SCOTUS

[seacoaster]

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.’’ It’s About Time.

"Nowhere is the problem of asymmetrical rhetorical warfare more apparent than in the federal judiciary. For the past several years, federal judges, notably those appointed by Donald J. Trump, have felt unmoored from any standard judicial conventions of circumspection and restraint, penning screeds about the evils of “big government” and rants against Planned Parenthood. Most of the judicial branch, though, has declined to engage in this kind of rhetoric. There are norms, after all, and conventions, standards, and protocols. There seems to also be an agreement that conservative judges demonstrate deeply felt passion when they delve into such issues, while everyone else just demonstrates “bias” if they decide to weigh in. So when Justice Clarence Thomas just last year used a dissent to attack the integrity of a sitting federal judge in the census case, it was mere clever wordsmithing. But when Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggests, as she did recently, that the conservative wing of the high court seems to be privileging the Trump administration’s emergency petitions, she is labeled—by the president himself—unfit to judge. It’s such a long-standing trick, and it’s so well supported by the conservative outrage machine, that it’s easy to believe that critiques of fellow judges by conservative judges are legitimate, while such critiques from liberal judges are an affront to the legitimacy of the entire federal judiciary."

[BUT]

"This dynamic is why it’s so astonishing to see progressive judges really go for broke in criticizing conservative bias in the judiciary, as U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman does in criticizing the five conservative justices on the Roberts Supreme Court in an upcoming Harvard Law & Policy review article."

The brutal start of the article:

By now, it is a truism that Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that a Supreme Court justice’s role is the passive one of a neutral baseball “umpire who [merely] calls the balls and strikes” was a masterpiece of disingenuousness. Roberts’ misleading testimony inevitably comes to mind when one considers the course of decision-making by the Court over which he presides. This is so because the Roberts Court has been anything but passive. Rather, the Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy. Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

..

Let me boil down this nutcase lefty jurist's thoughts to one sentence:

Those 5 who vote together are awful because they vote together, but these four who vote together are righteous.

Adelman is a lightweight hysterical partisan who failed to win 3x for a Congressional seat as a liberal Dem. Total satire. Are there any serious Democrats left?

Next.

Thanks for more of your withering, content free posts on all the subjects in the land. You make me miss lacrosse more than I can express.

[Peter Brown]

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.’’ It’s About Time.

"Nowhere is the problem of asymmetrical rhetorical warfare more apparent than in the federal judiciary. For the past several years, federal judges, notably those appointed by Donald J. Trump, have felt unmoored from any standard judicial conventions of circumspection and restraint, penning screeds about the evils of “big government” and rants against Planned Parenthood. Most of the judicial branch, though, has declined to engage in this kind of rhetoric. There are norms, after all, and conventions, standards, and protocols. There seems to also be an agreement that conservative judges demonstrate deeply felt passion when they delve into such issues, while everyone else just demonstrates “bias” if they decide to weigh in. So when Justice Clarence Thomas just last year used a dissent to attack the integrity of a sitting federal judge in the census case, it was mere clever wordsmithing. But when Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggests, as she did recently, that the conservative wing of the high court seems to be privileging the Trump administration’s emergency petitions, she is labeled—by the president himself—unfit to judge. It’s such a long-standing trick, and it’s so well supported by the conservative outrage machine, that it’s easy to believe that critiques of fellow judges by conservative judges are legitimate, while such critiques from liberal judges are an affront to the legitimacy of the entire federal judiciary."

[BUT]

"This dynamic is why it’s so astonishing to see progressive judges really go for broke in criticizing conservative bias in the judiciary, as U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman does in criticizing the five conservative justices on the Roberts Supreme Court in an upcoming Harvard Law & Policy review article."

The brutal start of the article:

By now, it is a truism that Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that a Supreme Court justice’s role is the passive one of a neutral baseball “umpire who [merely] calls the balls and strikes” was a masterpiece of disingenuousness. Roberts’ misleading testimony inevitably comes to mind when one considers the course of decision-making by the Court over which he presides. This is so because the Roberts Court has been anything but passive. Rather, the Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy. Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

..

Let me boil down this nutcase lefty jurist's thoughts to one sentence:

Those 5 who vote together are awful because they vote together, but these four who vote together are righteous.

Adelman is a lightweight hysterical partisan who failed to win 3x for a Congressional seat as a liberal Dem. Total satire. Are there any serious Democrats left?

Next.

Thanks for more of your withering, content free posts on all the subjects in the land. You make me miss lacrosse more than I can express.

Seacoastee: this might hurt your head, but did you know that the 4 liberal judges on the court vote together far more often than the 5 'conservative' justices? And yet you never hear that....


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 028450001/

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

[MDlaxfan76]

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.’’ It’s About Time.

"Nowhere is the problem of asymmetrical rhetorical warfare more apparent than in the federal judiciary. For the past several years, federal judges, notably those appointed by Donald J. Trump, have felt unmoored from any standard judicial conventions of circumspection and restraint, penning screeds about the evils of “big government” and rants against Planned Parenthood. Most of the judicial branch, though, has declined to engage in this kind of rhetoric. There are norms, after all, and conventions, standards, and protocols. There seems to also be an agreement that conservative judges demonstrate deeply felt passion when they delve into such issues, while everyone else just demonstrates “bias” if they decide to weigh in. So when Justice Clarence Thomas just last year used a dissent to attack the integrity of a sitting federal judge in the census case, it was mere clever wordsmithing. But when Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggests, as she did recently, that the conservative wing of the high court seems to be privileging the Trump administration’s emergency petitions, she is labeled—by the president himself—unfit to judge. It’s such a long-standing trick, and it’s so well supported by the conservative outrage machine, that it’s easy to believe that critiques of fellow judges by conservative judges are legitimate, while such critiques from liberal judges are an affront to the legitimacy of the entire federal judiciary."

[BUT]

"This dynamic is why it’s so astonishing to see progressive judges really go for broke in criticizing conservative bias in the judiciary, as U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman does in criticizing the five conservative justices on the Roberts Supreme Court in an upcoming Harvard Law & Policy review article."

The brutal start of the article:

By now, it is a truism that Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that a Supreme Court justice’s role is the passive one of a neutral baseball “umpire who [merely] calls the balls and strikes” was a masterpiece of disingenuousness. Roberts’ misleading testimony inevitably comes to mind when one considers the course of decision-making by the Court over which he presides. This is so because the Roberts Court has been anything but passive. Rather, the Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy. Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

..

Let me boil down this nutcase lefty jurist's thoughts to one sentence:

Those 5 who vote together are awful because they vote together, but these four who vote together are righteous.

Adelman is a lightweight hysterical partisan who failed to win 3x for a Congressional seat as a liberal Dem. Total satire. Are there any serious Democrats left?

Next.

Thanks for more of your withering, content free posts on all the subjects in the land. You make me miss lacrosse more than I can express.

Seacoastee: this might hurt your head, but did you know that the 4 liberal judges on the court vote together far more often than the 5 'conservative' justices? And yet you never hear that....


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 028450001/

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

Sounds to me like the arguments made in those crossover cases with one conservative joining the liberals were more compelling on the liberal side, likely overwhelmingly so if it pulled one of the conservatives over.

When I've looked at some of these decisions, I've been amazed by some of the cases in which the conservatives hung together and the arguments they made when doing so. Pretty gross.

[Peter Brown]

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.’’ It’s About Time.

"Nowhere is the problem of asymmetrical rhetorical warfare more apparent than in the federal judiciary. For the past several years, federal judges, notably those appointed by Donald J. Trump, have felt unmoored from any standard judicial conventions of circumspection and restraint, penning screeds about the evils of “big government” and rants against Planned Parenthood. Most of the judicial branch, though, has declined to engage in this kind of rhetoric. There are norms, after all, and conventions, standards, and protocols. There seems to also be an agreement that conservative judges demonstrate deeply felt passion when they delve into such issues, while everyone else just demonstrates “bias” if they decide to weigh in. So when Justice Clarence Thomas just last year used a dissent to attack the integrity of a sitting federal judge in the census case, it was mere clever wordsmithing. But when Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggests, as she did recently, that the conservative wing of the high court seems to be privileging the Trump administration’s emergency petitions, she is labeled—by the president himself—unfit to judge. It’s such a long-standing trick, and it’s so well supported by the conservative outrage machine, that it’s easy to believe that critiques of fellow judges by conservative judges are legitimate, while such critiques from liberal judges are an affront to the legitimacy of the entire federal judiciary."

[BUT]

"This dynamic is why it’s so astonishing to see progressive judges really go for broke in criticizing conservative bias in the judiciary, as U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman does in criticizing the five conservative justices on the Roberts Supreme Court in an upcoming Harvard Law & Policy review article."

The brutal start of the article:

By now, it is a truism that Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that a Supreme Court justice’s role is the passive one of a neutral baseball “umpire who [merely] calls the balls and strikes” was a masterpiece of disingenuousness. Roberts’ misleading testimony inevitably comes to mind when one considers the course of decision-making by the Court over which he presides. This is so because the Roberts Court has been anything but passive. Rather, the Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy. Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

..

Let me boil down this nutcase lefty jurist's thoughts to one sentence:

Those 5 who vote together are awful because they vote together, but these four who vote together are righteous.

Adelman is a lightweight hysterical partisan who failed to win 3x for a Congressional seat as a liberal Dem. Total satire. Are there any serious Democrats left?

Next.

Thanks for more of your withering, content free posts on all the subjects in the land. You make me miss lacrosse more than I can express.

Seacoastee: this might hurt your head, but did you know that the 4 liberal judges on the court vote together far more often than the 5 'conservative' justices? And yet you never hear that....


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 028450001/

There were 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June. In those cases, the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted the same way 51 times, while the five Republican appointees held tight 37 times. And of the 20 cases where the court split 5-4, only seven had the “expected” ideological divide of conservatives over liberals. By the end of the term, each conservative justice had joined the liberals as the deciding vote at least once.

Sounds to me like the arguments made in those crossover cases with one conservative joining the liberals were more compelling on the liberal side, likely overwhelmingly so if it pulled one of the conservatives over.

When I've looked at some of these decisions, I've been amazed by some of the cases in which the conservatives hung together and the arguments they made when doing so. Pretty gross.

I'm afraid I expected this answer from you.

Careful, you're sounding like DocB's burner account.

[youthathletics]

Definition of a RINO?

[MDlaxfan76]

Definition of a RINO?

Apparently.

You know, someone who is actually 'conservative'.
Doesn't want ideological over swing, who values incremental positive change.
Not backwards, forwards, adaptive in a changing world.
Values individual and minority rights and protections, within a community construct.
Who wants smart, fact-based analytical non-ideological decisions made by government for the common good.

shame on us!

[Peter Brown]

Definition of a RINO?

Apparently.

You know, someone who is actually 'conservative'.
Doesn't want ideological over swing, who values incremental positive change.
Not backwards, forwards, adaptive in a changing world.
Values individual and minority rights and protections, within a community construct.
Who wants smart, fact-based analytical non-ideological decisions made by government for the common good.

shame on us!

Rand Paul: "When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party. But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party.”

The problem for Republican officeholders is they can no longer escape the Internet's microscope when they lie to the voters, which is why the R officeholder has had to move right for the most part.

When folks run for office as conservative Republicans, then “grow and mature” in Washington, D.C. by moving to the left, it makes voters angry because it's the very definition of bad faith. These Republican office-seekers play to the voters at home in flyover land, then play a different song to The Washington Post when they’re inside the Beltway. Not living in a blue state helps you see this clearly. It also explains some of Trump's popularity...he might not even be a conservative in any true sense, but his sticking it to the Post, the Beltway crowd, and to RINO's endears him to actual conservatives.

The problem for NeverTrump and RINO's is they are the embodiment of the bad-faith DC politics phenomenon, the tip of the spear to actual conservatives.

[jhu72]

MAD COW DISEASE ^^^

[MDlaxfan76]

"actual conservatives"

[Peter Brown]

"actual conservatives"

Truly guarantee you any amount of money any conservative (any of them) I know in Florida is significantly more conservative than you, MD. Gaer-un-friggin-teed. You'd be Hillary's #1 cash bundler compared to my redneck boys.

[MDlaxfan76]

"actual conservatives"

Truly guarantee you any amount of money any conservative (any of them) I know in Florida is significantly more conservative than you, MD. Gaer-un-friggin-teed. You'd be Hillary's #1 cash bundler compared to my redneck boys.

sure, if you equate conservative with redneck.

No doubt about it.

How about instead of "actual conservatives" you just swap for "rednecks" from now on in your rants...we'll understand your posts far better.

[MDlaxfan76]

Definition of a RINO?

Apparently.

You know, someone who is actually 'conservative'.
Doesn't want ideological over swing, who values incremental positive change.
Not backwards, forwards, adaptive in a changing world.
Values individual and minority rights and protections, within a community construct.
Who wants smart, fact-based analytical non-ideological decisions made by government for the common good.

shame on us!

Rand Paul: "When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party. But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party.”

The problem for Republican officeholders is they can no longer escape the Internet's microscope when they lie to the voters, which is why the R officeholder has had to move right (REDNECK) for the most part.

When folks run for office as REDNECK Republicans, then “grow and mature” in Washington, D.C. by moving to the left, it makes voters angry because it's the very definition of bad faith. These Republican office-seekers play to the voters at home in flyover land, then play a different song to The Washington Post when they’re inside the Beltway. Not living in a blue state helps you see this clearly. It also explains some of Trump's popularity...he might not even be a REDNECK in any true sense, but his sticking it to the Post, the Beltway crowd, and to RINO's endears him to actual REDNECKS.

The problem for NeverTrump and RINO's is they are the embodiment of the bad-faith DC politics phenomenon, the tip of the spear to actual REDNECKS.

See, much easier to understand.

[seacoaster]

Definition of a RINO?

Apparently.

You know, someone who is actually 'conservative'.
Doesn't want ideological over swing, who values incremental positive change.
Not backwards, forwards, adaptive in a changing world.
Values individual and minority rights and protections, within a community construct.
Who wants smart, fact-based analytical non-ideological decisions made by government for the common good.

shame on us!

Rand Paul: "When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party. But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party.”

The problem for Republican officeholders is they can no longer escape the Internet's microscope when they lie to the voters, which is why the R officeholder has had to move right (REDNECK) for the most part.

When folks run for office as REDNECK Republicans, then “grow and mature” in Washington, D.C. by moving to the left, it makes voters angry because it's the very definition of bad faith. These Republican office-seekers play to the voters at home in flyover land, then play a different song to The Washington Post when they’re inside the Beltway. Not living in a blue state helps you see this clearly. It also explains some of Trump's popularity...he might not even be a REDNECK in any true sense, but his sticking it to the Post, the Beltway crowd, and to RINO's endears him to actual REDNECKS.

The problem for NeverTrump and RINO's is they are the embodiment of the bad-faith DC politics phenomenon, the tip of the spear to actual REDNECKS.

See, much easier to understand.

Perfect.

[Peter Brown]

"actual conservatives"

Truly guarantee you any amount of money any conservative (any of them) I know in Florida is significantly more conservative than you, MD. Gaer-un-friggin-teed. You'd be Hillary's #1 cash bundler compared to my redneck boys.

sure, if you equate conservative with redneck.

No doubt about it.

How about instead of "actual conservatives" you just swap for "rednecks" from now on in your rants...we'll understand your posts far better.

Where I'm from, redneck is a term of endearment. Where you're from, it likely is not...

But I promise, they believe in much less government than you (in every possible respect.. heck, they'd be content with no government), they believe in low and flat tax rates (at every level, state federal and local), they believe in American exceptionalism (very much so!), they believe strongly in the US military (not in some nebulous sense, but in a "to defend freedom" sense), they believe strongly in a gold standard currency, they believe in the power of the Church, and they believe in the nuclear family. I'd be hard put to think of anyone i know 'up north' that believes quite so firmly in such actual conservative values as my boys down heeeyah.

Feel free to say you are more of any of those.

[MDlaxfan76]

"actual conservatives"

Truly guarantee you any amount of money any conservative (any of them) I know in Florida is significantly more conservative than you, MD. Gaer-un-friggin-teed. You'd be Hillary's #1 cash bundler compared to my redneck boys.

sure, if you equate conservative with redneck.

No doubt about it.

How about instead of "actual conservatives" you just swap for "rednecks" from now on in your rants...we'll understand your posts far better.

Where I'm from, redneck is a term of endearment. Where you're from, it likely is not...

But I promise, they believe in much less government than you (in every possible respect.. heck, they'd be content with no government), they believe in low and flat tax rates (at every level, state federal and local), they believe in American exceptionalism (very much so!), they believe strongly in the US military (not in some nebulous sense, but in a "to defend freedom" sense), they believe strongly in a gold standard currency, they believe in the power of the Church, and they believe in the nuclear family. I'd be hard put to think of anyone i know 'up north' that believes quite so firmly in such actual conservative values as my boys down heeeyah.

Feel free to say you are more of any of those.

Pretty sure that if I called one of your "boys" a redneck they'd consider it an insult, fighting words. Darn sure if an African American called them a "redneck" it would be hell to pay.

"gold standard currency"

But go ahead and use REDNECK in your posts from now on instead of "conservative"; we'll at least know what you're saying.

Frankly, it's quite revealing that you actually think those views, as you express them in their extremes, is actually 'conservative'.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MAD COW DISEASE ^^^

+1000. With hoof “in” mouth disease to go along with it.

[Peter Brown]

"actual conservatives"

Truly guarantee you any amount of money any conservative (any of them) I know in Florida is significantly more conservative than you, MD. Gaer-un-friggin-teed. You'd be Hillary's #1 cash bundler compared to my redneck boys.

sure, if you equate conservative with redneck.

No doubt about it.

How about instead of "actual conservatives" you just swap for "rednecks" from now on in your rants...we'll understand your posts far better.

Where I'm from, redneck is a term of endearment. Where you're from, it likely is not...

But I promise, they believe in much less government than you (in every possible respect.. heck, they'd be content with no government), they believe in low and flat tax rates (at every level, state federal and local), they believe in American exceptionalism (very much so!), they believe strongly in the US military (not in some nebulous sense, but in a "to defend freedom" sense), they believe strongly in a gold standard currency, they believe in the power of the Church, and they believe in the nuclear family. I'd be hard put to think of anyone i know 'up north' that believes quite so firmly in such actual conservative values as my boys down heeeyah.

Feel free to say you are more of any of those.

Pretty sure that if I called one of your "boys" a redneck they'd consider it an insult, fighting words. Darn sure if an African American called them a "redneck" it would be hell to pay.

"gold standard currency"

But go ahead and use REDNECK in your posts from now on instead of "conservative"; we'll at least know what you're saying.

Frankly, it's quite revealing that you actually think those views, as you express them in their extremes, is actually 'conservative'.

Mostly, my boys laugh at you (you being a self-described conservative when you really aren't). They have a good sense of humor. They wouldn't give two fast fa@ts if you or anyone called them 'redneck'. Do it with irony or humor, no one cares in the least' heck they'll be buying your beers and toasting good times in a country minute. Do it without a sense of irony or humor, they'll just shake their heads and laugh at your TDS.

[MDlaxfan76]

"actual conservatives"

Truly guarantee you any amount of money any conservative (any of them) I know in Florida is significantly more conservative than you, MD. Gaer-un-friggin-teed. You'd be Hillary's #1 cash bundler compared to my redneck boys.

sure, if you equate conservative with redneck.

No doubt about it.

How about instead of "actual conservatives" you just swap for "rednecks" from now on in your rants...we'll understand your posts far better.

Where I'm from, redneck is a term of endearment. Where you're from, it likely is not...

But I promise, they believe in much less government than you (in every possible respect.. heck, they'd be content with no government), they believe in low and flat tax rates (at every level, state federal and local), they believe in American exceptionalism (very much so!), they believe strongly in the US military (not in some nebulous sense, but in a "to defend freedom" sense), they believe strongly in a gold standard currency, they believe in the power of the Church, and they believe in the nuclear family. I'd be hard put to think of anyone i know 'up north' that believes quite so firmly in such actual conservative values as my boys down heeeyah.

Feel free to say you are more of any of those.

Pretty sure that if I called one of your "boys" a redneck they'd consider it an insult, fighting words. Darn sure if an African American called them a "redneck" it would be hell to pay.

"gold standard currency"

But go ahead and use REDNECK in your posts from now on instead of "conservative"; we'll at least know what you're saying.

Frankly, it's quite revealing that you actually think those views, as you express them in their extremes, is actually 'conservative'.

Mostly, my boys laugh at you (you being a self-described conservative when you really aren't). They have a good sense of humor. They wouldn't give two fast fa@ts if you or anyone called them 'redneck'. Do it with irony or humor, no one cares in the least' heck they'll be buying your beers and toasting good times in a country minute. Do it without a sense of irony or humor, they'll just shake their heads and laugh at your TDS.

BTW, what do you and your "boys" mean by the "nuclear family"? I know that I believe and actually live my belief in the value of a "nuclear family" but perhaps you mean something quite different? Do we actually have to marry cousins? Or do you mean it as heterosexuals only allowed? I'm guessing the latter...

I'm also wondering which Church, capital C, they "believe in the power of" ???

You are quite correct that non-nutjob conservatives don't believe in "no government".
In fact, conservatives actually believe that government is necessary.

Most conservatives do believe in 'low taxes', but not "flat taxes". Just the nut jobs.

Just use REDNECKS as that's obviously what you mean when you say "actual conservatives".

[holmes435]

There's a reason why Florida Man is a thing...

[Peter Brown]

There's a reason why Florida Man is a thing...

It's an awful state; please stay away!


https://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/f ... story.html