MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
The second woman appointed to the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg’s pointed and powerful dissenting opinions earned her late-life rock stardom. She tried to hang on until the people voted in a Democrat as president, and a Democrat controlled Senate, so she could retire with a suitable replacement. Remember, since 1988, Republicans have won the national popular presidential vote only once, in 2004. Yet due to the Senate being designed by the framers to protect slave state power, our Supreme Court members have been most often controlled by a Republican controlled Senate representing only a minority of the people.
McConnell will, of course, jam through a conservative with zero Democrat's votes. Even this close to an election for President.
The lesson for Democrats is, if Biden wins and Democrats win the Senate, get rid of the filibuster and move, move move on progressive legislation that cannot be tied up in the courts, and that will make a difference in the average person's life, forget worry about deficits.
Forget the wealth tax, a conservative Supreme Court super-majority will rule it unconstitutional.
Reform immigration and protect the DACA people. Raise taxes on the rich and corporations. Use federal funding to expand and mandate easier voter registration nationwide. Protect the environment, eliminate a President's ability to violate laws with a sham emergency. Pass the Green New Deal. Any other ideas?
Comments
McConnell confirms Trump's nominee will get a vote.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-supreme-court-nominee-vote-floor
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 8:57pm
Murkowski will not vote for a SCOTUS nominee
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/09/18/alaska-senator-murkowski-said-friday-she-would-not-vote-for-a-justice-ahead-of-election/
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:05pm
That's one!
by NCD on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:17pm
She was the real thing, a true professional-extra proof is all her colleagues thought highly of her (not to mention she was friendly with many.)
She tried real hard to hang in there for us, the country, for balance, through all kinds of really shitty medical procedures which would make most other people retire. God rest her soul for trying so hard.
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:03pm
Best kudos when you are gone, in the legal field especially, is from people that aren't ideological compadres:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:05pm
A certain couple agrees on something:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:36pm
Ed Markey sez:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:07pm
Sahil Kapur points out this meme was already out there:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:11pm
If they expand the court, do it quick, as fast as a Trump tweet. On a Friday, and after a week of lots of programs and laws passed.
Ironically, this may increase the movement in expanding Medicare to younger Americans. Republicans would not dare to kill Medicare, like they have with Obamacare, and Medicare is 60 years old settled reality.
by NCD on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:25pm
It's Rosh Hashanah:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:45pm
Three Republican senators say they will not vote for a new justice, and Collins also, an Independent. Grassley, Graham and Mukowski. I would think Romney won't also.
by NCD on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:46pm
NYTimes obit, in tweet by Don Winslow, but which I saw because his tweet was retweeted by Joyce Carol Oates:
Is written by Supreme Court expert Linda Greenhouse.
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:50pm
Reed Galen of Lincoln Project:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:56pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:58pm
If there is an election issue that goes to SCOTUS, it will obviously be a 5:3 court.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 9:59pm
It would've been 5/4 anyway. Hopefully Roberts won't stop vote counting again like he did in Florida, with Gore/Bush. We got 9/11, and the Iraq invasion and war, from that partisan bs play.
by NCD on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 10:37pm
OMG, she left a death bed message
Brings tears to my eyes as I have had more than one experience of people trying to stave off dying for reasons important to them, even though they are otherwise ready to go. They usually suffer a lot doing that.
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 10:08pm
Mourners gather outside Supreme Court after passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By Brooke Seipel @ TheHill.com- 09/18/20 09:11 PM EDT
continued with more tweets @ link
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 10:53pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 10:55pm
two new related stories just in @ TheHill:
Planned Parenthood: 'The fate of our rights' depends on Ginsburg replacement — 3M 14S AGO
Progressive group to spend $10M in ad campaign on Supreme Court vacancy — 18M 1S AGO
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 11:00pm
So far, it appears that music really was playing on the tape, wasn't added. "Tiny Dancer" is trending on Twitter for that reason.
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 11:11pm
Bus scene dedicated to RBG?
[Tiny fingers, he must have seen hers, bigger than he'd dream]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?ab_channel=belfeguz&v=_qW9wqUI4Lg
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 11:23pm
Nina Totenburg:
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/18/2020 - 11:58pm
Confirmation of Nina's point:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 1:34am
Obama:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 12:01am
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 12:03am
and here's another Constitutional Law expert's two cents:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 1:23am
Let's get real, if the republicans stand together and fill that seat there's no way Biden will expand the court. Biden's line will be that extreme partisan action shouldn't be taken in reaction to extreme partisan actions. It would get in the way of the compromises, comity and bipartisan unity he's trying to achieve.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 2:00pm
I am not sure about that. Swings and Independents mostly are not the types to want to live with an ultraconservative court for the rest of their lives (think abortion and some gun control, for example = majority support.) And I'm sure that he's fully aware most ultra-conservatives are never going to happy with anything he does.He's like ideal for unifying a majority, including bringing Reagan Dem types back into the fold, but not Mike Pence or Grover Norquist fans.
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 6:38pm
Packing the court(s) would seriously threaten the Democrats hold on the House, and threaten Democrat Senators in states like Arizona.
Swing voters can count to 9, they don't know what the hell the Supreme Court does or why it is in need of packing. If the Democratic Party is to do anything and even survive, it will have to ditch the legislative filibuster and pass big progressive Bills that will not be held up or deemed unconstitutional by the Trump courts. For instance, Bernie's tax on wealth will never pass muster with the SCOTUS.
by NCD on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 3:22pm
Seeing this map (cavaet: note it's from 2014) really hit me as related when I saw it yesterday. Big part of swings and especially non voters must be this 25% of the population that really doesn't like having a federal government AT ALL. I think it's dangerous to read that too ideologically, though a significant part of the 25% might be ultra conservative, I suspect it's not just a few who aren't but don't see much of a need for it (federal government.) Just don't like it, don't find it useful.
Hence the "drain the swamp" meme always has a significant number of takers. And we see less outrage than expected over things like letting the states handle coronavirus.
But wow lookit that Southwest area's numbers, there is explained some of why it's so hard to get people to vote there. More there just don't buy into this e pluribus unum idea. It's not that they'd fight for succession, but that they think it might be a good thing.
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 6:02pm
I could see increasing the number of Justices if both sides of the divide could find some future in it. But if it is just another move in the cultural war, then it is more productive to win that.
by moat on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 8:00pm
Just throwing this out here. Is there a counter method to arbitrarily reduce the size of the Scotus?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 9:49pm
yes but likely you couldn't do it immediately by tossing some justices off the court. The size would be reduced when a justice retired and wasn't replaced.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 10:09pm
Maybe there is a codified method but an answer of "yes" is hardly justified if you cannot answer how. Having an even number of Supremes after the death of one and dealing with the potential problems of that until another dies does not seem a workable way to reduce the number.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 11:43pm
The constitution doesn't set the number of justices. Congress can easily change that number with legislation that the president signs. But removing a justice that has been appointed for life is much more difficult. While the number of justices has been changed several times over the years none have ever been removed. I suspect that it would be found unconstitutional to remove a supreme court justice except by impeachment. I doubt that either party would attempt such a thing.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 12:15am
I think Lulu meant the answer is more, "No, not really, you'd likely have to wait for existing members at time of change to die off to get down too the new figure, as there's no mechanism in the Constitution to remove an SCJ (aside from impeachment?)"
It *might* be possible to completely disband the existing Supreme Court and create a "new and improved" SJ 2.0 with an arbitrary number of members (at least 1, the Chief Justice) since the Constitution just says there can only be 1 Supreme Court, and there's precedent for courts being disbanded.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 10:54am
Here's two journos who have dug into Mitch's brain some:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 1:52am
After perusing the situation, Trump's nominee is a done deal to get confirmed. The "GOP candidates at risk" have zero reason to buck Trump and McConnell, and likely only Murkowski would vote no.
The Supreme Court will be the servant of the rich, the oligarchs, the big corporations and against voting rights, worker rights and environmental protection until Florida is subsumed by rising seas decades hence. Democrats must tailor legislation that cannot be struck down by a Trump court, or we will be living in a one Party failed state, where the House is so weak it's "power" (to even subpoena witnesses or documents impeachment no longer means anything) is a on paper only.
by NCD on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 1:39pm
Eric Holder just did the expanding the court threat too:
Note those saying this are moderate legal types! They are not pushing the meme out of partisanship, but worry about constitutional factors of needing balance on the Court.
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 6:42pm
If lucky, Democrats will have just 2 years to go big, before the Tea Party comes back, and lefties get apathetic on the midterms.
BTW, why does someone as smart, secure and accomplished as Eric Holder, care about 'legitimacy' in a country so apathetic, distracted, uninformed, and delusional that it elected an obviously corrupt racist demagogic TV huckster from a Party of apparatchiks that seeks only unaccountable power, to its highest office?
by NCD on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 7:12pm
Here's a tech guy retweeted by Andrew Yang after he replied to Yang. This is the way the more independent, less partisan people think. They don't want a fucking partisan Supreme Court in either direction, they just want decent judges and efficiency:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 6:49pm
NYTimes' Goldmacher is shocked and awed, here's the reason that ActBlue Mitch meme was trending:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 12:15am
I had put it on the "Stuff" thread because I wasn't sure it was that related to her legacy. Clearly, $20 million in 4 hours after her death, it is. "Get Mitch or Die Trying"
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 12:20am
Yes, occasionally "stuff" turns golden, like with Andre Geim who turned an Ig Nobel for levitating frogs into an actual Nobel.
But I love all my bastard stuffus children equally.
https://www.improbable.com/ig-about/winners/
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 12:36am
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 12:25am
and by David Post @ The Volokh Conspiracy:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 8:00pm
Scalia story:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 12:59am
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 1:14am
Susan Collins says the election should decide the SCOTUS candidate
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517242-collins-president-elected-nov-3-should-fill-supreme-court-vacancy
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 5:27pm
Lindsey Graham would vote to confirm a new Justice
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-ginsburg-supreme-court_n_5f6635b2c5b6de79b675bba8
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 6:06pm
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 6:22pm
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/19/2020 - 6:27pm
Lincoln Project's formal statement on replacement:
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 12:16am
I see right wing social media agitators attacking Romney, Collins & Murkowski on SCOTUS replacment. Examples:
I don't see this with the Fox News talking heads yet though (i.e., Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson), they are sticking with culture wars and blue city government dysfunction for now
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 12:28am
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 2:38am
RBG vs Trump's amateurs
(yes, RBG argued Sprogis in 1971 so that stewardesses couldn't be fired because they got married - an early step on a long list of leveling the playing field so that women weren't just fuck bunnies. But still, pack the courts and administration with a bunch of ignorant unqualified losers, the lesser known relevant cases may be lost & ignored)
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 3:35pm
Is the essence of great legal scholarship.
I am fond of looking for exactly that when we have a surprising ruling in the recent past that doesn't cut along partisan lines. There is usually some great legal scholarship involved in convincing "the others" to look at a case with a new perspective. Usually find it!
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 4:10pm
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 6:44pm
Harvard Law School sez:
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/20/2020 - 11:57pm