#scotus is going to have a supermajority

[jodielandons]

2016: I was 17 and when I woke up and saw the results I couldn’t even talk I was just crying.

2024: This time will probably be much worse, but I can’t even cry I just feel numb and hopeless.

[thunderheadfred]

In the last few weeks of rulings, SCOTUS has begun to dismantle the administrative state, legalize bribery, and devastate the government’s ability to regulate corporations. Today, the conservative supermajority - two of whom should have recused themselves for obvious conflicts of interest - have ruled that a president has absolute immunity for “official acts” in office, which Trump’s team argued before the court could include assassinating political rivals and introducing fake slates of electors. Trump will likely not go to trial before the election in any of the major cases against him, not for leading an insurrection, not for rigging the election in Georgia, and not for espionage.

If he is elected he will dismiss all charges, pardon and release insurrectionists, and immediately replace everyone in Washington with sycophantic loyalists. The people who barely stopped him from launching nuclear missiles whenever he felt like it will not be around to stop him on a second go around.

Trump openly wants military tribunals and death sentences for his political opponents. He wants concentration camps for immigrants. His jet was just spotted parked next to Putin’s on an isolated portion of tarmac at Dulle’s airport for two days. He has stolen nuclear secrets and sold war plans to foreign nations. He has offered one billion dollars to oil companies and promised to overturn every measly environmental protection we have standing between us and planetary collapse. He is part of a vast existential threat to democracy worldwide, and that is not a conspiracy. It’s all right there.

I don’t care if Biden dies tomorrow and his corpse is hauled around Weekend at Bernie’s style by his cabinet. He’s still the better choice. Not voting is a vote for Trump. A vote for RFK is a vote for Trump.

We live in unbelievable times. Vote accordingly.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Red-teaming the SCOTUS code of conduct

Tomorrow (November 18) at 1PM, I'll be in Concord, NH at Gibson's Books, presenting my new novel The Lost Cause, a preapocalyptic tale of hope in the climate emergency.

On Monday (November 20), I'm at the Simsbury, CT Public Library at 7PM

Last April, Propublica's Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski dropped a bombshell: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had been showered in high-ticket "gifts" by billionaire ideologue Harlan Crow, who subsequently benefited from Thomas's rulings in the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

This was just the beginning: in the coming days and weeks, more and more of Thomas's corruption came to light, everything from the fact that his mother's home had been bought by Crow, to the fact that Thomas's adoptive son went to a fancy private school on Crow's dime:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

The news was explosive and not merely because of the corruption it revealed in the country's highest court. The credibility of the court itself was at its lowest ebb in living memory, thanks to the two judges who occupied stolen seats – Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. One of those judges – Kavanaugh – is a credibly accused rapist. Thomas is also a credibly accused sexual abuser:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/01/30-years-after-her-testimony-anita-hill-still-wants-something-from-joe-biden-514884

Then, this illegitimate court went on to deliver a string of upsets to long-settled law, culminating in the Dobbs decision, which triggered state laws that force small children to bear their rapists' babies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/health/abortion-bans-rape-incest.html

That was the context for the Thomas bribery scandal, which was swiftly joined by another bribery scandal, involving Samuel Alito's improper acceptance of valuable gifts from Paul Singer, another billionaire who brought business before the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

This string of scandals and outrages naturally prompted public curiosity about the Supreme Court's ethical standards, and that triggered fresh waves of incredulous outrage when we all found out that the Supreme Court doesn't have any:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/why-doesnt-the-supreme-court-have-a-formal-code-of-ethics/

When Congress made tentative noises about providing minor checks and balances on the court, the justices erupted in outrage, telling Congress to go fuck itself:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-ethics-durbin/cf67ef8450ea024d/full.pdf

Chief Justice Roberts went on whatever the opposite of a charm-offensive is called (an "offense offensive?"), a media tour whose key message to the American people was "STFU, you're hurting our feelings":

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/roberts-defends-high-court-against-attacks-on-its-legitimacy

To the shock of no one except billionaires and Supreme Court justices inhabiting the splendid isolation from societal norms that is the privilege of life tenure, America didn't like this. The Supreme Court's credibility plummeted. A large supermajority of Americans – 79%! – now support age limits for Supreme Court justices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/18/the-people-no/#tell-ya-what-i-want-what-i-really-really-want

Support for packing the Supreme Court is at an historic high and gaining ground, now sitting neck-and-neck with opposition at 46% in favor/51% opposed. Among under-30s, there's a healthy majority (58%) in favor of appointing more SCOTUS justices.

As Roberts' wounded bleats reveal, SCOTUS is very sensitive to its plummeting legitimacy. After all, the court doesn't have an army, nor does it have a police force. Supreme Court rulings only matter to the extent that the American people accept them as legitimate and obey them. Transformational presidents like Lincoln and FDR have waged successful wars against the Supreme Court, sidelining its authority and turning it into an unimportant rump institution for years afterward:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

Now the Supremes are working their way through the (mythological but convenient) five stages of grief. Having passed through Denial and Anger, they've arrived at Bargaining, with the publication of the court's first "code" "of" "conduct":

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

It's…not good. As Max Moran writes for The American Prospect and The Revolving Door Project, the proposed code amounts to "security theater," a set of trivially bypassed strictures that would not have prevented any of the scandals to date and will permit far worse in the years to come:

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-11-17-supreme-court-objectivity-theater/

The security framing is a very useful tool for evaluating the Supremes' proposal. The purpose of a code of conduct isn't merely to prevent people from accidentally misstepping – it's to prevent malicious parties from corrupting the judicial process. To evaluate the code, we should red team it: imagine what harms a corrupt judge or a corrupting billionaire would be able to effect while staying within the bounds the code sets.

Seen in that light, the code is wildly defective and absolutely not fit for purpose. Its most glaring defect is found in the nature of its edicts – they are almost all optional. The word "should" appears 53 times in the document, while "must" appears just six times:

https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accountability/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-hilariously-fake/

Of those six "musts," two are not pertinent to ethical questions (they pertain to the requirement for a justice to get prior approval before getting paid for teaching gigs).

When the code of conduct was rolled out, the court and its apologists pointed out that it was modeled on the ethical guidelines that bind lower courts. In the wake of the Thomas revelations, these guidelines were a useful benchmark to measure Thomas's conduct against. The fact that other federal judges would have been severely sanctioned or even fired if they had engaged in the same conduct as Thomas was a powerful argument that Thomas had overstepped the bounds of ethical conduct.

But as Bloomberg Law discovered when they compared the lower courts' codes to the Supremes' draft, the Supremes have gone through those lower court codes and systematically cut nearly every mention of "enforce" from their own draft. They also cut the requirement to "take appropriate action" if a violation is reported.

If you are a bad judge or a bad donor, all of this is good news. Nearly everything that it condemns is merely optional, which means that if a judge can be convinced to ignore a rule, they won't have violated the code. What's more, even widespread rulebreaking doesn't trigger an investigation. That's a very weak security measure indeed.

But it gets worse. The Supremes' code also omit key definitions found in the codes that bind the lower courts. The most important definition to be cut is for "political organization," which the lower courts define expansively as both parties and "entit[ies] whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties." That definition captures "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups" – the whole panoply of organizations whom federal judges must maintain an arm's length distance from in order to preserve their objectivity. Federal judges may not lead, speak at or donate to these organizations.

By omitting this definition, the Supremes open the door to involvement with precisely the kinds of PACs, thinktanks and other influence organizations funded by the billionaires who have benefited so handsomely from the judges' rulings.

What's more, the Supremes carve out an explicit exemption for speaking to "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups," and to serving as a director, trustee or officer of "a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds."

As Moran points out, this exemption would cover – among other institutions – the far-right Federalist Society, which satisfies all those criteria. That means a Supreme Court justice could sit on the board and raise funds for the FedSoc without raising any issues with this code – not even one of those squishy "shoulds." Nothing in this code would stop Clarence Thomas or Thomas Alito from accepting lavish gifts, private jet rides, or luxury tour buses from billionaires with business before the court:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-thomas-267000-loan-rv-forgiven-senate-democrats-104303972

As Moran writes, these definitional vacuums are a well-understood class of weaknesses in ethics codes. Congress gets a lot of mileage out of this ruse – for example, by narrowly defining "lobbying" to exclude things that most people understand that term to mean, Congress engage in improperly close relations with lobbyists while still maintaining that they hardly ever talk to a lobbyist at all:

https://www.politico.eu/article/jeff-hauser-opinion-watergate-european-union-qatargate/

The same ruse goes for campaign contributions – if you want to accept a lot of campaign contributions that would fall afoul of ethics rules, just narrow the definition of "campaign contribution" until all the money you're receiving no longer qualifies.

Moran closes by calling on Congress to formulate a real, meaningful code of conduct for the Supremes, one that orders Supreme Court judges not to accept corrupting gifts and to maintain the arm's length neutrality that the rest of the federal judiciary is required to keep. Rather than this new code of conduct constituting proof that SCOTUS can be its own oversight, its gross deficiencies should put to rest any question about whether the Supremes can be trusted to regulate themselves.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/17/red-team-black-robes/#security-theater

Image: Senate Democrats (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Supreme_Court_Building,_July_21,_2020.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[carsonjonesfiance]

I think we could be looking at Republicans overturning Brown v The Board of Education at this point and repealing the 19th amendment as well

So I was slightly exaggerating when I said they want to overturn Loving v Virginia, because as long as Thomas is on the SCOTUS he’s not going to invalidate his own marriage (probably). With Brown, the only thing I could see happening is them using it as a spring board for School Choice somehow but I don’t think they’ll actually touch it.

And the good news with any Constitutional amendments is that they are by definition Constitutional so the SCOTUS can’t touch them as part of the system of Checks and Balances so the only way to repeal it is to pass another amendment (which requires a supermajority in Congress) and Republicans have not had the ability to get for a very long time.

[underlockv]

No one really wants to talk about election stuff much I'm sure but I do think if you're going to claim voting for one candidate over another you do you diligence and actually look at what someone's done while in office. If you're serious about your political action, feel free to read further. Keep in mind I am not American, but unfortunately the entire world is affected by American politics.

I saw a post recently saying "hey I know everyone's saying theres no difference between parties at this point but its so important you vote for the lesser evil because of workers rights and environmentalism and gaza(because the other guy is worse!)" when if they had actually looked at what the person they insist is a champion of those things has done on those fronts I think they wouldn't be saying so (though for gaza they at least dont say he is doing well on that front, thank you for that at least , bad liberal politics post).

I don't like being a downer, and I don't like the idea of spreading nihilistic hopelessness, but if you shout from the rooftops a candidate or a party is doing wonders in these areas and they actually are not, that's misinformation. That helps no one.

Honestly the way certain people get complacent when they vote in the "good" party worries me greatly. "As long as I vote in these guys, everything will be done right! I can stop worrying and stop paying attention." And then those guys are doing the exact same stuff, but with polite language on top to hide the crime of it.

"I believe in workers' rights" as you quash a rail strike that is the difference between rail safety both for employees and communities near the tracks kind of thing.

Not like there was an environmental crisis over that recently? Oh but they paid a 15 million dollar fine (a company worth 48.87 billion, so a tiny fee to continue to criminally understaff trains overwork operators, and pay them nothing).

"Its a great tragedy what is happened in Gaza" as you bypass congress to send more weapons to Isreal. And to say Trump wants to nuke Gaza? He probably has said so, he won't because Isreal wants to keep the land habitable so they can have all of it. There is no "worse" here. The guy in power already signed carte blanche for Isreal to kill every Palestinian. If we can't reach Biden on this issue, it doesn't matter we can't reach Trump. In this instance specifically, there is no difference, If you're pretending Nukes are an actual option you clearly do not understand what is happening in this situation at all. This is fucking horrible and I feel like throwing myself out a window over the fact nearly every western superpower is supporting this genocide, but to state "oh, the other guy would do genocide HARDER" there isn't harder here. The most you can argue is "he will also do the same shit". Thanks, we know (also I will continue to do all I can to help Palestinians be it protest, mutual aid funds, donation drives, and vocal unerring support because I'm sure the people perpetuating this genocide would love if people against them did throw themselves out windows).

I wish people were more honest about their motivations here. And especially more honest about the fact they have zero idea on things the party they decided are the "good ones" are actually doing. It makes me feel like someone could tell you "I'm a good person" while spitting in your face and you'd look up wondering why it's raining.

Do I want Trump to win the election? Not at all. All he does is lie and self aggrandize and do whatever the fuck makes him the most money.

The thing is Biden and his party /also/ do all they can to protect the financial interests of their lobbyist backers, often backed by billion dollar corporate interests, this has been made even more legal by SCOTUS recently.

and of course whenever SCOTUS comes up people point to how trump elected these justices doing all this, while also ignoring: Obama had a supermajority while first in office and promised to codify Roe vs Wade into law to enshrine abortion rights and did not.

Why? Well. The only way that really seems to make sense seems to be 1) they didn't really want to enshrine abortion rights or 2) they wanted to keep dangling it just out of reach so you keep voting for them. after all, if they permanently protect women's rights, how can they send you fundraising emails about how women's rights are in question?

The Supreme Court should honestly have been reformed by now anyway, but neither of the parties that rule the United States will ever address it's issues. You basically have a council of sages who take gifts from billionaires running your ultimate law deciding station of government, and no matter what you do you can't fire them. And they are now making policy decisions that say specifically "you can't do anything about us being bribed" and "The president has total immunity while in office". Yet the party in power does nothing about it,

as for that second one you could argue not taking action on rulings they think are wrong proves they are better than the opposition, but saying something is wrong while doing nothing to rectify it says something else to me. It tells me they now have a great new way to fundraise and encourage you to vote.

"Vote for us, or Trump will literally assassinate you! Don't worry I won't though! But I'm not going to do a single thing to repeal it, my hands are tied haha. You wouldn't want the other guy to have this power though? Right? Again, no, I won't do anything to stop this."

>In before a liberal democrat tells me pointing this out is as bad as a vote for trump and asking for anything from a government is treason(I'm not American so good luck bud). Because we all need to sit around and nod politely as the world collapses, after all if people saw the corruption they might (gasp!) not vote! and then the same shit would happen faster.

Though, tbh, and I feel like shit saying this, at least if it was happening under the Republicans you would actually be paying attention and maybe the Democrats would actually be pushing back to at least look like they give a fuck (ineffectually, but it would be cool if you could point to a thing they've done in office effectually to contrast any of this other than say the right words. Actions actually matter).

I don't want things to come to that but as the public stands around doing nothing in the face of these abuses of power, war crimes, and dissolution of worker' rights and the party in power only campaigns off fear and does no positive things to gain votes... what other outcome will there be?

... and even if they did say they were going to do something good now... how could we believe it would actually happen?

[lawbyrhys]

Lawyer Explains The SCOTUS Immunity Ruling: Are Presidents ACTUALLY Totally Immune!?

The amount of times I've had to break this down in the last month is honestly astounding—I'm happy to do it, though. I've noticed a lot of misconception, misunderstanding, and frank misinformation about the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and what it really means for presidential immunity in criminal prosecution. I do not see the ruling being accurately dissected nearly enough in general discussion, so I'm publishing my qualified explanation of it.

Let's break down what their ruling really means.

As I'm sure you're all aware of by now, on July 1, 2024, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that all Presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution as a result of their enshrined "official acts" conducted while in office. What exactly are these official acts, though? Therein lies the problem at hand; it's up to lower courts to figure it out. The ruling was ambitious to a fault, and that was by design. That said, it's not as scary as it reads, nor is it as definite by any means, and I largely blame a lot of the "talking heads" in the mainstream media for not speaking about it in a clear enough manner that even those who don't live and breathe the law can understand it. Let's read an excerpt of the ruling and establish what we're dealing with.

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive Constitutional authority, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

In essence, what this ruling says is that Presidents are protected for official acts but are still held completely liable for any unofficial acts conducted as private citizens, or for personal gain. If it sounds like I'm stating the obvious, it's because I am. The goal of the ruling—backed by the conservative supermajority—isn't to fully absolve the former President of any and all wrongdoing; the goal is to create a litigious nightmare for the lower courts to draw the process out. By not defining what an "official act" really is, they leave the door open for tedious litigation over each and every action. Is it official? Is it unofficial? Let's argue about it—each and every fucking charge, one at a time. It's designed to make it impossible to get a decision in Trump v. The United States before election day. That's literally the entire purpose. Of course, it applies to any other president, too, but within reason and not without litigation.

I've seen it said a lot, statements akin to, "Do what you have to do, Joe!" That's not how this works, though. For Joe Biden to do anything that would be considered a criminal act in a court of law, and be immune in doing so, it would have to be decided by a lower court that the act was an "official" one. I'm not exaggerating when I tell you how mind-numbing the litigation to come is going to be. Every single criminal charge, before it can proceed to trial, must first go through preliminary litigation to decide if the act was "official" or not A trial will then either commence, or the case will be dismissed—dependent on the decision made on the act itself and the "core protection" therein.

I tell people this all the time, and it's partially a joke, that the court's ruling was them shrugging it off their plate; "Here, you guys deal with it!" It's that simple. It really comes down to that they didn't want to decide shit, so they sent it back to the lower courts to begin the long, drawn-out process of evaluating each and every charge to have their "Constitutional authority" determined and go from there. It's an unprecedented ruling, and the ramifications could be detrimental, as Justice Sotomayor outlined in her dissent; it could also turn out to be business as normal. It all depends on how "official" each charge is found to be. Essentially, it's frivalous stalling and an embarrassing misuse of judicial power.

While that's the ruling itself in a nutshell, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least bring up some of the concerns myself and my peers have about the ruling and its implications. Shit, I'm sure many of you who do not know a ton about law still share these concerns, too. Let's cover a couple.

The thing is, we just don't know; that's why we call it unprecedented. A major concern is that it would make any and all prosecution of a president nearly impossible, when almost any action a president conducts while in office could be spun into some version of an "official act" or at least be made to fit into their "core power" narrative. Another valid concern is how the decision will affect the use of such evidence in a trial. Even if a president is being tried for unofficial actions, how will that affect the admittance of any "official" or "officially related" evidence that may be necessary to support the permissable charges? It's a really precarious place to be in, for sure—I'm absolutely appalled and by no means am I dismissing any of this as acceptable—I just think it's all so uncertain that we simply don't yet know how it'll all shake out until we watch Trump's current cases proceed.

Lastly, we've addressed how Trump v. United States will be impacted by this decision, but what about his other cases? Well, some good news is that his Manhattan conviction and eminent sentencing will not be affected as it is purely personal conduct from before he was president. While his counsel could still raise the immunity question, it would just be litigated and likely result in nothing. What about Georgia, though? It's mostly unaffected, too, with the exception of some evidence produced by way of conversations with Trump and his staff at the end of his presidency, as well as how his associates will be tried in the Fulton County case. It's a little sticky, but it should be fine.

I hope you learned something here today. I've had enough of all the misinformation and fear mongering; I see and hear it legitimately every day. The goal here is to put your mind at ease that, while the decision is an embarrassment and has the potential for disastrous implications, it's also just the result of a corrupt, lazy ass court who don't wanna hurt their pal.

Not you three, though—you guys are awesome.

Let me know what you think. If you have any more questions, please do not be afraid to ask!

[dankusner]

Supreme Court reins in 5th Circuit

Several conservative rulings tossed this term

WASHINGTON − The conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court would only be pushed so far.

In this year’s blockbuster Supreme Court term, there was a notable loser: a Louisiana court that has become the national testing ground for conservative causes.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, is arguably the most conservative appeals court in the nation.

But the high court threw out one conservative challenge to social media content moderation, sent another back to the 5th Circuit for more analysis and said the appeals court should not have allowed a challenge by anti-abortion doctors to a commonly used abortion drug.

The justices also rejected a conservative-led attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and said the appeals court was misapplying a previous decision expanding gun rights when it ruled that a domestic abuser can’t be denied a gun.

'It shows that the 5th Circuit was, at the very least, moving too fast for the Supreme Court,' said Adam Feldman, a lawyer and political scientist who runs a blog called Empirical SCOTUS.

This is despite the fact that the court, which now has a 6-3 conservative majority, made a number of controversial right-leaning decisions this term including imposing new hurdles on federal regulatory agencies and granting broad legal protections for the presidency.

To be sure, the Supreme Court did side with the 5th Circuit on two big cases – one that killed off a major gun control effort and another that contributed to curtailing the regulatory power of the federal government.

What’s coming up?

The high court has already agreed to decide if the appeals court correctly: rejected the Biden administration’s regulation of 'untraceable weapons kits known as ghost guns.'

upheld Texas’ age verification requirement for porn sites.

directed a do-over of the Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of a marketing request for flavored e-cigarettes.

rejected a defendant’s appeal based on a 2018 law that changed sentencing rules.

And there’s likely to be more.

The number of cases the Supreme Court has been taking from the 5th Circuit has gone up in recent years.

Previously, most cases appealed to the high court have come from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the nation’s largest population region.

But this term, there were 421 appeals from the 5th Circuit compared with 382 from the 9th Circuit, according to Feldman’s review.

While the Supreme Court hears only a small share of appeals, the nine it took from the 5th Circuit was high relative to the population size of the circuit.

The circuit hears appeals from deeply red states where Republicans control legislatures and attorneys general can draw national headlines with culture war lawsuits against a Democratic president.

Federal district courts, particularly in Texas, have become a forum of choice for conservative groups who bet not only on winning but also getting their arguments heard at the Supreme Court when their opponents appeal.

Trump’s influence

The 5th Circuit ranks behind the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the highest share of judges who were appointed by Republican presidents – 71% compared to 91%.

But former President Donald Trump appointed six of the 17 judges for the 5th Circuit, one of the circuits where his flood of nominations over his four years had a significant impact.

Even though Trump also nominated three of the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices, most have not been willing to go as far as the 5th Circuit on causes championed by conservatives.

'The Supreme Court is saying to the legal right, broadly, ‘We are not Santa Claus,’' conservative columnist David French said on the podcast 'Advisory Opinions.'

What was rejected

French made that comment after the Supreme Court sided with President Joe Biden’s administration in a challenge from the 5th Circuit to the administration’s efforts to remove misinformation about vaccines and other issues from social media platforms.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, wrote for the 6-3 majority that the 5th Circuit had wrongly backed a sweeping preliminary injunction against the administration, relied on 'clearly erroneous' factual findings by the district court and incorrectly concluded that the challengers had shown they’d been harmed by the administration.

'I do think that the Supreme Court is getting a little bit sick of these cases coming up that have no standing,' said Jeevna Sheth, senior policy analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, referring to the requirement that a petitioner has an addressable harm.

On anti-abortion advocates’ attempt to curtail access to mifepristone, Justice Brett Kavanaugh – another Trump appointee – wrote the unanimous opinion that the challenge did not belong in the federal courts. Instead, Kavanaugh wrote, the advocates should try to address their concerns through the regulatory, legislative or political processes.

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative justices, wrote the 7-2 opinion reversing the 5th Circuit’s ruling that the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional.

Wins for 5th Circuit

While the high court affirmed only three of the nine decisions from the 5th Circuit, that win/loss record is consistent with the fact that the court overturns more decisions than it affirms, because it typically declines to hear challenges to rulings with which it agrees. And the ones they affirm can have major consequences.

The court’s six conservatives backed the 5th Circuit’s rejection of a major tool used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to fight securities fraud

[literalfuckingdragon]

listen. listen every time you talk about how democrats have a majority in congress you have to realize that there are democrats who just want to maintain the status quo for their own gain but are OK with gay people, and there are democrats who want to do some actual good (even if i dont always agree with their visions or their plans). They both get called democrat but like Sinema is not the same 'democrat' as AOC and buying into that vision is one of the (many) reasons the 2 party system continues to have a chokehold. I want to shake biden until the good policies come out as much as the next guy but acting like he can just snap his fingers and fix things is so frustrating when our broken ass system is so entrenched in ways to tie everything up, and entrenched in gerrymandered rigged games

Okay but then by this logic, there's absolutely no point to pushing for change ever. Like why fight for gay marriage or abortion to be codified into law to make it harder for SCOTUS to overturn then? Some democrats would just want to maintain status quo and might not vote for those. Shit yeah, why fight ever? Let's just sit back and continue being fucked because the system is all rigged anyway, let's not even attempt to work with the tools we do already have to fix what we can. Makes perfect sense to me.

The point of me bringing it up is to show that there are measures Democrats could be using to fight for change- in this case using reconciliation to avoid needing a supermajority to end a filibuster since student debt relief would be a budget item- but that there hasn't even been a push within the Democrats to use this tool. You're really going to tell me someone like AOC or Bernie in the House, or Schumer or Warren in the Senate, or Kamela or Biden who are all HUGE Democrat names couldn't at least suggest using reconciliation? If one of those big names brought attention to the measure and that the Democrat Party as a whole was refusing to use it for student debt relief even when they easily could and it would be extremely difficult to overturn then? You really don't think that would lead to anything? Nothing at all? That something like wouldn't be spread around, if not by the news, at least their very large fan bases? Shit, even just their haters trying to use it as a gotcha would bring a fuck ton of attention to it. And you don't think that wouldn't get enough people riled up that the uncooperative Democrats wouldn't go "oh fuck, I might not get voted in next election" and at least light a fire under their asses?

That very thing happened with gay marriage originally. If you look back to 2009-2010, after Obama has been in office a couple years, the majority of Democrats were against gay marriage being federally recognized. Major names like Hilary Clinton and Obama himself. Then look at 2012ish on. Majority support. Because they saw that if they didnt change and start bringing attention to it, they were at real risk. Doubting you can make any changes is exactly what those that want to maintain the current status quo want. That's what actually supports the current system.

Yes our system is shitty, I think thats one of the few things everyone no matter the side can agree on (And that's why you should vote for the Burn It All Down And Start Over Party in 2036, me for President and my Vice President, Full Gas Can. Together, along with my advisors, Box Of Matches, Lit Candle, and 24 Pack of Lighters, I'm confident we can make some real change.) but that doesn't mean we can't already use the tools at our disposal. Change does take a long time, but that's why there's that stupid saying "the best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago, the second best time is today" (I want to throw the hard clumps of callus from my clonal propagated lemon and orange plants at whoever said that). You gotta actually start doing something, and no, only sitting around pointing fingers at the opposition isn't doing something. I'm not demanding immediate results, I'm demanding immediate progress. Those are two entirely different things.

[pandemicwrites]

I recommend reading the nonfiction book American crusade by Andrew Seidel. One of the main people talked about and it is Leonard Leo, who has been shoved into the spotlight - probably not something that he wants, but he can go fuck himself

not only is he responsible for stacking the court in favor of conservatives, and also created conditions in which the conservative supermajority does judicial activism; it turns out he also sets up $100,000 private charter jets as payment for those conservative judgments he has in his pocket

> The article noted the role of conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo in organizing the Alaska trip, including recruiting Singer to fly Alito to the lodge. The longtime head of the Federalist Society, Leo helped Alito win confirmation to the court. Singer and the lodge’s owner were major donors to the Federalist Society.

I say payment, but "justice" Samuel alito did not put it on his taxes or whatever, so it was totally not a payment and definitely had nothing to do with the 10 times the person who owned the jet had His business interests ruled on by the scotus

we have a shadowy figure setting up undocumented, $100,000 chartered jets to (conservative justices ruling favorably toward white Christian nationalist) justices in order to - and this is the only reasonable conclusion - incentivize them to vote a certain way when a certain person's interests are presented before the court.

you remember the paper that Biden had his administration create, about how unviable packing the court was? I never agreed, and it should be clear to everyone at this point that not agreeing is correct: this SCOTUS is either no longer a legitimate institution, or slipping down that path so fast that it's more "slight overstatement" than "gross hyperbole".

https://wapo.st/46i9mxm

[mitchmcconnellsmoldydong]

Ok as someone from KY…. Why this username??? Just why?

xD It was the most "peak Tumblr" URL I could think of when I was clowning around with a dear friend and discussing Tumblr culture and politics. He urged me to see if I could get this exact URL, and well, I could. So I did. And now I've decided that yes, I do want to be political on main, actually, so this blog is going to get some real use.

Why did I think of "mitch mcconnell's moldy dong" specifically? Because he's pretty much THE reason we now have a conservative supermajority on SCOTUS, owing to him refusing to go forward with confirmation proceedings for Merrick Garland during Obama's second term. I guess I could have just as easily gone with something very derogatory about Lindsey Graham (I no longer live in SC but did until quite recently), but to be honest, Moscow Mitch was the first one I thought of, and that's all there was to it.

[valkyriesexual]

i'm trying not to wear myself out anticipating where the next attack on our civil rights is going to come from, but i'm also worried about getting blindsided by shit i didn't even know was possible to take away. is there anything that you think should be a bigger part of the conversation post-dobbs?

This is such a good and important question.  If you guys aren't listening to the Strict Scrutiny podcast with Constitutional Law Professors Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw, you should definitely start.  

They can get a little wonky with some of the deep dives into stuff like the Armed Career Criminals Act and stuff, but if you stick with it, it’s really insightful. I've gotten a much better understanding of where this maximalist super-majority conservative SCOTUS is going next.

Which is to say that I can't take credit for this answer, the Strict Scrutiny hosts are true Cassandras.  They have been 100% right about everything coming down the pipeline, and by listening to their coverage, I definitely feel like they've flagged (1) the thing that's already happened that didn't get enough coverage, and (2) the thing that's gonna happen that will destroy the remaining vestiges of a functioning federal government.

The thing they flagged that doesn't get enough attention: Shelby County +Brnovich v. DNC have fucking GUTTED the voting rights act.  

Per Shelby County, states with a history of discrimination no longer need to get DOJ permission to enact new voting schemes... and guess what they all did in the wake of the case? Enacted schemes that will dilute and suppress the votes of minority communities, and the votes of democrats/progressives in general.

And, per Brnovich, even if you can prove that the Republicans have found a perfect proxy voting restriction which is facially neutral but disparately and disproportionately makes it harder for minorities (particularly black, hispanic, and native american communities) to vote, that doesn't violate the voting rights act.

So take Arizona.  A huge part of Biden's win in 2020 was by winning Arizona, which happened in large part because of huge turnout from native american communities.  In the wake of their turnout, Arizona Republicans have enacted a scheme to make it much harder for native americans to vote.  If native americans' access to the ballot box is restricted in Arizona, the ability for progressives to ever win in the electoral college, the senate, etc., becomes much much harder than it already is.

This becomes even more repugnant when you think about Alito's dumbass facetious gaslighting "reasoning" in Dobbs.  "Women are not without electoral or political power".  This supermajority conservative SCOTUS has already done the most to enshrine minority white republican male rule by gutting the Voting Rights Act.

The second thing, which is COMING, is the destruction of the administrative state, which will begin with the overturning of Chevron / the end of Chevron deference.  Chevron deference is a policy of judicial deference to an agency's understanding of what a statute allows, so long as (1) the agency’s understanding was not unreasonable, and (2) Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.  More clearly, it means that the court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency.

Now, Neil Gorsuch's mommy was an administrative agency official in the Reagan era.  Neil has mommy issues.  Rather than working out his mommy issues in therapy, he's using SCOTUS to destroy the administrative state.

This should be a huge, giant, enormous thing on the top of everyone's minds right now. The existence of the filibuster in the Senate means that absolutely nothing legislatively will get passed outside of a budget reconciliation bill. That means anything not related to the budget: immigration, climate, healthcare, gun control, reproductive rights, etc., is NOT going to be addressed legislatively.

The only part of the federal government that is actually functioning right now, due to 2 asshole "democrats" who love the filibuster more than they care about any legislative priority (Kyrsten Sinema & Joe Manchin), is the administrative agencies. That's part of why winning the presidency is so important for progressives. The president gets to appoint administrative agency heads. By appointing competent progressives to the the energy department, the commerce dept., the dept. of agriculture, etc., that's how some things can actually change.

This is also one of the reasons that Trump wasn't actually able to do as much destruction as he wanted. He simply didn't understand the power of administrative agencies, left vacancies, and failed to follow the administrative procedure act, so a lot of his policy goals (as much as you can say that Trump had policy goals) were left unfulfilled.

There's a really good book that I recommend everyone read to get a whole new perspective on the importance of the administrative state: The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis. It highlights the wide-ranging scope of various agencies and the extraordinarily important work that they do.

SOOOOooo to bring it all together. Administrative agencies are really the only functional part of the federal government at this point. They can act to address issues as they arise, in large part, because of the judicial policy of deference as established in Chevron. For example, in the absence of specific legislation, OSHA was able to act to help mitigate COVID risk in the workplace. Dept. of Transportation was able to institute mask mandates on interstate travel. After the fall of Roe, the CDC was able to make medication abortion available via mail with a telehealth visit.

But when Gorsuch authors the opinion overturning Chevron, the holding will say that agencies cannot act without explicit legislation. And we cannot pass legislation because of the Senate/filibuster. And we're unlikely to ever win a large enough majority in the Senate to overcome the filibuster due to the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Without the administrative state, there's no vestige of a functioning federal government. No ability to address climate, to mitigate the impact of Roe, everything.

[oh-mother-of-darkness]

Hello. I am, as you know, an American. I turned eighteen in 2014, voted in my first presidential election in 2016, and voted in my second presidential election last week via early voting in the state of Texas. 

I’m reflecting right now on the difference between those experiences. This is going to be a very self-indulgent essay. 

The 2016 election was in my third and final year of undergrad at Texas A&M University. At the time, I was living with a roommate who grew up in a town of 2,000, all of them members of her church. I loved her very much, but she was the most sheltered person I’ve ever met. 

I was only a few years ahead of her. My home growing up was deeply liberal about many of the things that counted, but deeply conservative on equally important things. For me, leaving for college was a radicalization speed-run.

I, a good Memphis girl, moved to Texas and encountered for the first time in my life white homogeny and everything that comes with it. I made most of my friends at A&M through a Christian orientation camp that I attended, then worked at. I went to school at a history department that was overwhelmingly male and war-obsessed. 

My second semester, I was randomly sorted into a writing seminar on the American Civil War and Reconstruction. There were eight other students in that class, all of them Texans. By day two I had gotten into a open fight with one of my classmates after he used the phrases “one of the humane parts of slavery” and “the secession declarations are moving and beautiful appeals, if you read them,” and “well I’m not going to criticize my own state.”

We got into at least one yelling match per week from that point forward. It was a formative experience for me-- not just him but the seven other students that took his side every time because they just couldn’t conceptualize anything outside of their own experiences, and frankly, I couldn’t either. 

It rocked my world to be surrounded by people who told me, among other things, that their high schools flew the Confederate battle flag or Lee was their all time role-model (because he actually didn’t want to secede! He didn’t believe in it, but Virginia did, so he put his own qualms aside and served his country, and that’s what we all have to do). I ran a survey once by knocking on every door in a dorm hall and asking the two people inside why the Civil War happened. 

I feel like you can guess the most common answer I got. Only two said slavery. Six didn’t know what the Civil War was. 

The last week of the semester, my class read a collection of recorded oral accounts of freed slaves during Reconstruction. My nemesis told me that he “didn’t realize black people actually had it bad.” At the same time, I was struggling with my sexuality, my relationship to my religion, my relationship with my parents, and a handful of newly-diagnosed but long-existing mental illnesses. I wasn’t having fun. 

Over the next three years, I tried my hardest to humanize the people that said disgusting things about minorities, poverty, and me personally. I barely won on that one, and I’m actually really proud that I did, even if it took me a few years. I can trace the biggest change in me directly to my nemesis from the history department, the kid that made me so mad that I started arguing back. I was too scared to do that before. 

By 2016, I was in full existential spin-out-- a very suddenly liberal kid fighting my whole family, all of my classmates, and most of my friends in an explosive political climate, the first I had ever participated in. 

I voted by Tennessee absentee ballot in 2016. On election night, I ordered takeout for me and my roommate, who I knew had voted red. Confident, like pretty much everybody, that Clinton would win, I was trying to show her that I didn’t hate her. She went to bed after dinner, also so certain that Clinton would win that she didn’t bother to stay up. 

I sat in front of my laptop sewing a birthday present for a friend (Kenza, actually), while the votes came in. I wasn’t super alarmed when the map turned red. I just figured the blue states hadn’t finished counting yet. 

The map didn’t get any bluer. By 1am, I knew what was about to happen. They called it an hour later, while I was sobbing on my floor. I threw up in the bathroom out of pure anxiety. I got two anonymous messages telling me the asker was going to commit suicide. Neither of them responded to my replies. I don’t actually know what happened to them. 

I remember riding the bus to class the next morning and distinctly seeing that most of the racial minorities there had swollen eyes from crying. The girl with the pride stickers all over her laptop didn’t show up that day, and I’m kind of glad she didn’t, considering the way some of our classmates in the back were loudly talking about “the gays.” Hope she’s okay.

My roommate came home completely unaware that Clinton lost. I was crying in my room when that happened. I remember showing her a demographic map of who voted which way. She got visibly upset when she figured out what races how. I think she really did feel guilty. 

That Thanksgiving, one of my cousins tweeted, “I can’t wait to go argue with my liberal cousin today. The wins. Keep. Coming,” an hour before he walked into my house. Inauguration day was January 20, 2017. I decided to go to law school a week later, the day the president signed the Muslim ban. That’s when I figured out for the first time just how much power the courts have. The last three years have only enforced that. 

I got angrier and angrier during law school, egged on by a few friends but more than anything just... finally conscious of exactly how the American system works and exactly who’s behind it. I still live in Texas, farther west now, and I’m working my first legal job. I’m going to be a licensed attorney next week. 

I went back and forth for months about how this election was going to shake out. I knew there wasn’t going to be an overwhelming red majority this time, but my big fear was an election close enough that the Supreme Court could take it. That fear doubled last month, at RBG’s death. 

I was hoping for a blue enough victory on election night that there wouldn’t be a week of uncertainty, but that was unlikely, and it didn’t happen. I obsessively refreshed my election map all of Wednesday and Thursday, aware that at least some states would flip after mail-in ballots came in, but unsure which would. 

Again, my great fear was a blue victory held down by only one state. Given (I would say “any” chance here, but I don’t mean “any” chance because genuinely jurisdiction or facts or legal merit don’t matter to the Supreme Court) an opportunity to make one (1) decision that hands over a red election, please know that a conservative supermajority would take it. I cannot emphasize enough how true that is and how important it is for all of us to grasp that. 

Watching Georgia flip was one of the best experiences of my life, and it’s a little hard for me to articulate why, but I’m going to give it a shot here. I’m southern. I’m from the South, and for this conversation it’s really important that I’m from Memphis, a black city and a center of black music and culture. 

When people think about the South, they think of the white South, and on some level, they should. It is absolutely essential to understand the white South in order to understand American history. Let me be 100% clear here. That is not a good thing. American majority history is not good. We are not a good country. 

It’s near-impossible to understand why that’s true without knowing exactly what happened in the white South and exactly what is still happening there now. With that, however, is another truth that most folks don’t get. 

The SouthTM is white and needs to die. The South as it actually exists is partially white yes, but it is also everyone else that lives here, particularly black folks. Southern culture is black, not white. Georgia flipped because the people that have always, always been there finally got to crack apart the conservative machine holding the South hostage. 

That’s amazing. It’s fucking mind-blowing. I watched it happen at 3:30 in the morning days after Election Day, and holy shit holy shit, Georgia flipped. Atlanta won. Holy fucking shit. 

I would be terrified right now if only Georgia flipped, because SCOTUS would have found a way to throw out a few thousand votes. Inevitable. Absolutely certain on that one. 

With a few states of buffer, I don’t think that’s going to happen. I really do think it’s over. 

I came home after work on Friday and immediately went to sleep because I hadn’t really done that since Tuesday. I woke up at noon today, checked the map, checked my messages, and saw what happened while I was gone. After that, I went back to bed until 5:30pm. I’m really just getting up now, after most of 24 hours asleep. 

I don’t know if I would say that I’m happy right now, but I am overwhelmingly relieved. I’m under no illusions that a Biden victory will solve everything, but I also do think this is a real thing to celebrate. I’ll take suggestions on how to celebrate right now, actually, since I’m finally awake. 

I’ll be angry forever, I think, but this is a good thing, and I’d like to enjoy it. If you’re happy right now, hey, tell me about it. I’ll be thrilled with you. I want to hear it. Congrats to all of us. Love y’all. 

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Let's pretend there was a proposal to eliminate the Senate, and instead have only the House of Representatives, still with 435 members. But, every state would start with four House seats, with the remaining 235 seats being allocated proportionally. In other words, California would only have around 30 House seats, while the Dakotas, Wyoming, etc. would each have four seats. Would you rather have this new arrangement, or the status quo?

I can't even imagine what the country would be like with a unicameral legislature, but I don't think it would be better than what we have now. For one, the House lacks the filibuster, so a single party could have total control with just 218 seats. I'd rather keep the bicameral system but reform the Senate so it's proportional; I like the idea of having statewide offices rather than districts which can be gerrymandered and packed. A proportional Senate would better reflect the will of the people. Under out current system it's not uncommon for one party to win statewide or nationwide popular votes and wind up losing seats in both the House and Senate (the Senate favors Republicans, the House tends to favor Democrats though with the upcoming redistricting and the Common Cause SCOTUS decision I think that's going to start favoring Republicans too)

If the New Senate remained at 100 members, each state would get 1 to start with, and the remaining 50 would be distributed more or less evenly. There are 330 million Americans, so every 6.6 million would get an additional Senator; Wyoming has less than 0.6 million people, so they wouldn't get an extra one, but California has 39.5 million, so they would get 6 extra (actually 5.985, which we'd round up, but rounding up for every state might create more than 100 senators, so there would need to be a formula to ensure equitable distribution). This would give us Wyoming with 1 senator and California with 7. Florida would have 4, Texas would have 5 or 6, New York 4, Georgia 3, Vermont 1, etc.

This would ensure that more people have more power, and would increase the likelihood of purple states sending senators from both parties; the seat at the top of the ballot would be highly partisan, but down ballot seats would probably receive fewer votes and could stand a chance at flipping either way. The Senate is the way it is today because the small colonies threatened to boycott the Constitution if they weren't given an amplified voice in Congress; it's always been about appeasing the conservative minority. This New Senate would ensure majority rule from now on; the House could still potentially be gerrymandered, but the Senate would reflect the voice of the people statewide.

There's not going to be a revolution, and even if there were the framers of the next constitution would probably keep the old disproportionate system in place rather than shake things up; it's easier to copy someone's homework than to make up something new, and state-building is VERY difficult even under the best of circumstances. There's no way the conservative minority would agree to an equitable system, whether it be a unicameral House or a proportional Senate, it's all wish fulfillment at this point. All I know is the US Constitution is full of holes; it's dangerously sparse, with huge swathes of it spackled over haphazardly with Supreme Court decisions rather than by popular amendment. If I were running things, I would make the federal constitution like the state-level constitutions, where amendments were put up to a vote rather than the ridiculous process of supermajorities in both houses of Congress and majorities in 3/4 of state legislatures.

From Wikipedia:

"Few new constitutions are modeled along the lines of the U.S. one, according to a study by David Law of Washington University. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg viewed the United States Constitution as more of a relic of the 18th century rather than as a model for new constitutions. She suggested in 2012 that a nation seeking a new constitution might find a better model by examining the Constitution of South Africa (1997), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950)."

"I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."

-RBG

Proportional Senate Calculations (using 2021 numbers):

100 senators; each state starts with 1, the remaining 50 are divided based on population; there are 330 million Americans, so these 50 senators each represent 6.6 million

AL: 4.934 million/6.6 million = 0.75 ≈ 1 (2 Senators total)

AK: 0.724/6.6 = 0.11 ≈ 0 (1 Senator)

AZ: 7.520/6.6 = 1.14 ≈ 1 (2 Senators)

AR: 3.034/6.6 = 0.46 ≈ 0 (1 Senator)

CA: 39.6/6.6 = 6.00 ≈ 6 (7 Senators)

CO: 5.894/6.6 = 0.89 ≈ 1 (2 Senators)

CT: 3.553/6.6 = 0.54 ≈ 1 (2 Senators)

DE: 0.990/6.6 = 0.15 ≈ 0 (1 Senator)

FL: 21.945/6.6 = 3.33 ≈ 3 (4 senators)

GA: 10.830/6.6 = 1.64 ≈ 2 (3 senators)

HI: 1.406/6.6 = 0.21 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

ID: 1.860/6.6 = 0.28 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

IL: 12.569/6.6 = 1.90 ≈ 2 (3 senators)

IN: 6.806/6.6 = 1.03 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

IA: 3.168/6.6 = 0.48 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

KS: 2.917/6.6 = 0.44 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

KY: 4.481/6.6 = 0.68 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

LA: 4.627/6.6 = 0.70 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

ME: 1.355/6.6 = 0.21 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

MD: 6.065/6.6 = 0.92 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

MA: 6.912/6.6 = 1.05 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

MI: 9.992/6.6 = 1.51 ≈ 2 (3 senators)

MN: 5.706/6.6 = 0.86 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

MS: 2.966/6.6 = 0.45 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

MO: 6.169/6.6 = 0.93 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

MT: 1.085/6.6 = 0.16 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

NE: 1.952/6.6 = 0.30 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

NV: 3.186/6.6 = 0.48 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

NH: 1.372/6.6 = 0.21 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

NJ: 8.875/6.6 = 1.34 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

NM: 2.105/6.6 = 0.32 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

NY: 19.300/6.6 = 2.92 ≈ 3 (4 senators)

NC: 10.701/6.6 = 1.62 ≈ 2 (3 senators)

ND: 0.770/6.6 = 0.12 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

OH: 11.715/6.6 = 1.78 ≈ 2 (3 senators)

OK: 3.990/6.6 = 0.60 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

OR: 4.289/6.6 = 0.65 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

PA: 12.804/6.6 = 1.94 ≈ 2 (3 senators)

RI: 1.062/6.6 = 0.16 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

SC: 5.278/6.6 = 0.80 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

SD: 0.897/6.6 = 0.14 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

TN: 6.944/6.6 = 1.05 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

TX: 29.730/6.6 = 4.50 ≈ 5 (6 senators)

UT: 3.311/6.6 = 0.50 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

VT: 0.623/6.6 = 0.09 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

VA: 8.604/6.6 = 1.30 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

WA: 7.797/6.6 = 1.18 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

WV: 1.768/6.6 = 0.27 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

WI: 5.852/6.6 = 0.89 ≈ 1 (2 senators)

WY: 0.581/6.6 = 0.09 ≈ 0 (1 senator)

This gives us 99 Senators; seems like we rounded down more than we rounded up, so the last senator would go to the state with the highest population that didn't get an extra one; looks like Nevada

[rhinorapscallion]

Well that response was a bit hostile.

> Trump told them to leave and they left.

Ah yes, telling a bunch of people who are actively committing treason that "we love you" is telling them to leave. They were inside the building. They attempted to build gallows to "Hang Mike Pence" as they were chanting. They were calling for public execution because Pence got cold feet. He was supposed to attempt overturn the election, but didn't. That's the attempted coup, trying to overturn the election by force, guns or no, it still happened.

> explain how Don't Say Gay is Trump policy.

I won't, because It's not, that's Desantis. But it's republican led, and as such helps explain why I'm not voting for republicans. Being signed during a statewide protest organized by the people the bill is supposed to be "protecting" kind of made me kind of angry at it.

I was also giving examples of state legislation, the president isn't a monolith. And neither is the federal government.

> tax code that only benefits the 1% permanently.

Are you aware that under Trumps tax code, Elon Musk, a contender for richest man, payed nothing in taxes. Neither did Trump. You can write off a private fucking plane for crying out loud. Please explain how that's supposed to benefit me? Furthermore, The tax code that did somewhat benefit us was a smoke screen. It's temporary and expires. Even though it did lower what comes out of your paycheck, it also lowered your tax returns. Which resulted in people who relied on those returns getting screwed. Republicans refuse to tax corporations and it shows.

> Abortion was never a constitutional right. Abortion was given to the states to decide.

Neither are most civil rights, but we still consider them rights. The only thing allowing mixed race marriages is SCOTUS precedent, same with same sex marriage. You would consider those rights, right? Hell, brown V board isn't in the constitution either, it's been codified, but that can be overturned. Roe argued that a right to abortion can be implied by the 14th, can you guess what amendment Brown V Board leveraged?

> Voter Suppression.

Gerrymandering is voter suppression, that's very clearly going on.

IDs can be voter suppression, it's not about them requiring an ID, it's about them removing many of the most common forms from eligibility. Collage IDs are in the wallets of every college student's pocket, and most have either licenses or their SS cards. Having to get another form of ID bars people from voting by making it harder. They're even making it photo only, which excludes SSN. Same for closing polls, challenging mail in voting, and making it illegal to give water to people waiting in line. As we've seen in other countries, namely France, voter turnout out is bad for the right.

> he has SCOTUS under his thumb last time.

Not like this, the 6-3 majority was solidified in 2020, right before the election. Having a supermajority gives them insane control over decisions.

> the ruling doesn't give blanket immunity.

As long as SCOTUS considers it an "official act" it does. All he has to do is appeal to the Supreme Court. Even then, "Declare yourself king" isn't on there but "kill all my rivals" is. It doesn't bar him from being impeached, but if republicans win either the house or the senate, things will go nowhere. JD Vance is not much better, so I'd rather they not be in office in the first place.

> any fool with eyes and a wallet can see that that's a lie.

Statistics disagree. Jobs have skyrocketed, unemployment has fallen, and the stock market is at its all time high, GDP is increasing. Yes, Inflation still sucks, but that's not the only measure of the economy. And again, inflation has slowed.

> have you ever seen the world

Yup, have you? I've seen Republicans stomp on my rights, call for violence on more than one occasion, and spread hate and fear every moment they can, walk back climate regulations, ignore active pandemics, spread misinformation, get mad at people for being LGBT, get mad at people for not being white. Meanwhile, I'm looking at the democrats doing what they can to improve. Democrats passed the infrastructure act, which created jobs and was good enough to get some of the republicans that voted against it to root for what they can get for their state. They passed the inflation reduction act, which did what it said on the tin. Both are bills that directly benefit the people. What good has the Trump administration done besides make buddies with dictators?

> everyone of your responses screams "rich sheltered college kid"

And in come the insults. I'm not continuing this conversation, I value my mental health. I'll read a response if you give one, but I'm not going to respond. I've tried to defend my views and looks like I've some research to do, but this is not a productive conversation.

Go vote though, it's still your right.

For the Vote Blue No Matter Who crowd, I genuinely have to ask: what would it take for you to not vote blue? What's your breaking point? How bad do things have to get for you to finally say "the Democrats are the worse choice?"

[the-cookie-of-doom]

I'm confused.. I'm not heavily into politics or anything but I've seen your post about the lady who passed away recently, and I was wondering what that meant for Americans? This isn't to cause any issues I just..dont understand unfortunately because my family is so heavily one sided which I dont agree with and they don't talk about much except what they believe in...

You’re fine, honey, I’m always willing to answer genuine questions. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg served on the Supreme Court, the highest court of law in the United States, which has 9 seats. It was previously 5 Republican and 4 Democrat; from what I’ve scene, the Chief Justice was a pretty fair man, and despite being a Republican, didn’t always cast his vote alongside conservatives views. 

However Trump pushed Brett Kavanaugh into the Supreme Court, and his soul purpose was to overturn Roe v. Wade. Neither he not Trump were ever discrete about this fact; they bragged about it. Through his entire career, Kavanaugh has consistently ruled against women’s rights, and I remember a case of an immigrant girl, I believe in an ICE facility, trying to get an abortion. There were court proceedings involved and he continuously delayed them until she was past the window for an abortion. Kavanaugh is aggressively conservative and will do everything in his power to role back protections for women’s reproductive rights. 

Now that there is a vacancy in SCOTUS, Trump is going to try and push through another nominee, and the Republican-Majority Senate will try to confirm them as soon as possible. Mitch McConnell has already stated his intent to confirm anyone Trump picks. 

This will leave SCOTUS with a Republican supermajority, 6-3. The Chief Justice will no longer be the deciding vote; anything Republican’s want, they will get. 

Thankfully, it isn’t that simple, however. A case has to be brought to the Supreme Court before they can rule on it. 

The example I give is in regards to restrictive anti-abortion laws. I think it was Illinois? That tried to institute the 6 week ban. The issue is, those sex weeks are counted from your last period; any logical person knows that you’re not getting pregnant the day after your period. 

The law would turn out like this: This month, my period was a week and a half late. So it was 5.5 weeks between the end of my last one, and the start of this one. Let’s say that I got pregnant sometime during week 5 - the soonest possible time that I could have a pregnancy test come back positive, is during week 7. 

See the problem? 

I am already a week past the limit; so even though I’m only 2 weeks pregnant, I can’t get an abortion because according to the lawmakers, I’m already 7 weeks along. Even though that isn’t biologically true at all. 

Now, I think that is absurd. I decide to take it to court. The court is conservative, the judge is someone like Kavanaugh, and they rule against me. Fine, I take it to the next highest court. I escalate it until I present my case to the Supreme Court: Cookie v. Illinois. 

The 3 Democratic judges review my case and vote in my favor: it’s my body, my choice. Maybe one or all of them has enough knowledge in biology to know that my “7 weeks pregnant” (now much farther along at this point, if I’ve not already given birth. There’s no way I can get an abortion now, because the courts have delayed the process.) isn’t a true 7 weeks. 

But the 5 Republican judges are going to uphold their conservative views, and they decide to support the rulings of all the judges before me. My attempt to get an abortion at “7 weeks” is ruled unconstitutional. There is now a precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade for the entire country. 

THAT was the reason several states started trying to implement insanely restrictive abortion bans the past few years; they knew people were going to challenge it. That’s what they wanted. Because Roe v. Wade can’t be overturned until someone actually brings a case to the SCOTUS. 

Now replace women’s reproductive rights for any cause that’s important to you. Marriage and Gender Equality. Immigration. Healthcare. When the Republicans have a supermajority like that, one swing vote (the Chief Justice) isn’t going to be enough of a protection. 

And unlike Trump, they won’t be gone in 4 more years. SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment - something I disagree with, but it’s the hand we’ve been dealt, and we have to deal with it. 

THAT is why it’s so important to vote for Biden, even if you don’t agree with all of his political goals. Because he doesn’t want to actively try and kill people. But Trump does. Trump has, unapologetically. 

So anyone who can’t bring themselves to vote for Biden, remember: you’re not voting for him. You’re voting for SCOTUS. Even if they manage to replace RBG, there’s still a chance of another vacancy opening up. Don’t throw it away. Even if they do successfully replace her, please, still vote. Don’t be short-sighted. 

[kittyluvr42]

I said this in a discord server already but fuck it I’ll post it here too.

RBG died.

RBG was an amazing woman, but, to be blunt, there’s no time to mourn her right now. I wish there was. There isn’t.

I don’t know if yall understand how fucking bad this is. Another trump pick, which is absolutely what this means, makes fucking GORSUCH the swing vote on scotus. This is quite possibly the worst supreme court we’ve ever had, besides maybe the 1857 supreme court that decided Dred Scott. That’s how bad this is. And it is going to be here for decades. The now oldest justice is Kagan, who consistently voted with RBG. The next oldest justice who’s death or retirement will at all improve the balance of power is Clarence Thomas, who’s 72, and even after he dies we’ll just be back to the court before RBG’s death, which was already pretty bad (and that’s assuming Kagen gets a replacement who’s good). This court will be around for decades.

Does it sound callous to be talking about court justices like chess pieces. Probably. People are fucking dying, and people will die. There is no choice but to be callous until we’re out of fucking crisis mode and can heal.

This court is a loss for literally everything we care about. Reproductive rights, lgbt rights, religious freedom (actual religious freedom not the codeword for christian supremacy). Did you know Obamacare’s on the docket for 2021? Texas v California. That’s right, they’re trying to remove healthcare for millions of people in the middle of a fucking pandemic. Maybe I wasn’t blunt enough before. People will die.

So, how do we stop it? How do we get a scotus that is at least a little decent? Well, there are two options.

1. We somehow manage to stop republicans from confirming a replacement. This means we need 3 republicans to vote no, plus at least one more who either votes no or doesn’t show up. A tie goes to pence. Good fucking luck with that. Maybe Romney, Murkowsky, and Collins, but that’s a long shot. I have no clue who the fourth would be.

Ok. That’s not going to happen. What’s our other option?

2. Court-packing. This will require a president who will pick judges who aren’t outright evil, and the only chance for that would be Biden. We also need a senate to confirm those judges, so dems need to take the senate. However, we also need to stop republicans from just packing back by locking in the number of judges after, so that means we need to hold the house to pass a law. But when republicans take congress back they can just repeal that, so what we really need is a supermajority to make it a constitutional amendment.

So please yall. Just fucking vote. Even if you don’t vote Biden. I think that’s the wrong choice, because as much as Biden sucks he’s still our only option, but I get it, and I know I won’t be able to shame you into changing your mind. Please, at least vote down ballot. We can’t let republicans hold the senate, especially because this term is ALSO redistricting, so not only are we deciding the court we’re deciding future elections.

I am begging you, please vote.

Anyway, I’m going to go cry and try and find some room in my anger and fear for at least a little bit of the grief RBG deserves.