality of their decision. To make sure their personal biases (and religious beliefs) do not prejudice their deliberations. That takes time.
Please describe the procedures for creating term limits on the Supreme Court.
Please describe the anti-democratic down side to term limits.
Daniel, Because state legislatures are not exempt from federal regulations, I agree that instating federal voter protection safeguards is critical. Still, I wish to add a word from Democracy Docket Founder Marc Elias regarding a Republican election subversion plan he expects will be enacted as early as this fall.
Admittedly, Elias is not suggesting that Republican election officials are laying the groundwork blatantly to declare their candidates the winner whether or not the candidate wins enough votes. He views the Republican election subversion plan as more sophisticated than that. Instead, Elias anticipates that Republicans will use “false allegations of fraud as a pretext to remove ballots from the vote totals and then certify those incomplete results.”
Though I don’t doubt that when litigation ensues Elias and his team will mount arguments whose conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence, I am not as confident that our courts will stand for the beacons of democracy that we need them to be. Hence, I would suggest that federal voter protection legislation, no matter how comprehensive, might not be sufficient.
Thank God for Elias et al
Mimi, My sentiments exactly. Additionally, I would note, that because voting rights attorneys generally can be plain spoken, I continue to press the relevant parties to find a way to enable them to be more visible to the public-at-large.
I cited to it in one of my responses.
Have to state one (wo)man one vote in legislation.
Daniel, This reply bears no connection to my comment, wherein I methodically aimed to show that federal voter protection legislation, while necessary, might not be sufficient given the Republican election subversion plan expected to be enacted as early as this fall.
Elias was reviewing a bill written by Manchin and Collins. Add one person one vote language and the outcome is different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote#:~:text=The%20%22one%20person%2C%20one%20vote%22%20doctrine%2C%20which%20requires,followed%20Baker%2C%20including%20Gray%20v.
Daniel, My original comment was based on an entirely different subject—Elias’s thoughts regarding the Electoral Count Act and his concern that Republicans at the local and state levels simply won’t include all the ballots in the certified results, which comes way before we get to counting electors in the chambers of the House and Senate.
This is excellent Daniel, again, thank you. I was aware of what is happening in NC, however both Robert and you really filled in details I didn't know. I have long believed that THIS election is one of the most important ever. It would be catastrophic for the country to have our government taken over by GOP Nazi's....please America, KNOW THIS! Take a look at the protests over the weekend in Florida, DeSantis's face on the flags just like January 6th with Trump. Neo Nazi's, the Goyim Defense League, is holding protests across the country. Billionaire right-wing money is pouring into races. Right wing pacs are devastating primary races of democrats. Donna Edwards of Maryland for one taken down by AIPAC. VOTING is all you have!
Some big "if's"...
Voire dire is helpful, yes, but disqualification is unenforceable. Disqualify yourself or what?
Allegedly some of the stuff they have to hide is criminal.
Roberts has the power to force recusal in a given case where bias is proven.
My guess is that he’s been hit with so many other pressing issues, that he or his aides/advisors haven’t taken the time to discuss them & form some opinions about how to handle these issues. I would think he or Kamala would form some committees in the House or Senate to work on several @ a time. Maybe Biden didn’t bring in enough advisors to push these issues along. It seems like there’s too much to fix from tRumps reign of terror that there’s not enough time to work on these newer issues that are arising!! I wish he would bring Obama in as an advisor and give Kamala more issues to work on. He may not get his energy back quickly after he recovers from Covid so I believe he needs more help. He’s been so focused on inflation & our economy but there’s little more he can do to get inflation under control. We will just have to work through it like we did in the 80s I’m afraid!! Knowing European countries are have a worse inflationary time makes me feel that we aren’t in such bad shape as everyone is letting on. But we sure could use an influencing group of people to put pressure on Billionaire corporations to lower prices & absorb some of their increased costs of doing business! Pressure should work faster than any boycotting that American shoppers might be able to do!
It would be great if Prof Reich’s memo was sent to Biden with a request that he name some people to head up committees to work on all of the named issues herein! Bold action is needed for sure!
Shirley Roberts ; It would be interesting to see a massive march against the obscenely wealthy! They are the real enemy! They buy our representatives to put in bills to give them low or no taxes. their puppets block voting, and they create the chaos that prevents the focus that we need ; on the real problem! There should be regulation and restrictions on THEM!
❤️This is the root of the problem Laurie. Hoarding wealth at the great expense to others!
SeekingReason ; Yes, it is. Hoarding wealth without paying any real taxes, and no regulation, no anti trust enforcement, while our 'representatives' are fat lap dogs getting treats at the country's peril. We need some good veterinarians to get them off the junk food! Or the bariatric surgery of being primaried!
Or we can prevent the need for treatment by only voting for and supporting candidates with good track records of not selling out to the oligarchs, and /or new candidates who have been mentored by leaders like Bernie Sanders and others who have shown an understanding of their oath of office and their jobs.
worst is yet to come. The wealthy have paid our representatives to loophole inheritance laws to the point that grand dynastic wealth now passes to heirs unencumbered. If you think the wealthy who now rule the nation are bad, just wait until their heirs take over.
We would love to have President Biden focus on the midterm elections the same way he has focused on inflation and the economy. If he is only half as successful with the elections as he has been with the economy/inflation, we might have a Republican Senator from Connecticut for the first time in over 30 years.
Simple because big money not only purchases politicians, but also what judges get nominated to the SC, for life no less ! Americans must fight tooth and nail for an end to Citizens United. True Democracy does not exist unless a country has one person, one vote, and every vote counts.
That requires the senate (or its power) to be abolished does it not? And requires non-partisan judges? And no more electoral college? And voting reps for people in DC, PR, and territories?
GrrlScientist ; All good questions. ; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I've lost all respect for Biden since he refuses to come out and call for the prosecution of tRump - America's most dangerous criminal who continues to roam the country spreading lies and further destruction to democracy.
That's NOT President Biden's job, and it would be labeled politically motivated. It's Garlan's job, wherever he is ... ?
Garland is hiding under his bed, peeing himself.
Here's a good analogy - - The US was involved in a traumatic accident, and is headed to the hospital for life-saving treatment. Merrick Garland is driving the ambulance. Not only will he not exceed the speed limit, but he notices the odometer and pulls into the dealership for an oil change.
We're doomed.
I agree
Dee Long ; Of course, if he advocated for the prosecution of tRump the oligarch owned media would scream 'Partisan!' In a country with only two parties, anything that is said could be 'partisan'. It is absurd! But if you were in his position with a compromised Secret Service, wouldn't you be careful? But you make a good point; tRump and Co. do not hesitate to say whatever they want, no matter how it looks. Even lies (mostly lies).
Biden is the friggin commander in chief - let him act like one - sick of all the excuses as to why it might be 'dangerous' to prosecute tRump - BULLSHIT - the reason so many people in this country suffer from depression and mental illness is that NOBODY HAS OUR BACKS!! Every damn Congressperson should be calling for the prosecution of everyone at any level of government involved in 1/6 -- including the evil ring leader.
You’re absolutely right about people suffering from depression. I have been thinking that the Republican Party is committing ongoing massive abuse and we’re all suffering from trauma. Unconscionable.
Paula B. We need to continue to call out every bad actor in power, (and any we can name behind the scenes, like traitor 'representatives' and too wealthy oligarchs who buy the evil!
Okay, here’s one for you: Mike Garcia, CA-27. He’s my congressman now but redistricting has moved him and thank goodness I’m going to have Julia Brownley from now on, assuming she wins. He’s terrible. If you have the chance to contact Dem voters in that district please tell them to vote for Christy Smith and defeat the insurrectionist Garcia.
Dee Long ; You are preaching to the choir! I would tell him 'Damn the torpedoes!' the ship of state is in peril! It's do or die! If things as they are continue on the course they are on ; disaster upon disaster will happen. Our ship could sink. You know what tRump would do, and is still doing; no holds barred ; If there is a lever to pull on the panel of power, he is on it with no apology!
Dee, you are right ; If he can't stand the heat ; Get out of the kitchen! At this point that would be the Bridge on the Ship of State!
Shara ; The fact that the congressional proceedings are happening at all is almost a miracle. I think most of the population support them, and want to see the DOJ and our Attorney General do their job.
Expanding the Supreme Court is a "fools errand" with Manchin and Synema in the Senate. Unless, as Mr. Reich has said, D's take full control of the Senate and maintain a majority in the house.
Check out my alternate tactic.
It helps to know what happened when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. And it helps to know the procedures for increasing the number of justices. You can look it up.
In a nutshell didn't have to as one of the right wingers acquiesced.
I think Obama was outplayed.
I think that there may be a kamikaze lawyer with the right kind of a pending SCOTUS case who could upset the applecart. Thomas' bias is legend. I think Coney Barrett has a lot to hide. As I keep saying the lawyers should ask for an open hearing on bias. Many of my colleagues had to undergo challenges as to their appointment based on a SCOTUS case - Luria v SEC - that has repercussions still before the Court. I seem to be the only one cognizant of 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
The Supreme Court will begin hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may also be vulnerable.
Consider E.G. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency is a case concerning how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines its regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Republicans attack the Clean Water Act.
What if Thomas et all have to recuse for bias? This could flip everything and restore deference to agency interpretations of law and reverse West Va v EPA from last term!!!
Would a 'Code of Ethics'/'Code of Conduct' - for all federal representatives (i.e. both members of Congress & justices) - make any sense...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Reception
(If the people violating the rules - if not the norms - are stuck in a cycle defending their choices, then they should be protected from making bad choices; their reasons for persisting could only be stupidity i.e. in the first place - or sheer malice.)
Already in place. Office of Government Ethics. https://www.oge.gov/
Yes, thank you - but that is not the context of the reply (i.e. concern regarding abuse - hence the link)...
Biden did state his opinion on changing the number of Supreme Court Justices: he is firmly against it.
Actually, Biden is a smart man, because he knows that the 'right' will find a way to get any more extra seats available. They are greedheads who just won't quit until everything is such a mess it's worthless.
Again you want to protect 'US democracy'. But what democracy there is is underpinned by undemocratic foundations. Elections and voting are a glamourous front to a system that is weighted heavily in favour of the rich and powerful and conservative.
I think the USA needs a huge movement to help every American understand the democratic deficits that exist and to encourage and promote democratic change.
The present issues arise I think from a general lack of understanding of what democracy should look like.
The slant towards the rich is because of the Citizens United (CU) ruling - that money is speech. So now whoever has the most money has the most speech, and anyone who has less doesn’t get to say anything.
Legislation overturning CU, or a new case before a balanced court to overturn CU, are the relevant solutions.
Did the slant towards the rich not come first from the constitution? My point is that the democratic deficits need to be addressed together by a united movement. And influential people who favour democracy should not publicly venerate the present faux democracy.
Ok in a general sense, inasmuch as the original document was written by “landed gentlemen”, who were by definition wealthy. But I’m not sure if there’s anything in the Constitution that necessarily gives greater power to wealth. I think it was written as one man = one vote, though the definition of “man” was somewhat restricted.
I'm gettingout of my depth here. But the senate, electoral college, and disenfranchised territories are three place one person one vote does not apply.
Would a constitutional amendment (an explicit right to "free and fair elections") help to effect the change needed...?
Hear ! Hear !
I am afraid there are only two choices.... either grow Supreme Court to 13 or dismiss the three judges that Trump appointed (he was already in the impeachment process and should have never appointed anyone) as there is nothing constitutional state about these 'justices'. We can not permit this atrocity and embarrassment of the US continue.
Just how do you think the justices would be removed? The only way to remove a Supreme Court Justice is by impeachment. That's not going to happen with 50/50 Senate. It wouldn't if the Democrats had more of a majority. What we are dealing with is the result of 30 years of Democrats asleep at the wheel when it comes to the federal courts and the SCOTUS. While the Republicans were laser focused on taking over the courts the Dems pretty much did nothing. Can you name any Liberal equivalent of the Federalist Society? You can't because there is none.
...and regarding the Federalist Society.... they pretty much sound like the problem. What we need is a constitutional state like in Germany. I question the functionality of the US system.
The mechanism for removing unqualified or corrupt justices must be strengthened
Basically the US political system is broken/kaputt.
Many people I know don't consider the Democrats having been asleep but either incompetent and/or have sold out to special intrests as well.
It's time for a new breed of politicians to replace the democratic incompetence (mostly lawyers) to be replaced by people of the people!
Is being asleep and not paying attention not a form of incompetence? The Democrats have spent the last 30 plus years ignoring and normalizing what the Republican party has become.
Newt Gingrich engaged in personal attacks, demonization of opponents, conspiracy theories, media manipulation to gain power. The Democrats were not paying attention in the 90's as they are not now. Now it's looking like it's too late. The Republicans own the SCOTUS, lower federal courts, and enough of state legislators to be in permanent control.
I fully agree with you.
Please state what procedures there are to expand the Court or to dismiss justices (not judges).
I still haven’t figured out why the justices who lied under oath about RoeVWade being settled precedent can’t be held accountable.
Derek - I was deeply troubled by this also and took the question to my brother who is a public defender. He clarified for me: apparently the wording of the now-justices' reply is critically important. They know how to avoid culpability by careful choice of language. This sickens me. Where is a person's honor and moral integrity? In the ditch, apparently.
Just because something is settled law doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned. We are all learning this the hard way. This explanation is not a justification. They didn’t lie when they said they agreed it was settled law. Settled law just means that is the current ruling and precedence be damned.
Thank you Professor Reich, for the reminder that voting is critical. And Not voting for repubs is also critical. “Obviously, these reforms can happen only if Democrats retain control of the House in the midterm elections and add at least two more Democratic senators — willing to reform or abolish the filibuster.” Paying attention and understanding our Democracy and the power of the courts, the need to expand the court, all critical. More than ever.
Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin literally created legislation which would give any governor the right to overturn their state’s U.S. Presidential election results and install the Governor’s choice as the winner instead. What could possibly go wrong?
Sen. Manchin wants to give Republican governors the unprecedented and unconstitutional authority to overturn federal election results and install the federal candidate of the Governor’s choice.
Manchin should be arrested for even presenting such an unconstitutional, subversive anti-democratic bill.
It is impossible to overstate just what kind of dangerous slimebucket Joe Manchin really is. What we need to do is ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALTOGETHER, but the Republican Party NEEDS the Electoral College because without it, Republicans could never steal or win a U.S. Presidential election again, because Republicans are the permanent minority party in America – always losing the popular vote.
I cannot believe anyone has taken this Electoral College bill co-written/sponsored by Joe Manchin seriously, but here it is.
Manchin is trying to sell this bill as enacting preventative meaures to stop a Vice-President from stealing a U.S. Presidential election, BUT THE TRUTH IS, Manchin’s bill would give a red state governor unprecedented power to completely DISREGARD state election results for President and authorize the Governor to select the winner of the U.S. Presidential election in their state.
If you haven’t noticed this is not the only bill that REMOVES AND REPLACES the will of the voter with the legislature or governor’s choice for President.
Republicans have written dozens of crooked, undemocratic election law bills like this; but this time it is a DEMOCRAT who wrote a bill to give red state governors the power to disregard the will of the voters in their state and allow red state governors and GOP legislatures to select the winner of the U.S. Presidential election in their state.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/25/why-two-democratic-lawyers-are-concerned-about-electoral-count-bill/
So you want Senator Manchin arrested for writing legislation that may or may not pass. Do you have any idea how that sounds? You're against the authoritarian movement of the Republican party and yet you want to have political opponents arrested for being in the opposition.
I loath Manchin, he's a corrupt Senator who's doing the bidding of coal, oil and gas corporations. But when you start demanding people being arrested for things you don't like, that's authoritarianism.
This is on the Democrats for not winning more Senate seats and not paying attention to what is going on in red and purple states. The Democrats and the DNC let the Republicans take control of state legislations by not fighting for them and abandoning working class voters in key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They did this in the 90's when they shifted from a party that depended on labor for votes and moved towards Wall Street.
None of what you are on about happened in a vacuum. The Republicans took advantage of the weaknesses of the Democrats and the Democrats never fought back. What did the Democrats do... they normalized what the extreme right wing shit of the Republican party. When Biden goes on about 'bipartisanship" I have to wonder if he's an idiot or just incapable of understanding what he's dealing with. How could Joe Biden think 'bipartisanship" was even possible after 8 years as Obama's VP? Let alone what the GOP became after 4 years of Trump.
I realize you're not an attorney, didn't attend law school and obviously never won a federal lawsuit in U.S. District court, but I forgive you. Take a glance at Title 18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and its sister statute, 241 Conspiracy to Deprive.
Did you know you sound like a hillbilly? I'm glad you descended from the foothills long enough to make a comment. Congratulations.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law#:~:text=Section%20242%20of%20Title%2018,laws%20of%20the%20United%20States.
You're so far removed from educated society you don't even know your rights, much less the constitutional and statutory duties persons acting under color of law owe persons in America.
Have you ever heard of a criminal constitutional law violation? Nope.
Have you ever prosecuted a police officer for violating these federal statutes? I didn't think so.
You should employ an economy of words after consulting a dictionary and some law books.
Tell me again how I sound like I'm from Mars to you......wait, let me grab my iced tea.......
Let me tell you something: do not put words in my mouth: I do not want to arrest Joe Manchin for being political opposition...that is NOT what I said; what you just described is not a crime, genius. I abhor people like you who put words in someone's mouth because they do not understand the words coming out of one's mouth.
You have no idea what I was talking about, but that didn't stop you from bumping your gums 90 MPH.
You are completely unremarkable, inasmuch you are like most people who live their entire lives without knowing that it is a federal crime for any person acting under color of law to willfully and maliciously violate a person's U.S. Constitutional rights.
Since you did not know it is a federal crime, how can you make an informed opinion about the words coming out of my mouth?
Fuck Joe Biden and establishment neoliberal Democrats. I'm a progressive Democrat.
Wow. Talk about assumptions. You show your true colors and intolerance by using insults because you really don't know any better. I'm not a hillbilly, not that that's a bad thing.
This is what you wrote: "Manchin should be arrested for even presenting such an unconstitutional, subversive anti-democratic bill."
How is it illegal for presenting a bill even if it's unconstitutional? Is it not up to Congress to debate and pass or reject the bill? Then if the bill does becomes law is it not the courts that decide if it's unconstitutional?
You sir give a bad name to progressives by being an intolerant belligerent arse.
You're too uneducated to be speaking about politics, much less my comments re: politics & law.
You're not a hillbilly - you just have a hillbilly mindset. What do I have to do? Educate you? Buy you books and send you to law school? Go eat a KitKat bar.
While I agree with most of your comments, I fear that with the current political atmosphere nothing positive will occur. It is sad. I don't think that the Founding Fathers could envisage the technical, demographic, moral and scientific changes that have occurred since the founding of the nation. It is easy for me to look back and say what should have been done, but the biggest flaw in my mind was to give each state two senators regardless of their population. I know that compromise was necessary to get the ratification of the less populated states but how could have it been foreseen that a state such as Wyoming would have the same weight as California in the Senate. There are several other issues that I would comment on but I leave that for another day
I agree with you but remember from the beginning the first 8 of 12 Presidents all came from Virginia, if I’m not mistaken They knew what they were doing. They couldn’t have foreseen this country as it is today !
Again , it is important to look at our representation from the bottom up. Starting with our local communities, then statehouses and on up to our Federal representatives. So many people see this sort of 'stick figure' of the presidential election and the two candidates, seemingly unaware of the importance of where they came from or what they have for an agenda ; who they really work for.
👏👏👏
Thank you, thank you. If This UnSupreme Court rules on this it will be the end of the American Experimemt. I can almost hear the jackboots coming. I hope we're not too late to prevent this disruption to our Constitutional Representative Democracy
Great ideas on how to stem the tide! I love it!
Some time ago, I read about this possibility and have since had it at the top of my "red" worry list but haven't heard the Democrats say a word about it. To think that a solution depends on the 2022 election is extremely distressing. It seems the subject should be getting maximum publicity, especially in the direction of non-voting potential voters and independents, yet this is only the second time I've seen it discussed. What I haven't seen mentioned is an alternative plan for what blue states will do if the bad guys succeed. I'm hoping someone can come up with some answer short of secession and/or wealthier states withholding tax dollars from poor/red states and/or Civil War. Not only voters but especially SCOTUS need to know that there is/are reason(s) why they wouldn't like the outcome if they do take that route. Opting to keep head buried in sand doesn't seem the way for Biden/Democrats to go. Or is there no effective worst-case strategy? And can SCOTUS hear the case prior to the 2022 elections?
"Haven't heard the Democrats say a word about it."
Not true.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/will-moore-vs-harper-help-republicans-rewrite-election-law/670544/
Daniel, Boy was that a confusing article! My take away is that our Democratic government cannot allow this radical Supreme Court to put forward their unconstitutional plan of state legislatures having the power to overturn the will of voters in their state. Who can or has the upper hand in preventing such a power grab by any state legislature! Doesn’t this make it absolutely necessary that the Dems work to abolish the Electoral College & only use the National Popular Vote Compact to elect our Presidents?? It seems to me that those 2 Repub favoring concepts, Citizens United & a disfunctional Electoral College must be focused on more intently if we are ever to continue to have free & fair elections & a working Democracy in our Country. Billionaire money & dark money in Repub PACS has become the downfall of fair elections! I watched a CNN special Sunday night about how 2 Billionaire oil men in Texas have been able to buy their favored candidates a seat in state Government. They also claimed that very few voters in Texas even knew about these 2 guys & how they influence all state elections. They evidently work in the shadows using paid spokespersons to accomplish their wishes! It was described as working just like a Russian Oligarchy!! I think their names were Dunn & Wilks & when Poll workers asked Texas voters if they knew who these 2 dudes were, they all answered No. There’s some dirty politics going on in Texas it seems!
It's not true that I haven't heard the Democrats say a word about it? That's an interesting statement. But my point: I didn't say they haven't commented on it. I said I hadn't heard it. I read a lot of political news. If I haven't heard it, then maybe a significant number of others also haven't heard about it. Maybe the Democrats aren't screaming loudly enough about this most crucial issue.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/11/remarks-by-president-biden-on-protecting-the-right-to-vote/
All true. We are in peril as a nation. And citizens contemplating violence are growing, particularly among the Republican Party and Independents. The Trumpists and the Supremes together are formidable. Biden could help by declaring prior to the midterms that he will not run again. Trump or DeSantis elected would rend the fabric of our country.
Ironically, it was the Republican party that decried the "activist" Supreme Court when it was predominantly a liberal body.
Professor thank you for writing this.
I also have be trying to write something on this case. Either for my book or for the redpill newsletter.
It represents. perhaps more than any other case, how close the USA is to losing the rule of law as I was taught in law school over 40 years ago.
Little coverage of this.
nothing will be heard for months,
sometime, after Oct SCOTUS will hear the case
and sometime before July 2023 they will issue an opinion.
I think can predict, what three justices will say
I think I can predict what 4 Justices will write.
That leaves 2 justices
the question is who writes the majority opinion.
While these questions are important, to the USA, I am not sure that my wrting about it will make much difference. I am not even sure that your writing about it will make much difference.
fighting my deep sense of hopelessness and helplessness.
This theory is evident happening now here in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected 6 gerrymandered maps but it didn’t matter to a Trump appointed Federal judge. I’m writing postcards