#ALSO. CARE TO REMIND US WHO PROMISED TO DEFEND ROE V WADE

[999-roses]

YOU WANNA BE ALL TEAM BIDEN=ISRAEL VS TEAM TRUMP=RUSSIA RIGHT NOW? RIGHT T HE FUCK NOW?

75 years of occupation and you WANT TO MAKE THIS ABOUT BIDEN VS TRUMP?!?!!!

just say you don't actually pay attention to geopolitics until it becomes able to be twisted and stretched into a duopoly duel card and go

Guess who backs Putin? MAGA.

Our terrorists listen to FOX and regurgitate 'stop the steal'/election denial Russian playbook.

The antisemitism that runs throughout the Right Wing [see: globalists] runs straight to Hamas and Putin.

Putin wants to eliminate Israel, Hamas wants to eliminate Israel. See the pattern?

When US and Israeli democracy is under attack, look to Putin, Hamas, and MAGA as the same hateful team.

[theburialofstrawberries]

A friend reminded me today that Biden is basically the reason Clarence Thomas is on the SC and he is of course the most conservative of the lot and accused of sexual assault....I thought this was helpful reading on the overreliance of the judiciary to move progressive agendas which is very much seen in India as well (‘liberal’ judges will fail you as much as they impress you, CJI Misra presided over rampant corruption and gave judgements that eroded the power of state legislatures and empowered the fascist centre...but he also said nice things about gay people in that right to privacy judgement so....)

Yet the last constitutional revolution in the name of democracy, at the height of the New Deal, ended up setting the stage for fifty years of illicit judicial empowerment, in part because it merely pushed judges into promising to exercise restraint.

In the face of an enemy Supreme Court, the only option is for progressives to begin work on a long-term plan to recast the role of fundamental law in our society for the sake of majority rule—disempowering the courts and angling, when they can, to redo our undemocratic constitution itself. This will require taking a few pages from the conservative playbook of the last generation. It is conservatives who stole the originally progressive talking point that we are experiencing “government by judiciary.” It is conservatives who convinced wide swathes of the American people that it is the left, not the right, that too routinely uses constitutional law to enact its policy preferences, no matter what the text says. The truth is the reverse, and progressives need to take back the charge they lost. To do so, they need to abandon their routine temptation to collude with the higher judiciary opportunistically. Progressives must embrace democracy and its risks if they want to avoid the stigma of judicial activism that still haunts them from the past.

Even though the right turned to judicial fiat far more frequently, liberals have taken a long time to give up on black-robed power to enact their preferences. This was most notable in decisions around the right to privacy and so-called “substantive due process.” In making such choices in cases ranging from Roe v. Wade (which secured abortion rights) to Obergefell v. Hodges (which legalized same-sex marriage), liberals entered an unholy alliance with Kennedy, Kavanaugh’s predecessor, to advance gay and women’s rights on a libertarian rationale—defending the free choice of individuals independent of state control—even though that rationale mostly serves business interests in most areas of law. The endangerment or even loss of precedents that the left cares about (such as Roe) is going to be a grievous blow, and no one should celebrate that outcome. But if it is going to happen anyway, then it is time to pivot to a democratic strategy to protect what we care about.

Instead of terrorizing the court into moving through various court-packing schemes, it is a much better and bolder choice for the left to stand up for reforms that will take the last word from it. Jurisdiction-stripping statutes, tools to bar the judiciary from considering cases on certain topics such as abortion or affirmative action, are not clearly unconstitutional even under current legal doctrine. Indeed, the right has used such statutes for years to limit access to courts for immigrants and prisoners. Other changes in customs and precedent could also weaken judicial supremacy. For example, by choice under pressure or compulsion through law, the Supreme Court could evolve into an advisory body, especially when the justices disagree. Such steps would force progressives to take their case to the people to win majorities for their policies, including in places across the country they have given up for lost.

The United States still looks to the higher judiciary to act on behalf of the country’s principles and values, even when basic study proves that judges are partisan and that partisanship only increases when they are given the power to decide the highest stakes questions. The mythology of constitutional law dies hard. The notion that empowering judges would serve progressive outcomes is a flickering star that collapsed long ago, and it is long since time to accept the dying of the light. A legal culture less oriented to the judiciary and more to public service in obtaining and using democratic power in legislatures at all levels is the sole path to progress now. In fact, it always has been.

http://bostonreview.net/law-justice/samuel-moyn-resisting-juristocracy

[alex51324]

SCOTUS Nomination:  What’s normal and what isn’t

The fact that Trump is in a position to make a Supreme Court nomination is flagrantly not-normal, as is the manner in which he chose to make that nomination.  The nominee himself is basically normal--which, for this administration, is pretty weird.  

First, everyone already knows this, but it bears repeating that Trump is only able to nominate a Supreme Court justice, in the second week of his term, because the GOP Senate held the seat open for nearly a year, which is absolutely Not Normal.  The GOP attempted to claim that this move was acceptable because it took place during President Obama’s “lame duck year.” This argument is complete horseshit.  The lame duck period is the time between the election and the inauguration; there is no such thing as a “lame duck year.”  Additionally, actual lame duck period is not a concept with any legal definition, and the president’s powers are not in any way limited during such a period.  

It’s also worth noting that this, the most substantial abnormality of this Supreme Court nomination cycle, is not Trump’s doing.  The GOP started this farce before he was even chosen as their nominee.  Many people--me included--have expressed hopes that the GOP will rein in their out-of-control executive, but such hopes should be tempered by the knowledge that these people are, by and large, perfectly happy to put party before country.  

Second, most have probably also heard that Trump named his choice in a reality-show-esque stunt, calling a prime-time press conference at which he reportedly planned to have both “finalists” appear.  It even seemed as if the nominee himself might be finding out at the same moment we did.  It’s unclear whether the plan was to actually do that, or if the White House was just waving that idea in front of the public for the lulz, but either way, it didn’t happen.  Gorsuch was told at some point before the official announcement that he had been chosen, and the runner-up was not made to come all the way to DC to learn he’d be voted off the island.  

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate puts forward a strong argument for why we should care about this stunt:  it symbolizes Trump’s contempt for the Constitution, the Judicial Branch, and the rule of law, and undermines the idea of judicial independence by compelling an individual who will likely be our next Supreme Court justice to participate in a degrading spectacle for the amusement of the Chief Executive.  (Is anyone else reminded of Stalin forcing the overweight Khrushchev to do the “Cossack dance”?  Obviously, we haven’t reached the point where Gorsuch would realistically fear being shot if he refused to perform, but the impulse seems similar.)  

On the other hand, as I’ll discuss below, the nominee, Judge Gorsuch, is basically a reasonable and qualified choice for the job.   At this point, twelve days into the Trump presidency, things have sunk so far that I’m starting to think, if Trump were willing to make rational policy choices in return for being allowed to present them in the manner of a reality-show huckster, that might be an acceptable compromise.  (And that’s pretty much how I imagine the conversation between Trump and whoever was pulling his strings on this particular issue--they picked the nominee, but let him plan the announcement.  To be clear, this is purely a guess, but can’t you just picture it?)

Finally, a quick look at the nominee himself.  To be clear, this is not a nomination progressives of any stripe can be happy about.  Remember the Hobby Lobby case, in which it was determined that a corporation can have a religious belief, and that that religious belief, held in this case by a chain of crappy craft stores, supersedes the right of individual human beings who work for that chain of stores to have health insurance that covers birth control?  This is that guy.  I mean, literally, it’s that guy.  He wrote the decision, which his (likely) future colleagues on the Supreme Court upheld.  

But, he possesses the usual and customary qualifications of a potential Supreme Court justice.  The overwhelming consensus so far, from conservative and progressive commentators alike is that this is a completely normal nominee--someone any of the candidates in the GOP clown car last spring (when the seat became vacant) might have chosen.  Unlike many of the individuals Trump has chosen for his cabinet, Gorsuch believes that position for which he has been nominated should exist.  He has an appropriate and normal background--he’s currently a judge on the US Court of Appeals, 10th circuit, while if Trump were treating this vacancy the way he does his cabinet, we might expect to see him nominate a lawyer who has built his career defending corporations--or, perhaps, the editor of a Nazi website.  Gorsuch is not that.  He is well-liked by colleagues of both progressive and conservative views, and is considered to be intelligent and well-spoken.  His views, while definitely conservative, are not outside the conservative mainstream.  In one encouraging sign, he spoke out against the GOP’s refusal to even consider confirming Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the seat for which he has now been nominated.  He also doesn’t have much of a track record on abortion:  in the campaign, Trump promised evangelicals a Supreme Court justice who would overturn Roe. v. Wade.  Right now, progressive commentators are talking about concerns that he’ll do just that--and evangelical ones are worrying that he won’t.  

But the final, and most abnormally-normal thing about this appointment may be that it demonstrates a tool we didn’t know Trump had in his toolbox:  playing the game the way she is played.  GOPers are reportedly relieved that he’s made such a noncontroversial choice, giving them something to talk about other than Trump screwing up.  As of this writing, Democrats seem to be standing firm on their plan to oppose any Trump nominee, but I for one am worried they’ll falter.  With such a bland nominee, the only frame for resistance is retaliation for the GOP’s blockade of Garland--which we can expect the GOP will waste no time in painting as hypocritical, low-road obstructionism:  basically Democratic kryptonite.  GOPers do not give a single fuck about being accused of hypocrisy, but they sure know that it stops Democrats in their tracks.