The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[Bandito]

When the Crats tried to smear Scalise in 2015, and the right rolled over and did nothing during the process. Then CBS Scott Pelley doubled down and said the shooting at the baseball practice was "somewhat self inflicted". Not specific to the Pubs, but the hit job HRC did on Bernie in 2016 and he rolled over. One can argue Gowdy rolled over on the Benghazi result, Jill Stein accused of a smear by DNC on Russian probe, New York DNC mails a flyer on Cynthia Nixon and implies she is an anti-Semite only to denounce it AFTER the find out she is a member of a synagogue and rasing kids Jewish.

There is a theme here, that has nothing absolutely nothing to do with governing.

WOW! Now THERE'S some real score-keeping. Politicians playing politics. You're much better than this...stretching WAY outta your skin to attempt to make a point. It's pretty weak sauce here...you got anything else?

The examples we can trot out on the other side are so WAY much more significantly "dirty tricks". You really don't want to get into a pissing contest on this account, my friend.

..

Members of the Democrat Party also tried to mass assassinate Scalise and other Republicans at a baseball practice. But hey, it was politics, right?

[dislaxxic]

Amazing what goes on in the "mind" of a Trump base voter! The liar in the Kav hearing now sits on the SCOTUS, and he is going to be under pressure for a balance of his days on the court. He's not a sexual predator or gang-rapist like the screaming meemee's want you to believe...he's just your garden variety sexist that objectifies women and doesn't mind climbing all over one when the opportunity presents itself, and laughing all the way to his next binge bender. The fact that pubs across the spectrum are now calling Dr. Ford a liar are going to see a BIG response at the polls in about 4 weeks...it is going to cause a lot of lick-spittling and huffing and puffing from certain of our friendly neighborhood deplorables around here, that much is certain.

Let's not forget that Bobby Three Sticks has a very large BOOT likely to drop any day now, so wind up your outrage machine for that eventuality. The Dems are just laying in the weeds waiting to spring THAT bomb on the hapless Pubs just in time for the midterms.

Got a side-bet with dMac about how many mindless curse words this post will bring from You Know Who...

..

[DMac]

Can't believe you took the under on this one.....easy money, brotha.

[Bandito]

Amazing what goes on in the "mind" of a Trump base voter! The liar in the Kav hearing now sits on the SCOTUS, and he is going to be under pressure for a balance of his days on the court. He's not a sexual predator or gang-rapist like the screaming meemee's want you to believe...he's just your garden variety sexist that objectifies women and doesn't mind climbing all over one when the opportunity presents itself, and laughing all the way to his next binge bender. The fact that pubs across the spectrum are now calling Dr. Ford a liar are going to see a BIG response at the polls in about 4 weeks...it is going to cause a lot of lick-spittling and huffing and puffing from certain of our friendly neighborhood deplorables around here, that much is certain.

Let's not forget that Bobby Three Sticks has a very large BOOT likely to drop any day now, so wind up your outrage machine for that eventuality. The Dems are just laying in the weeds waiting to spring THAT bomb on the hapless Pubs just in time for the midterms.

Got a side-bet with dMac about how many mindless curse words this post will bring from You Know Who...

..

None. I seriously feel sorry for how brain washed you are. Kav just hired all women on his staff. But you claim him to be a sexist who objectifies women? He has two daughters and a wife. Your thought process on this is the reason why Republicans and independents are going to come out in droves and vote against your insane beliefs. You get so emotional. You need to deal with facts. Your post provided zero facts, only feelings.

Independents hated how your party handled the Kavanaugh hearings btw. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... avanaugh-/

Crazy to think you all dragging him through the mud and demanding an FBI investigation actually helped him get confirmed and almost certainly will allow for a Red Wave on 11/6

[dislaxxic]

fell for it again! There's a reason it took this sexist 3 years to be confirmed for the DC Circuit. His colleagues there complained about him to CJ Roberts

He hired women clerks? Wonder how they "look"?

It's no hit job...it's a pattern. He's illegitimate as a SCOTUS justice and this all will dog him for years. Typical Federalist Society F.U.

Yeah, sorry folks...trolling the troll here...

..

[foreverlax]

The ONLY reason BK was selected for the SCOTUS -

“I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Odd how he now says

“Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots,” mused Kavanaugh in his law-review article, which proposed that “Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation.”

[Typical Lax Dad]

The ONLY reason BK was selected for the SCOTUS -

“I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Odd how he now says

“Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots,” mused Kavanaugh in his law-review article, which proposed that “Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation.”

It is called jury selection. What is remarkable is how unremarkable Kavanaugh is. That is the best we had to offer?

[dislaxxic]

What Needs to be Done in the Wake of Kavanaugh’s Confirmation

Interesting OPINION from Josh Marshall at TPM...

"The court became a reactionary institution – one that has subverted rather than protected American democracy – when it began in 1976 its series of campaign finance rulings. These rulings – from Buckley v. Valeo in in 1976 through Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 – have removed any restraint first on candidate spending in campaigns and then on individual and corporate donations to candidates and parties. The result has been that the underlying premise of political democracy – that political equality would trump (sorry to use that word) economic inequality — no longer prevails. Instead, economic inequality subverts political equality by giving the wealthy and economically powerful a greater say in our elections."

This is the kind of thing that the low-information voters that believe the GOP is somehow "winning" by pushing the SCOTUS further and further right don't GET.

Moreover:

"...the problems with the court didn’t start with Kavanaugh this week or even Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. They started in 1976. Secondly, if liberals have any dreams of moving American beyond the New Deal toward a genuine social democracy, they need to find a way to overturn the spate of campaign finance rulings from the court and reinstitute a genuinely democratic reading of the first amendment in their place. If it takes packing (or threatening to pack the court, as Franklin Roosevelt did), that’s fine. It’s within the bounds of the Constitution."

..

[dislaxxic]

Two more interesting OPINIONS about the SCOTUS:

The Coming Storm Over the Supreme Court Barry Friedman in the NYT...

"If it swings too far to the right, expect a response."

and...

The Big Choice about the Supreme Court that Democrats Will Face Paul Starr and the American Prospect...

"The Republicans are playing what Mark Tushnet calls “constitutional hardball,” leaving Democrats little choice but to respond in kind. Some legal scholars and observers recoil at the idea of playing breast-for-tat. But Tushnet says Democrats would be justified in adding two additional seats to reverse what Republicans did with Garland. To those who say such a measure would violate political norms, Tushnet responds that it would, in effect, be an effort to establish a new norm:“You can't steal a Supreme Court seat and expect to get away with it.”

Unless Democrats are going to roll over and give up any hope of carrying out their policies, they are going to need to play constitutional hardball to reverse the illegitimate gains Republicans have made in controlling the Court. Unless Democrats are going to roll over and give up any hope of carrying out their policies, they are going to need to play constitutional hardball to reverse the illegitimate gains Republicans have made in controlling the Court."

Before throwing a full freaker, consider that MAYBE a compromise could be achieved...

"...Democrats and Republicans might end up negotiating a permanent change in the tenure of Supreme Court justices that would reduce the intense pressures surrounding court nominations and confirmations. Under the current system, not only do justices have lifetime tenure; they can often perpetuate their views on the Court by stepping down only when a president from their own party is in office. That is what Anthony Kennedy is doing, and that is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg failed to do while Obama had the ability to replace her. It is absurd that so much politically should ride on the individual justices’ personal decisions and longevity.

Under an alternative proposed by a group called Fix the Court, justices would have 18-year terms on a nine-member Supreme Court, and presidents would make biennial appointments. Hence a president would get two nominations in a four-year term. Since the Constitution has so little to say on the subject, the change might be made through ordinary legislation, though some say it would require a constitutional amendment."

..

[Bandito]

The ONLY reason BK was selected for the SCOTUS -

“I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Odd how he now says

“Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots,” mused Kavanaugh in his law-review article, which proposed that “Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation.”

It is called jury selection. What is remarkable is how unremarkable Kavanaugh is. That is the best we had to offer?

He is highly qualified. A lot better than RGB, Sotomayor and Kagan. But don't see you bitching about those unqualified women

[foreverlax]

The ONLY reason BK was selected for the SCOTUS -

“I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Odd how he now says

“Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots,” mused Kavanaugh in his law-review article, which proposed that “Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation.”

It is called jury selection. What is remarkable is how unremarkable Kavanaugh is. That is the best we had to offer?

He is highly qualified. A lot better than RGB, Sotomayor and Kagan. But don't see you bitching about those unqualified women

Better? Better in what ways??

RBG - confirmed 96-3....she will go down as one of the greatest justices in our country's history.
Sotonmayor - confirmed 68-31
Kagan - confirmed 63-37

[Typical Lax Dad]

The ONLY reason BK was selected for the SCOTUS -

“I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” argued Kavanaugh in the law-review article. He then asserted that “the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

Odd how he now says

“Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots,” mused Kavanaugh in his law-review article, which proposed that “Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation.”

It is called jury selection. What is remarkable is how unremarkable Kavanaugh is. That is the best we had to offer?

He is highly qualified. A lot better than RGB, Sotomayor and Kagan. But don't see you bitching about those unqualified women

Buenos dias el bandito Manuel!

[Typical Lax Dad]

[ggait]

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/

18 year term limits for SCOTUS are the fix.

The combination of political polarization, life tenure and strategic retirements has really FUBAR-ed the Court.

Nixon put Lewis Powell on the Court in 1971. That seat then went to Kennedy/Reagan in 1988. Then to Kavanaugh/Trump in 2018. If Kennedy strategically retires in 2045 or so, that seat could be in GOP hands for 100 continuous years. Same thing goes on with the Dems. Absurd.

SCOTUS reform would be a great bi-partisan reform opportunity.

[thatsmell]

Kavanaugh is a product of the political atmosphere we are in today.
There were multiple oppportunities to stop and reverse course to get a better pick.
We got a mediocre pick because we have mediocre politicians who chose to play gotcha politics and trying to "win" instead of acting like adults.
On both sides.

[dislaxxic]

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/term-limits/

18 year term limits for SCOTUS are the fix.

The combination of political polarization, life tenure and strategic retirements has really FUBAR-ed the Court.

Nixon put Lewis Powell on the Court in 1971. That seat then went to Kennedy/Reagan in 1988. Then to Kavanaugh/Trump in 2018. If Kennedy strategically retires in 2045 or so, that seat could be in GOP hands for 100 continuous years. Same thing goes on with the Dems. Absurd.

SCOTUS reform would be a great bi-partisan reform opportunity.

Do you think it's possible that a SCOTUS that is not disposed to this thinking could somehow thwart such as an effort...as unconstitutional or something?

..

[seacoaster]

"On both sides."

This is probably true. And the Democrats overreached and managed the situation badly.

But it was the Federalist Society that urged him on the President; it was the President that nominated him; it was the President and McConnell who persisted in the face of considerable distaste among the general public, a tepid effort in Round 1 with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and a Round 2 in which he revealed the unmistakable fact that he was a political partisan of the worst sort, unable to maintain any semblance of decorum or place. His mediocrity and mendacity is on the GOP.

We had pretty much the same "mediocre politicians" when we got Roberts and Kagan, both pretty much shining examples of what the country is looking for in a Justice of the Supreme Court. Super highly educated, experienced practitioners and lawyers, big thinkers, advocates before the very court on which they serve, and thoughtful jurists coming at problems from right and left, but with the institutional integrity of the Court and the Constitution in mind. Where have you gone William Brennan? The nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

[dislaxxic]

OBAMA’S RESISTANCE TO INVESTIGATING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION [PERMITTED] BRETT KAVANAUGH TO SKATE ONTO THE SUPREME COURT

That's right...one of the first moments wherein BHO angered his base was when he declined to investigate Shrub Bush for his pretty clearly criminal program of rendition and torture.

One of the biggest supporters/enablers of said program was none other than...that's right...Brett Keganaugh.

"Kavanaugh’s career should have ended at the D.C. District Court of Appeals. His new role as Supreme Court justice is what happens when democratic societies don’t hold criminals in the government accountable for their actions. At a bare minimum, everyone involved with the Bush administration’s war in Iraq and post-9/11 torture and detainee programs should have been thoroughly discredited and rejected from polite society. That they weren’t may end up being one of the defining moments in the 21st century."

As i've said, and in my view: ILLEGITIMATE.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

fell for it again! There's a reason it took this sexist 3 years to be confirmed for the DC Circuit. His colleagues there complained about him to CJ Roberts

He hired women clerks? Wonder how they "look"?

It's no hit job...it's a pattern. He's illegitimate as a SCOTUS justice and this all will dog him for years. Typical Federalist Society F.U.

Yeah, sorry folks...trolling the troll here...

..

I tend to agree that "this will dog him for years."

Can we just pause for a moment and wonder what the Justices thought when Trump claimed that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent" ???
Pretty sure Scalia would have been outraged by such a stupid statement, regardless of how he may have felt about the nominee's and his family's ordeal and otherwise welcomed another conservative to the Court. Same for all the GOP nominated Justices with maybe only Thomas not appalled. And that's only because Thomas is the least sharp knife in the drawer of the Court. But even he, having been through his own ordeal, would reject the notion that anything was "proven" last week as to "innocence". "least sharp" doesn't mean totally dull.

My own sense is that because Kavanaugh definitely was not fully truthful in various ways during his testimony that, at a minimum, will be a challenge for him with his fellow Justices, both left and right on the court. Likewise, his partisan rhetoric will be a serious issue for him with his fellow Justices and with litigants. But I doubt he will recuse himself unless Roberts insists and that seems unlikely unless Kavanaugh starts spouting off in a partisan way either privately with the other Justices, or worse, in public. Have to think Kavanaugh's not that stupid, but you never know whether he loses his cool again in some circumstance or gets cocky.

The issues around sexual assault will likely not reemerge unless there's some really determinative new information. Gotta think he'll keep his nose clean going forward and avoid any chance of an issue (unless he does have an ongoing drinking issue, which I also doubt).

I doubt the Dems will burn energy specifically on Kavanaugh in any sort of impeachment process, though they could well hold hearings in the House on sexual assault and how we treat survivors. And in that context make clear that Ford's testimony was not merely "compelling" but that it was also entirely consistent with how memories of survivors are very clear on critical details like who their assailant was and what he did, but not on lots of other details. "Tunnel memory" effect.

[a fan]

Congressional Dems don't have to lift a finger. The libs and the media will make all the noise.

You think Roberts is going to put up with any appearance of bias? I don't.

Kav is going to wind up recusing himself from a few cases in the coming years as a result of this circus.