... and the threats keep churning away democracy. When HRC "lost" in 2016 that's when I knew the Supreme Court would never be the same, nor could be counted on.
... and the threats keep churning away democracy. When HRC "lost" in 2016 that's when I knew the Supreme Court would never be the same, nor could be counted on.
I am often hesitant to believe that the Court, and the judicial branch as a whole, is political. Besides the obviously political judicial appointments, I typically defend the Courts by arguing that justices make decisions based on the law. That is, whether they have a conservative or liberal mind, whether they are constitutionalists, whether they are members of the Federalist society, etc., is not necessarily political. I reasoned that while 9 scholars may think differently and hold different views, at the end of the day these scholars share a similar goal: exercise their power of judicial review based upon their understanding of the law. The fact that some justices may think differently about a case doesn't mean they're acting politically - they're utilizing analytical and complex legal thinking.
That said, reading this article challenged my steadfast stance against a politicized Court. First, their ruling has a clear impact on the Democrat's majority in the US House of Reps (duh). Any freshman political science student could see that. Next, by using the shadow docket, the justices sidestepped their ability to even mask this ruling with some sort of legal argument. It's almost as if they knew there was no reasonable argument for a 5-4 vote on this very clear violation of the Voting Rights Act. And finally, they overturned a decision. Had the Alabama district court's judges upheld the map and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, I would be more forgiving. Instead, after only a minimal review of the law through the shadow docket method, the Court liberally struck down a district court decision. I loved this quote, "(I hesitate to call them conservative, because there is nothing conservative in their approach)."
I saw Justice John Roberts speak at the UMN in the Fall of 2018. The most notable thing he said was that, as the Chief Justice, his own ideologies/beliefs about the law/etc. are secondart to his role as Chief Justice. His #1 priority as he rules, writes, assigns opinions, and sets the docket is to preserve the legitimacy of the Court. It seems as if he's fighting tooth and nail, harder than any other Chief Justice may have had to, to accomplish that goal.
I know he is considered evil by those of a certain political persuasion but even Alan Dershowitz told Obama that McConnell taking away his appt of a Supreme Court Judge was unconstitutional and he should’ve sworn Garland in and let the court take it from there. I’m not sure why Obama didn’t follow that advice. I think John Roberts does care in the legitimacy of the court but has to deal with the fact that the very people who got him there are the ones destroying his institution.
As for Alabama. Anyone who dares say we live in a post racialist society and that we are no longer dealing with Americans original sin are fools or at best too tolerant of racism to give a serious look at what happens. Or worse, cynically blabbing that line to cover up exactly what they are doing.
Thank you for your clear, intelligent, and passionate essay re The Supreme Court. I have revered the Court in the past and found their process and thoroughness inspiring. But I have lost my reverence and am deeply saddened to think that a once wonderful branch has lost its roots. I hope...and pray...that those who have the power will focus big time on reforming the Court, on bringing it back to its original purpose: to protect the Constitution, democracy, and the wishes of the American People.
This is so important but I, and many Americans do not know viable ways to raise our voices in a way that makes a difference. If our leaders do not represent the majority interests of our society, then where do we go from here? The conservatives of the Republican party have pulled away (understandably) and this has left an open field for what are now Republican radicals. Thank you for this article and please advise us on ways we can regain fairness in our not-at-all-Supreme Court as well as wisdom and sanity in our government officials.
These actions of the supreme court are too close to lack of due process for me. Unfortunately I have repeatedly encountered lack of due process throughout my life starting with the sexual harassment crime in graduate school.
Thank you Steady for excellent reporting. Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership, including Biden and Harris are ruled by their donors. We need newspaper and television investigative reporters that question and report accurately what is going on. In my explorations the only ones I see doing just this is The Young Turks.
This was a great article. Missing from it was a reference to Democracy In Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America by Nancy Maclean. It is a must read for people concerned about the USA and democracy. Mind you republics are not democracies but ….
“Instead of legal minds wrestling with difficult issues, we see two-bit politicians dressing up in robes.”
Yes!!!!
... and the threats keep churning away democracy. When HRC "lost" in 2016 that's when I knew the Supreme Court would never be the same, nor could be counted on.
... and the threats keep churning away democracy. When HRC "lost" in 2016 that's when I knew the Supreme Court would never be the same, nor could be counted on.
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/273-joe-rogan-and-the-ethics-of-apology
I so appreciate your Informed explanation. This shadow docket seems so wrong!
Astonishing!
I am often hesitant to believe that the Court, and the judicial branch as a whole, is political. Besides the obviously political judicial appointments, I typically defend the Courts by arguing that justices make decisions based on the law. That is, whether they have a conservative or liberal mind, whether they are constitutionalists, whether they are members of the Federalist society, etc., is not necessarily political. I reasoned that while 9 scholars may think differently and hold different views, at the end of the day these scholars share a similar goal: exercise their power of judicial review based upon their understanding of the law. The fact that some justices may think differently about a case doesn't mean they're acting politically - they're utilizing analytical and complex legal thinking.
That said, reading this article challenged my steadfast stance against a politicized Court. First, their ruling has a clear impact on the Democrat's majority in the US House of Reps (duh). Any freshman political science student could see that. Next, by using the shadow docket, the justices sidestepped their ability to even mask this ruling with some sort of legal argument. It's almost as if they knew there was no reasonable argument for a 5-4 vote on this very clear violation of the Voting Rights Act. And finally, they overturned a decision. Had the Alabama district court's judges upheld the map and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, I would be more forgiving. Instead, after only a minimal review of the law through the shadow docket method, the Court liberally struck down a district court decision. I loved this quote, "(I hesitate to call them conservative, because there is nothing conservative in their approach)."
I saw Justice John Roberts speak at the UMN in the Fall of 2018. The most notable thing he said was that, as the Chief Justice, his own ideologies/beliefs about the law/etc. are secondart to his role as Chief Justice. His #1 priority as he rules, writes, assigns opinions, and sets the docket is to preserve the legitimacy of the Court. It seems as if he's fighting tooth and nail, harder than any other Chief Justice may have had to, to accomplish that goal.
I know he is considered evil by those of a certain political persuasion but even Alan Dershowitz told Obama that McConnell taking away his appt of a Supreme Court Judge was unconstitutional and he should’ve sworn Garland in and let the court take it from there. I’m not sure why Obama didn’t follow that advice. I think John Roberts does care in the legitimacy of the court but has to deal with the fact that the very people who got him there are the ones destroying his institution.
As for Alabama. Anyone who dares say we live in a post racialist society and that we are no longer dealing with Americans original sin are fools or at best too tolerant of racism to give a serious look at what happens. Or worse, cynically blabbing that line to cover up exactly what they are doing.
Thank you for your clear, intelligent, and passionate essay re The Supreme Court. I have revered the Court in the past and found their process and thoroughness inspiring. But I have lost my reverence and am deeply saddened to think that a once wonderful branch has lost its roots. I hope...and pray...that those who have the power will focus big time on reforming the Court, on bringing it back to its original purpose: to protect the Constitution, democracy, and the wishes of the American People.
This is so important but I, and many Americans do not know viable ways to raise our voices in a way that makes a difference. If our leaders do not represent the majority interests of our society, then where do we go from here? The conservatives of the Republican party have pulled away (understandably) and this has left an open field for what are now Republican radicals. Thank you for this article and please advise us on ways we can regain fairness in our not-at-all-Supreme Court as well as wisdom and sanity in our government officials.
These actions of the supreme court are too close to lack of due process for me. Unfortunately I have repeatedly encountered lack of due process throughout my life starting with the sexual harassment crime in graduate school.
Thank you Steady for excellent reporting. Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership, including Biden and Harris are ruled by their donors. We need newspaper and television investigative reporters that question and report accurately what is going on. In my explorations the only ones I see doing just this is The Young Turks.
SCOTUS is the greater danger to Democracy in USA, vis-a-vls, Donald Trump.
This was a great article. Missing from it was a reference to Democracy In Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America by Nancy Maclean. It is a must read for people concerned about the USA and democracy. Mind you republics are not democracies but ….
Expand the court to 11. Then you get 7 at a random draw for your case.
Thank you for such an honest and crucial statement. This is such an important issue that we face as a country.