Skip to main content

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy
Not even bothering to pretend anymore
The Supreme Court has always been a political institution. It has a history of making horrendous decisions. But this Supreme Court majority has a record of overreach and politicization that is so transparent and so unethical and so intellectually dishonest that it calls to mind a paraphrase of the old Lily Tomlin line about a corporate monopoly: They don't care, they don't have to.

This Court majority was empaneled after members of it and the previous majority overturned a presidential election, brought to power the man who received fewer votes than his opponent in the decisive electoral state, and did so by turning on its head that Court majority's supposed judicial philosophy. That decision was so corrupt and challenged so many of that Court majority's supposedly basic beliefs that the profoundly cynical written opinion specifically quarantined it from being used as precedent in future decisions. It was blatantly depraved partisan politics.

That the new Chief Justice and the other new Justice who were brought to the Court as a direct consequence of that infamous decision would join with the remaining members who made that decision to render a series of further decisions that are also corrupt and blatantly political should not come as a surprise. These justices operate with a wink and a nod. They do not look at the evidence and arguments before making conclusions, they start with conclusions, and then cherry-pick or concoct whatever evidence and arguments can be used to support them. Sort of. Because these justices don't care that their political machinations are so transparent and so dishonest. They don't have to. They don't even respect their own institution enough to care that because of them what was always the most respected branch of the federal government now is held in almost as much contempt as the other branches.

This Supreme Court majority is at war with women, with minorities, with workers, and with anyone who isn't a member of the white, male, theocratic social and economic elite. With demographic shifts rapidly transforming the electorate, it is only a matter of time before this Court majority's already minority constituency is relegated to the political fringe. This Court majority is the last bastion of that political fringe, and its decisions certainly eventually will be overturned. History will remember these justices as it remembers the justices that ruled in Dred Scott. Disgust. Disdain. Outrage. Infamy.

For now, real people will continue to suffer from the blatantly dishonest politicization of this Supreme Court majority. For now, the very functioning of democracy and republic will be undermined and put at risk by the blatantly dishonest politicization of this Supreme Court majority. The older members of this Court majority know very well how they brought the rest of this Court majority to the Court. The newer members of this Court majority know very well how they came to be members of the Court. The corruption of this Court majority started with the corrupt decision that created it. They know it. They know that many others know it. They don't care. They don't have to.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How a kleptocracy works (33+ / 0-)
    This Supreme Court majority is at war with women, with minorities, with workers, and with anyone who isn't a member of the white, male, theocratic social and economic elite.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:04:52 PM PDT

  •  We knew Bush v. Gore was important . . . . (40+ / 0-)

    At the time.

    We underestimated it.

    Every 2nd year law student knew that decision needed a 2 line ruling. "Political Question Doctrine" - Case closed. Fancy words for "You figure it out, it's not a question for courts or a lawsuit."

    Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick: The "party of Jesus" wouldn't invite him to their convention - fearing his "platform."

    by 4CasandChlo on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:15:25 PM PDT

  •  Well said Laurence... n/t (15+ / 0-)

    "Really nice, but also very serious about his job." Jackie Evancho on President Obama 6/7/12

    by BarackStarObama on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:18:39 PM PDT

  •  I take issue with only one word you used in the (7+ / 0-)

    last sentence of the third paragraph. The word is "almost."
    The rest is a thing of beauty--and truth.

  •  one addition (10+ / 0-)

    ...the white, male, heterosexual, theocratic social and economic elite.

  •  Federalist Society Pushes Anti-Federalist Policies (38+ / 0-)

    Seriously the Federalists were about a strong central government and the Federalist Society (which Scalia helped found)  pushes a neoconfederate States Rights agenda as Orwell spins in his grave.
    '
    Scalia spent 2/3 of his career railing against "activist judges," but once on the bench, Scalia declared is is the duty if the justices to legislate from the bench.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:20:53 PM PDT

  •  Bush vs Gore still makes my head and my heart (35+ / 0-)

    hurt. Such blatant partisanship that gave that dimwit, W, a job beyond his capacity.

    It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

    by Desert Rose on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:21:37 PM PDT

  •  And a Lifetime Appointment means (22+ / 0-)

    that you never have to say "I'm sorry"

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:27:37 PM PDT

  •  our system (34+ / 0-)

    The Supremes are crooked.  Congress is deadlocked.  The media corrupts facts.  Many (most?) Americans don't believe in evolution.  States gerrymand election districts and now are restricting voting rights.  Bigots believe racism is over.  Unions are weak and shrinking.  There are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:28:03 PM PDT

    •  Add in the privitization and destruction (31+ / 0-)

      of our public school systems. Yes, there are lots of reasons to be pessimistic.

      It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

      by Desert Rose on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:32:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seeing a way through for the next century.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nisi Prius, Dirtandiron

      is something i am unable to manage.  Too much corruption in too many places.  This will not end well for the common human being much less other of earth's lifeforms.  So sad.  

      Back in the 70s, I read a book written about Edgar Cayce and his predictions.  "Oh, yeah," I said to myself.  "Interesting but I'll probably be here to see if it comes about; so we shall see."  It was hard to believe how that could happen; but I parked it in my mental broom closet and went on with my life.

      Well, here we are.  Since W. was installed as president, the predictions have been supported by events we have all experienced.  Given the new discoveries in quantum mechanics, I'm not so sure this isn't possible.  Now that you all have found me certifiable, I will add that Mr. Cayce said that when it was over, the world would be better.  He just didn't mention 'when' it would be over.  Just doing a little outside the box thinking lately.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by cowdab on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:40:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "A pessimist is an optimist with experience." (6+ / 0-)

      Some guest whose name I never knew said that on a TV show more years ago than I care to remember, and it's one of the very few things I remembered instantly and never forgot (mostly because it applies to me).

      If ever Congress gives us back our rights and turn back many of the decisions made since Bill Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, then perhaps..., maybe..., I'll find a smidgin of optimism for the future of this country.

      It will have to be soon.  I don't plan on dying until I'm 100, but that's only 32 years from now..., and I want to see our rights restored to us and the 'office of faith-based initiatives' abolished before I die.

      Right now my level of optimism for the future of America is less than zero.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:09:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary, Laurence. (14+ / 0-)

    It is ridiculous to pretend that firing teachers based on student test scores, starting charter schools, giving out vouchers or implementing merit pay will overcome the challenges facing a child living in poverty. -Jersey Jazzman

    by Desert Rose on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:30:21 PM PDT

  •  This court is ethically bankrupt (21+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, the cost of its corruption will be felt for generations. Looking at those five clowns makes me wonder if the best days are behind us as a nation.

    Be radical in your compassion.

    by DWG on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:32:00 PM PDT

  •  First the Supreme Cons feel a desire, then they (12+ / 0-)

    identify an outcome that would satisfy or placate it, which leads to sifting for a possible court case that offers the opportunity to deliver the outcome, then hearing the case, and finally imposing their will with justifications.

    Sounds like a bullying behavior doesn't it?

     

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:32:05 PM PDT

  •  2004 Bush Win Gave Us Roberts And Alito (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewtx, Churchill, Gooserock, cowdab, Galtisalie

    Many thanks to those who were on the fence in 2004 in Ohio and voted for Bush because the importance of SCOTUS was not a persuasive issue.

    •  You May Want to Rethink Ohio, Debut of 10 Hr Waits (7+ / 0-)

      for voting and thousands of locked out voters in liberal areas.

      As I recall, last election we had a big gap with the Republican count much higher than polling, as Karl Rove was screaming bloody murder that the state couldn't be lost to Romney.

      I'm not sure the data's all in about Ohio voting.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:42:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Getting honest election results in Ohio (7+ / 0-)

        ... COULD be simple, if people want it:  Throw out all the e-voting machines and replace them with paper ballots and optical scanners.  If the results come out within a statistical tie, recount the paper ballots by hand (in a public arena where people can sit an watch if they want to).

        That's what we do in MN where we've had a history of close elections.  The earliest one I remember was in 1962 for the governor's race (I was still in high school).  The one that made the national news was the Franken-Coleman race.  Two years later there was another close race for governor, and Dayton (Dem) won when the 'Pukes saw that the numbers were not going in their favor on the recount and they stopped it.  Through the years in smaller regional and local races within the state there have been recounts where the winner has won by single digits.  MN has had laws regarding recounts on the books for a very long time (and easy voter registration up to and including election day with proofs of residency).  Recounts are done with all deliberate haste.  Once a recount is in motion, we all hunker down and await the results; no muss, no fuss, no stupid loopholes in the state law regarding recounts.  [That's why the SCOTUS decision in Gore v Bush was so shocking to me, and I count it as one of the most miserable days of my adult life..., and it only got worse from there.]

        Paper ballots should be mandatory in all 50 states.  IMHO, of course.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:28:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  From what I remember about Ohio (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron, marty marty

        in 2004, all the machinations weren't quite enough and it took some flat out vote vanishing to give it to W.  And Kerry conceded too soon.  He should have done what Al Franken did and insist on a recount.

      •  Niagara Falls (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron

        Slowly I turned

        Remember poring over the results post-election 2004 in Ohio at this and trying to determine what were discrepancies and what were not. So I remember it well. Maybe I shouldn't have focused on Ohio. Point I should make with anybody who is on the fence this year in the Senate races that will decide who controls the Senate, if you think the Supreme Court doesn't matter just look at 2004. A SCOTUS nomination with a GOP Senate and a President Obama will be intractable.  

    •  You have to remember Ohio recorded votes were ALL (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LamontCranston, flavor411, Decorina

      suspect.  There were ballots that had Gore on them that then flipped to bush as the vote went through.  You had numbers going backwards and forwards on the count of voters and voting machines.  you had all kind of gymnastics going on with the voting.  Leo Flinnwood can say it was "those who were on the fence in 2004 in Ohio and voted for Bush" but I contend it was the Ohio Secretary of State that said: If Katherine Harris (of SEC of Fla) could get rewarded with a position in congress for what she did in the Fla presidential voting, he could and would do it in Ohio. (paraphrased).  Blame the right people/person.  Ken Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State and of course, Karl Rove and his computer genius for the Ohio Vote that could not be confirmed ever.

  •  Now this is a front page diary which I can (23+ / 0-)

    wholeheartedly embrace.

    Unfortunately, we're going to see more and more brazen examples of utter corruption.  I'd put nothing past this court.

    All that said, I don't see that the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party will necessarily appoint citizen-oriented judges either. The overwhelming nature of this court's pro-corporate rulings, contra to the rights of citizens, will take decades to overturn if, and only if, a non-corporate-owned president should appoint several actual liberals to the court.

    By the way, the Democrats in the US Senate, one or all, could have stopped these vastly corrupt judges from ascending to the Supreme bench. That they did not is also a condemnation of their lack of vision or worse.  Republicans have been stopping Democratic appointments for years and years. Yet Democrats always roll over.  What's up with that?

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:32:49 PM PDT

  •  There ought to be a term limit (9+ / 0-)

    for Supreme Court justices.  Maybe they could be appointed for a fixed term of 15 or 20 years.  Then, no matter how bad they were, we could at least look forward to a specific day when we would see their back.

    •  Especially At the Dawn of Genetic Engineering Era. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Galtisalie, mightymouse, Dirtandiron

      At this moment we know we don't know the max reasonable lifespan of today's kids. For boomers as old as Roberts, there's time for it to jump 10-15 years with modest advances. He could be serving well into mid century.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:45:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  LS - There is actually bipartisan support for (0+ / 0-)

      18 year term limits for member of the SCOTUS. We just need a non-political entity with significant resources to take up the effort. It would require a Constitutional Amendment.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The day will come (10+ / 0-)

    and that day may not be this year or even in the next. But it will come.

    This Court majority is the last bastion of that political fringe, and its decisions certainly eventually will be overturned. History will remember these justices as it remembers the justices that ruled in Dred Scott. Disgust. Disdain. Outrage. Infamy.
    Only history knows when that day will be and then the disdain will be forever. History will not be kind.

    "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis Brandeis

    by wxorknot on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:34:39 PM PDT

  •  Exactly why 2014 election is so important (12+ / 0-)

    A Republican controlled senate will change the rules of the senate so that Obama can never get a Supreme Court nominee through.  This will be another huge setback for our democracy, and the Democrats will absolutely have to respond the next time they get control.

    We can not unilaterally let conservatives steal our democracy every time they get the fools in the public to vote for them, without responding with something harshly punitive to their Oligarch masters.

    This tit for tat is horrible for our democracy, but what would be worse would be to let the psychos know they can get away with their fascist actions whenever they gain power.  

  •  Everyone that knows this SCOTUS post to be true... (10+ / 0-)

    Needs to take the time to register 5 new voters for THIS November. Or we will get stabbed in the back in perpetuity.

  •  Politics is inherent in many Supreme Court cases. (5+ / 0-)

    The ones that make it through the court system, those SCOTUS chooses to take, how opinions get assigned and drafts written and revised ... and, most of all, the ultimate decision and, as important, how a decision is rationalized.

    The law has been a political instrument from Marbury v. Madison onward. It reached a peak for liberals during the New Deal and a few decades thereafter. Now that the Court majority is decidedly conservative, we're seeing the other side of the balance Justice holds.

    I grant that this Court - and certainly C.J. Roberts - is cleverer at reversing precedent without saying so and extending precedents it likes to the sticking point. There is a distinct agenda to many types of cases the Court has been deciding. A case on counting ballots to determine who the next President will be should never be a decision that by its terms has no precedential value. Clearly, Justice Thomas's decisions could be written from ideology without any particular case in mind and many of J. Scalia's opinions are more akin to argumentative briefs than carefully reasoned and balanced analysis. And there is the only-momentarily-contained dissembling in the Hobby Lobby decision and J. Alito's opinion. But these matters are just lousy craftsmanship.

    The Roberts Court may at once be more blatant and more clever than its predecessors ... but I don't believe it is any more "political."

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:36:46 PM PDT

    •  The very first sentence of the diary acknowledges (0+ / 0-)

      that

      The Supreme Court has always been a political institution.
      The third sentence points out the significant difference between the current Court and most of its predecessors: it is
      so unethical and so intellectually dishonest
      I fully agree with your observations that
      A case on counting ballots to determine who the next President will be should never be a decision that by its terms has no precedential value. Clearly, Justice Thomas's decisions could be written from ideology without any particular case in mind and many of J. Scalia's opinions are more akin to argumentative briefs than carefully reasoned and balanced analysis. And there is the only-momentarily-contained dissembling in the Hobby Lobby decision and J. Alito's opinion.
      But I strongly disagree that "those matters are just lousy craftsmanship."  

      The opening sentence of your paragraph is far more accurate: "There is a distinct agenda to many types of cases the Court has been deciding."

      We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

      by NoMoJoe on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:59:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No more political? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      I think you contradict yourself.  You say this:

      There is a distinct agenda to many types of cases the Court has been deciding.
      And then this:
      Clearly, Justice Thomas's decisions could be written from ideology without any particular case in mind and many of J. Scalia's opinions are more akin to argumentative briefs than carefully reasoned and balanced analysis. And there is the only-momentarily-contained dissembling in the Hobby Lobby decision and J. Alito's opinion.
      Yet you nevertheless conclude that this court is no more political than its predecessors.  I'm sorry, but a court with a "distinct agenda" that writes opinions "from ideology" without regard to the particular case is a court that's more political than its predecessors.

      Besides, Laurence is absolutely right about how this court's decisions conflict sharply with the conservative justices' claimed philosophy of judicial restraint.  The manner in which the court brought the issue in Citizens United before it was unprecedented in its judicial activism.  As Justice Stevens correctly observed, the court wanted to decide a question that no party had asked, so the court just asked the question itself.  

      Similarly, Roberts's opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius was a model of hypocrisy.  He agreed the statute could be upheld under Congress's taxing power, and once he'd come to that conclusion, the rule of constitutional avoidance would ordinarily have dictated that he decline to address the other challenges to the ACA.  But because he wanted to create a majority for limiting Congress's commerce clause power, he went on to address that issue.  Ginsberg rightly called him out on it.

      Somewhere the second Justice John Marshall Harlan is turning over in his grave.  He was a judicial conservative in the true sense, and he'd never have approved of the way in which this court is reaching out to decide issues that suit the majority's political preferences.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:22:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, you nailed the ACA decision. (0+ / 0-)

        C.j. Roberts switched, aggravating "his" majority.

        Go back and look at all the New Deal legislation that was -Voila! - approved by "the switch in time" that "saved nine."

        That was an agenda, too. And much more gracefully accomplished than our current band of legal bandits.

        And don't get misled by that BS about "judicial restraint." There's no such thing, any more than there's such at thing as just Calling the Balls and Strikes, as C.J. Roberts put it during his confirmation hearing. That loud guffaw you heard was from all sides of the legal AND political aisle!

        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:36:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, sorry, but ... (0+ / 0-)

          there's a fundamental difference between what happened with the New Deal and what's happening now.  The "switch in time" represented the Court's long overdue abandonment of the practice of using the Constitution to restrict the power of Congress and the states to regulate in the economic area.  Thus it was a step away from judicial activism and toward deference to legislative and administrative decision-making in matters of economic and labor policy.

          What we are seeing today is the resurrection of the previously discredited philosophy that permitted the Supreme Court to secondguess Congress's chosen policies in regulating economic activity.  This in no way resembles the Court's change of heart back during FDR's time.  In fact, it's the precise opposite.

          There is indeed such a thing as judicial restraint.  It involves courts deferring to the judgment of the political branches of government and to the decisions of administrative agencies in matters of policy.  Declining to become involved in judging the wisdom of policy is what judicial restraint is all about.  It also involves not trying to use strained interpretations of the Constitution to achieve through judicial decree what your party has failed to achieve through the ballot box.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:28:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We disagree, though I like your politics! (0+ / 0-)

            There's no proper deference to Congress if the wisdom of its judgment about policy is determined by a court to be unconstitutional. Whether a given statute is unconstitutional depends on one's view of what the marvelously interpretable language of the Constitution does and doesn't allow. That is inherently a judgment of the times, in an environment that is by nature political. I suggest it is a flexible judgment just like the Constitution is a flexible document.

            It may be unseemly to say so. We understandably object to decisions of a court that look to be based on overtly political ideology. After all, we say judges don't have a mandate to make law, only to "find" it, interpret it, apply it.

            Yet ... there's the brooding omnipresence of that wonderful language from Marbury v. Madison - it is chiseled in stone on a wall at the US Supreme Court - which summarizes the enduring interpretation of "judicial restraint":

            It is emphatically the
            province and duty of
            the Judicial Department
            to say what the law is.
            As for deference to Congress, for one example, take Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the decision that discovered that political money was political speech and led to a stream of cases on campaign financing and contributions.

            There is case after case where the counts show no deference whatever to the policy judgments of administrative agencies and executive departments. The matter may be couched as one of standing or mootness or procedural rights - as opposed to substantive policy - and the court may not admit it is deciding the wisdom of policy, but that's the effect of it.

            Yes, I probably spoke too bluntly about "judicial restraint." But it means very little to me to hear legislators and justices of the Supreme Court carry the phrase around as fraught with heavy content. It is only a self-enforced principle. It means what the speaker says it means, nothing more and nothing less.

            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 07:56:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Exaggeration. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psnyder, Justanothernyer, ImpactAv, hmi, VClib

    The Supreme Court doesn't come anywhere close to the Dred Scott era. Granting employers religious exemptions to birth control coverage is nowhere near similar to ruling that black people can be held as property with no rights.

    In any case, this Court is significantly less activist than the Warren Court, and probably than the Burger Court too. I don't think that any recent case will be as prominent as Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, many cases have been reached on narrow grounds, ie. Hobby Lobby was based on the RFRA, and not on the First Amendment. This means that Congress could reverse the ruling through a simple majority vote.

    •  the court up to FDR (3+ / 0-)

      was mostly bad, too often egregiously so - from separate but equal to throwing out employment regulation as a supposed thwarting of freedom to contract.

      Roberts hasn't turned the clock that far back. Will he? He has lots of time to show us.

    •  It's significantly more activist. (3+ / 0-)

      I'm not aware of a single case in which the Warren Court invalidated a statute because it did not fall within the enumerated powers of Congress.  IIRC, the Warren Court's "activism" consisted of its finding that in many cases, statutes conflicted with individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution.  So it didn't declare whole areas beyond the reach of regulation, but rather only said that statutes couldn't deny individuals certain rights.  

      And I don't think you'll be able to find a single instance in which the Warren or Burger Courts went out of their way to decide an issue that had never been raised by a party, as the current court did in Citizens United.  Not to mention the fact that somehow, all of Roberts Five's controversial decisions end up benefitting the Republican Party.

      I also disagree that none of their cases will be as prominent as Roe v. Wade.  Shelby County represents a heretofore unheard of effort to restrict Congress's power to protect the right of minorities to vote.  Oh, and it's doubtless just a coincidence that the current Chief Justice spent a significant portion of his career in the Reagan administration trying to find ways to weaken the VRA.  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:30:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Different type of activism. (0+ / 0-)

        True, the Warren Court experimented with other forms of activism. Shelby County is significant, but it too was decided on narrow grounds - the preclearance itself was ruled constitutional, but not the formula that dates back to the 1970s. Somehow, I can understand the Court's reasoning, given how arbitrary the preclearance map was. Now, the ball is in the hands of Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act.

    •  Bullfeathers. (5+ / 0-)

      As horrifying as Dred Scott is, at the time it was not a radical departure from common thought.  People were held as property before the decision came down, and clearly were not considered to have any rights.

      But this is the first time a corporation has been held to have religious beliefs it is entitled to enforce in contravention of federal law.

      Dred Scott was an objectively worse decision, of course, but it was in line with precedent.

      "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

      by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:22:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Corporations have religious rights? Isn't that (4+ / 0-)

        the epitome of stupidity? Oh, wait--there is this: Corporations are people with the same rights (but not responsibilities) as human people. As one leads to the other, I guess the entire concept is idiotic. I wonder what is next? I doubt that these five are done yet.

        •  savannah - the SCOTUS has never ruled that (0+ / 0-)

          corporations have all the same rights as "human persons", although that is a widely held view here at DKOS.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 10:38:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  More deep thoughts from the hobbyist. (0+ / 0-)

            When did I say that SCOTUS ever ruled about that specific point? Show me where? BTW, it is totally incorrect to change something that another person stated and put it in quotes.
            Now you are going to criticize both me and DKOS? At least I'm in good company. Why don't you find someone else to bother. I am not the least bit interested in you or your opinions from this point forward. Bye!

    •  really? (0+ / 0-)

      ruling that money is speech and that corporations are people and that there's no need for voter rights protections or that there is an individual right to gun ownership aren't as prominent as roe, and are more less representative of the era than was dred scott?

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 09:54:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too many lawyers. New blood is needed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    Too many lawyers.

    New blood is needed.

    •  I disagree. (2+ / 0-)

      Too many people not paying attention in civics and history classes. And we need more lawyers speaking out against this corrupt Court, not less lawyers.

      •  Well if we let the Koch Brother keep going they (0+ / 0-)

        will see that all the textbooks are changed to just show the "good" GOP ideas.  Back in 2002 we lived in Thomasville, Ga for a couple of years.  We heard all the news from Florida.  Florida State University was taking money from the Koch brothers and for that they were allowed to select the professors.  All professor hires had to go through the Koch brothers.

        Now I see they are advertising classes on how to start businesses  - going after school kids, but with "their" philosophy....no minimum wage, etc.

        When you have people like the Koch brothers and the textbooks coming out of Texas - we are doomed. It is like the states where evolution is not allowed to be taught.

      •  Too many people not paying attention in civics an (0+ / 0-)

        I agree.  I am in contact with people who can tell you all about movies but nothing about what is being debated or is controversial in this country.  They read nothing of importance but they never miss a bible class.  And, they vote.

  •  The 21th century Dred Scott Supreme Court (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up!

    by Churchill on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:42:00 PM PDT

  •  We were doomed when Sandra Day O'Connor exclaim... (11+ / 0-)

    We were doomed when Sandra Day O'Connor exclaimed,"This is terrible!," when Dan Rather called Florida for Gore. She's since tried to rehabilitate her reputation, but nothing will ever remove the stain of her vote in Bush v. Gore.

  •  Fruit of the Poison Tree <EOM> (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lily O Lady, Dirtandiron
  •  This sounds like the ravings of right wing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImpactAv, Peace Missile

    nutcases appalled by the decisions of the Warren and Burger Courts.

    I get that you don't like their decisions, disagree with them and consider them illegitimate.

    The court would have to move way farther to the right before any of what you say would even begin to make sense.

    •  Agree. The helplessness and pessimism of the post (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ImpactAv

      and the comments read right out of Red State.

      Of course, then I wonder if it really has all tipped over.

    •  false equivalency (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryduck

      name one case where those courts were so hypocritically ruling counter to their own ideologies that they actually explicitly stated that the rulings couldn't be used as precedent. and please explain how those courts over-reached on rulings, making decisions that weren't even sought by the appellants.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 09:51:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Between these appointed for life tools (7+ / 0-)

    ..and the most corrupt, do-nothing, obstructionist, chock-full of idiots congress in history..

    I suspect that the shit is just getting started.

    We ain't seen nothin' yet.

    Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies, We were roaring drunk on petroleum -Kurt Vonnegut

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:54:21 PM PDT

  •  One of your best LL, thanks. (4+ / 0-)

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 02:57:13 PM PDT

  •  Hello everyone. I'm new here...used to post a l... (12+ / 0-)

    Hello everyone. I'm new here...used to post a lot on Huff Po until they forced us to log in through Facebook, which I refused to do...plus the endless trolls were getting really old. I've been lurking around today, reading the articles and faving comments. I have a couple of comments and also a question. Comment #1 - you just won't find intelligent comments on any other site like you do here (and lack of trolls is refreshing too). Comment #2 - the HL decision was utterly shocking to me, even with this crazy RWNJ majority on the SC. I have worked In the legal field for over 20 years and though I am not an attorney, I do know quite a bit about the law. I cannot fathom how they made such a horrible decision. This will result in many unintended consequences, such as a closely held (insert crazy religion here) corporation being able to deny insurance coverage for say, blood transfusions, diabetes medication, or any medical procedure. Corporations...all of the profit, none of the risk...what a game!! Now my question - what's up with the "tip jar" on many of the articles? Thanks!

    •  my lawyer husband agrees with you (6+ / 0-)

      He says he thinks the Court will overrule the Hobby Lobby decision sooner rather than later.

      I'm not convinced.

      Your Q about the tip jar: When a diary is posted a tip jar is automatically appended so readers can uprate the diarist, giving them mojo and moving them toward (or keeping them in) Trusted User status.

    •  Welcome to DKOS Huff Po expat! (5+ / 0-)

      Glad you made it over here MaggieLeftNY.

      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
       ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      It will never happen for the first time until it does.

      by catilinus on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:41:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maggie - I too feel that the Hobby Lobby decision (0+ / 0-)

      was not a correct application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However, regardless of the religious belief of any group of corporate owners no business owner can ever deny anyone any form of healthcare, including contraception. The issue is who will pay for it. And even on that score I do not believe we will ever see any waiver for issues like blood transfusions.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 10:43:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Vc, I did not say they would deny heath care, I... (0+ / 0-)

        Vc, I did not say they would deny heath care, I said they would deny insurance coverage...I.e., "who would pay for it". I am sick of the "I don't want to pay for your birth control" argument. It defies the entire concept of insurance. The Supremes are going to have to come out and say that only "Christian" values and morals count, or that such ruling only applies to women's heath care, or they will have to rule in favor of any closely held corporation's "right" to deny coverage in accordance with its tenets. By the way, bc pills are prescribed for many common problems other than preventing pregnancy. Also I question the "morals and values" of a corporation that makes money by investing in companies that produce bc products as well as having its own products made in a country with a forced abortion/forced bc policy.

  •  Their decisions *will* be overturned (11+ / 0-)

    I agree with you -- ultimately, their legacy will be to be remembered as people who blatantly abused their office.  And to me, that's too bad: people like Antonin Scalia don't deserved to be remembered at all.

  •  Maybe Joe Biden should have done his job. (8+ / 0-)

    Instead of fecklessly hanging Anita Hill out to dry and rolling over for John Roberts, for example.

    He liked being a senator, I guess. Just not the responsibility that came with it. Vice president must be his dream job.

    Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

    by expatjourno on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:03:14 PM PDT

    •  I have struggled (5+ / 0-)

      to forgive/forget the lack of honesty, fairness, effort to uncover the truth from Joe Biden and other dems during the Anita Hill testimony.  They gave a pass to a nasty sexist pervert as far as I am concerned.  As well their lack of intestinal fortitude against the likes of Roberts and Alito sickened me.

      However it all goes back to Reagan for me.  Our democracy was put in danger the day the American populace bought into the Reagan fake patriotism, nationalism.   To this day, the lack of facts surrounding folks who still insist Reagan was either a harmless, charismatic game changer or a heroic destroyer of the USSR, astounds me.

      Reagan appointed Scalia, and set the precedent for corrupt and souless judges, along with selling out democracy to the highest bidder.

      Now we are in a terrible place where I am not sure we can regain our democracy without an all out revolution.

      “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

      by Jjc2006 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 06:10:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  naivete even here is profound (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hillbilly Dem

    we haven't had anything like a representative gov'mt for 30+ yrs now

    you don't even get a look as a candidate until you are vetted by the real powers that be

    please skip to the end with me

    We didn't stand up and it may be too late

    by pnchad on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:05:39 PM PDT

  •  The quality... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, Hillbilly Dem

    and 'customer service', mentality, provided by the current SCOTUS is on par with a Walmart, (Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, and etc.).
    Which is not surprising considering the fact that the same small group of individuals own/control all of them.

    "These 'Yet To Be' United States" --James Baldwin--

    by kevinbr38 on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:09:24 PM PDT

  •  I'm with y' (6+ / 0-)

    Whenever someone says the Supreme Court is in danger of losing its credibility - I reply grimly, "They lost all credibility for me when they chose Bush."

    It's why I sneer whenever I read about Sandra O'Connor and her supposed distress over the rightwingy-ness of her Republican party. As if. Every day she has the opportunity to apologize - and every day she lets that opportunity go right on by. In fact, she tends to sneer at anyone who brings it up. Up until recently, anyway:

    Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Supreme Court seven years ago [source date: May 2013], made some news the other day. In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, she expressed misgivings about one of the signature decisions of her judicial career: Bush v. Gore. “Maybe the Court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’ ” The case, she said, which effectively awarded the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush, “stirred up the public” and “gave the Court a less than perfect reputation.”
    Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker thinks O'Connor's tune is changing because she doesn't like the new Republican Party. Not out principle or anything.
    The story of O’Connor’s election-night rooting for Bush in 2000 is well-known; I’ve told it in two books.
  •  The profane vulgarity of this court... (10+ / 0-)

    ...will live in infamy, if not for it's activism and corruption, but for it's blatant disregard for the document it is purported to interpret. As demonstrated by the Hobby Lobby case, this court is at war with the Constitution. There shall be no establishment of religion. Of course, given the this court's and past court's attacks on the fourth amendment, I suppose we should not be surprised.

    Regulated capital serves the people, unregulated capital serves itself.

    by Alumbrados on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:16:08 PM PDT

  •  Thank you, your words are much more... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO

    eloquent than mine about this Supreme Court failing the country that put them in office.  It is almost as if they are without careful contemplation, deferring instead to their prejudices.  Honestly, Hobby Lobby was just icing on the prejudicial cake.

    "A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered." Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Yo Bubba on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:20:22 PM PDT

  •  Many years ago I visited (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Decorina, Jjc2006

    my homeland and ran across an old neighbor. When I inquired about her husband, who was a known cantankerous alcoholic, she responded: "We had a miracle, he passed a year ago". We need five miracles, lets pray or pull out our "Voo Doo" dolls

  •  one reason they are so enabled (4+ / 0-)

    is the right's ability to manipulate the national discourse thanks to their talk radio monopoly

    they've still got half the country convinced the democrats have partisan activist judges on the court, just waiting to destroy america

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:35:29 PM PDT

  •  The infuriating thing is we had that window (0+ / 0-)

    when Democrats in Congress had a big enough majority to actually impeach one of them. And Thomas, and arguably Scalia, at least had done enough shady stuff to give cause.

    But Pelosi wanted to be "reasonable" and didn't go after W or anyone else that they could have. You can be sure if the Republicans ever get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate and a House majority they will impeach every Democratic appointed Justice just on spec.

    •  What would the articles of impeachement... (0+ / 0-)

      ...have looked like?

      Be specific.

      The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

      by Davis X Machina on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:47:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thomas failed to report (3+ / 0-)

        years of outside income by his wife that involved her shopping access to him as part of her political consulting business. amongst other things.

        •  Could you get, have gotten, 67 votes for it? (0+ / 0-)

          The superfluous goods of the rich are necessary to the poor, and when you possess the superfluous you possess what is not yours." St. Augustine

          by Davis X Machina on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 07:42:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  KBS666 - you have no idea what you are writing (0+ / 0-)

          about. There is no form, or requirement, for federal judges including members of the SCOTUS to disclose any spousal income information to the Court or the public. What is required is for judges to report the names of the EMPLOYERS of spouses and Justice Thomas did not comply. The names of the employers of Mrs. Thomas was widely reported in the DC press so there was no harm done, and no counsel ever raised the issue. The only remedy ever required of other members of the federal judiciary, who also failed to report this information, was to ask the judge to amend the reports to add the names of the employers. Justice Thomas was asked to amend the forms and he did. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mrs. Thomas was "shopping access to him".

          There were never the votes to impeach Justice Thomas in the House, even when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker because Justice Thomas never even violated any of the federal cannons of judicial ethics. An impeachment inquiry and vote would have been viewed for exactly what it was, a blatant political act. In addition, I don't think you could have gotten 30 votes in the Senate, never mind 67 needed to remove a Justice from the bench.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 11:00:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  nonetheless... (0+ / 0-)

            If Congress would at least hold hearings, it would put some serious sense of fear in all of the other "justices," who might suddenly realize that their jobs could be in jeopardy, as well, if they continue along their current pathway.  

            I've just sent a second (unacknowledged) letter to the "chief justice," but I'm sure that he did not read it, let alone care or come to an understanding that people outside the bubble are not overjoyed with his absurd decisions re. corporation's humanity, religious beliefs, etc.  

          •  Actually it did violate the canon of ethics. (0+ / 0-)

            Specifically it gave the appearance of a conflict of interest which is to be avoided. Since Thomas did not he was in violation. Further since he did knowingly fail to properly report his wife's outside income for over a decade on a government document he signed, which presumably included the standard warning that signing it falsely was an act of perjury, there is arguably an underlying felony crime.

            •  KB - there is no requirement to disclose income (0+ / 0-)

              The form has no line for income, only the name of the employers. No federal judge has ever been sanctioned as an ethics violation, prosecuted, or removed from the bench solely for the "crime" of omitting the name of the employers of his spouse. Are you suggesting that Justice Thomas should have been the first and only such case when the information requested was known by all parties appearing before the Court due to Ginny Thomas' high profile jobs reported by the DC media?

              "let's talk about that" uid 92953

              by VClib on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 12:02:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you saying the Supreme Court Justices (0+ / 0-)

                should not adhere strictly to the letter of the canon of ethics? I think they should. The mere appearance of a conflict is to be avoided and the failure to properly report no matter whether it was well known or not are beyond serious when it is a Supreme Court Justice. Any other judge and the  rulings can be appealed and reversed if they let their outside interests sway their decisions but from the Supreme Court there is no appeal so the justices that sit on that Court must be above reproach.

                BTW I just did some checking, the last line of the form is the standard warning. By signing the document and not including his wife's employers he did commit criminal perjury.
                http://www.judicialwatch.org/...

                •  I think Justices of the SCOTUS should be held (0+ / 0-)

                  to the same standard as other members of the federal judiciary, which is exactly how Justice Thomas was treated.

                  "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                  by VClib on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:19:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not so sure a sitting lower court judge (0+ / 0-)

                    would be allowed to get away with that. I'll remind you again that signing that form made him technically guilty of perjury.

                    •  KBS - that's how ALL other federal judges (0+ / 0-)

                      who failed to disclose spousal employers, have been treated.

                      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                      by VClib on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:52:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                        •  This issue was a cause celebre here at DKOS (0+ / 0-)

                          just after the Citizens United decision was announced and we had diaries with hundreds of comments, with links to good sources, on Thomas' failure to report the names of his spouses employers. This issue has been thoroughly vetted here, before you arrived. In the end people realized that this would never be an issue that could have Justice Thomas removed from the Court and that encouraging Democratic members of Congress to pursue this would appear blatantly partisan, with no possibility that anything would happen.

                          I think Adam B, in my view our best legal writer here, may have written a diary on the topic shortly after CU was announced. I wrote numerous comments on the topic, but didn't write a diary.

                          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                          by VClib on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:11:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Adam B did not. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            savannah43

                            At least not with a title that would indicate so. Beyond that some googling has been less than helpful.

                            As to it being viewed as political, everything is viewed as political. It doesn't change the fact that Thomas broke the law and the canon of ethics and should be removed from the bench.

                          •  KBS - your view is noted (0+ / 0-)

                            and is shared by many here and in the progressive blogs. There is no precedent for removing federal judges for this transgression, Justice Thomas has filed amended forms, and it has become old news.

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 05:15:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If he didn't do anything wrong, why did he have (0+ / 0-)

                            to amend any forms?

                          •  Held to a higher standard (0+ / 0-)

                            Even everyday officers of a court, or police, are held to a higher standard of behavior when investigated or prosecuted for certain crimes because they are in a position of authority.  Should the SCOTUS be exempted from this?

                          •  Are you in reality Clarence or Ginny? (0+ / 0-)

                            Own up, now.

                          •  No, but it is really fun to actually try to (0+ / 0-)

                            understand Clarence Thomas, and the facts that circle his life and that of his wife. It is amazing how much misinformation is presented here and all through the Internet about Justice Thomas. I could care less what people think of Justice Thomas as a person, or his legal philosophy, I just try and correct people who have their facts wrong. Fortunately I have some help here, in part by some of our most distinguished lawyers on this site.

                            Following the Supreme Court, and it's members, is one of my hobbies. I spend nearly as much time on scotusblog.com as I do here. I try and present factual information about the people and the cases, without a point of view, although I didn't agree with the Hobby Lobby decision and did state that for the record. We have lots of opinions shared here, it would be helpful if we had more factual information.

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:18:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  The self-educated hobbyist expert (0+ / 0-)

            takes another person to task. He thinks I also have no idea what I'm "writing about." And now, we have here, another example of his opinion. Wow. Thanks!

  •  Liberal buck passing! (0+ / 0-)

    This is just more passing the blame for congressional incompetence.  The court ruled correctly on all counts.  McCain-Feingold was a great concept but poorly written.  It made protecting the incumbent the unspoken goal.  Instead of a constitutional law that banned donations from all groups and only allowed them from breathing individuals we got free speech conflicts.

    Instead of passing the Swiss Universal that would have taken employers out of the insurance business we get half Swiss Obamacare.  A political attempt to make Romneycare an issue instead of universal healthcare.  Now we get the bogus "war on women" red meat to the base line.  Had a competent bill been passed the problem wouldn't have existed.

    How about some honesty for a change?  It's easy to pile on the blame but overlook the reason you must blame someone else.

    Here are the solutions.
    Pass campaign finance reform that makes donations by breathing individuals the only legal donation.  No corps. No unions. No 527's or bundlers.

    Fix the ACA into the Swiss Universal.  It's endorsed by both Krugman and Forbes.  It has bipartisan support since parts of the Heritage plan is Swiss as is a lot of the ACA.

  •  Yeah, and they even struck down PP & ACA... (0+ / 0-)

    Oh wait. Never mind.

  •  I question using the term "corrupt". (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImpactAv

    That makes it sound like they were bought off.  They are definitely political and ideological, but not sure about corrupt.

    •  The GOP judges refuse to recuse themselves (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vadem165, MaggieLeftNY, NonnyO

      when members of their families are involved in any way in the cases: e.g., Thomas' wife was working on GW Bush's inaugural.  Thomas' and Alito's wifes work on Pro Life issues and speak out.  Scalito's son worked at the law firm bringing Bush v. Gore to the Court.  These people don't know the word recuse.  But Kegan has recused herself for quite a few since her appointment.  I guess the Big 5 don't understand the terms recuse or ethics.

      •  marty - I am providing a link to a short memo (0+ / 0-)

        from Federal District Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt who was assigned the California Proposition 8 case. His wife, Romona Ribston was the Executive Director of the Southern California ACLU who was active personally and organizationally as an opponent of Proposition 8. The pro-Prop 8 litigants asked Judge Reinhardt to recuse himself because of his wife's employment, and very public views on the case. Judge Reinhardt refused the request.

        This memo has been viewed as the most thoughtful and complete review of spousal recusal issues in the recent history of the federal judiciary. If this is an area of interest, I would highly recommend reading it.

        http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/...

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 11:28:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope--Ribston (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          savannah43

          was not personally or organizationally active in the case brought before Reinhardt, as he says on pp. 7-8, or any Prop. 8 lege.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 03:04:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Kagan (0+ / 0-)

        Is she just smarter - or more ethical - or both?

  •  Thanks for the clarity (0+ / 0-)

    I never forget what really happened in that election. The bitterness have gone away, but I don't forget.

    We produce more renewable energy than any other state - WA Gov. Jay Inslee

    by mrobinson on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 03:58:12 PM PDT

  •  That Obamacare Ruling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marty marty

    Time to revisit the ruling in 2012 that upheld Obamacare and most of it's provisions. I've always wondered why Roberts threw his weight behind that ruling. My thinking is he was worried that knocking it down would enrage and inflame the Democratic voting base. And they thought they had a good chance to win as long as they could win the turnout race. Of course, they could not have foreseen Mitt's 47% moment.
    #Romney2016!

    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

    by meade on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:01:28 PM PDT

    •  No, Roberts was not worried... (0+ / 0-)

      ... about inflaming the Democratic voting base.  He's a corporatist and doesn't give a shit about any base of any kind.  (He's almost certainly a Republican, but above political considerations he is protecting corporations now.)

      Roberts and the other conservative justices knew what their outcome had to be and then crafted their ruling around the conclusion.  [Kinda like what they did for this idiotic Hobby Lobby "decision."  This was not the first, and I'm sure won't be the last, time that SCOTUS ruled in favor of corporations, against all constitutional and common-sense reasonableness.]

      Roberts, et alia, had to protect the insurance, medical, and pharmaceutical corporations and the windfall profits they are making with us being forced to buy corporate insurance.  They had the conclusion - they crafted their decision around the conclusion.

      If our Cretinous Congress Critters and Obama were serious about a not-for-profit single-payer system, the simplest thing would have been to change the law and allow everyone buy into Medicare health insurance - we all pay for it from our first paychecks through death (that, plus Soc Sec insurance & unemployment insurance are our Earned Benefits because we pay for them in advance of using them - they are NOT "entitlements" or free welfare monies as the term "entitlements" implies; they're all prepaid insurance plans run by the government that private corporations would like to take over).

      Medicare Part A & Part B insurance premiums are deducted from Social Security before the remainder is deposited in our accounts; Part D is a corporate payment to an insurance corporation and covers prescription drugs - it should be changed over to being covered under Medicare insurance.  [Incidentally, if our Cretinous Congress Critters had gone with a not-for-profit single-payer health insurance via a Medicare buy-in, lots of people would have had to be hired to handle the extreme increase in paperwork..., which would have fulfilled the whole "jobs, jobs, jobs" mantra the idiots in Congress kept yapping about and didn't DO anything about other than give corporations more tax breaks.]

      Medicare Part D, passed under Dumbya, came with the caveat "Buy this corporate insurance or else."  It is the blueprint for Obamacare which came with the caveat "Buy this corporate health insurance or pay a $1000 fine."

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 05:02:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Scalia is a blatant racist (0+ / 0-)

    The right to vote is a racial entitlement!!!

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t bother with subtlety while articulating his racial resentment during oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act Wednesday, particularly its key provision. According to the conservative-leaning judge, Section 5 of the law, which requires state and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any changes to their voting laws with the Justice Department before enacting them, is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Scalia also opined, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

    We're all just working for Pharaoh.

    by whl on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:04:34 PM PDT

  •  when you nominate (3+ / 0-)

    and place individuals that are intellectually lacking on any court what you get is a court like our supposed supreme court.

    conservatism has proven it is incapable of running our nation properly and this conservative court is tearing down all the advances liberalism brought us over the last century.

    we are watching the dismantling of our way of life by a  political mob that want to live and think in the past, the future is nothing the enemy and something to be feared to the intellectually inferior conservatives.

  •  Not much longer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, Josiah Bartlett

    Fortunately for our society time is our friend. We have no control over the courts present makeup but will have the opportunity for change, possibly before the end of the first term of the next president. The 2016 election is by far the most important for democrats. The new president will most likely nominate at least 2, possibly up to 4 justices. Those likely to leave are Ginsberg (we don't want her to go), Thomas (worthless puppet), Scalia (evil), Kennedy (so confused).

    We should concentrate all our efforts on making sure 2016 is the year of the democrat and begin the transformation of this court for decades to come.

    •  What? (0+ / 0-)

      I agree Ginsburg is not going to be on the court until 2020.

      That being said, I am guessing that Thomas will be on the court until 2030.
      He has been on the court for so long it is somewhat surprising his current age,as he was relatively young when he was confirmed and is only 2 years older than Alito.

      The year of birth for each justice and any publicly disclosed health issues.
      Ginsburg 1933 (With a significant history of cancer)
      Scalia 1936
      Kennedy 1936
      Breyer 1938
      Thomas 1948
      Alito 1950
      Sotomayor 1954(And is also a diabetic, even though it seems to be controlled)
      Roberts 1955
      Kagan 1960

      Their approximate ages at the inauguration in 2024.
      (assuming HRC or another democrat wins in '16 and '20)

      Ginsburg 91
      Kennedy and Scalia 88
      Breyer 86
      Thomas 76
      Alito 74
      Roberts 69
      Sotomayor 70
      Kagan 64

      So outside of Ginsburg, and possibly Breyer, who might leave prior to 2024, it is a coin toss if anybody else is going to leave the court prior to 2024.
      Could Scalia or Kennedy still be on the court in 2024?
      I would say the chances are 60-80% that at least 1 will still be on the court in 2024.

      •  Could adding 2 more Justices be the answer? (0+ / 0-)

        The Dems should seriously think about changing the number of justices to 11 from 9 after 2016 and appoint two 35 year old raging liberals.

        That will fix 'em.

        •  Where does it stop (0+ / 0-)

          If the Dems add two, can the GOP add five when they are in charge? Congress won't consider increasing the number of Justices on the SCOTUS.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 11:15:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If Congress and the President approves, (0+ / 0-)

            why not? Why do you think 9 is magical? I agree that tradition makes it seriously unlikely, but it certainly wouldn't be unconstitutional . . .

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 03:07:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It would not be unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

              but it would be highly partisan, and a slippery slope I don't want to see up slide down.

              "let's talk about that" uid 92953

              by VClib on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 06:21:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It would be more democratic, though. (0+ / 0-)

                Given that it would have to be approved by a whole lot of elected officials. If we have the actual majority belief about the way things should be, we should have no fear in letting it be enacted. We are hamstringing ourselves by not investigating this kind of innovative approach . . .

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:23:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, I don't like the idea that any party that has (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pi Li, nextstep

                  a majority in the House and Senate, and holds the White House, should feel empowered to change the number of justices on the SCOTUS to pack it in their favor. I don't like that at all.

                  "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                  by VClib on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:10:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  doesn't (0+ / 0-)

        Doesn't Roberts suffer from epilepsy?  Even though it may be in control at the moment, it could shorten his lifespan or his (alleged) mental faculties in the years ahead.  

  •  Once again: Elections. Have. Consequences. (4+ / 0-)

    And we're looking at one of the most consequential.

    I'm speaking specifically to the "Democrats and Republicans are both the same, so it doesn't matter who you vote for" crowd.  And I'm speaking to the "I vote for the candidate, not the party" crowd.

    America got it wrong in 1988, and we ended up with Bush I - who gave us Clarence Thomas.  And of course the SCOTUS itself got it wrong in 2000, and we ended up with Bush II - who gave us John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

    Yes, America: Elections DO have consequences.  We're looking at three of those disastrous consequences right now.

    All that is necessary for the triumph of the Right is that progressives do nothing.

    by Mystic Michael on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:35:19 PM PDT

  •  Word salad Sarah (0+ / 0-)

    was all over "judicial activism".  She couldn't mean these guys, right?  /s

  •  I've been saying for most of this century... (5+ / 0-)

    ...the United States of America does not have a Supreme Court.  The Republican Party has a Supreme Court.  That is not the same thing at all.

    When you punch enough holes through steerage, the first-class cabins sink with the rest of the ship.

    by Roddy McCorley on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 04:47:24 PM PDT

  •  Lest We Forget (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jjc2006, jayden

    Lest we forget how this came to pass. The Reagan administration established the most ideological screening of candidates for the Federal bench. The Republican Party Platform of 1980 specifically called for judges to be screened in ideological grounds.

    The Office of Legal Policy was established, and a special Committee of Federal Judicial Selection met on Thursdays in the White House Roosevelt Room. Sheldon Goldman wrote in an article in Judicature that "This committee formalizes an active White House role in judicial selection. Political and policy considerations have never before been so systematically taken into account."

    By 1985 Grover Rees III -- whose cover article in a 1979 issue of National Review was titled "The Confessions of One One-issue Voter" (guess what) -- was in charge of the judicial candidate selection.

    The current Republican party has not deviated from these positions, so what would any realist expect?

  •  Five of the most corrupt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flavor411, starduster

    Supreme Court Injustices in American history sit on the current court (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts). And not just for the reasons state above, but even worse. No Supreme Court justices have broken the boundaries of basis judicial and legal ethical practices as blatantly and shamelessly as these folks. They wantonly collude with blatantly partisan political groups and organizations.

    But what has not been fully revealed is to what extent some of these five justices may actually benefit financially as a direct result of their own decisions. The portfolios of these men have likely benefited tremendously by the pro-corporate policies that they have deliberately made.

    It sure would be appropriate for some appropriate law enforcement authority to start looking into the specifics of exactly how the financial portfolios of these five have been affected by their decisions. My bet is that...they have been feathering their own nests by misusing their power and authority on the court. Is there someone with jurisdiction and courage to lead such an investigation?
    Is there someone with courage to even just look into the blatantly shameless conflicts of interest and flaunting of legal ethical standards?

    •  that should read... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      starduster

      ..."flouting of legal ethical standards" (although they do seem to be flaunting it, too, as if to rub it in the eyes of the entire American public while flipping the bird at us and telling us there's nothing the public can do about a corrupt bunch of political thugs serving lifetime appointments to the highest judicial posts in the land).

    •  Without probable cause (0+ / 0-)

      no federal agency could begin an investigation of any member of the SCOTUS. The laws prohibiting this sort of activity were substantially strengthened after Nixon used the IRS against political enemies. It's a felony for any federal government employee to "go fishing" looking for wrongful acts by members of the Court without probable cause, and the approval of the Attorney General.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 11:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not a fishing expedition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jayden

        to investigate whether blatantly partisan political activities which are considered unethical for all other judges in the United States are also breaches of ethics  by Supreme Court Injustices.

        •  wdrath - I have yet to read an account, (0+ / 0-)

          by any non-partisan source, that clearly demonstrates a clear violation of the federal judicial cannon of ethics by any current member of the Court. If you have access to one, I would really like to read it.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 07:51:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  VClib: (0+ / 0-)

            have read several articles, but don't have immediate access to them without further research (will try to do that some time, but no time now), that stated that these Supreme Court judges would be in clear violation of ethical standards that apply to all other judges, regarding the need to recuse themselves in cases involving conflicts of interest.

            •  I have read them too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nextstep

              but the allegations are all by people who are partisan, and they have been published primarily on partisan sites .The people who have reviewed the situations, who aren't partisan including some of the more respected lawyers here, don't agree that the behavior was an ethics violation.

              "let's talk about that" uid 92953

              by VClib on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 11:57:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  But what if it is not a government employee, but (0+ / 0-)

        a journalist? Then what?

  •  This could be fixed tomorrow. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    starduster

    Change the rules in the Senate to eliminate filibusters for SCOTUS nominees and then Obama can nominate two members.

    You know the Republicans would do it.  Why can't we?

    Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

    by AppleP on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 06:24:20 PM PDT

  •  Although I agree with this diary... (0+ / 0-)

    it would have been nice to have some exposition - some case history and writing to illustrate the thesis being presented.  I know this venue is not really the place for that.  It would make a great book.

  •  That's quite a rewrite of history (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer, constitutional expert, nor did I stay at a particular hotel recently. I'm not saying that the prudent thing might have been for the SCOTUS to reject a hearing. But you fail to mention that the original Gore challenge was cherry picking recounts only in four heavily Democratic counties, and that approval was by a 100% Democrat State SC. . That was the crux of the Bush opposition. A court composed entirely of Democrats ruled that they thought it was fine for Al Gore to cherry pick the four biggest Democratic counties in Florida and request precisely the manual recount that was most likely to deliver him the election even if he had, in fact, received less than a majority of the votes in the state.  This was a terrible idea, and it made a mockery of later Democratic claims that they just wanted to count all the votes. Add in the timeline for certifying the vote?

    Plus if Gore had won his original point he would have still lost.

    That is a lot of invective over a mute point.

    •  wrong again (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, bryduck

      florida courts had a well established history of ruling that election officials should err on the side of inclusion. and gore started by cherry-picking, but ultimately sought a full statewide recount. that was what the 5-4 majority ruled against.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 09:46:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  However (0+ / 0-)

        THAT vote to include the whole state was ONLY after bush took the original (non inclusive) decision to court. If they had a history of inclusion for they would have made that the case originally, not after a challenge. Besides, Federal law set December 12th as the deadline for states to appoint their electors.  By the time the Florida Supreme Court's second order came down, here was no way to complete a statewide manual recount and still meet that deadline in a few days. Broward county alone took 10 days for their recount.

        On December 1st, SCOTUS unanimously agreed that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was flawed.  They sent it back and ordered the court to reconsider and explain itself. The result was the decision to include all counties (but still mute regarding the inclusion of over votes) resulting in the the SCOTUS The Court ruling 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. And the 4 dissenters and differing reasons and remedies for the situation. And again, if Gore had his way he would have still lost the recount.

        Essentially the By the time the SCOTUS stepped in, there were basically only three choices:

        1.  Gore might have been elected president on a partial recount of Florida votes (certified by a procedure that the Florida Supreme Court allowed to be changed mid-stream) depending on the number of over votes that could have been determined in some timely manner.

        2.  It would have gone back to the SCOTUS yet again with even less time to finish a recount, and they'd have had to rule exactly as they did in Bush v. Gore, or sign off on a recount that Republicans would view as unfair.

        3.  The Florida Court could stick with the procedure they'd established in the original ruling (undervotes only) and Bush would have been elected anyway.  

        The last was might have the best for the country socially (and for the Court's reputation).  In the first two options might have gotten a better president. But neither of these options would have "kept the election from being stolen".  In most scenarios, the best the Court could have done was pick a different side to feel that it had been robbed. My larger point is that you make a lot of assumptions about the court's unanimity on these different rulings that are not the case and and make assumptions on the Justices motive. And you left two rather important aspects of the Gore challenge 1) his (and the original SCOF remedy was ruled unfair unfair by all the SC justices and i that remedy had gone forward he would have still lost.

  •  The vote was 7-2 (0+ / 0-)

    Remember, that ruling was 7-2, not 5-4; a majority of the justices felt that a partial recount violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

    •  wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden

      it was 5-4 that there was no timely remedy. that halted the recount.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 09:44:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See my comments above (0+ / 0-)

        And there was no timely remedy, recall the four liberal justices disagreed on what the remedy could or should be. Gore was trying to cherry pick the state when he should have asked for a (inclusive) statewide recount instead. That could have been done in time and most likely would not have been given a hearing at the SC.

        •  he did ask for a full recount (0+ / 0-)

          initially he didn't, but in the end- the case that bush took to the supreme court- he did.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 02:37:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is exactly my point (0+ / 0-)

            he only wanted the heavily Democratic districts to recount and only the under votes. The FLA SC (all Democrats) said sure. The SCOTUS said "no- try this again". Then FLA dithered about the whole state and undervotes and over votes. Ultimately, there was not enough time to do anything else. If Gore had asked for a statewide recount, with over votes as well as undervotes he might have won. But your insinuation that there was some conspiracy to deliver the election to Bush doesn't hold water considering all the missteps of the Gore team and the dissent among the Justices.

            •  wrong again (0+ / 0-)

              according to their supposed federalist ideology, the supreme court majority should not have accepted the case at all. that was the first tell.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 10:42:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, you are wrong (again) (0+ / 0-)

                7 justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.

                And even if they had not taken the case bush would have won the recount as originally challenged by Gore.

                The decade old claim that the SC stole the elections is tiresome, as well as false. Which is why Gore did not challenge the end result.

                •  i know this is hard (0+ / 0-)

                  but the five conservatives are supposed to defer to states. that's the entire premise of their supposed judicial philosophy. beyond that, to have cited equal protection when they have never shown any interest in equal protection was the height of hypocrisy. as jeffrey toobin- no frothing liberal- put it:

                  Should Gore have won in a legal sense as well? He probably should have, and a Supreme Court opinion that is doomed to infamy denied him this opportunity, too.
                  or jack balkin:
                  It is no secret that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore has shaken the faith of many legal academics in the Supreme Court and in the system of judicial review. It is worth considering why this should be so. Legal academics rationalize bad judicial decisions all the time; that is part of their job description. Moreover, the fact that a few judges occasionally make mistakes in legal reasoning, even very egregious mistakes, should come as no surprise, nor should it cause one to lose faith in the rule of law,mthe U.S. Supreme Court, or in the system of judicial review. Likewise, the fact that a few judges occasionally decide cases because they secretly favor one party over another should also come as no surprise; nor should isolated examples of judicial corruption cause one to lose faith in a larger process of legal decisionmaking. The problem with Bush v. Gore, I suspect, was the case was too salient an example of judicial misbehavior for many legal academics to swallow. It was no isolated fender bender in which a local judge helped out the son of a former law partner. Rather, the case decided the outcome of a presidential election and may well have determined who would sit on the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts for decades to come. Moreover, unlike the judge deciding the case of a fender bender in some obscure venue, the Court could not have failed to recognize that all eyes were upon it. That the conservative Justices acted as they did suggested that their partisanship was so thorough and pervasive that it blinded them to their own biases. It seemed as if they had lost all sense of perspective.

                  In addition, Bush v. Gore was troubling because it suggested that the Court was motivated by a particular kind of partisanship, one much more narrow than the promotion of broad political principles through the development of constitutional doctrine. The distinction is between the “high” politics of political principle and the “low” politics of partisan advantage. The same five conservative Justices who formed the majority in Bush v. Gore had been engaged, for over a decade, in a veritable revolution in constitutional doctrines concerning civil rights and federalism. In those decisions, the five conservatives had been promoting a relatively consistent set of ideological positions like colorblindness, respect for state autonomy from federal interference, and protection of state governmental processes from federal supervision. But the decision in Bush v. Gore did not seem to further those values, at least not directly. Rather, the five conservatives seemed to adopt whatever legal arguments would further the election of the Republican candidate, George W. Bush. This is the “low” politics of partisan political advantage. Although few legal academics these days are shocked to learn that Justices’ decisions are “political” in the sense that they promote “high politics”—larger political principles and ideological goals—they were quite disturbed by the possibility that Justices would use the power of judicial review in so prominent a case to promote the interests of a particular political party and install its candidates in power.

                  Indeed, the appearance, if not the reality, of this kind of partisanship in Bush v. Gore casts an unsavory light on the constitutional revolution of the last decade. It was widely speculated before and after the election that several of the Justices might retire within the next few years. By intervening in the election, the five conservatives installed a President who would appoint their colleagues and successors and would stock the federal judiciary with like-minded conservatives. Bush v. Gore was troubling because the five conservatives appeared to use the power of judicial review to secure control of another branch of government that would, in turn, help keep their constitutional revolution going. It is one thing to entrench one’s constitutional principles through a series of precedents. It is quite another to entrench one’s ideological allies by directing the outcome of a presidential election.

                  please proceed.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 11:15:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please, save your smart (0+ / 0-)

                    alec snark for your mama. A philosophy that would generally defer to the states in line with the Constitution is not the same as always deferring to the states even when they are wrong. As the 7-2 decision proves. And again - if they HAD deferred to Florida Gore would have lost. What the heck is your point?

                    •  wrong again (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      savannah43

                      gore ultimately asked for a full recount. he would have won it. constitutional scholars themselves had their faith in the court shaken and shattered. and you continue your historical revisionism. i'll stick with the facts and people who actually know what they're talking about. you can continue to attempt to unskew reality.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 11:30:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                        You have made two contradicting claims. That the SCOTUS should have refused the case. In which case the cherry picked recount of undervotes in Democratic counties would have given the vote to Bush. And simultaneously you say that Gore asked fpr a full recount that would have given the vote to him.

                        He asked for a full recount only after the SCOUTS took the case and told SCOFL to fix the mess they created. And recall that was a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS- so there was no great conspiracy.  The full state recount most likely would have (but how the over votes would have been counted, and even IF they would be counted by judges rather than journalists is a hypothetical) given the vote to Gore. That it was only a few days left for that to take place made it nearly impossible to have a recount and meet the deadline.

                        Gore was being too clever by requesting only the 5 most Democratic counties. If he had requested a full state recount he very well may have been president.

                        Those are facts. I am not revising anything. Your point that there was some evil conspiracy among the Justices was the larger point I wanted to call attention to. The dissents among themselves and the series of events that led to the final 5-4 decision say otherwise.

                        I actually agree with you that if they had not stepped in their reputation would have remained much higher. But again it was hard not to considering what the Fla court had done. And agin, that recount would have resulted in a Bush presidency.

                        If there was some sinister plot to deprive Gore of the election I think he may have fought the final decision rather gracefully than accept the outcome.

                        •  as i said (0+ / 0-)

                          i'll stick with facts and constitutional scholars. i'll stick with the florida court's history and precedents. you can stick with unskewing reality.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:23:19 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Or you can point out (0+ / 0-)

                            what in my comments are not factual? Seriously dude, I'll wait... And I'll gladly admit if I am wrong.

                            And this:

                            i'll stick with the florida court's history and precedents
                            if that means agreeing with the FL court's initial ruling then you are at odds with the entire SCOTUS at that time.

                            And while there are many scholars (most notably Dershowitz) who did accuse the court of political partisanship, there are many who found the decision reasonable if not desirable.

                          •  stick with your right wing historical revisionism (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            savannah43

                            it reveals you. over six hundred constitutional scholars from across the spectrum signed a letter condemning the decision. there wasn't anything even remotely similar supporting it. and it was the court's final 5-4 ruling that mattered. period.

                            What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
                            Unlike the majority, I see no warrant for this Court to assume that Florida could not possibly comply with this requirement before the date set for the meeting of electors, December 18. Although one of the dissenting justices of the State Supreme Court estimated that disparate standards potentially affected 170,000 votes, Gore v. Harris, supra, _ So. 2d, at _ (slip op., at 66), the number at issue is significantly smaller. The 170,000 figure apparently represents all uncounted votes, both undervotes (those for which no Presidential choice was recorded by a machine) and overvotes (those rejected because of votes for more than one candidate). Tr. of Oral Arg. 61—62. But as Justice Breyer has pointed out, no showing has been made of legal overvotes uncounted, and counsel for Gore made an uncontradicted representation to the Court that the statewide total of undervotes is about 60,000. Id., at 62. To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now.
                            I fear that in order to bring this agonizingly long election process to a definitive conclusion, we have not adequately attended to that necessary “check upon our own exercise of power,” “our own sense of self-restraint.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 79 (1936) (Stone, J., dissenting). Justice Brandeis once said of the Court, “The most important thing we do is not doing.” Bickel, supra, at 71. What it does today, the Court should have left undone. I would repair the damage done as best we now can, by permitting the Florida recount to continue under uniform standards.
                            In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:43:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So my facts were correct, thanks (0+ / 0-)

                            And just because I have a different opinion of the motives  of a decision, does not make me "right wing". That you cannot point out any factual inaccuracies in my statements but instead change the subject reveals you.

                          •  you ignore the facts (0+ / 0-)

                            you have cited and quoted none. you fix your own to fit your conclusions. where have we seen that before.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:20:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please tell me what is not factual? (0+ / 0-)

                            But not your own facts. So tell me what is not accurate about any of this:

                            An automatic electronic recount concurred with the original vote totals for bush.

                            Gore requested a manual recount of undervotes only in four heavily Democratic counties.

                            That was granted (in split decision) by the FLA Court. Which was challenged by bush.

                            Challenges and appeals by both parties in FL and US courts,  get to the SCOTUS.

                            The SCOTUS unanimously held that there was "considerable uncertainty" as to the reasons for the Florida Supreme Court's decision and vacating the Florida decision and remanding the case for clarification.

                            The state wide recount was then challenged and taken by SCOTUS. The later 5-4 decision ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by law. However, seven of the justices (including two of the "liberals") agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.

                            The dissenting justices while disagreeing with the majority, were not in agreement on what the remedy should be.

                            It is hard for me to see a conspiracy among the five conservative Justices when two of their decisions were joined by liberals (on unanimously) on the court and the entire matter would not have presented itself had Gore not chosen, and the FLA court not approved the constitutionally flawed recount of only four counties. Or the various split decisions among a Democratic Florida Supreme court, or the Leon county judge (also a Democrat).

                            I also stated that a consortium of newspapers conducted a recount like the one requested by Gore originally (the action you said you preferred and should have been taken) and found it would have resulted in a bush victory. :

                            Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

                            Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots..
                            But he never asked for such a recount.

                            These, other than my (neutral) opinion on the motives,  are all facts are they not? And whatever their motives may have been the point is moot considering that your and Gore's preferred remedy would not have changed the outcome of the election.

                            Good day.

                          •  i know this is hard (0+ / 0-)

                            but gore ended up asking for a full recount. but cherry-picking is the only way you can spin your disinformation. and the consortium found that if all ballots had been counted, which was what gore was seeking when the supreme court halted the recount, he would have won.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:49:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You evidently did read my comment (0+ / 0-)

                            Again you are not entitled to your own facts.

                            fact: His initial request was to hand count only the under votes on four democratic counties. This was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court precisely because it WAs cherry picking.

                            To quote the NYT story (again)

                            Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots.
                            Or the consortium:
                            The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
                            Or Washington post:
                            The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or amore restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
                          •  whoosh (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            savannah43

                            keep flailing. right wing spin is like that. gore ended up asking for a full recount. that's the point.

                            The myth that Bush would have won had the recount proceeded dates back to a recount conducted by a consortium of newspapers that examined the ballots. The consortium found that “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.” But the newspapers decided that this was not how the counties would have actually tabulated the votes. By the variable standards they would have used, the papers reported, Bush would have prevailed. Thus the national news reported a slew of headlines asserting that Bush would have prevailed.

                            The conclusion was erroneous. The newspapers assumed that the counties would only have looked at “undervotes” — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored “overvotes” — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the “intent of the voter” would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes.

                            Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)

                            http://nymag.com/...

                            as toobin put it:

                            Should Gore have won in a legal sense as well? He probably should have, and a Supreme Court opinion that is doomed to infamy denied him this opportunity, too.

                            In the cynical calculus of contemporary politics, it is easy to dismiss Gore’s putative victory. But if more people intended to vote for Gore than for Bush in Florida—as they surely did—then it is a crime against democracy that he did not win the state and thus the presidency. It isn’t that the Republicans “stole” the election or that Bush is an “illegitimate” president. But the fact remains: The wrong man was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, and this is no small thing in our nation’s history. The bell of this election can never be unrung, and the sound will haunt us for some time.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:14:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please stop (0+ / 0-)

                            with the name calling. You can disagree without resorting to that can't you? I do not know where the first quote comes from but it isn't material. To say a hypothetical recount that was not asked for (over votes) nor in effect "could" have resulted in an outcome is speculation, nothing more. Gore would have won a recount that was not asked for nor, in process. Over votes were not being counted in the state wide recount that was stopped with the 5 - 4 decision. Again I can't see what your point is?

                            And Gore did not ask for a statewide manual recount.Where you get that from? Gore asked Bush to support that proposal but never asked for the courts to for it. And he never specified counting over votes.

                            The state wide recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court (and which did not include over votes) was declared unconstitutional by a 7-2 vote (again no conspiracy there).  Could a new recount procedure (that was constitutional) be crafted and carried out in time to meet the deadline?  (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provision). Doubtful. By a vote of 5-4, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining.  

                          •  i don't disagree with you (0+ / 0-)

                            i don't find you credible as a debater.

                            The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

                            This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

                            Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots....

                            The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture."

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:26:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well we have competing (0+ / 0-)

                            But what is your source?

                            sources don't we?

                            For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened ''irreparable harm'' to Mr. Bush.

                            But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

                            And here:
                            In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

                            But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.

                            But once again, my larger point is that the circumstances that put the SCOTUS in the picture to begin with was the result of Gore's request and the FLA Court's original recount ruling. And the resulting split votes do not suggest a conspiracy of the court.
                          •  robert parry (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

                            and do keep ignoring the full recount results. because the actual vote tally clearly doesn't matter.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:44:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok but I can't find any links (0+ / 0-)

                            in that story to the actual data? It's his word? Maybe I am missing something? And again the over votes MIGHT have been counted at some point in the future under an as yet unknown method of recounting that was not in place at the time the recounts were stopped. Again the counting of over votes is hypothetical.

                          •  google it (0+ / 0-)

                            it's the washington post. some of us remember gore's announcement. some of us care about factual reality.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:51:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I remember his announcement (0+ / 0-)

                            Smart Alec. I already posted that

                            And Gore did not ask for a statewide manual recount.Where you get that from? Gore asked Bush to support that proposal but never asked for the courts to for it. And he never specified counting over votes.
                            I also pointed out there is a difference between what Gore asked for and what was was actually occurring. Because I, DO care about factual reality. Including all the little details you keep leaving out.
                          •  i know this is hard (0+ / 0-)
                            The myth that Bush would have won had the recount proceeded dates back to a recount conducted by a consortium of newspapers that examined the ballots. The consortium found that “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.” But the newspapers decided that this was not how the counties would have actually tabulated the votes. By the variable standards they would have used, the papers reported, Bush would have prevailed. Thus the national news reported a slew of headlines asserting that Bush would have prevailed.

                            The conclusion was erroneous. The newspapers assumed that the counties would only have looked at “undervotes” — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored “overvotes” — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the “intent of the voter” would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes.

                            Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:06:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And it is evidently even harder for you to grasp (0+ / 0-)

                            overvotes were not being counted when the recount was stopped. It was POSSIBLE that they MIGHT be IF the Florida Judge ruled that way, and IF there could be a standard that did not violate the 14th Amendment devised, and IF that could be carried out in time. But those are hypotheticals. And even this is tangential to my points.

                          •  and supervising judge terry lewis (0+ / 0-)

                            made clear that, in line with florida precedent, and as rejected by scotus, he would have ruled in favor of including all discernible votes- specifically overvotes.

                            Logically, why wouldn't you include it?
                            keep flailing.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 06:28:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope that is pure speculation (0+ / 0-)

                            as I have proven. He MAY have. He MAY not have. It MAY have passed constitutional muster. It MAY bot have. We do not know. All we know is what was the standard at that time. which was the undervotes the FLA SC and Gore requested. Period. End of story. And there is no definitive standard on the over votes. But again this not my big point. the entire nation did not die due to some conspiracy among conservative judges who were alternatively joined, and dissented by their liberal peers. By that logic the original SCOFL was a conspiracy among Democrat jurists.

                            I think you have struck out.

                          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                            he urged a precinct to count them so he could later rule that it was a waste of time. makes logical sense. which is why he mentioned the illogic of not including them. please keep unskewing.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 07:21:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  nope (0+ / 0-)

                            he said MAYBE. You stared this while thread by being disingenuous, it continues. Really, it doesn't become you. He may have. He may not have, Neither you nor I know. Certainly the SCOTUS did not know. Get real dude. Like I said Gore has the integrity to accept the rule of law. You?

                          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                            he said

                            Logically, why wouldn't you include it?
                            because he values illogic. or someone here does, anyway.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 07:30:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is not definitive at all (0+ / 0-)

                            and you know it. And once again the snark. Can't you be a gentleman? I'm sure your mother raised you better. Again this is not my larger point: How did a conservative conspiracy include 2 liberal justices? How do they make Gore request an unconstitutional recount? How did they Florida SC (100% Democrat) approve it? Anyway we are going no where way on the right hand side of the screen. I just wish you were more honest and affable in your dealings with me instead of disingenuous and snarky. I'm done.

                          •  And BTW (0+ / 0-)

                            how do you explain that if this court is so corrupt, evil, partisan and will command that fire rain from the sky any minute now, the Roberts court approved the AFCA?

                            Decaf dude.

                          •  wow (0+ / 0-)

                            right wing tripe dude.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:20:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I take it you mean this? (0+ / 0-)

                            But yet again, another mythical recount that was not taking place nor planned, nor requested. and you say I am flailing?

                            "But the results in Florida and, therefore, in the presidential election might have been different had the 67 counties been ordered to proceed with a manual recount of all undervotes and over votes."

                          •  whoosh (0+ / 0-)
                            Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:07:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, nice try (0+ / 0-)

                            but read the story by Isikoff.

                            Key words through out are "might", "considering", "possibly",

                            "The previously undisclosed notes lend firm documentary

                            support to recent comments by Lewis that he might well have expanded the Florida Supreme Court-ordered statewide recount of “undervotes”—the disputed ballots in which machines did not record any vote for president. The notes show that—just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its order—Lewis was actively considering directing the counties to also count an even larger category of disputed ballots, the so-called “overvotes,” which were rejected by the machines because they purportedly recorded more than one vote for president."
                            I've pointed this out like seven times. Over votes were not in the recount standard that was going on when the recount was ended. That Lewis was considering that he might possibly, maybe, sorta', kinda' count them (Somehow? In some constitutionally sound fashion that did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment- which the first recount did- Who knows how?) is conjecture. Another variable in all of this that makes either of correct, incorrect, or neither is the missing ballots.
                            But those 175,010 uncounted votes are 1,436 ballots less than the 176,446 ballots that, the news organizations independently determined, had originally been reported by the counties as rejected or uncounted on election night.
                            So who really knows what the voter intent was for absolute sure? Hard to say. But the standard in place, at the time of the Supreme Court ruling, had it gone forward would have not changed the outcome. Nor would the outcome be different if they had never stepped into the issue at all. Fact, Jack.

                            Look, I VOTED for GORE, Indeed living in Tennessee I have voted for him multiple times).  I did not want Bush and I was proven correct on my judgement, but I got over it. My guy lost. Gore, ever the statesman, accepted the results gracefully. I don't understand why you can't.

                          •  PS I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

                            that it was a poor 5-4 decision. However I do not see a conspiracy for reasons I have listed. And again, the recounts that Gore requested would not have altered the outcome of the election.

                          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                            these federalist conservatives just ruled counter to their entire history and ideology, and then quarantined the ruling so it couldn't be used as precedent, because they were making a good-faith effort.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 11:50:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Whatever dude (0+ / 0-)

                            I guess the unanimous decision was also brainwashing their peers?

                          •  keep flailing (0+ / 0-)

                            the final ruling that halted the recount was 5-4. attempt to fix the facts as you will.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:15:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is your opinion (0+ / 0-)

                            and that is fine. It May be accurate. But my other points about gore's flawed strategy, the resulting court decisions, and the fact that the recounts that were approved would have not resulted in a Gore victory stand. That recount that was halted would not have changed the outcome.

                            read this slowly:

                            A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
                          •  i know this is hard (0+ / 0-)
                            The myth that Bush would have won had the recount proceeded dates back to a recount conducted by a consortium of newspapers that examined the ballots. The consortium found that “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.” But the newspapers decided that this was not how the counties would have actually tabulated the votes. By the variable standards they would have used, the papers reported, Bush would have prevailed. Thus the national news reported a slew of headlines asserting that Bush would have prevailed.

                            The conclusion was erroneous. The newspapers assumed that the counties would only have looked at “undervotes” — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored “overvotes” — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the “intent of the voter” would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes.

                            Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)

                            keep fixing the facts.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 01:27:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  I rarely post (0+ / 0-)

    but this is my 2nd entry here 'cause this stuff burns my ass

    get with it kids, you're being played

    so, now we get the new 'shiny object' HRC - so, us suckers are supposed to be pleased, mind you, that they're going to let a woman 'rein'

    we get the minority corporate clown, now the female corporate clown and the status quo sustains

    "the world works the way it does because that's the way the rich like it". (not sure of attribution)

    We didn't stand up and it may be too late

    by pnchad on Sun Jul 20, 2014 at 09:10:36 PM PDT

  •  Way too optimistic (0+ / 0-)

    The writer says
    "....it is only a matter of time before this Court majority's already minority constituency is relegated to the political fringe."

    It may well only be a matter of time before these jerks take over completely. They have the courts, the house of representatives, their own TV network and an enormous amount of money.

  •  Long past time for (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats and Progressives to get angry and turn the same tactics on Republicans and not be so accepting. The insistent bickering and finger pointing, dirt digging tactics can reverse the mess of the past  or at least fix some of it.

  •  They shall be judged........ (0+ / 0-)

    This court is an affront to God and man.  The true power lies in the hands of Almighty God and some day whether in this life or the next, THEY  shall be judged.

  •  Term Limits (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden

    If the highest office in the land, (the presidency) has term limits, then so too should the Supreme Court and the Congress.  

  •  The SCOTUS Imams have spoken. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MaggieLeftNY, jayden

    Screw scientific facts, to hell with a woman's right to self determination, corporations are more important than mere citizens.  All in a day's work for the religious five looking through the kaleidoscope of religious doctrine.  After all they are the supremes they know what is best for the little people, god told them so.

  •  amend the constitution (0+ / 0-)

    It's not impossible, only difficult. Voting change to age 18 was quick. Equal Rights for women amendment, not quick, still not accomplished.

    Amend the constitution to remove lifetime tenure for federal judges. It won't be quick, but it's possible.

    We produce more renewable energy than any other state - WA Gov. Jay Inslee

    by mrobinson on Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

mickey, Thumb, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, MarkC, Gooserock, Dave the Wave, maracucho, OLinda, jazzhawk2004, xynz, Bob Friend, wenchacha, dpeifer1949, Creosote, davelf2, Zinman, lorell, farmerhunt, pollwatcher, Lilyvt, Redfire, TexDem, Dallasdoc, wdrath, niteskolar, papercut, rlharry, wordwraith, ybruti, Hillbilly Dem, JayDean, filonomo, Black Max, Emmy, Josiah Bartlett, rmx2630, J Orygun, Brecht, sachristan, Desert Rose, tovan, historys mysteries, marina, bobbygoode, CTPatriot, chimene, sc kitty, dewtx, 1Nic Ven, GreyHawk, cspivey, Sandino, spunhard, Pluto, bunsk, mightymouse, begone, third Party please, Ranchita, golem, Dvalkure, mcartri, DarkestHour, real world chick, delonix, onionjim, JWR, thenekkidtruth, blueoregon, Friend of the court, AllanTBG, NonnyO, krwheaton, bear83, timewarp, hooper, whl, devis1, Dartagnan, gtghawaii, EdSF, Mary Mike, Ticonderoga, DWG, NoMoJoe, jayden, jedennis, TrueBlueMountaineer, jnhobbs, leonard145b, billso, on the cusp, Empower Ink, gizmo59, Mike Williams, gzodik, also mom of 5, TheFatLadySings, VL Baker, jakebob, RandomNonviolence, Missys Brother, SottoVoce, 3rdOption, BYw, billybam, statsone, JBL55, Marnie1, LaFeminista, Sun dog, scwlaw, DontTaseMeBro, Dirtandiron, LinSea, output, ewmorr, CanyonWren, Nebraskablue, virginiasabres, UnaSpenser, TheOpinionGuy, borndem, Denise Oliver Velez, Ibis Exilis, ruscle, rb137, FogCityJohn, your neighbor, jqjacobs, Simple, NM Ray, RJP9999, Loose Fur, fiercefilms, janicegwashington, slice, annieli, kerflooey, fwcetus, poorbuster, FarWestGirl, smiley7, Haf2Read, laurnj, BarackStarObama, organicus, whaddaya, Dbug, ratcityreprobate, StratCat, jrfrog, Kurt from CMH, Auriandra, allergywoman, BlueZone, OldDragon, Heart n Mind, Eric Nelson, a2nite, FreeSpeaker, xenothaulus, This old man, LittleSilver, Galtisalie, wxorknot, jennyp, AverageJoe42, marty marty, mzkryz, countwebb, The grouch, Tim DeLaney, lstacyb1, goodpractice, Yo Bubba, ggfkate, howabout, northerntier, bob152, Fordmandalay, Blue Boomer, charlie x, OceanDiver, starduster, skepticalcitizen, nancyjones, Tronsix2, micajohn, bygorry, Will Stark, Gurnt, WordWrangler, hbk, JuliathePoet, MichaelG7355, Shawn87, silverfoxcruiser, cowdab, trawick1, ickamaus, 22niel

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site