The reason why the likes of Kavanaugh et al were appointed when they weren't before was because the filibuster on SCOTUS appointees was abolished by the GOP. And the reason why they abolished it? In direct retaliation for good old Democrat Majority Leader in the Senate Harry Reid abolishing the filibuster for Federal judges and cabinet appointees in 2013, with the backing of Obama.
Which is why it's always bad to start messing around with the structure. Because once you do it, the other side feels they have carts blanche to do the same.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
In the late 90s the Republicans had a majority on the Supreme Court.
Compare and contrast GOP appointed John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy with today's hacks Alito, Kavanagh, and ACB.
Yes that's a big part of it - the dip in quality. It's perfectly possible to have bright ethical humane lawyers with right of centre political views.
And why was the filibuster abolished? Because the GOP fillibustered every Judicial appointment to hold them open for when they won back the Presidency.
Here's the Washington Post's latest assessment of the war in Ukraine: 'The Russian military will soon exhaust its combat capabilities and be forced to bring its offensive in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region to a grinding halt, according to Western intelligence predictions and military experts.
“There will come a time when the tiny advances Russia is making become unsustainable in light of the costs and they will need a significant pause to regenerate capability,” said a senior Western official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. . . . But conditions for Ukrainian troops are only likely to improve as more sophisticated Western weapons arrive, while those of Russian forces can be expected to deteriorate as they dig deeper into their stocks of old, outdated equipment, said retired Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. forces in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. At some point in the coming months, the Ukrainians will have received enough Western weaponry that it is likely they will be able to go on the counteroffensive and reverse the tide of the war, he said.' source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/25/ukraine-russia-balance-of-forces/
Hodges believes "that things are going to be trending in favor of the Ukrainians in the next few weeks."
The Post cites another analyst by name, Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at the Center for Naval Analysis, in support of this optimistic assessment.
That's been very much the @MrEd view, and is one I fervently hope is true.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Here's the Washington Post's latest assessment of the war in Ukraine: 'The Russian military will soon exhaust its combat capabilities and be forced to bring its offensive in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region to a grinding halt, according to Western intelligence predictions and military experts.
“There will come a time when the tiny advances Russia is making become unsustainable in light of the costs and they will need a significant pause to regenerate capability,” said a senior Western official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. . . . But conditions for Ukrainian troops are only likely to improve as more sophisticated Western weapons arrive, while those of Russian forces can be expected to deteriorate as they dig deeper into their stocks of old, outdated equipment, said retired Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. forces in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. At some point in the coming months, the Ukrainians will have received enough Western weaponry that it is likely they will be able to go on the counteroffensive and reverse the tide of the war, he said.' source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/25/ukraine-russia-balance-of-forces/
Hodges believes "that things are going to be trending in favor of the Ukrainians in the next few weeks."
The Post cites another analyst by name, Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at the Center for Naval Analysis, in support of this optimistic assessment.
That's been very much the @MrEd view, and is one I fervently hope is true.
Mail claims today that Putin has sacked yet another senior commander and dragged some 20 stone alcoholic former commander out of retirement to manage the mess.
The first festival was held in September 1970. If the average age of the performers was say 27, which seems entirely plausible, it means that Paul McCartney, who just performed at this year's festival, was older than the average performer at that first 1970 festival, because he would have been 28 at the time.
It only really took off after the battle of the bean field ended the Stonehenge Free Festival in 1985, and Eavis allowed the "hippie convoy" into Glastonbury. It still had some of that atmosphere when I went in 1987.
Barry R McCaffrey @mccaffreyr3 These are the angry voices of a desperate Putin. Utter military nonsense from a beleaguered second tier economic and military power. Torpedo oil tankers in Dutch ports… really? Use tac nukes against the EU? These rants should horrify the Russian people.
The Daily Kos had a good piece today highlighting how the Ukrainians are launching a lot more attacks on ammunition dumps and control centres, forcing the Russians to move their supply chains further back.
I suspect Russia's next step will be to call in ammunition and other supplies from its client states to help maintain its own supplies. But there is a limit to that.
Here's the Washington Post's latest assessment of the war in Ukraine: 'The Russian military will soon exhaust its combat capabilities and be forced to bring its offensive in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region to a grinding halt, according to Western intelligence predictions and military experts.
“There will come a time when the tiny advances Russia is making become unsustainable in light of the costs and they will need a significant pause to regenerate capability,” said a senior Western official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. . . . But conditions for Ukrainian troops are only likely to improve as more sophisticated Western weapons arrive, while those of Russian forces can be expected to deteriorate as they dig deeper into their stocks of old, outdated equipment, said retired Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. forces in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. At some point in the coming months, the Ukrainians will have received enough Western weaponry that it is likely they will be able to go on the counteroffensive and reverse the tide of the war, he said.' source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/25/ukraine-russia-balance-of-forces/
Hodges believes "that things are going to be trending in favor of the Ukrainians in the next few weeks."
The Post cites another analyst by name, Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at the Center for Naval Analysis, in support of this optimistic assessment.
That's been very much the @MrEd view, and is one I fervently hope is true.
Mail claims today that Putin has sacked yet another senior commander and dragged some 20 stone alcoholic former commander out of retirement to manage the mess.
The reason why the likes of Kavanaugh et al were appointed when they weren't before was because the filibuster on SCOTUS appointees was abolished by the GOP. And the reason why they abolished it? In direct retaliation for good old Democrat Majority Leader in the Senate Harry Reid abolishing the filibuster for Federal judges and cabinet appointees in 2013, with the backing of Obama.
Which is why it's always bad to start messing around with the structure. Because once you do it, the other side feels they have carts blanche to do the same.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
In the late 90s the Republicans had a majority on the Supreme Court.
Compare and contrast GOP appointed John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy with today's hacks Alito, Kavanagh, and ACB.
Yes that's a big part of it - the dip in quality. It's perfectly possible to have bright ethical humane lawyers with right of centre political views.
Yes of course - Dems fault. That's who the newly 2nd class female citizens in half of America should be yelling at. Not the GOP. You can't blame a snake for poisoning you. Blame the person who let it out.
Why are you replying to people with the quote inverted btw?
The two most important decisions made in recent decades by the Supreme Court are the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (aka Obamacare) and the reversal of Roe. In both, the court chose to defer to elected legislatures; in both Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority.
I see a consistency in his deference that others may not. I do think that any fair-minded person will find his long legal career impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts
(Incidentally, some analysts think that Obama could have done better politically by putting economic recovery ahead of Obamacare, rather than the other way around. He certainly could have done better, long term, had he been willing to listen to Republicans in his first months in office.)
@Kinablu - in response, because the reply button on my phone doesn't allow me to scroll down so I have to start from the top.
In response to your point, you've either deliberately or not missed mine. The Democrats shouldn't have messed with the filibuster. You can't expect one side to change things and then whinge when the other side decides to follow suit. was because
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
In the late 90s the Republicans had a majority on the Supreme Court.
You see. That's what is all wrong about it. Neither Party should have a majority. They're supposed to be enforcing the Constitution without prejudice.
The Supreme Court has always been a nakedly political body. It has been stuffed with cronies and people we would consider totally unqualified in the past. It is only in the last 50 or so years that this idea of an august formal body has taken hold when the history of the institution is anything but.
No doubt you are right, but the game they play is that they are an august, formal body, and they don't even seem to be pretending anymore.
Exactly. It's in the face. "Here, have some right wing fundamentalist bigotry and don't leave the table until you've eaten it all up."
Off topic, but I think most of you will find this amusing: The Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, Mehmet Oz, does not now live in Pennsylvania, has dual Turkish-American citizenship, and is a Muslim, of sorts. The first is more important in the US than in the UK, and has already been picked up by opponents. A friend of mine in Pennsylvania tells me that he has seen an "Oz for New Jersey" bumper sticker.
He has promised to give up his Turkish citizenship, should he be elected, which seems sensible.
I don't know whether a reporter has asked him about the Armenian genocide, but the issue does come up in Congress from time to time.
(There are times when I almost think Trump was a Democratic plant, intended to damage the Republican Party. Almost. And it does appear to be true that his friend, Bill Clinton, encouraged him to run for the presidency.)
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
No, control remains with politicians but with certain essentials given some extra protection. The higher body not to initiate and boss around, it stands guard and acts on appeal.
Parliament is advertising an online history webinar thingy on 7th July (3 days after Trump announces his candidature?).
Monarchy and Parliament: A brief history
Join our expert guide as we explore the intertwined relationship between Parliament and the monarchy. Uncover the key moments that influenced a move from a sovereign-driven body to the Parliament of today, including the constitutional role played by Queen Elizabeth II during her 70-year reign so far.
Beginning with the origins of the first Parliament in the 13th century, discover how the power balance between monarch and Parliament impacted the country. Understand how the Tudors managed their legislative body, while the tensions between the House of Commons and Charles I led to the English Civil War, and eventually the creation of a constitutional monarchy.
@Kinablu - in response, because the reply button on my phone doesn't allow me to scroll down so I have to start from the top.
In response to your point, you've either deliberately or not missed mine. The Democrats shouldn't have messed with the filibuster. You can't expect one side to change things and then whinge when the other side decides to follow suit. was because
Ah right. Ok carry on then. Thought you might be trying to start something. I'll keep doing the normal way.
No, I did get your point. If NATO hadn't expanded eastwards Putin wouldn't have invaded ... type thing.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
No, control remains with politicians but with certain essentials given some extra protection. The higher body not to initiate and boss around, it stands guard and acts on appeal.
A Supreme Court, unless it avoids political decisions will become politicised. Which in turn is a ratchet process - it only gets worse.
Which is why the U.K. Supreme Court ran a mile at the idea of using equality legislation to effectively block changes to pensions and benefits, years back. IIRC they explicitly put in their judgement that this was legislative stuff and hence reserved for Parliament.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
No, control remains with politicians but with certain essentials given some extra protection. The higher body not to initiate and boss around, it stands guard and acts on appeal.
A Supreme Court, unless it avoids political decisions will become politicised. Which in turn is a ratchet process - it only gets worse.
Which is why the U.K. Supreme Court ran a mile at the idea of using equality legislation to effectively block changes to pensions and benefits, years back. IIRC they explicitly put in their judgement that this was legislative stuff and hence reserved for Parliament.
I seem to recall there was that divorce case, where I suppose a constitutional court of the kind some have could have decided 'You know what, the law as written is an ass and not acceptable', but the Supreme Court upheld it, but did at least go so far as to suggest it really should be changed, even though they could not.
Not an issue on which there was as much division, admittedly, at least not now, so not as risky to urge a change.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
No, control remains with politicians but with certain essentials given some extra protection. The higher body not to initiate and boss around, it stands guard and acts on appeal.
A Supreme Court, unless it avoids political decisions will become politicised. Which in turn is a ratchet process - it only gets worse.
Which is why the U.K. Supreme Court ran a mile at the idea of using equality legislation to effectively block changes to pensions and benefits, years back. IIRC they explicitly put in their judgement that this was legislative stuff and hence reserved for Parliament.
You seem to be saying the notion of enshrining some fundamentals above the remit of elected politicians and thus gaining added protection for them is impossible. Don't see why.
Imagine a government here enacts an immigration policy with a racial element. What do you think should happen?
We done Kendrick live too (you can call him Lamar, it’s 2 forenames, what’s all that about?)
Very Bob Fosse staging would you agree? He is good as not just writer (Nobel Prize winning) but is a performer too. I love myself, we are going to be alright, Godspeed womens writes whilst gradually covered in blood from his own crown of thorns. What’s not to like.
But I wonder if it occurred to him, he’s just about the only black man on the entire campsite.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
No, the NATO a analogy is the wrong one. Reid had the right obviously to make the change. But he was warned it would mean the GOP a would feel they could do the same. Which is what happened.
If you want to flog the NATO analogy, a better (hypothetical) analogy would be NATO expanded eastwards so Russia decided to co-opt Turkey into its defence sphere. Sure, NATO had the right to expand eastwards. And Russia had the right to make a pact with Turkey, even if it threatened western interests.
@Kinablu - in response, because the reply button on my phone doesn't allow me to scroll down so I have to start from the top.
In response to your point, you've either deliberately or not missed mine. The Democrats shouldn't have messed with the filibuster. You can't expect one side to change things and then whinge when the other side decides to follow suit. was because
Ah right. Ok carry on then. Thought you might be trying to start something. I'll keep doing the normal way.
No, I did get your point. If NATO hadn't expanded eastwards Putin wouldn't have invaded ... type thing.
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 1h You may be enjoying tonight’s BBC coverage of Glastonbury ( I am) and looking forward to the BBC on Wimbledon( I am) . Just remember.Nadine Dorries, Johnson and their party want to kill the BBC stone dead. Vandalism - and all to ensure the national debate is wholly right wing.
Striking was the Republican justices’ discussion of reliance interests in respect of the decision. Had it been about “property or contract rights”, Alito states he might have respected the stare decisis doctrine. Women’s bodily autonomy is compared unfavourably to such important matters.
@Kinablu - in response, because the reply button on my phone doesn't allow me to scroll down so I have to start from the top.
In response to your point, you've either deliberately or not missed mine. The Democrats shouldn't have messed with the filibuster. You can't expect one side to change things and then whinge when the other side decides to follow suit. was because
The filibuster was instituted to defend segregation. It should have died years ago.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
No, control remains with politicians but with certain essentials given some extra protection. The higher body not to initiate and boss around, it stands guard and acts on appeal.
A Supreme Court, unless it avoids political decisions will become politicised. Which in turn is a ratchet process - it only gets worse.
Which is why the U.K. Supreme Court ran a mile at the idea of using equality legislation to effectively block changes to pensions and benefits, years back. IIRC they explicitly put in their judgement that this was legislative stuff and hence reserved for Parliament.
You seem to be saying the notion of enshrining some fundamentals above the remit of elected politicians and thus gaining added protection for them is impossible. Don't see why.
Imagine a government here enacts an immigration policy with a racial element. What do you think should happen?
O/T Just about to place a bet on Emma Raducanu winning Wimbledon. Seems the patriotic thing to do.
Good luck with that but a repeat win of the US Open is more likely. She will have more time to recover from her recent injury and will have the confidence boost from having won it before.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
We done Kendrick live too (you can call him Lamar, it’s 2 forenames, what’s all that about?)
Very Bob Fosse staging would you agree? He is good as not just writer (Nobel Prize winning) but is a performer too. I love myself, we are going to be alright, Godspeed womens writes whilst gradually covered in blood from his own crown of thorns. What’s not to like.
But I wonder if it occurred to him, he’s just about the only black man on the entire campsite.
Great show and great finish, yes. It's not really my thing but at the same time I can tell he's brilliant if that makes sense.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
One of the lesser mentioned culprits as to what has just happened is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result.
If the Court was 5-4 I don't think they'd have pulled the trigger, despite the numbers being there, it was the fact that it was now 6-3 and will be likely for decades to come now that made it so comfortable for them to be able to pull this stunt.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
The dissent has a decent answer to Malmesbury’s majoritarian assertions. … We start with Roe and Casey, and with their deep connections to a broad swath of this Court’s precedents. To hear the majority tell the tale, Roe and Casey are aberrations: They came from nowhere, went nowhere—and so are easy to excise from this Nation’s constitutional law. That is not true. After describing the decisions themselves, we explain how they are rooted in—and themselves led to—other rights giving individuals control over their bodies and their most personal and intimate associations. The majority does not wish to talk about these matters for obvious reasons; to do so would both ground Roe and Casey in this Court’s prec- edents and reveal the broad implications of today’s decision. But the facts will not so handily disappear. Roe and Casey were from the beginning, and are even more now, embedded in core constitutional concepts of individual freedom, and of the equal rights of citizens to decide on the shape of their lives. Those legal concepts, one might even say, have gone far toward defining what it means to be an American. For in this Nation, we do not believe that a government controlling all private choices is compatible with a free people. So we do not (as the majority insists today) place everything within “the reach of majorities and [government] officials.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). We believe in a Constitution that puts some issues off limits to majority rule. Even in the face of public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals—yes, including women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures. Or at least, we did once…
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
No, control remains with politicians but with certain essentials given some extra protection. The higher body not to initiate and boss around, it stands guard and acts on appeal.
A Supreme Court, unless it avoids political decisions will become politicised. Which in turn is a ratchet process - it only gets worse.
Which is why the U.K. Supreme Court ran a mile at the idea of using equality legislation to effectively block changes to pensions and benefits, years back. IIRC they explicitly put in their judgement that this was legislative stuff and hence reserved for Parliament.
You seem to be saying the notion of enshrining some fundamentals above the remit of elected politicians and thus gaining added protection for them is impossible. Don't see why.
Imagine a government here enacts an immigration policy with a racial element. What do you think should happen?
Vote them out
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
A bad government can be voted out, a bad Court can not. Imagine the Supreme Court implements rules with a racial element, Kinabalu, what do you think should happen?
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
One of the lesser mentioned culprits as to what has just happened is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result.
If the Court was 5-4 I don't think they'd have pulled the trigger, despite the numbers being there, it was the fact that it was now 6-3 and will be likely for decades to come now that made it so comfortable for them to be able to pull this stunt.
Indeed, Roberts' plan was to effectively allow so many restrictions to abortion that Roe v Wade was comatose but not landing the killing blow, "Of course abortion is legal, up to 8 weeks gestation but it has to be done at this one provider that's open in Kansas City, MO every 2nd Tuesday afternoon".
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
I agree the SC is in trouble, but that is not because of the reversal of R v W. This is a symptom not a cause.
Leaving aside polemic it is entirely rational to say that the law of abortion is obviously a matter which can't be dealt with by a constitution because science, medicine, philosophy and morality change. It is a matter for voters and legislators.
This is all they have done. They have opened the door for people to start voting and organising, and stop relying on courts to cover up the USA's democratic deficit. This is how it is in the UK and we get by.
The next step should be to do the same with guns. Incidentally, why didn't the SC do this when it had a more sane composition?
On the contrary, the basic right of a pregnant woman to choose whether she has the baby, since it underpins any semblance of gender equality, most certainly can and should be enshrined beyond the elected executive of the moment.
Why not? Is it because you don't think any human rights should be untouchable by elected politicians? Or is it that you do but this one - female bodily autonomy - doesn't pass muster?
How exactly do you make human rights untouchable by politicians?
Constitutions are, at best, a speed bump. See the Roman Republic and many, many others.
Eg constitution or eg supreme court by precedent and principle or eg same via supranational court. Impossible to 100% guarantee but it can give more protection. Don't let perfect be enemy of etc.
Then you are handing control to the Supreme Court. Changing the people on the court is much harder than changing politicians.
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
No, control remains with politicians but with certain essentials given some extra protection. The higher body not to initiate and boss around, it stands guard and acts on appeal.
A Supreme Court, unless it avoids political decisions will become politicised. Which in turn is a ratchet process - it only gets worse.
Which is why the U.K. Supreme Court ran a mile at the idea of using equality legislation to effectively block changes to pensions and benefits, years back. IIRC they explicitly put in their judgement that this was legislative stuff and hence reserved for Parliament.
You seem to be saying the notion of enshrining some fundamentals above the remit of elected politicians and thus gaining added protection for them is impossible. Don't see why.
Imagine a government here enacts an immigration policy with a racial element. What do you think should happen?
Vote them out
Election yonks away. And maybe they win it. You know, FPTP and all. 36% might be enough. Let's just have some additional protection against this sort of thing, against elected politicians infringing basic human rights. Voters 1st line of defence. Then politicians themselves. Then something else. Not perfectly safe, nothing is, you can do anything if you have the army and police etc, but as safe as possible in this complex dangerous world of ours.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
One of the lesser mentioned culprits as to what has just happened is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result.
If the Court was 5-4 I don't think they'd have pulled the trigger, despite the numbers being there, it was the fact that it was now 6-3 and will be likely for decades to come now that made it so comfortable for them to be able to pull this stunt.
Yes and when Obama did nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Republican Senators simply declined to hold confirmation hearings.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
One of the lesser mentioned culprits as to what has just happened is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result. .
That completely critical political decisions swing on the egos and whims of individuals, either pressured to stay on or stand down depending on the situation, is pretty bonkers.
I can only assume it has already occurred that Justices have been ill or been going barmy but resisted going out of fear who would replace them.
Mandatory retirement dates would not only be the right thing to do, it would remove that pressure on Democratic or Republican justices.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
One of the lesser mentioned culprits as to what has just happened is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result.
If the Court was 5-4 I don't think they'd have pulled the trigger, despite the numbers being there, it was the fact that it was now 6-3 and will be likely for decades to come now that made it so comfortable for them to be able to pull this stunt.
Indeed, Roberts' plan was to effectively allow so many restrictions to abortion that Roe v Wade was comatose but not landing the killing blow, "Of course abortion is legal, up to 8 weeks gestation but it has to be done at this one provider that's open in Kansas City, MO every 2nd Tuesday afternoon".
Seems a bit loose, how about every third Tuesday, 3.23-4.15pm?
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
One of the lesser mentioned culprits as to what has just happened is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result. .
That completely critical political decisions swing on the egos and whims of individuals, either pressured to stay on or stand down depending on the situation, is pretty bonkers.
I can only assume it has already occurred that Justices have been ill or been going barmy but resisted going out of fear who would replace them.
Mandatory retirement dates would not only be the right thing to do, it would remove that pressure on Democratic or Republican justices.
Would require a change to the Constitution. Not going to happen, which is a shame since it would be the most sensible, and non partisan reform.
Whilst trawling through the archives I found a candidate for worst aged take of all time which is a 2018 post from Kavanaugh's confirmation where a poster claimed we would see far less Judicial Activism from the court going forward.
Judicial Activism is like States Rights. It’s bad when the other lot did it.
Under Trump, a lot of Democrat state governments discovered that they were fans of States Rights to resist The Orange Ones more gratuitous stupidities….
Do I sniff some of the old False Equivalence?
Hinted only but, yes, I think I do.
No. The Democrats universally stated that States Rights were evil, until they realised that they could use them.
Equally, judicial activism is awesome or horrific. Depending on what it is used for - hence Republican hypocracy on this.
The lesson in all this is to think of the future. And the past.
Which is why Biden is resisting court packing. Since it would result in the next Republican president packing the court to the point of undoing anything vaguely progressive back to 1900 or so. Maybe earlier.
I think the SC is in trouble whether packed or not after this. The bias and lack of integrity is too blatant.
Turing the Supreme Court into the only legislative body actually doing legislation resulted in it becoming a political body. A chamber of Congress with seats for life.
Stupid, horrible and utterly inevitable.
Yes, a mess. Not sure about inevitable though. Trump again for me. He rigged the Court good and proper. GOP - this new batshit crazy one - now empowered to refight the civil rights era with a stacked deck. Puppet SC. Gerrymandered voting. Structural Senate bias. Dark age beckons for America.
Talking to my American relatives in the late 90s I raised exactly this point - “You say that you’ve won the culture wars because of the legal system. What happens when the Republicans get a majority on the SC?”
The answer, it seemed was that “all proper lawyers believe in the progressive, living Constitution. So we will control the Court forever”
I always thought this resembled the Underpants Gnomes business strategy, personally.
There's no straight line from that SC you were chatting with your family about in the 90s to this utterly fucked up one that's 6/3 and has Brett Kavanaugh on it. You're sliding into "FE" again.
It's not as blatant or silly as Leon's latest effort - which I won't be biting on - but it's there alright.
If you were interested in American politics at the time, you would have encountered the belief among the progressive that The Court was the key to their agenda, since the Republicans could at block the supra majorities required to legislate effectively. Control the court, you’ve got civil rights, gay marriage etc etc…
You’d have thought that Clarence Thomas would have been a wake up call, but no.
If you keep adding Federalist Society approved judges to the court, at some point they have a majority. To enact what the Federalist Society is all about. Which is what just happened.
There’s nothing especially deep in any of that.
It's not deep no. It's "dems and progs shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" sentiment.
Don't buy it tbh. Comes from the same stable as "Trump is a symptom not a cause".
Nope. It’s simple maths - if you make control of The Supreme Court your point of failure, you invite an attempt to take control of it by your opponents.
As Herman Kahn observed, enemies are often like that - doing the most inconvenient thing possible, for you. Almost as if they have it in for you.
What was needed was to reinforce success on a broad and deep front. OK, getting an abortion amendment through might not be possible immediately. Get the Amendment written and ratified by as many states as you can. Write as much protection for abortion into law as possible. Get to work winning more states, by hook or crook. Find 50 versions of Stacey Abrams.
What you're doing is rooting around the past and finding ways to "explain" what's happened which divert blame from the pure and simple culprits (GOP and Trump).
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
You are missing the point - single points of failure always fail. This one failed. In order to understand the future, you need to understand the past.
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm not missing your point I'm telling you what your point is an example of. It's an example of focusing on what the victim of a crime could have done to prevent it rather than on how to apprehend and charge the culprit.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
People warned the Dems what was coming down the road. They didn’t listen.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
One of the lesser mentioned culprits as to what has just happened is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result. .
That completely critical political decisions swing on the egos and whims of individuals, either pressured to stay on or stand down depending on the situation, is pretty bonkers.
I can only assume it has already occurred that Justices have been ill or been going barmy but resisted going out of fear who would replace them.
Mandatory retirement dates would not only be the right thing to do, it would remove that pressure on Democratic or Republican justices.
Would require a change to the Constitution. Not going to happen, which is a shame since it would be the most sensible, and non partisan reform.
Obviously not going to happen, but lifetime power? I know some people managed to live to very old age when they wrote it, but the framers surely cannot have intended the prospect of so many potential decades being such a common prospect even with long serving being intended.
Was Jill Dando murdered by mistake? Did an incompetent Russian hitman mistake her for a different BBC journalist?
French #MeToo sex assault case hears bombshell claim a Russian mafia hitman was dispatched to London to 'deal with' a blonde undercover BBC reporter whose doctor was Jill Dando's fiancée... weeks later Crimewatch host Jill was shot dead on her doorstep Bombshell court documents suggest Jill Dando's murder was a mistake French court heard Lisa Brinkworth could have been the real target in the death Gerald Marie, 72, the former boss of the Elite modelling agency, is being investigated over alleged sexual assaults and rapes involving at least 11 women He is accused also of hiring a member of the Russian mafia to kill Brinkworth https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10955217/French-court-hears-Russian-hitman-dispatched-kill-blonde-reporter-Jill-Dando-shot.html
Patient uses pliers to pull own teeth as true horror of NHS dentist crisis exposed There has an exodus of around 3,000 dentists since the last Covid lockdown, many saying a perverse payment structure leaves them carrying out some NHS treatments at a loss https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/patient-uses-pliers-pull-teeth-27332751
I am also reading recently (and I don't have sources or even know that this is a fact), that one of the reasons that Russia is gaining ground is that they have massive missile stockpiles and that their production speed is such that they can carry this on indefinitely. The West doesn't have huge stockpiles, and the production process is a lot slower and more expensive - like years. This would make sense - it's not shortage of sophisticated weaponry to send; it's physically not having the ammo.
Are they gaining ground net or are they concentrating all their forced in one small space at the expense of Ukrainian advances elsewhere?
Is LuckyGuy typing from a St Petersburg office room?
(In all seriousness he, and others, should read "We are Bellingcat". A very good story of how Bellingcat started, and how the likes of LuckyGuy are worse than the 'useful idiot' moniker they usually get called.)
A stupid post, as those which feature that dickless wink emoji invariably are. You have understood neither the linked article, nor the other point about ammunition resupply.
But by all means continue to analyse the war at the G A Henty kind of level at which you are obviously very comfortable.
A pretty stupid article, though. The point about a long war is a decent one, but the conclusion daft. If we want to shorten the war, we must give Ukraine sufficient weapons to defeat the invasion before winter.
The idea that this can be settled by forcing Ukraine to concede territory, and then accept neutral status is utterly delusional. Grant Russia what it wants from its brutal and illegal invasion, and another round will inevitably follow.
But that assumes it is comfortably within the gift of NATO to provide sufficient weapons and that there are sufficient Ukrainian forces to use them to drive the Russians from Ukraine.
NATO Governments have not exactly been stingey, but the demands are insatiable. It doesn't seem to me that it's simply a question of being a bit more liberal with the purse strings.
The two most important decisions made in recent decades by the Supreme Court are the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (aka Obamacare) and the reversal of Roe. In both, the court chose to defer to elected legislatures; in both Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority.
I see a consistency in his deference that others may not. I do think that any fair-minded person will find his long legal career impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts
(Incidentally, some analysts think that Obama could have done better politically by putting economic recovery ahead of Obamacare, rather than the other way around. He certainly could have done better, long term, had he been willing to listen to Republicans in his first months in office.)
I broadly agree with you.
While I think that abortion (up until a point, obviously) should be legal, I also think that it is the job of legislators to make that decision not members of the Supreme Court. And yes, I realise that will have some shitty consequences for women. But in total, that harm is less bad than allowing judges to make law.
That, of course, leads me to be very rude about the Supreme Court overturning New York's century old law on concealed carry permits.
It is far from clear to me - or to lawyers or Supreme Courts over the last 100 years - that the law was in any way in conflict with:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The two most important decisions made in recent decades by the Supreme Court are the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (aka Obamacare) and the reversal of Roe. In both, the court chose to defer to elected legislatures; in both Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority.
I see a consistency in his deference that others may not. I do think that any fair-minded person will find his long legal career impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts
(Incidentally, some analysts think that Obama could have done better politically by putting economic recovery ahead of Obamacare, rather than the other way around. He certainly could have done better, long term, had he been willing to listen to Republicans in his first months in office.)
I broadly agree with you.
While I think that abortion (up until a point, obviously) should be legal, I also think that it is the job of legislators to make that decision not members of the Supreme Court. And yes, I realise that will have some shitty consequences for women. But in total, that harm is less bad than allowing judges to make law.
That, of course, leads me to be very rude about the Supreme Court overturning New York's century old law on concealed carry permits.
It is far from clear to me - or to lawyers or Supreme Courts over the last 100 years - that the law was in any way in conflict with:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes abortion should be decided at state level in the US, as should gay marriage and gun control. Just as the US SC also agreed the large expansion in Medicaid proposed by Obamacare should be up to the states.
Really in the US the Federal government should mainly be there for foreign policy and defence and Federal Crimes and Security and the tax to fund that
The two most important decisions made in recent decades by the Supreme Court are the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (aka Obamacare) and the reversal of Roe. In both, the court chose to defer to elected legislatures; in both Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority.
I see a consistency in his deference that others may not. I do think that any fair-minded person will find his long legal career impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts
(Incidentally, some analysts think that Obama could have done better politically by putting economic recovery ahead of Obamacare, rather than the other way around. He certainly could have done better, long term, had he been willing to listen to Republicans in his first months in office.)
You're incorrect that Roberts was in the majority on reversing Roe v Wade. He voted to uphold the Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks BUT his grounds were different from the conservative justices. So the vote to find for Mississippi was 6-3, but the vote to overturn Roe was 5-4.
It's a really imporrtant distinction and underlines that Roberts is no longer the swing justice is a very stark way. In recent years, his compromise would have been crucial. Now, it's so irrelevant that you understandably (but wrongly) said he was with the majority on the key question.
Absolutely, but a referendum announcement usually prompts a flurry of polls. We have… none. Which looks suspicious.
They know it is just more bluff to keep kicking it down the road . She is running out of road, all the stolen money , perjury case et c can only be held up for so long. Many of these crooks will get their day in court.
Sorry Malc, I am genuinely losing the plot. You are pro-independence but anti-Sturgeon, have I got that right?
Yes indeed, she is all talk and no action and crooked into the bargain. She is wrecking scotland, her and her bunch of self id creeps and gravy trainers. They have no principles.
Ok, interesting.
Presumably, if and when Scotland became independent, the SNP would fragment anyway. I can't see a one-party state happening.
The best , indeed only, way to get rid of the SNP is independence. I’ll be offski as soon as the ink is dry.
You wouldn't. You ceased to be a Scot Nat campaigner here a long time ago, because you began to enjoy commenting and reading for their own sakes. It's the same in all cases, regardless of whatever 'good fight' you came here to fight. You should just embrace it.
Could be wrong, but I think most Nat posters would likely leave PB following independence. Why would you care about what England was up to following independence?
For the same reason that well-educated English people pay attention to current affairs in the whole planet. It is in our interests to be well-informed about English affairs, and if you manage to filter out the guff, PB has the full spectrum.
Here's the Washington Post's latest assessment of the war in Ukraine: 'The Russian military will soon exhaust its combat capabilities and be forced to bring its offensive in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region to a grinding halt, according to Western intelligence predictions and military experts.
“There will come a time when the tiny advances Russia is making become unsustainable in light of the costs and they will need a significant pause to regenerate capability,” said a senior Western official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. . . . But conditions for Ukrainian troops are only likely to improve as more sophisticated Western weapons arrive, while those of Russian forces can be expected to deteriorate as they dig deeper into their stocks of old, outdated equipment, said retired Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. forces in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. At some point in the coming months, the Ukrainians will have received enough Western weaponry that it is likely they will be able to go on the counteroffensive and reverse the tide of the war, he said.' source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/25/ukraine-russia-balance-of-forces/
Hodges believes "that things are going to be trending in favor of the Ukrainians in the next few weeks."
The Post cites another analyst by name, Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at the Center for Naval Analysis, in support of this optimistic assessment.
That's been very much the @MrEd view, and is one I fervently hope is true.
Mail claims today that Putin has sacked yet another senior commander and dragged some 20 stone alcoholic former commander out of retirement to manage the mess.
No w at that bag of blubber was only 20 stone, minimum 30
Comments
Ah, I see I am second best with that observation, so I will add the corollary
“A liberal is a conservative who has been to prison”
I think of Jonathan Aitken, MP
Tons of houses have been destroyed in such a manner, over the years, by gas explosions
http://margaretmuirauthor.blogspot.com/2014/09/its-fact-all-boys-were-once-called.html?m=1
@mccaffreyr3
These are the angry voices of a desperate Putin. Utter military nonsense from a beleaguered second tier economic and military power. Torpedo oil tankers in Dutch ports… really? Use tac nukes against the EU? These rants should horrify the Russian people.
https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/1541092958065156097
I suspect Russia's next step will be to call in ammunition and other supplies from its client states to help maintain its own supplies. But there is a limit to that.
Like @rcs1000 I hope I'm right. Let's see.
Q: What's the difference between the IRA and the Gas board?
A: The IRA phone to warn you before they blow up your house.
Why are you replying to people with the quote inverted btw?
Nah, still a conservative. Just not a pussy
I see a consistency in his deference that others may not. I do think that any fair-minded person will find his long legal career impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts
(Incidentally, some analysts think that Obama could have done better politically by putting economic recovery ahead of Obamacare, rather than the other way around. He certainly could have done better, long term, had he been willing to listen to Republicans in his first months in office.)
In response to your point, you've either deliberately or not missed mine. The Democrats shouldn't have messed with the filibuster. You can't expect one side to change things and then whinge when the other side decides to follow suit. was because
The virtue of democracy is largely in having a fairly peaceful revolution every 4-5 years. That used to take 10% of the population dying….
It's similar to the efforts of some with Putin and Ukraine. If this, if that etc. It's not uninteresting but I just find it a bit of an overthink and a distraction.
What a belter!!!
He has promised to give up his Turkish citizenship, should he be elected, which seems sensible.
I don't know whether a reporter has asked him about the Armenian genocide, but the issue does come up in Congress from time to time.
(There are times when I almost think Trump was a Democratic plant, intended to damage the Republican Party. Almost. And it does appear to be true that his friend, Bill Clinton, encouraged him to run for the presidency.)
Why is finding the next (50) Stacey Abrams’ not a Democrat priority? Texas is close to flippable - could be done on differential turnout. Massive investment in grass roots. Take back the school boards, one by one.
I'm too cool for school!
Monarchy and Parliament: A brief history
Join our expert guide as we explore the intertwined relationship between Parliament and the monarchy. Uncover the key moments that influenced a move from a sovereign-driven body to the Parliament of today, including the constitutional role played by Queen Elizabeth II during her 70-year reign so far.
Beginning with the origins of the first Parliament in the 13th century, discover how the power balance between monarch and Parliament impacted the country. Understand how the Tudors managed their legislative body, while the tensions between the House of Commons and Charles I led to the English Civil War, and eventually the creation of a constitutional monarchy.
This event lasts 45 minutes. At the end of the talk, 15 minutes are available for you to ask questions.
https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/
No, I did get your point. If NATO hadn't expanded eastwards Putin wouldn't have invaded ... type thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00psr9j/qi-series-g-7-girls-and-boys?seriesId=b00p71r2
Which is why the U.K. Supreme Court ran a mile at the idea of using equality legislation to effectively block changes to pensions and benefits, years back. IIRC they explicitly put in their judgement that this was legislative stuff and hence reserved for Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_length_of_tenure
Not an issue on which there was as much division, admittedly, at least not now, so not as risky to urge a change.
Imagine a government here enacts an immigration policy with a racial element. What do you think should happen?
You could make history Boris, like you want!
And what proportion of those mugged at gunpoint want to see all controls on firearms removed ?
A liberal is a conservative who discovers empathy.
Very Bob Fosse staging would you agree? He is good as not just writer (Nobel Prize winning) but is a performer too. I love myself, we are going to be alright, Godspeed womens writes whilst gradually covered in blood from his own crown of thorns. What’s not to like.
But I wonder if it occurred to him, he’s just about the only black man on the entire campsite.
And sure, the Dems must fight back. 50 Staceys and flipping Texas and grass roots energy etc all sound good to me.
No, the NATO a analogy is the wrong one. Reid had the right obviously to make the change. But he was warned it would mean the GOP a would feel they could do the same. Which is what happened.
If you want to flog the NATO analogy, a better (hypothetical) analogy would be NATO expanded eastwards so Russia decided to co-opt Turkey into its defence sphere. Sure, NATO had the right to expand eastwards. And Russia had the right to make a pact with Turkey, even if it threatened western interests.
@williamnhutton
·
1h
You may be enjoying tonight’s BBC coverage of Glastonbury ( I am) and looking forward to the BBC on Wimbledon( I am) . Just remember.Nadine Dorries, Johnson and their party want to kill the BBC stone dead. Vandalism - and all to ensure the national debate is wholly right wing.
Had it been about “property or contract rights”, Alito states he might have respected the stare decisis doctrine. Women’s bodily autonomy is compared unfavourably to such important matters.
We're talking Kendrick the US rapper. Very powerful set he's just done - and finished with something topical on womens rights.
Have recorded the Pet Shop Boys so no spoilers there please.
That’s not victim blaming. If nothing else, the Dems aren’t the victims.
Something that just occurs - is abortion on the list of super duper health care that Congress critters get for free, for life?
She knew she was old and not much longer for this world when Obama was POTUS and could choose her successor, but she refused to retire and allowed the Court to end up 6-3 as a result.
If the Court was 5-4 I don't think they'd have pulled the trigger, despite the numbers being there, it was the fact that it was now 6-3 and will be likely for decades to come now that made it so comfortable for them to be able to pull this stunt.
… We start with Roe and Casey, and with their deep connections to a broad swath of this Court’s precedents. To hear the majority tell the tale, Roe and Casey are aberrations: They came from nowhere, went nowhere—and so are easy to excise from this Nation’s constitutional law. That is not true. After describing the decisions themselves, we explain how they are rooted in—and themselves led to—other rights giving individuals control over their bodies and their most personal and intimate associations. The majority does not wish to talk about these matters for obvious reasons; to do so would both ground Roe and Casey in this Court’s prec- edents and reveal the broad implications of today’s decision. But the facts will not so handily disappear. Roe and Casey were from the beginning, and are even more now, embedded in core constitutional concepts of individual freedom, and of the equal rights of citizens to decide on the shape of their lives. Those legal concepts, one might even say, have gone far toward defining what it means to be an American. For in this Nation, we do not believe that a government controlling all private choices is compatible with a free people. So we do not (as the majority insists today) place everything within “the reach of majorities and [government] officials.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). We believe in a Constitution that puts some issues off limits to majority rule. Even in the face of public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals—yes, including women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures. Or at least, we did once…
A bad government can be voted out, a bad Court can not. Imagine the Supreme Court implements rules with a racial element, Kinabalu, what do you think should happen?
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Anyway, thanks and tbc.
Boris Johnson claims he has never told a lie during his entire political career
https://twitter.com/mark50251/status/1540927702978502658
I can only assume it has already occurred that Justices have been ill or been going barmy but resisted going out of fear who would replace them.
Mandatory retirement dates would not only be the right thing to do, it would remove that pressure on Democratic or Republican justices.
Not going to happen, which is a shame since it would be the most sensible, and non partisan reform.
Parents, never tell your kids that confidence is all that matters.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10955193/Britain-3bn-fraud-capital-world-Probe-reveals-40m-targeted-scammers-2022.html
French #MeToo sex assault case hears bombshell claim a Russian mafia hitman was dispatched to London to 'deal with' a blonde undercover BBC reporter whose doctor was Jill Dando's fiancée... weeks later Crimewatch host Jill was shot dead on her doorstep
Bombshell court documents suggest Jill Dando's murder was a mistake
French court heard Lisa Brinkworth could have been the real target in the death
Gerald Marie, 72, the former boss of the Elite modelling agency, is being investigated over alleged sexual assaults and rapes involving at least 11 women
He is accused also of hiring a member of the Russian mafia to kill Brinkworth
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10955217/French-court-hears-Russian-hitman-dispatched-kill-blonde-reporter-Jill-Dando-shot.html
Patient uses pliers to pull own teeth as true horror of NHS dentist crisis exposed
There has an exodus of around 3,000 dentists since the last Covid lockdown, many saying a perverse payment structure leaves them carrying out some NHS treatments at a loss
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/patient-uses-pliers-pull-teeth-27332751
There's an interesting article on a central European-based (or so it appears) website that someone posted an article from a long time ago and I continue to dip in. The article is the first I've seen that attempts to compare weapons delivered or pledged with weapons asked for: https://www.intellinews.com/ukraine-has-been-clear-that-it-needs-more-weapons-from-the-west-so-what-s-the-holdup-248600/?source=ukraine
NATO Governments have not exactly been stingey, but the demands are insatiable. It doesn't seem to me that it's simply a question of being a bit more liberal with the purse strings.
While I think that abortion (up until a point, obviously) should be legal, I also think that it is the job of legislators to make that decision not members of the Supreme Court. And yes, I realise that will have some shitty consequences for women. But in total, that harm is less bad than allowing judges to make law.
That, of course, leads me to be very rude about the Supreme Court overturning New York's century old law on concealed carry permits.
It is far from clear to me - or to lawyers or Supreme Courts over the last 100 years - that the law was in any way in conflict with:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Really in the US the Federal government should mainly be there for foreign policy and defence and Federal Crimes and Security and the tax to fund that
New Thread
It's a really imporrtant distinction and underlines that Roberts is no longer the swing justice is a very stark way. In recent years, his compromise would have been crucial. Now, it's so irrelevant that you understandably (but wrongly) said he was with the majority on the key question.