I think this was simply Roberts saying that no one gets to kill democracy but Roberts and he prefers a death by a thousand cuts over death by obvious partisan sledge hammer.
I appreciate the insight on the Supreme Court case, but the insight into the North Carolina district maps is absolutely wild. How can these people claim to be proponents of democracy while creating a map that turns a 50/50 election into a 71/29 result for one party. That's absurd.
Actually, one attorney arguing for the "other" side in the Supreme Court [sorry I can't remember which case] declared that the only way that Republicans can win is to prevent more Democrats from voting. OUTLOUD! During a SCOTUS argument! (I think the case was the Mississippi case about abortion...but not the Roe v Wade).
I still believe this court's switch to supporting democracy in recent decisions is a realization that justices could be added to the court to restore trust in a court proven corrupt in recent exposures by INDEPENDENT investigative journalism and not by the corporate media that concealed the corruption for decades. Democrats need to start adding justices now. If not, we know Republicans will add their own to seal off all hope of democracy the next time they acquire sufficient power. It's likely what the three dissenters from democracy are counting on. This is no time for Democrats' do-nothing dinking.
Spot on. Even Democrats keep talking about how outrageous it would be to add four justices to the Supreme Court. Rarely if ever do you hear any concerns that Republicans will and more justices the first time they get the chance. The naiveté of democrats--elected leaders and voters alike--is stunning. They still do not understand that the current Republican party can and will do whatever it takes to permanently lock in their power--despite all evidence proving the point.
But there is time to COMMIT on what they are going to DO and making that commitment right NOW. Democrats have held all the right cards before, and the do-nothings did nothing. In spite of the obvious fact that the party is "the lesser evil," failure to deliver translates into low trust by voters.
Democrats keep touching a hot stove and showing surprise every time they get burned. Until they unapologetically and consistently play hardball, not just to win elections but to protect rights, they'll keep losing elections while the rest of us lose our rights.
The first 2 paragraphs under "Under the Asterisk" are very scary. No right thinking person believes what was done in Bush v. Gore was well intentioned. It would seem by using that case to create law the Supreme Court is setting a low-key precedent meant to relieve our minds of any "tomfoolery" in this case.
I'm not relieved and agree with comment for Dem's to add to the court before the Repubs do it.
That you are a real thinking individual with common sense, who while feeling somehow short-changed by this decision, understands that it would have been far far worse otherwise.
Thank you for shining more light on one of our many threats to our democracy. investigating who was dissenting and why, of course the answer is Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, although Alito didn't find this threat worth investigating! We can all appreciate Attorney Neal Katyal to s greater degree--the legal reasoning requires a scholarly and brilliantly practical legal mind.
Did the prosecution make their case in such a way that caused the narrow ruling, or did the court insert that language in support of their decision rather than in response to an argument?
Interesting take by Michael Podhorzer: "We don’t have a “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court; we have a Federalist Society majority of six justices who are all members of that group, and who were only nominated by Republican presidents after being vetted by that group. We should think of the Federalist Society majority not necessarily as agents of the Republican Party, but as agents of the sponsors and corporate interests who created and continue to fund the Federalist Society, the Republican Party, and the Super PACs that support Republican candidates.
The Federalist Society justices are not political partisans; they are interest group partisans."
I think this was simply Roberts saying that no one gets to kill democracy but Roberts and he prefers a death by a thousand cuts over death by obvious partisan sledge hammer.
I appreciate the insight on the Supreme Court case, but the insight into the North Carolina district maps is absolutely wild. How can these people claim to be proponents of democracy while creating a map that turns a 50/50 election into a 71/29 result for one party. That's absurd.
Absurd is not nearly strong enough a word. However, I am unable to think of a stronger one at this particular time.
Dammit!
Actually, one attorney arguing for the "other" side in the Supreme Court [sorry I can't remember which case] declared that the only way that Republicans can win is to prevent more Democrats from voting. OUTLOUD! During a SCOTUS argument! (I think the case was the Mississippi case about abortion...but not the Roe v Wade).
Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito were the dissenting votes. Gee, I wonder what their compelling interests are in this case.
So, we collectively dodged a chaos bullet? But there's always another one and more to come, right?
I still believe this court's switch to supporting democracy in recent decisions is a realization that justices could be added to the court to restore trust in a court proven corrupt in recent exposures by INDEPENDENT investigative journalism and not by the corporate media that concealed the corruption for decades. Democrats need to start adding justices now. If not, we know Republicans will add their own to seal off all hope of democracy the next time they acquire sufficient power. It's likely what the three dissenters from democracy are counting on. This is no time for Democrats' do-nothing dinking.
Spot on. Even Democrats keep talking about how outrageous it would be to add four justices to the Supreme Court. Rarely if ever do you hear any concerns that Republicans will and more justices the first time they get the chance. The naiveté of democrats--elected leaders and voters alike--is stunning. They still do not understand that the current Republican party can and will do whatever it takes to permanently lock in their power--despite all evidence proving the point.
BUT no changes are possible without a majority of D's in the Senate. Joe Manchin and
Kyrsten Sinema are not reliably Democrat.
Most assuredly not reliable at all.
Reliably corrupt, which may be why the corporate operatives controlling the Democratic Party keep assuring them with Party support.
But there is time to COMMIT on what they are going to DO and making that commitment right NOW. Democrats have held all the right cards before, and the do-nothings did nothing. In spite of the obvious fact that the party is "the lesser evil," failure to deliver translates into low trust by voters.
Sinema officially declared as an independent some months ago but Manchin is often a DINO, as you've said.
Democrats keep touching a hot stove and showing surprise every time they get burned. Until they unapologetically and consistently play hardball, not just to win elections but to protect rights, they'll keep losing elections while the rest of us lose our rights.
Agreed.
The first 2 paragraphs under "Under the Asterisk" are very scary. No right thinking person believes what was done in Bush v. Gore was well intentioned. It would seem by using that case to create law the Supreme Court is setting a low-key precedent meant to relieve our minds of any "tomfoolery" in this case.
I'm not relieved and agree with comment for Dem's to add to the court before the Repubs do it.
What does it say that when I heard the decision, I was more relieved than anything else?
That you are a real thinking individual with common sense, who while feeling somehow short-changed by this decision, understands that it would have been far far worse otherwise.
I wonder if this ruling will have any bearing on Eastman’s disbarment proceedings.
Hopefully as an accelerant.
Thank you for shining more light on one of our many threats to our democracy. investigating who was dissenting and why, of course the answer is Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, although Alito didn't find this threat worth investigating! We can all appreciate Attorney Neal Katyal to s greater degree--the legal reasoning requires a scholarly and brilliantly practical legal mind.
Did the prosecution make their case in such a way that caused the narrow ruling, or did the court insert that language in support of their decision rather than in response to an argument?
Interesting question. I'm going to keep an eye open for any reportage that includes this nuance you mentioned.
just attempted to pose this question to N. Katyal...will report if I hear back.
I hope this Supreme [Cesspool] court imagines the American MAJORITY ready to march with pitch forks if so much as misspell “constitution.”
Interesting take by Michael Podhorzer: "We don’t have a “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court; we have a Federalist Society majority of six justices who are all members of that group, and who were only nominated by Republican presidents after being vetted by that group. We should think of the Federalist Society majority not necessarily as agents of the Republican Party, but as agents of the sponsors and corporate interests who created and continue to fund the Federalist Society, the Republican Party, and the Super PACs that support Republican candidates.
The Federalist Society justices are not political partisans; they are interest group partisans."
But they do NOT necessarily support MAGA chaos.
https://michaelpodhorzer.substack.com/p/dont-be-surprised-by-moore-v-harper
It was a good day for Democracy.
The grift evolves. SSDD.