(MODERATOR'S NOTE: This post was originally made in response to the vacancy created by Justice O'Connor's recently-announced Court retirement. -Luigi Novi)



Well, it's more important than an election

Particularly since the rumored first round draft choice for her replacement is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who apparently signed his name to a Justice Department report that said that the treatment of politcal prisoners in Gitmo is not torture unless it includes "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions."

More discussions of O'Connor's retirement and speculations on her replacement can be found here.

Gonzalez? Wow: I didn't think even Bush had the balls to do that.

Gonzalez? Oh boy I may actually start praying if they actually do nominate him. Because if he gets in then its goodbye constitution, bill of rights and basic freedoms and human rights.

Grr. As much as I want a Rice graduate on the Supreme Court... I want it to be *me*. Sorry, Alberto, but no.

I doubt it. Conservatives don't trust Mr. Gonzolez, mostly because his views are still unknown. It's thought he might be a easy nomination, due to the Democrat's fear of opposing a hispanic nomination in broad daylight. Oh, and we didn't vote for W twice not to get a real conservative Supreme Court Justice. I mean, come on. Getting Clarence Thomas Jr. is just payment for having to listen about "Compassionate Conservatism", and the veto free presidency for five years.

But on the so-called torture memos. He was a White House Attorney, and writting legal opinions for the President was part of his job. That's like criticizing him for defending a guilty man, it's part of Bar Ethics. His own views of the law may or may not be reflected in that document (not that there's anything wrong with thinking that "Terrorists will crack from a few rounds of good cop, bad cop.") Also, as the current AG, he would have to recuse himself from from a lot of decisions affecting the Administration.

But, given the etymology of the phase "Borking", any nominee by the President will result in the twilight of the republic, at least according to Democrats.

Fred Thompson named advisor.

Need I wonder if his advice will be to make a deal? Will he make a clever comment after the final vote? Can he hire Angie Harmon as his assistant?

No really, I'm serious about the last one

Steven Hill was usually the one to make a deal.

Hey, Fred fired Elisabeth Rohm, so he must know something...

Was it because she was a lesbian?

No; it was because she sucked.

(Apologies to those who liked her; I just could not stand her character at all)

How could she stink at it? It's ADA Barbie! All she has to do is stand up, sit down, act as a foil for Jack, complain about how this case is unwinnable, recite the feminist position in the "Ripped" stories, wear a cute winter hat and coat, and eat Chinese take out every so often. I mean, what could be so hard about that?

Are you an originalist?

Wasn't being an originalist what lead to the Dred Scott Decision?

It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the declaration of independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation...

But there are two clauses in the constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government then formed.

I think originalism is a faulty way of looking at things. The framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated many things happening.

However, I disagree with the article's premise that NOT being an originalist is synonymous with being liberal. I'm not even sure if the three conservatives on the bench are "originalists."

Brian F:
Hey Brian, we have the 13,14 and 15th amendments today. The legal logic behind Dred Scott is obsolete.

Originalism is an agreement to what constitutes valid sources for a Court Decision, they can and do disagree on the arguments, as Thomas and Scalia often do.

Also, a decision that overturned the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act and ignited the Civil War isn't the poster child for judicial activism.

And the dissent to Dred Scott was also originalist.

Mike C: That's what amendments and by-laws are for. Originalism isn't just about What would the Founders do?, It's what were the American people thinking when when they agreed with this being added to the consitution, as opposed to other tests.

But that's still a faulty premise in my opinion. The American people weren't thinking about the Internet at all when they added the Bills of Rights, but the First Amendment still applies to it.

Hey Brian, we have the 13,14 and 15th amendments today. The legal logic behind Dred Scott is obsolete.

No, the decision itself is obsolete due to the Civil War Amendments, but logic does not change. If you are a pure originalist, you have to agree that Dred Scott was decided correctly at the time.

The status of originalism as the only legitimate method (or class of methods) of constitutional interpretation inheres in the very nature of the Constitution as law. As Chief Justice Marshall explained in his landmark 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the Constitution is "committed to writing" so that its "limits may not be mistaken or forgotten." To disregard its limits is to "reduce[] to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written constitution." (From the linked article)

But in Madison v Marbury, the Supreme Court assumed a power (judicial review) that was not in the original document, so it was not an "originalist" ruling. The other evidence that Marshall was not originalist is that he found against James Madison, who was the author of the Constitution.

Tom M: "At the time" is not what we are debating. At the time, slavery was legal and blacks were second class citzens under the law. The court made a valid decision, which was nullifed by the amendment process. That is not the case today, nor would such things result from the Supreme Court embracing Judical originalism.

Judcial review is certianly implied in Article III, section 2 of the constitution, and the concept was part of Common Law at the time.

Unless having written the Constitution gives you a right to a Federal Job in spite of having lost an election, your second point is null. Considering the original decision was about the Court refusing to enforce a federal appointment in deference to the Secretary of State.

Mike C: Most legal traditions, American included, have a concept called Analogy, which accounts for new technologies and other discoveries.

How far should this concept be taken? Using a fairly loose interpretation, one take Analogy to refer to ANYTHING new.

Anologies are an argument, and should be judged by their validity. And "how far" comes from consensus amoung jurists.

Thus in theory, if your Jurists are originalists, they would restrain their analogies to the intent of the part of the constitution in question. For example, if the First Amendment is supposed to protect the Press from the state, then it protects the press regardless of what tools the Press uses to send information.

Tom M: "At the time" is not what we are debating. At the time, slavery was legal and blacks were second class citzens* under the law. The court made a valid decision, which was nullifed by the amendment process. That is not the case today, nor would such things result from the Supreme Court embracing Judical originalism.

So you agree that under the law at the time, Dred Scott was a valid ruling. At least you are consistant in that regard. That was my only point in that paragraph.

Judcial review is certianly implied in Article III, section 2 of the constitution, and the concept was part of Common Law at the time.

Unless having written the Constitution gives you a right to a Federal Job in spite of having lost an election, your second point is null. Considering the original decision was about the Court refusing to enforce a federal appointment in deference to the Secretary of State.

My point in Madison v Marbury is that Madison, who should definitely have known his own original intent, claimed that the Constitution did not give SCOTUS the right to judicial review, not whether or not it could be justified. I agree it is justifiable by implication, by analogy with English common law, and by common sense.

At the same time, your reliance on analogy and on "implied" powers shows that you are not, nor has SCOTUS ever been, totally pure in respect to "originalism."

My own stance is to respect originalism as much as possible, but to recognize that sometimes that legislators do not always think through all of the consequences of the language they employ, or how it interacts with other laws or Constitutional principles.

That is precisely why in Ohio the so-called "marriage amendment" which specifically prohibits granting any "marriage-like" rights to unmarried couples was used by "activist" judges to reduce domestic abuse cases to simple assault when the couple was not married. It was not because the judges thought the violence was not abuse, but because of the Constitutional principle that all laws must be enforced fairly and impartially. The "originalist" intent to enforce it only against gays is simply unconstitutional.

* Actually, black citizens may have been treated as second class, but they were full citizens. Slaves were neither citizens nor even persons under the law (except for the 3/5 evaluation in the census which gave their masters more than the equitable "one man/one vote" compared to citizens in free states).

Re: Scott: Hey, just because it was originalist doesn't make it moral.

Re: Marbury: The opinions of the Founders concerning the constitution are important, and should be used as a guide, but they should not take precedence over the text itself, which is how the case worked out.

Your definition of originalism is way too narrow. An originalist can use implication or analogy, as long as it is the original intent of constitution supports the analogy or the implication. What the originalist has problems with is when you go to sources and arguments outside the constitution to resolve matters of constitutional law.

Laws were in place governing the behavior and activities of Free Blacks called Black Codes.

Oh, and one person, one vote didn't exist until the later 20th century.

Actually I don't have a definition of "originalist" (or of "activist) beyond the popular claims. I just pointed out that a claim to originalism isn't the be-all and end-all of the law. I suspect that we are closer in philosophy than you seem to believe. I do believe that the Court has been too "activist" at times, especially in the late 20th century, but that a lot of what has been claimed to be "activist" rulings have merely been logical extrapolations from either the language of the law in question, or or the Constitutional principle.

As for the details of Black history (beyond the Dred Scott ruling itself) they are a derailment of this thread that I am sorry I encouraged, and while they might be important under other circumstances, they do not affect the points involved here. (And yes, I am admitting that I do not know all the details as well as I'd like. If you want to count that as a victory, be my guest.)

Tom M: Fair enough.

John Roberts, eh? Interesting pick.

Interesting indeed. It will be interesting to see exactly which way he spins.

Spins, in *both* senses of the word

What do you mean (what's the other sense?)?

As in where does he finally end up pointing in the long run.

Oh, okay. I think Roberts is a very shrewd pick; he's conservative, but since he hasn't made many rulings, we don't know HOW conservative. He has integrity and is respected by most people. He's religious, but not of the fundamentalist Protestant movement associated with Bush. He was just appointed to the Appellate Court not three years ago, so it's hard to say he's not fit ex post facto.

I think he'll be confirmed fairly easily.

Love him or hate him, Supreme Court Cheif Justice William Rehnquist has died today at the age of 80 after a bout with thyroid cancer. Full story can be found here.

Wow, I coulda sworn I read this somewhere....

Really? This one's different. I spelled "Rehnquist" correctly this time. K

Actually, I double-posted on purpose in case anyone looked for the info on the Supreme Court board. Not to mention that Rehnquist's death could easily spark a discussion about who will now be nominated for the Court. (Though it hasn't. But then again, that discussion's already been held, hasn't it?)

Incidentally, both posts have another error. I misspelled "Chief". We regret the error.

"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

On the news at USAToday there is an article where Roberts appears to be taking a more moderate view of things. Stating that he believes constitutional principles should evolve over the times. He also hinted at concern over discrimination against homosexuals.

So maybe Bush isnt getting what he wanted afterall and the people are getting what is needed. A moderate able to look at both sides of the coin.

To play devil's advocate, what would you expect Roberts to say? "I hate gays and women?"

Also, the concept of changing constitutional principles goes both ways--a lot of pro-choice people said this implies a possible changing of Roe v. Wade in the future.

For the record, I think Roberts will be a fine justice and I think he is an example of an intelligent conservative judge.

intelligent conservative judge. Ther eis such a creature? ;-)

But seriously. I know he hasn't come out and shown a real indication of either direction or even moderation totally yet. I am at least being hopeful that he isn't too conservative a judge and may still protect the rights and freedoms we have managed to wrestle from the govt and forces of evil and continue the struggle away from the totalitarian lifestyle the CT would want to impose on the country.

what would you expect Roberts to say? "I hate gays and women?"

And to answer your question there are those I would expect ananswer like that from.

Hmm...no posts here regarding Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee. She's had no judicial experience, and her main qualification seems to be that she's part of Bush's loyal inner circle. Smacks of cronyism to me.

Warren, Earl.

Baby (Oil Man) Bush picked Judge Samuel Alito to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Conservative groups already have TV ads up urging the general population to give Judge Alito a chance. IMHO, he seems to have been chosen for his views on abortion and Roe V. Wade, which the Republicans are itching to overturn. I have never caused a woman to have an abortion (although my ex-wife had two before we met) and I never will cause a woman to have one, as I'm now sterile. But, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and abortion is made illegal, a lot of women will die from back alley butchers. I specifically remember a segment of an HBO film from 1996, If These Walls Could Talk, in which Demi Moore effectively played an ultimately doomed widow, circa 1952, who seeks one of those butchers. The ending of that segment is especially chilling.

I'm not itching for Roe v. Wade to get overturned, but the argument about "lot of women will die from back alley butchers" is frequently thrown around. Is there any evidence to support this conjecture?

Oh my god. If abortion were overturned, does this mean that people would (gulp) have to take responsibility for their own actions?

Mike, figures on such things are hard to come by, as in the time period you're referring to, abortion was... illegal. Suffice it to say, overturning Roe v. Wade would not end the demand for abortions, thus the risk for anyone seeking such a procedure would skyrocket.

However, I'm of the opinion that overturning Roe v. Wade would be incredibly foolish, as a) most of the American public supports it and b) would it ever be overturned, the left-wing would be awakened faster than you can say "whoa."

here are the Straight Dope figures.

Relevant quotes:

For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. (The death total for all abortions, including legal ones, was 88.) That figure is low, thanks to underreporting, but in any case the number of deaths had been dropping sharply for the previous few years. ...

Tietze comments in his article that "some 30 years ago [i.e., around 1940], it was judged that such deaths might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year." He gives no source, but if we turn to W. Cates et al ("Trends in national abortion mortality, United States, 1940-1974," Advances in Planned Parenthood, 1976), we find that 1,682 abortion-related deaths were officially reported in 1940. If we guess that this figure represents roughly a quarter of actual mortality due to illegal abortion, we get 6,800 deaths – somewhere below the middle of the range given by Tietze, whereas Ellen Goodman's number is at the very top. ...

Most importantly, how important an argument is the actual figure in the whole abortion debate?
None of this argues for or against abortion, ...sex researcher Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing. The fact is that prior to legalization abortion had become relatively safe and easy to obtain – for those who could afford it. Studies done at the time show that the risks were borne disproportionately by those who couldn't, mostly minorities. Were abortion to be recriminalized, that would likely be the case again.

Fizzle Von Shizzle: Oh my god. If abortion were overturned, does this mean that people would (gulp) have to take responsibility for their own actions?
Luigi Novi: They already take responsibility for their actions when they choose to end the pregnancies that would either be too burdensome, expensive or dangerous to their lives. Bringing unwanted children into a world that cannnot care for them is hardly "responsible."

Yes, the women take responsibility for their own actions... when they're raped... when they find out they are going to have a severly handicapped child and know they can't cope with it financially and emotionally...

Of course, it would be better if people used birth prevention methods (pill, condom) more often, but with sex ed. being fought by Bush and the Christians, unwanted pregnancies (and therefore, abortions) are often the logical outcome.

The abortion debate is understandably but sadly divisive. I believe the key to making real headway here is to find common ground. Most people, I would say, most sane, reasonable people, do not think abortion is a good thing. Working to find ways to reduce the numbers of abortions (not necessarily arbitrarily banning it) is something we can all approve of.

MikeC that's a nice idea but saddly not the case. Many of the same groups who are aginst abortion are also aginst teaching birth control in sex-ed, aginst making birth control easier to obtain by young people and aginst the morning after pill.

But, are any of those groups against vasectomies? I had one in February, 2002, and I do not regret it. Most men are scared to get one, possibly due to some false notion of possible castration. NOTHING could be further from the truth. It cost me a $10 co-pay, and about three or four hours of my life. The only problem I had, and it's an excruciatingly minor one, was a slight burning sensation when I was injected with an antibiotic. The anaesthetic itself was very effective, and gave me a nice buzz afterward; about the equivalent of three beers. Which is why the doctor doing the procedure insists you don't drive to and from the doctor's office, but arrange for a ride home. If anyone has questions about vasectomies, e-mail me at the link in the "By" box.

Some are. The cathlic church believes that God said to be fruitful and multiply and if you use condoms, birth control pills, or sergical means to avoid a pregnancy comming from the encounter you are sinning.

I personally would like to never see abortion outlawed but I would like to see it replaced as the prime choice for many women.

Either by developing technology to transplant the embreyo, grow it artificially outside the body, education on prevention methods and ease of access of prevention methods (There has been research into a male pill, so far nothign really useful that I have heard about) and generally try and change the social and religious outlook on what is an intensely private and personal decision for a person. Who in many cases is already going through some major emotional trauma.

The Supreme Court Agreed to hear the case on the Federal Partial Birth Abortion ban. While being agaist abortion in general and dialation and exaction in specific, I think the likely decision is one saying this exceedes the General Government's power, which is a very Federalist answer.

Which while I will agree that late term is bad as it is pushing the limits of viable birth as technology progresses having the federal government grab power like this is not a good thing either. In this at least it is a lose-lose scenario. Although it is good in that it will not be a springboard for the Christian taliban to try and get rid of all abortion.

Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has written a letter of thank you to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and to his readers and radio listeners for their support during the confirmation process.

"As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force," Alito said in the letter.

"As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me."

On his radio show Wednesday Dobson read Alito's letter and told listeners that their support had "affected history" by helping put Alito on the court.

.......

“He’s not sounding like a fair and independent judge,” Barry Lynn, the organization's executive director, told the Colorado Springs Gazette. Focus on the Family is based in Colorado Springs.

Lynn said the note can be interpreted as a pledge to rule as Dobson wants on key issues, such as gay marriage, abortion and church-state separation.

“This strongly suggests Alito is going to do just what he was entrusted to do - change the law dramatically in many key areas,” said Lynn, whose group, and all national LGBT rights groups, opposed Alito’s nomination.

Anyone see the picture of Ruth Bader Ginsburg falling asleep at yesterday's hearing on Texas redistricting? Hilarious!!

O'Connor rips GOP.

Very interesting, refreashing and wonderful to see that. I especially love this quote: "without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights and privileges would amount to nothing."

Monday, 1/22/07, is the 34th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, and at church today, the priest sure made mention of it. What he failed to mention (in fact, it's never been spoken of by any priest I've ever heard) is that the Jane Roe of the case, Norma McCorvey, never had the abortion, as the case took so long (three years) to go through the courts, she wound up giving birth. In fact, she had three children total. She is now 59 years old, and a prominent anti-abortion figure.

Whoa...Obama may face TWO court vacancies???

This Spring. But they are not going to change the political balance by much. Still, he has a few more years, there very well may be other nominations

Suspects must speak up to claim their Miranda rights, according to the Court.

So to remain silent, you can't be silent. Isn't the Law wonderful?

They will begin looking at the State Secrets Doctrine.

The silence of Clarence Thomas.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement yesterday, effective July 31. The Fat Man stated that he will start his search for a replacement "immediately". One person allegedly on the list is TV judge and Fox News blowhard Jeannine Pirro. Well, what else can you expect from President Fat Man, whose whole media world revolves around Fox News? Who simply adores President Goodyear Blimp.
Today's New York Daily News cover is great. You can see it here.

All those people who voted for Bernie or Jill Stein... enjoy!

Clarence Thomas is undoubtedly the Republican Party's pet ••••••.

Smiley-faced Judge Brett Kavanaugh hit a roadblock in the Republicans rush to seat him on the Supreme Court by October 1, when a woman accused him of sexual assault when they were teenagers. More here.
Kavanaugh almost always has a blank smile on his face, like the People of Landru had in the Trek episode "The Return of the Archons". I wish the Democrats could have done to Kavanaugh what the Republicans did to Obama's nominee Merrick Garland.

"Smile and smile. I don't trust men who smile too much."

If the Republicans were actually good, decent, people, they would have no tolerance for sexual assault and attempted rape. Instead, Senate Republicans are a bunch of automatons, led by a lunatic who looks like Heinrich Himmler. (to misquote Dad's Army)

Another woman, one Deborah Ramirez, has accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. More on that here. Kavanaugh denies all of it; the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of sexual misconduct, Donald Trump, of course stands by Kavanaugh.
If Kavanaugh had any sort of class whatsoever, he would withdraw from consideration for the Supreme Court seat. Now.

If the Democrats were actually good, decent, people, they would have no tolerance for sexual assault and attempted rape. They still have a high regard for Bill Clinton, despite the many aligations aganst him.

Anyone who supports the execution of intellectually disabled death row prisoners, like Scalia did and his still living pals do, is an outright Nazi.

Take Brown v Board of Education and what happened in Little Rock. It took Eisenhower mobilizing the National Guard to enforce school integration there.

On the flip side, you also have Andrew Jackson saying, "They made the ruling. Let them enforce it," basically giving the court the middle finger.

Iron lady Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had some recent health scares. Including a hospitalization last weekend. But, she's staying put and not retiring. Lest "president" Lazy Ass nominate another smiley faced, sexually harassing vacuous emptyhead. Like Kavanaugh.

The only possible check on the Senate Republicans replacing Ginsburg with an extreme-right nominee is for Biden to announce that if they do that, a Biden administration and a Democratic Senate will legislate to enlarge the Court.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who became a pop culture icon known affectionately as "The Notorious RBG", passed away yesterday at age 87. More from CNN here.

Oh, one more thing. As MSNBC was paying tribute to the late Judge Ginsburg, Fox News had its toadies on, discussing who would replace her. Heinously disgraceful.

Geez, too soon folks.

The hypocrisy/double standard of Marfan Mitch and his GOP lackeys is in full bloom. The GOP jerk weeds will ram through any nominee from Fat Man Trump at warp speed. While back in 2016 they would not even meet with Obama's nominee Merrick Garland. And, all this hypocrisy is being blathered before Justice Ginsburg is laid to rest. More here.

A breakdown of the political ramifications of the death of justice Ginsburg. The breakdown itself starts at 1:54, and its conclusion perfectly sums up what is actually at stake.

Let me guess who is on the video before clicking the link....

...I was right...

I am not quite sure how to interpret this. Are you saying that the fact this is on Kyle's Secular Talk channel somehow invalidates the analysis made by the other guy?

It's me saying that you only post this guy's videos as gospel. Reminds me of Luigi always worshipping at the altar of Peter David's blog (which he still does)

They really should hold off on all this until after the election is over, IMO.

I wanted to present the Vice News piece. I could have tracked down the original video and posted that, but it was right there already, so I just provided the time index where it starts, boom, done!

As for Kyle himself, he's not the only one I listen to, but he usually is the one with the best, most factual, concise and accurate take on any given topic, so of course he's the one I'm going to turn to when I want to share information about something political.

Makes one wish Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have held on a few more months.

Her more than anyone else I would think.

Good point.

Part of me wishes she could return like Alec Guinness did in TESB and ROTJ.

Can you imagine, a Force ghost justice Ginsburg scolding Trump and the GOP at every turn?

How cool would that be!

Just ask Darth Vader to deal with the Republicans:

"Apology not accepted, Senator McConnell!"

Or have the Doctor dump them down a black hole.

McConnell is like Emperor Palpatine in that he is crafty and long sighted in his evil.

Orange Hitler appointed a rapist to the Court.

He probably bribed a few people to get Kavanagh in.

It's Amy Barrett. a 2020 version of Phyllis Schlafly. Barrett's a supporter of parental notification laws without a judicial by-pass, so if you have abusive parents or parents who want to control your (but not your brothers) budding sexuality - tough tiddies, young lady!

Even if she does get in, it won't be that easy. People who have fought for rights are not just going to roll over. They'll fight it tooth and claw.

the SV boards are having to issue temp bans because of progressive posters Doomsaying about the new SCOTUS

More on Coney-Barrett here.
In my opinion, she was nominated so Trump could pack the court before Election day, before the tributes to RBG subsided, so he could steal the election with the aid of the Court. If Trump does lose, he will go to the Court, as his "me first" attitude, infantile demeanor and lust for power will be in the forefront. Then again, they've always been.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl

“Congress has to decide whether to … rely on the power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment.”)

If Trump does lose, he will go to the Court

He can do what he wants, but that won't help him.

I've no doubt that the Republicans will stage some sort of "soft coup" to abort the election and declare Trump the winner.

Which then they would all be arrested for treason.

None of the Democrats were arrested in the last "soft coup" (the Impeachment).

There's an anti-democracy and extremist party (the Republicans) and a non-fascist party. It's not that hard to work out.

None of the Democrats were arrested in the last "soft coup" (the Impeachment).

That is an entirely different situation.

Overturning the election would be tantamount to illegally seizing power.

If the Court helps Orange Hitler do that, then that is treason.

Trump clearly hopes that with a new 6-3 Tory majority on the Supreme Court, he can then use legal rulings to get himself a second term.

There are no Tories in the U.S. They stopped using that term down there back around 1776.

you know that i mean small-c conservatives.

A coup that, at its most successful extent, would leave the vice-president in power is a pretty shoddily-planned coup.

So there is really nothing to worry about then.

Getting control of the Supreme Court has been a major objective of conservative politics in the US for decades, mainly because of the abortion issue. Now that objective has been achieved, and if Trump wins the Court might well overturn Roe v Wade in the coming term. If Biden wins there will be a major push to enlarge the Court and prevent this. This battle will motivate both pro- and anti-abortion activists to turn out their voters. But I can't see that it will make much overall difference.
(It might of course make a big difference if the Court gets to decide the result of the election, as it did in 2000. The new 6-3 Court would certainly give the election to Trump whatever the facts of the case.)

It's not a 6-3 court yet.

There are no Tories in the U.S.

Then how do you explain this?

Good one, Adam.

Also love your Amy Conehead thing.

Thanks Tim, but I've been thinking of backing off on it. After all, it is insulting. To the funny "Conehead" sketches on SNL, and to the pretty good Coneheads movie from 1993. (I may be the only person on Earth, outside of the cast and crew, who liked that movie, but c'est la vie. )

I kinda liked it too. It's not great cinema, but it's certainly a pleasant way of spending a couple of hours.

Perhaps you and Larry will join us for the consumption of mass quantities this weekend... will we ignite our new flame pit and char some mammal flesh for you.

@Adam, and @Francois. Exactly. A movie should be a pleasant way of spending a couple of hours. And I enjoyed it as well.

"Meps! Meps!"

Nah, keep up the Amy Conehead thing. It's okay

Well, Amy Conehead's nomination was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The full Senate will vote on Monday, October 26. It's a cinch that no Democrat will vote to confirm her. More here.

It's not a 6-3 court yet.

Looks like come the late morning or early afternoon of October 26, it will be. Mr. Sphincter may be waiting in the wings to swear in Amy Conehead. Unless he deems one of his (Covid-19 spreading) rallies more important. Then The Putz may do the swearing in.

So Orange will get in his one last "F**k you!" to the American people, before he gets the boot.

Amy Conehead has not stated whether she will recuse herself from cases involving the oil industry, even though her father worked for Shell Oil as an attorney. Can you say "conflict of interest"? Her views on climate change are in line with The Orange Blunder's. More here.

Amy Conehead doesn't see the irony of belonging to the party that, if they had their way, would send her, and all women, back to the kitchens.

Amy Conehead was confirmed by the Senate tonight, in a (IIRC) 52-48 vote. She has already been sworn in; Clarence Thomas administered the oath. Coney-Barrett is 48; barring a scandal, she'll probably be on the Court long after Fat Man Trump has turned to dust.

No doubt Orange is hoping that Amy Conehead can help save his political a**.

Well, she, and Trump's other two appointees, including "Smiley" Brett Kavanaugh, didn't. Orange Fat Man values loyalty to him above all else. And thought the Supreme Court, with those appointees, was going to be his ticket to four more years (and maybe more) in the White House. What he refused to understand is that the Supreme Court's mission is to interpret the law, not act as his lackeys. Something I'm sure he's complained about on his favorite platform Twitter by now.

Yeah, I'm sure as well.

Lets hope Amy Conehead never ends up as Chief Justice.

It takes years to reach that position. It's not an immediate worry.

And the next CJ is not chosen by seniority. See John Roberts for an example. There were 8 people on the Court at that time, and none of them bevcame CJ.

Got it.

Not that an Associate Justice can't be made Chief Justice. William Rehnquist was appointed an Associate Justice by Nixon in 1972, and kicked upstairs to Chief Justice by Reagan in 1986. When Rehnquist was kicked upstairs, he had to go through the confirmation process all over again.

Just saying there's no rule that the CJ has to previously been a sitting AJ, or that the most senior AJ gets to be CJ.

Looks like Orange's stooges may try to overturn Roe VS Wade.

Orange is out of power now, but his stench still haunts Washington.

The major news story of the past few days is the leaking of a Court draft document that may be the template for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. More on that here.

Men should be legislating on the choices that should belong to a woman.
I don't agree with abortion unless there is medical reasons for it (harm to either the mother or the unborn child) but that's me. Women should be allowed to say what happens to their bodies.

All this will do is force abortion back underground. This will NOT abolish it.

Look at history.

A century ago, they tried outlawing alcohol, and that blew up in their faces.

Reagan's war of drugs has been a hopeless failure that has cost millions and accomplished nothing.

They never learn.

Well, the decision came down today, overturning Roe V. Wade, and turning abortion laws back to the states. Some had trigger laws in place banning the procedure as soon as the Supreme Court decision came down. More here.
That, combined with the decision to overturn New York's hundred year old concealed carry gun law, highly politicized a body that was supposed to be non-political. Blame that on the great sphincter, Donald Trump. Who appointed three right wing judges. My guess is that lazy ass Trump did zero research on any of those appointees; he simply rubber stamped any name Mitch McConnell gave him.

I( agree with Rodney; that crotchety old fogies shouldn't be dictating to young women leading their own their lives (supposedly in freedom). Sure, abortion is a horrible thing, but it's also a sad reality and necessity in many cases.
I gotta wonder how many of those old men are at home right now carving up a nice steak dinner, with no regard to how the poor cow ended up that way.
Well, I guess Canadian doctors are about to get a major increase in patients.

That's what happens when you appoint rapists to such positions.

Kavanaugh is a rapist who always bribed his way out.

Of course, Orange himself raped women, and also managed to always bribe his way out.

Well, I guess Canadian doctors are about to get a major increase in patients.

So will doctors here in New York. And probably New Jersey as well.

It's not just abortion on the chopping block now. If you read the linked article, Justice Thomas wants the Court to go after contraception and gay marriage. The second issue I have no opinion on one way or another. (Sam Waterston's Jack McCoy said it best in an episode of Law & Order - "Maybe we should let them marry. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us.") But contraception is a major issue with me. I had a vasectomy; my sister (the one who's now fighting cancer) had a tubal ligation. I could see the six right wing clowns making those procedures illegal. As well as IUDs, condoms, birth control pills and the like. I don't want my, or anyone else's, future, decided by asses like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell or Clarence Thomas.

Adam - "Maybe we should let them marry. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us."
I've always thought this, too, with tongue in cheek, and a memory of Bugs Bunny saying, "You'll be sorrrrryyyyy!"

Seeing the protests, though, with both men and women in attendance is kinda hopeful, but maybe not.
Currently, I don't even know anybody that would need such a procedure so it's about as relevant to me as whether or not they're going to fix a pothole in a small town in New Zealand, but it's just so d*amn frustrating. This is a woman's issue and an attack on their rights.

The joke is that these goofs are all high and mighty and think a teenager in need of an abortion isn't mature enough to make such a decision, and yet they also feel she's mature enough to know how to be a good parent.
Yea.
Right.
Go back to sleep, you old crocks.

The Supreme Court, at least the conservatives, and particularly Justice Thomas, are like a Jethro Tull song - Living in the Past.

How could Clarence Thomas, a black man, support such laws?

A brilliant new ad for SCOTUS

Perfect.

Justice Clarence Thomas has been accepting paid vacations from a Republican mega donor. Without disclosing them. More on that here.
With this in the public eye, and other issues Justice Thomas has, I think it's time for him to retire.

Initiating Sarcastic Mode;
But, why, Adam? He's ONLY 74 years old, and has served for ONLY 32 years! Ruth Bader Ginsburg stayed until she passed at the age of 87. He's got a long way to go!
Sarcastic Mode Off;
Why are these Justices given a job for life? I'm guessing that in 32 years he's made some mistakes and he's well past retirement age for the rest of us.

They should make a mandatory retirement age for this people.

Say age 75.