The Supreme Court has not only accelerated the race to the partisan redistricting bottom; it is directly responsible for the chaos we're seeing on the ground.
Again- Rucho was the most important decision since Brown. You can still call balls and strikes if you determine the strike zone. Roberts, Thomas etc. were against VRA before Callais. As noted, just the timing was political. More to come, esp if the Senate remains the same. It will be multi-generational. Reverse migration to swing districts and under populated states will be the remedy, not the courts.
Where does the Court go from here to return to respecting its own precedents? There are clearly at least 5 votes in favor of burning things down to benefit Republicans/Chamber of Commerce (I give Roberts credit for siding with CEOs more than professional Republican political operatives).
This is why I think there's no solution found in rebuilding guardrails that a determined Court and President can tear down like paper. I think the solution is legal Court-packing and Senate-packing (make DC into 9+ states). It hastens the Third American Republic (people forget that we are in the Second American Republic), but James Madison's design of no-parties flopped right out of the gate (Madison formed the first American political party in order to rally supporters of his Constitution).
Of all the criticisms lobbed at him, I think the Chief Justice might find the image of him wearing a hot dog costume and acting disingenuous one of the hardest to tolerate...or to eradicate from the mind of the "man on the street."
And if that sounds a bit petty, isn't that, sadly, kind of where we are right now?
I appreciate your writing but you still cannot bring yourself to say the obvious and it was painful watching you bend over backwards to be both-sidesy for 14 months.
Say it like it is, please. Immunity and all the rest of the extreme right rulings and overturnings of legal precedents have enabled the Heritage plan (Project 2025) and all but buried democracy alive.
We, the middle class, are still “living,” albeit in economic peril, as the paramilitary is occupied elsewhere. What do you think will become of the gulag after all the legal non-whites and scant illegal “criminals” are removed?
Taken a gander at judiciary progressions in other authoritarian states?
Also, to you and other esteemed media, this takedown of each branch has been in the works for 50 years under a faux cover of “democracy” and the Left’s (no longer successful) practice of covering up its complicity while the status quo held.
Time to take the permanently soiled white gloves off and call this spade of death a spade of death. What the utter hell are the pundits and court “experts” waiting for?
It is difficult not to view SCOTUS as political. They clearly demonstrate a deficit of ethical/moral reasoning. Their decisions seem to demonstrate that which is most politically expedient in the moment and our examples of confirmation bias. Alito’s opinion in Calais was based on faulty voter data. You’re making decisions that significantly impact the nation, and you don’t take the time to ensure research is validated? I can’t see that any of their decision-making is based on any ethical framework, such as utilitarianism, deontology, justice as fairness, the categorical imperative, or even virtue ethics. I can’t imagine that they would not see that that their opinions are dividing the nation into what resembles the Civil War era and voter suppression tactics of reconstruction. The fact that Roberts does not see the court as political is a problem in and of itself. If he realized that the court has become politicized and is making decisions of political implications, he would work to mitigate these political forces. Instead, he and the others play into it and then try to gaslight us.
I was struck by the Roberts comment (quoted in the article) during oral arguments in Gill v Whitford (did I get that right?): how if the Court intervened "the intelligent man on the street is going to say that’s a bunch of baloney. It must be because the Supreme Court preferred the Democrats over the Republicans."
I noted he did not go on to say "or preferred Republicans over Democrats."
Evidently, the Court's intervention is only offensive in one direction.
And yes, using flawed data, prepared by this regime.
Congress should push back. They are allowing this. But a 6-3 Court has agency, too.
After Dred Scott, multiple justices died, and one resigned to join the Confederacy. Congress took over two years to bring it back to its regular size. (Plus, one, temporarily having 10 justices, to have a West Coast justice.) Then, it reduced it, avoiding a chance for Andrew Johnson, flexing its muscle regarding the docket some more to protect Reconstruction.
Our president tried to overturn an election. He is a tyrant. It isn't a Civil War, but the situation is particularly bad. Each one of his nominations is tainted in some way. He might make more.
And SCOTUS has a lot more power, including robbing people of reproductive liberty and harming trans people.
We need change, and if the same hot dog man is in charge of the same people (what if a liberal dies?), I fear for the future. An ill wind blows.
The 6 SCOTUS, especially John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch are fully AWARE that if the Democrats win Congress, they WILL be INVESTIGATED just like trumpies Cabal & most likely be Impeached…!!!
So of course these 6 Justices WILL ASSIST in maintaining the Republican MAJORITY in Congress!
Hmm—why bother with elections at all when “proper” judges can decide right now? White man here, white man there … white man everywhere!
only rich white xtian men.
Natch!
If u follow news and need this guy to eruditely educate u in 10,000 words and still don't understand: ur the problem. Enjoy thielocracy
Again- Rucho was the most important decision since Brown. You can still call balls and strikes if you determine the strike zone. Roberts, Thomas etc. were against VRA before Callais. As noted, just the timing was political. More to come, esp if the Senate remains the same. It will be multi-generational. Reverse migration to swing districts and under populated states will be the remedy, not the courts.
I thought Chief Justice Roberts said we live in a post racism America?
Didn’t TN Republican legislators commit hate crimes?
Racial epithets, troopers removing elected officials?
How can a governor suspend an election?
He's posting racism everywhere he can.
Where does the Court go from here to return to respecting its own precedents? There are clearly at least 5 votes in favor of burning things down to benefit Republicans/Chamber of Commerce (I give Roberts credit for siding with CEOs more than professional Republican political operatives).
This is why I think there's no solution found in rebuilding guardrails that a determined Court and President can tear down like paper. I think the solution is legal Court-packing and Senate-packing (make DC into 9+ states). It hastens the Third American Republic (people forget that we are in the Second American Republic), but James Madison's design of no-parties flopped right out of the gate (Madison formed the first American political party in order to rally supporters of his Constitution).
For me, any doubt about the politicized nature of the Court ended with Bush v Gore.
Tom Weeks
..Responsible for the chaos in THE WORLD!
I hope a writer for SNL is reading your Substack.
Of all the criticisms lobbed at him, I think the Chief Justice might find the image of him wearing a hot dog costume and acting disingenuous one of the hardest to tolerate...or to eradicate from the mind of the "man on the street."
And if that sounds a bit petty, isn't that, sadly, kind of where we are right now?
Love this. Hope they are too.
Here in Western NY, Zwiegels hot dogs are a delicious slice of heaven.
To paraphrase the apocraphyl quote that Benjamin Franklin never said, "Zwiegels hot dogs are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Now, I won't be able to enjoy a white hot without thinking of John Roberts. One more thing he has ruined for me.
I appreciate your writing but you still cannot bring yourself to say the obvious and it was painful watching you bend over backwards to be both-sidesy for 14 months.
Say it like it is, please. Immunity and all the rest of the extreme right rulings and overturnings of legal precedents have enabled the Heritage plan (Project 2025) and all but buried democracy alive.
We, the middle class, are still “living,” albeit in economic peril, as the paramilitary is occupied elsewhere. What do you think will become of the gulag after all the legal non-whites and scant illegal “criminals” are removed?
Taken a gander at judiciary progressions in other authoritarian states?
Also, to you and other esteemed media, this takedown of each branch has been in the works for 50 years under a faux cover of “democracy” and the Left’s (no longer successful) practice of covering up its complicity while the status quo held.
Time to take the permanently soiled white gloves off and call this spade of death a spade of death. What the utter hell are the pundits and court “experts” waiting for?
I don't think Vladeck believes we have an extreme right wing court.
We don't. It's scotused right past the lane markers and is now a lawless right.
He's inching closer, but I might speculate that he's working through what it means for him to be post-institutionalist.
It is difficult not to view SCOTUS as political. They clearly demonstrate a deficit of ethical/moral reasoning. Their decisions seem to demonstrate that which is most politically expedient in the moment and our examples of confirmation bias. Alito’s opinion in Calais was based on faulty voter data. You’re making decisions that significantly impact the nation, and you don’t take the time to ensure research is validated? I can’t see that any of their decision-making is based on any ethical framework, such as utilitarianism, deontology, justice as fairness, the categorical imperative, or even virtue ethics. I can’t imagine that they would not see that that their opinions are dividing the nation into what resembles the Civil War era and voter suppression tactics of reconstruction. The fact that Roberts does not see the court as political is a problem in and of itself. If he realized that the court has become politicized and is making decisions of political implications, he would work to mitigate these political forces. Instead, he and the others play into it and then try to gaslight us.
I was struck by the Roberts comment (quoted in the article) during oral arguments in Gill v Whitford (did I get that right?): how if the Court intervened "the intelligent man on the street is going to say that’s a bunch of baloney. It must be because the Supreme Court preferred the Democrats over the Republicans."
I noted he did not go on to say "or preferred Republicans over Democrats."
Evidently, the Court's intervention is only offensive in one direction.
And yes, using flawed data, prepared by this regime.
What a sick, sick court-majority this is.
Old white rich guy. Gee what a surprise……not.
The incidence of long Covid putting a speed scrambler to senior white brains would be even higher if we pesky ancients didn't up and die so often.
Looking sharp on 60 Minutes!
https://www.facebook.com/60minutes/videos/a-legal-look-at-trumps-executive-sprint/1016641746947840/
Why isn’t partisan gerrymandering a violation of the first amendment?
Because it doesn't negatively affect rich people?
Because SCOTUS gets to rule on that.
Tell me again how personnel doesn't matter.
Congress should push back. They are allowing this. But a 6-3 Court has agency, too.
After Dred Scott, multiple justices died, and one resigned to join the Confederacy. Congress took over two years to bring it back to its regular size. (Plus, one, temporarily having 10 justices, to have a West Coast justice.) Then, it reduced it, avoiding a chance for Andrew Johnson, flexing its muscle regarding the docket some more to protect Reconstruction.
Our president tried to overturn an election. He is a tyrant. It isn't a Civil War, but the situation is particularly bad. Each one of his nominations is tainted in some way. He might make more.
And SCOTUS has a lot more power, including robbing people of reproductive liberty and harming trans people.
We need change, and if the same hot dog man is in charge of the same people (what if a liberal dies?), I fear for the future. An ill wind blows.
Mitch, the GOP and Trump got the court they wanted by whatever means it took.
And they are delivering the expected results.
The 6 SCOTUS, especially John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch are fully AWARE that if the Democrats win Congress, they WILL be INVESTIGATED just like trumpies Cabal & most likely be Impeached…!!!
So of course these 6 Justices WILL ASSIST in maintaining the Republican MAJORITY in Congress!