I can't express how important it is to educate others on why they should think about SCOTUS and the impact a far-away court has on their daily lives...
All politics is local. Justice starts at the local level. How many people know about the judges on their ballots. Judgeship candidates know that if they can get their church, local lodge and country club members to get out to vote, they can win. This is where the pipeline to the judicial system begins. Republicans have gotten so bold that in my county they have started running Federalist Society members in Democratic primaries for judges.
And we need to call, write a postcard to, message on Twitter, Threads, TikTok to each of our Reps & Senator telling them we demand that churches that give political speeches from the pulpit need to have their tax free status revoked.
As someone who ran for office in the 80's and 90's for the Iowa legislature and who served fro 13 years, I saw the 'far right -both faith based and secular groups constantly push for their issues, even in the face of a D legislature, D Governor, and overall lack of support. When the faith and secular groups started working together (started under Bush--Trump just capitalized on it), groups acted surprised (from reproductive rights to anti gay to anti regulation). People on the left of center were just hoping these groups would go away (1).
Thank you for using quotation marks when talking about "red" states. I grew up in a very purple Missouri in the 1980s and 1990s, recall that our Governor was a Democrat before Greitens/Parson came along, and understand there's no such thing as red or blue states.
2) Not only did the far right and extreme groups begin to coalesce over the pass 20 years, they had a constant drumbeat on the role of SCOTUS. There was no and continues to be an absence of a coordinated effort for centrist and left of center groups.. Plus, the enthusiasm levels on the right have exceeded non right groups for several years, especially with the growth of disenchanted voters, who would otherwise be considered social progressives.
Yes, Leonard Leo & the Federalist Society with the many dark money orgs that finance them have a huge machine to find very conservative pre-law students & coach them along, make sure they get the right jobs, then win elections or appointments.
The Democrats need the same thing to bring up progressive judges.
Thanks PJ. I would add that I am okay with pro democracy, conservative members of the bench, law students, law faculty, etc. I don' know how to get younger generations enthusiastic about something to them abstract --future judicial appointments, or even dark money. Abortion and LGBT rights are not abstract. I sit at ACLU sponsored tables at farmers market and talk reproductive rights and try to engage others..
As a lawyer who reads Supreme Court opinions and analysis written by Supreme Court practitioners and lawyers, and who understands how law works, by no means has the Supreme Court lost credibility. If you read analysis of Supreme Court cases written by lawyers rather than political pundits, you would trust the credibility of the institution. I read plenty from the blue media bubble and understand how you reached your conclusion. By no means are we Russia, Hungary or North Korea. Not even close and we are not heading in that direction.
I listened to the oral arguments on the EMTALA case & the Trump immunity case, & from the questions asked by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh & Gorsuch, they sounded pretty “captured” to me.
The fact that they even chose to hear the immunity case, rather than allowing the appellate court ruling to stand, is appalling imo. They HAVE essentially ruled on it by delaying it, & delaying some more, & if they send it back to Chutkan to make a decision between official acts vs private acts; then they’ve delayed it more. There’s no way on God’s green earth that I believe all their. delay tactics are just coincidence.
IMO it was all done with intent, to make certain he would not go to trial before the election.
Does it not bother you at all that Thomas refuses to recuse himself from cases involving the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, when it’s well known that his wife was deeply involved in that?
I also absolutely believe that all 3 of Trump’s appointees lied during their confirmation hearings when they were asked about stare decisis. They lied, they knew they were lying, & I knew at the time they were lying.
I could see it on their faces & in how they danced around the question.
Then, as we knew they would, they could barely wait to take up the case to throw out 50 yrs of precedent.
And we are supposed to have faith in those 6?? Nope 👎
I would love to talk more about this. I think about the Supreme Court a lot, and I have a number of insightful friends who do too… Being raised in the Bible Belt, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think about the Supreme Court at least sometimes.
I think what we struggle with is not thinking about it but knowing what to *do* afterwards. Thinking about it and seeing, with abject horror, what goes on in our courts without knowing what to do feels like burning up my energy in outrage, without producing anything to help. It just leaves me feeling helpless, in fact!
Would LOVE to know tangible actions for ordinary citizens that actually make a difference. This may be one of those areas where I’m just not educated enough to know what I don’t know / where to look. Going to get the books you recommended and see if it fills in the gaps.
You can start by listening to the 8 episode series of a podcast by Elie Mystal called “Contempt of Court”
he is so enlightening about what needs to be done to correct this right wing conservative “captured” court. It gave me some hope that there is some hope.
I agree we have to talk about the court and how it affects our daily lives. I feel I’ve let my kids and future grandkids down by not even paying attention all these years to politics. But I’m definitely paying attention now and hopefully by talking openly to my family they will have a better start than I did. And the other comments are right- it starts here at home. And Sheldon Whitehouse’s books are a must read.
As a lawyer, I think about this daily and lamented in early 2016 what a Trump victory would do to the Court. No one cared or understood the lasting, damaging impact he would have. Sadly, I was right.
I do have a problem with Alito's references to the 17th century, and I did not want Roe to be overturned. I still believe in the institution of the Supreme Court.
There is a difference between "changing your thinking on issues when confronted with facts", and changing how you interpret the Constitution. Thomas has always been conservative in how he interprets the constitution. Changing how you read the constitution and interpret laws based on changing facts is a liberal way to interpret the Constitution. When facts change, CONGRESS should write new laws rather than the courts interpreting existing laws differently to fit new facts. Courts do not get to make laws. Congress does. RBG said in the 1990s that Roe did not stand on solid constitutional ground, yet the Democrats in Congress never acted. The Democrats could have passed a law protecting abortion rights when they had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could have used their control to pass a law that President Obama would have signed. Tom Foley and George Mitchell could have passed a law that President Clinton would have signed.
How was Thomas not competent if he had a Yale Law degree? You may not have liked him. I hated what happened to Anita Hill. It does not mean Justice Thomas is not competent.
Regardless, the discussion started with a discussion of the three Trump appointees, all of whom are talented, smart, competent jurists who do NOT vote in lockstep.
You have no idea how old I am, and calling someone "insane" starts to creep in to less than civil discourse, which I applauded Blue for. Have a wonderful evening!
I’d also say the CORE of the problem is that Congress, the Article One branch of government, needs to work better. Problems should be solved there with bipartisan compromise rather than punting to the Exec Branch and the Courts. More than anything, the newest Justices in the Court want Congress to do its job.
Tell that to the freedom caucus in the house that refuses all compromise. Tell McConnell who openly advocated and did block all policy but their own. Maga refuses all compromise. Vote them out and our government can work as intended. Good riddance to McConnell.
How many 6-3 decisions were there last year where it was the six more conservative leaning justice voting against the three liberal leaning justices? What do you say to the fact that Justices Gorsuch and Brown Jackson agree on things? Very little at the Supreme Court is black and white. Decisions are complex and nuanced. I recommend listening to the Advisory Opinions podcast to u deer and the Court.
I went to law school in the 1990s, right after Thomas joined the Court. I am not a fan of his, but he has never changed how he looks at issues/legally reasons. There is zero evidence anyone ever got anything from Thomas. That is not how the Supreme Court works. It takes very few cases and only those that meet specific criteria. It looks bad that Thomas took gifts but he has never shifted his legal thinking.
Again, not a fan of Thomas,' but I am a fan of the institution of the US Supreme Court, so I push back against efforts to tarnish the whole court based on talking points. I am a huge fan of the writing, reasoning critical thinking of Justice Gorsuch. I disagree with how he was appointed. McConnell should have allowed a vote on Garland.
Big problem for Thomas is his refusal to recuse. Ginny was an active participant in the Stop the Steal movement, communicating with Meadows on 1/6 etc. Also, it is in fact problematic when billionaires with cases before the court suddenly befriend you and shower you with gifts. These problems hurt the integrity of the court which is crucial. But he will continue on.
I agree he should have recused himself on cases related to January 6.
Define "suddenly"--Harlan Crow befriended Justice Thomas in the 1990s and remains friends to this day. Crow has never received any judicial favors from Thomas. I think it is sad that the media cannot imagine Crow and Thomas being genuine friends.
Legally, I suspect he has no obligation to recuse on a question involving presidential immunity. That case has nothing to do with his wife. For appearances, perhaps he should recuse. But you're right that he won't so it's not worth arguing about. Thanks for the discussion! Always appreciate when people engage civilly and are willing to listen to differences of opinion.
So you have no problem with Alito’s use of a 17th century religious argument to define his Dobbs decision? The fact that only those of us who can read the damn decisions actually know that he based this on a man who killed women because he called them witches. Your defense of Thomas is truly insane, he was not competent at the time of his hearings- I watched every minute of them. Seriously, you’re too young to understand how foolish the writings of these religious zealots actually are. You do realize that it is a fool who doesn’t change their thinking on issues when confronted with facts, Thomas is a fool, as you just described.
I posed reply in wrong spot: I do have a problem with Alito's references to the 17th century, and I did not want Roe to be overturned. I still believe in the institution of the Supreme Court.
There is a difference between "changing your thinking on issues when confronted with facts", and changing how you interpret the Constitution. Thomas has always been conservative in how he interprets the constitution. Changing how you read the constitution and interpret laws based on changing facts is a liberal way to interpret the Constitution. When facts change, CONGRESS should write new laws rather than the courts interpreting existing laws differently to fit new facts. Courts do not get to make laws. Congress does. RBG said in the 1990s that Roe did not stand on solid constitutional ground, yet the Democrats in Congress never acted. The Democrats could have passed a law protecting abortion rights when they had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could have used their control to pass a law that President Obama would have signed. Tom Foley and George Mitchell could have passed a law that President Clinton would have signed.
How was Thomas not competent if he had a Yale Law degree? You may not have liked him. I hated what happened to Anita Hill. It does not mean Justice Thomas is not competent.
Regardless, the discussion started with a discussion of the three Trump appointees, all of whom are talented, smart, competent jurists who do NOT vote in lockstep.
You have no idea how old I am, and calling someone "insane" starts to creep in to less than civil discourse, which I applauded Blue for. Have a wonderful evening!
All politics is local. Justice starts at the local level. How many people know about the judges on their ballots. Judgeship candidates know that if they can get their church, local lodge and country club members to get out to vote, they can win. This is where the pipeline to the judicial system begins. Republicans have gotten so bold that in my county they have started running Federalist Society members in Democratic primaries for judges.
Stay woke people!
Agreed, friend!
I have first hand knowledge that Central Oregon Catholic churches don't give sermons about Jesus. They give sermons about Trump and maga propaganda.
And we need to call, write a postcard to, message on Twitter, Threads, TikTok to each of our Reps & Senator telling them we demand that churches that give political speeches from the pulpit need to have their tax free status revoked.
That’s bs, & it’s going on everywhere.
Absolutely. Way more effective than screaming into the void.
As someone who ran for office in the 80's and 90's for the Iowa legislature and who served fro 13 years, I saw the 'far right -both faith based and secular groups constantly push for their issues, even in the face of a D legislature, D Governor, and overall lack of support. When the faith and secular groups started working together (started under Bush--Trump just capitalized on it), groups acted surprised (from reproductive rights to anti gay to anti regulation). People on the left of center were just hoping these groups would go away (1).
Thank you for using quotation marks when talking about "red" states. I grew up in a very purple Missouri in the 1980s and 1990s, recall that our Governor was a Democrat before Greitens/Parson came along, and understand there's no such thing as red or blue states.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Jess I am so excited you are here! I am excited to see you help change the direction of MO! They need you!
I am also very proud to say Senator Whitehouse is my Senator!
You got a good one!
Thanks! I shared this on Post.news and, of course, subscribed to your Substack (thanks Dr. Richardson).
2) Not only did the far right and extreme groups begin to coalesce over the pass 20 years, they had a constant drumbeat on the role of SCOTUS. There was no and continues to be an absence of a coordinated effort for centrist and left of center groups.. Plus, the enthusiasm levels on the right have exceeded non right groups for several years, especially with the growth of disenchanted voters, who would otherwise be considered social progressives.
Yes, Leonard Leo & the Federalist Society with the many dark money orgs that finance them have a huge machine to find very conservative pre-law students & coach them along, make sure they get the right jobs, then win elections or appointments.
The Democrats need the same thing to bring up progressive judges.
Thanks PJ. I would add that I am okay with pro democracy, conservative members of the bench, law students, law faculty, etc. I don' know how to get younger generations enthusiastic about something to them abstract --future judicial appointments, or even dark money. Abortion and LGBT rights are not abstract. I sit at ACLU sponsored tables at farmers market and talk reproductive rights and try to engage others..
As a lawyer who reads Supreme Court opinions and analysis written by Supreme Court practitioners and lawyers, and who understands how law works, by no means has the Supreme Court lost credibility. If you read analysis of Supreme Court cases written by lawyers rather than political pundits, you would trust the credibility of the institution. I read plenty from the blue media bubble and understand how you reached your conclusion. By no means are we Russia, Hungary or North Korea. Not even close and we are not heading in that direction.
I listened to the oral arguments on the EMTALA case & the Trump immunity case, & from the questions asked by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh & Gorsuch, they sounded pretty “captured” to me.
The fact that they even chose to hear the immunity case, rather than allowing the appellate court ruling to stand, is appalling imo. They HAVE essentially ruled on it by delaying it, & delaying some more, & if they send it back to Chutkan to make a decision between official acts vs private acts; then they’ve delayed it more. There’s no way on God’s green earth that I believe all their. delay tactics are just coincidence.
IMO it was all done with intent, to make certain he would not go to trial before the election.
Does it not bother you at all that Thomas refuses to recuse himself from cases involving the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, when it’s well known that his wife was deeply involved in that?
I also absolutely believe that all 3 of Trump’s appointees lied during their confirmation hearings when they were asked about stare decisis. They lied, they knew they were lying, & I knew at the time they were lying.
I could see it on their faces & in how they danced around the question.
Then, as we knew they would, they could barely wait to take up the case to throw out 50 yrs of precedent.
And we are supposed to have faith in those 6?? Nope 👎
Touché!
I would love to talk more about this. I think about the Supreme Court a lot, and I have a number of insightful friends who do too… Being raised in the Bible Belt, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think about the Supreme Court at least sometimes.
I think what we struggle with is not thinking about it but knowing what to *do* afterwards. Thinking about it and seeing, with abject horror, what goes on in our courts without knowing what to do feels like burning up my energy in outrage, without producing anything to help. It just leaves me feeling helpless, in fact!
Would LOVE to know tangible actions for ordinary citizens that actually make a difference. This may be one of those areas where I’m just not educated enough to know what I don’t know / where to look. Going to get the books you recommended and see if it fills in the gaps.
You can start by listening to the 8 episode series of a podcast by Elie Mystal called “Contempt of Court”
he is so enlightening about what needs to be done to correct this right wing conservative “captured” court. It gave me some hope that there is some hope.
I agree we have to talk about the court and how it affects our daily lives. I feel I’ve let my kids and future grandkids down by not even paying attention all these years to politics. But I’m definitely paying attention now and hopefully by talking openly to my family they will have a better start than I did. And the other comments are right- it starts here at home. And Sheldon Whitehouse’s books are a must read.
And so is Elie Mystal’s book: Allow Me to Retort-A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution
As he goes through the Constitution & it’s Amendments, he also speaks to the Supreme Court & how it can be fixed. I love his reasoning & his passion.
As a lawyer, I think about this daily and lamented in early 2016 what a Trump victory would do to the Court. No one cared or understood the lasting, damaging impact he would have. Sadly, I was right.
Most folks don’t think.
Mmm delicious cynicism.
I do have a problem with Alito's references to the 17th century, and I did not want Roe to be overturned. I still believe in the institution of the Supreme Court.
There is a difference between "changing your thinking on issues when confronted with facts", and changing how you interpret the Constitution. Thomas has always been conservative in how he interprets the constitution. Changing how you read the constitution and interpret laws based on changing facts is a liberal way to interpret the Constitution. When facts change, CONGRESS should write new laws rather than the courts interpreting existing laws differently to fit new facts. Courts do not get to make laws. Congress does. RBG said in the 1990s that Roe did not stand on solid constitutional ground, yet the Democrats in Congress never acted. The Democrats could have passed a law protecting abortion rights when they had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could have used their control to pass a law that President Obama would have signed. Tom Foley and George Mitchell could have passed a law that President Clinton would have signed.
How was Thomas not competent if he had a Yale Law degree? You may not have liked him. I hated what happened to Anita Hill. It does not mean Justice Thomas is not competent.
Regardless, the discussion started with a discussion of the three Trump appointees, all of whom are talented, smart, competent jurists who do NOT vote in lockstep.
You have no idea how old I am, and calling someone "insane" starts to creep in to less than civil discourse, which I applauded Blue for. Have a wonderful evening!
Scary. I try to wake up people, but it falls on deaf ears. I’m over reacting!! I’m afraid I’m not…..
You are absolutely NOT overreacting!!! This is an emergency of the highest order. We must get more Democrats registered & out to vote..
I’d also say the CORE of the problem is that Congress, the Article One branch of government, needs to work better. Problems should be solved there with bipartisan compromise rather than punting to the Exec Branch and the Courts. More than anything, the newest Justices in the Court want Congress to do its job.
Tell that to the freedom caucus in the house that refuses all compromise. Tell McConnell who openly advocated and did block all policy but their own. Maga refuses all compromise. Vote them out and our government can work as intended. Good riddance to McConnell.
How many 6-3 decisions were there last year where it was the six more conservative leaning justice voting against the three liberal leaning justices? What do you say to the fact that Justices Gorsuch and Brown Jackson agree on things? Very little at the Supreme Court is black and white. Decisions are complex and nuanced. I recommend listening to the Advisory Opinions podcast to u deer and the Court.
Clarence Thomas should resign. He is bought and paid for not by the people but by rich religious zealots.
I went to law school in the 1990s, right after Thomas joined the Court. I am not a fan of his, but he has never changed how he looks at issues/legally reasons. There is zero evidence anyone ever got anything from Thomas. That is not how the Supreme Court works. It takes very few cases and only those that meet specific criteria. It looks bad that Thomas took gifts but he has never shifted his legal thinking.
Again, not a fan of Thomas,' but I am a fan of the institution of the US Supreme Court, so I push back against efforts to tarnish the whole court based on talking points. I am a huge fan of the writing, reasoning critical thinking of Justice Gorsuch. I disagree with how he was appointed. McConnell should have allowed a vote on Garland.
Big problem for Thomas is his refusal to recuse. Ginny was an active participant in the Stop the Steal movement, communicating with Meadows on 1/6 etc. Also, it is in fact problematic when billionaires with cases before the court suddenly befriend you and shower you with gifts. These problems hurt the integrity of the court which is crucial. But he will continue on.
I agree he should have recused himself on cases related to January 6.
Define "suddenly"--Harlan Crow befriended Justice Thomas in the 1990s and remains friends to this day. Crow has never received any judicial favors from Thomas. I think it is sad that the media cannot imagine Crow and Thomas being genuine friends.
The immunity case the SC accepted yesterday is the definitive 1/6 case. Thomas did not recuse. Hello?
Legally, I suspect he has no obligation to recuse on a question involving presidential immunity. That case has nothing to do with his wife. For appearances, perhaps he should recuse. But you're right that he won't so it's not worth arguing about. Thanks for the discussion! Always appreciate when people engage civilly and are willing to listen to differences of opinion.
So you have no problem with Alito’s use of a 17th century religious argument to define his Dobbs decision? The fact that only those of us who can read the damn decisions actually know that he based this on a man who killed women because he called them witches. Your defense of Thomas is truly insane, he was not competent at the time of his hearings- I watched every minute of them. Seriously, you’re too young to understand how foolish the writings of these religious zealots actually are. You do realize that it is a fool who doesn’t change their thinking on issues when confronted with facts, Thomas is a fool, as you just described.
I posed reply in wrong spot: I do have a problem with Alito's references to the 17th century, and I did not want Roe to be overturned. I still believe in the institution of the Supreme Court.
There is a difference between "changing your thinking on issues when confronted with facts", and changing how you interpret the Constitution. Thomas has always been conservative in how he interprets the constitution. Changing how you read the constitution and interpret laws based on changing facts is a liberal way to interpret the Constitution. When facts change, CONGRESS should write new laws rather than the courts interpreting existing laws differently to fit new facts. Courts do not get to make laws. Congress does. RBG said in the 1990s that Roe did not stand on solid constitutional ground, yet the Democrats in Congress never acted. The Democrats could have passed a law protecting abortion rights when they had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could have used their control to pass a law that President Obama would have signed. Tom Foley and George Mitchell could have passed a law that President Clinton would have signed.
How was Thomas not competent if he had a Yale Law degree? You may not have liked him. I hated what happened to Anita Hill. It does not mean Justice Thomas is not competent.
Regardless, the discussion started with a discussion of the three Trump appointees, all of whom are talented, smart, competent jurists who do NOT vote in lockstep.
You have no idea how old I am, and calling someone "insane" starts to creep in to less than civil discourse, which I applauded Blue for. Have a wonderful evening!
But he won’t.
Agreed. Who would bribe him if he resigns?