This was a huge rallying cry and turnout issue for the right in 2016, even with Obama's attempt to compromise with R's with the Garland nomination. Trump and especially McConnell's biggest legacies are stacking the courts with far-right judges.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:07 pm Should be an interesting Spring, with conservative judges holding the edge and and both Ginsberg and Breyer getting up there in age/diminishing health.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/ ... d50e621ae2
https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/new ... th-scare#1
Agreed, Holmes. We are just not hearing this in the campaigning here in New Hampshire. Republicans have always put more interest, emphasis and good old fashioned connivance into the issue of Judges. I don't know why the issue seems so tepid among Democrats.holmes435 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:49 pmThis was a huge rallying cry and turnout issue for the right in 2016, even with Obama's attempt to compromise with R's with the Garland nomination. Trump and especially McConnell's biggest legacies are stacking the courts with far-right judges.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:07 pm Should be an interesting Spring, with conservative judges holding the edge and and both Ginsberg and Breyer getting up there in age/diminishing health.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/ ... d50e621ae2
https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/new ... th-scare#1
I wonder if Dem's have the ability to rally their own troops and base with the possibility that the Supreme Court may have two additional extreme judges if Trump-McConnell get elected. They should be shouting it to the heavens, but you don't hear much about it in the campaigns.
MONEY. Sad but SO true. "Unintended Consequences"? or Actual Consequences too subtle and complex for your average low-information American voter to grasp??seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:16 am
Dana Milbank in the Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-he-made/
Now, we are in a crisis of democratic legitimacy: A president who has plainly abused his office and broken the law, a legislature too paralyzed to do anything about it — and a chief justice coming face to face with the system he broke."
I think it is a unfair to try to hang all of this on SCOTUS and Roberts, but they certainly played their role. A contributing factor.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:53 amMONEY. Sad but SO true. "Unintended Consequences"? or Actual Consequences too subtle and complex for your average low-information American voter to grasp??seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:16 am
Dana Milbank in the Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-he-made/
Now, we are in a crisis of democratic legitimacy: A president who has plainly abused his office and broken the law, a legislature too paralyzed to do anything about it — and a chief justice coming face to face with the system he broke."
..
Roberts has very little to do in this hearing (unlike his typical role as chief justice), but is he doing it well? A small critique...seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:16 am Put this in the SCOTUS thread:
Dana Milbank in the Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-he-made/
"There is justice in John Roberts being forced to preside silently over the impeachment trial of President Trump, hour after hour, day after tedious day.
The chief justice of the United States, as presiding officer, doesn’t speak often, and when he does the words are usually scripted and perfunctory:
“The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment.”
“The chaplain will lead us in prayer.”
“The sergeant at arms will deliver the proclamation.”
“The majority leader is recognized.”
The latest Trump impeachment trial updates
Otherwise, he sits and watches. He rests his chin in his hand. He stares straight ahead. He sits back and interlocks his fingers. He plays with his pen. He takes his reading glasses off and puts them on again. He starts to write something, then puts his pen back down. He roots around in his briefcase for something — anything? — to occupy him.
Roberts’s captivity is entirely fitting: He is forced to witness, with his own eyes, the mess he and his colleagues on the Supreme Court have made of the U.S. political system. As representatives of all three branches of government attend this unhappy family reunion, the living consequences of the Roberts Court’s decisions, and their corrosive effect on democracy, are plain to see.
Ten years to the day before Trump’s impeachment trial began, the Supreme Court released its Citizens United decision, plunging the country into the era of super PACs and unlimited, unregulated, secret campaign money from billionaires and foreign interests. Citizens United, and the resulting rise of the super PAC, led directly to this impeachment. The two Rudy Giuliani associates engaged in key abuses — the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the attempts to force Ukraine’s president to announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents — gained access to Trump by funneling money from a Ukrainian oligarch to the president’s super PAC.
The Roberts Court’s decisions led to this moment in indirect ways, as well. The court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County gutted the Voting Rights Act and spurred a new wave of voter suppression. The decision in 2014′s McCutcheon further surrendered campaign finance to the wealthiest. The 2018 Janus decision hobbled the ability of labor unions to counter wealthy donors, while the 2019 Rucho ruling blessed partisan gerrymandering, expanding anti-democratic tendencies.
The consequences? Falling confidence in government, and a growing perception that Washington had become a “swamp” corrupted by political money, fueled Trump’s victory. The Republican Party, weakened by the new dominance of outside money, couldn’t stop Trump’s hostile takeover of the party or the takeover of the congressional GOP ranks by far-right candidates. The new dominance of ideologically extreme outside groups and donors led lawmakers on both sides to give their patrons what they wanted: conflict over collaboration and purity at the cost of paralysis. The various decisions also suppress the influence of poorer and non-white Americans and extend the electoral power of Republicans in disproportion to the popular vote.
Certainly, the Supreme Court didn’t create all these problems, but its rulings have worsened the pathologies — uncompromising views, mindless partisanship and vitriol — visible in this impeachment trial. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), no doubt recognizing that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is helping to preserve his party’s Senate majority, has devoted much of his career to extending conservatives’ advantage in the judiciary.
He effectively stole a Supreme Court seat by refusing for nearly a year to consider President Barack Obama’s eminently qualified nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill a vacancy. And, expanding on earlier transgressions by Democrats, he blew up generations of Senate procedures and precedents requiring the body to operate by consensus so that he could confirm more Trump judicial appointees.
It’s a symbiotic relationship. On the day the impeachment trial opened, the Roberts Court rejected a plea by Democrats to expedite its consideration of the latest legal attempt by Republicans to kill Obamacare. The court sided with Republicans who opposed an immediate Supreme Court review because the GOP feared the ruling could hurt it if the decision came before the 2020 election.
Roberts had been warned about this sort of thing. The late Justice John Paul Stevens, in his Citizens United dissent, wrote: “Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, in his McCutcheon dissent, warned that the new campaign finance system would be “incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy.”
Now, we are in a crisis of democratic legitimacy: A president who has plainly abused his office and broken the law, a legislature too paralyzed to do anything about it — and a chief justice coming face to face with the system he broke."
I think the crisis, such as it is (and I do think that is the right word), is one of legitimacy. As Trinity points out on the Impeachment thread, the 47 Democrats in the Senate represent 15,000,000 more Americans than the 53 GOP cult-followers. Clinton -- with all of her character flaws and baggage -- still received 7,000,000 more votes than Il Duce. State legislators (D and R) prepare districts in a manner that allows, in substance and in fact, the political parties, to choose their own set of voters. The GOP fosters and advances litigation intending to reduce the voter pool, and legislation intended to make voting more difficult. Money from super-PACs and billionaires (D and R) overwhelm the airwaves with ads. If you don't think there is a profound disconnect between the voters and their trustees in Congress, you're not hearing and seeing and reading about what's happening with an open mind.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:53 amMONEY. Sad but SO true. "Unintended Consequences"? or Actual Consequences too subtle and complex for your average low-information American voter to grasp??seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:16 am
Dana Milbank in the Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-he-made/
Now, we are in a crisis of democratic legitimacy: A president who has plainly abused his office and broken the law, a legislature too paralyzed to do anything about it — and a chief justice coming face to face with the system he broke."
..
Might end up with Taliban style schools here in about 100 years..... given how quickly things have changed. Who would have thought we would elevate the Presidency.seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:55 am Meanwhile, a few blocks away, the Supreme Court is thinking about the frictions between Church and State:
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4 ... f-religion
"Can the government use your tax dollars to pay for religious teachings? No. At least that used to be the clear answer under our constitutional system that wisely separates the institutions of religion and government. But education voucher proponents have worked persistently over decades to chip away at the no-funding principle that prohibits the government from funding religion. In the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, argued at the Supreme Court last week, voucher proponents once again asked the court to clear the way for tax support of religious education.
The case involves a state tax credit program that funds scholarships to private schools. In order to comply with its state constitution, Montana restricted the program to avoid funding religious schools. Parents of students who attend religious schools claim the state’s different treatment of religious schools violates their religious freedom. The case continued even after the entire program ended. A decision that requires such funding could fundamentally alter the relationship between the institutions of religion and government.
Since our country’s founding era, Americans have professed a commitment to religious liberty and debated how the government should best protect free exercise without establishing religion. After Virginia cut financial ties with its established church, the Virginia legislature passed Thomas Jefferson’s bill for religious freedom, which said that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” The idea that religion should be independent from government taxation and free of its control distinguished this uniquely American experiment.
Most states followed Virginia’s lead in protecting religious liberty by adopting explicit provisions that avoid government sponsorship of and government interference in religion. Beginning in 1835, many state constitutions expressly prohibited public dollars from being spent on religious schools. These “no-aid provisions” protect the free exercise of religion without forcing taxpayers to support religious teachings of groups they supported, much less actively opposed. Religious instruction, which certainly is an important religious activity, would be recognized as the responsibility of the religious community to which it is accountable, and not the responsibility of the secular government.
In their zeal to tap government resources, some advocates portray the no-funding principle as anti-religious, arising out of anti-Catholicism of the late 19th century. But the no-funding principle is an affirmative way to protect religious freedom for all people that was codified in our laws and state constitutions more than a half-century before the first significant wave of Catholic immigration. These provisions, like Montana’s, have kept public dollars from being awarded to any religious schools.
In fact, no-aid provisions protect religious liberty by guarding the rights of people of all faiths and the nonreligious. They remind us that religion is distinctive and beyond the competence of the government. They are the corollary to special religious exemptions that religious schools enjoy. These commonsense measures ensure that religious institutions are accountable to and dependent on their religious communities, not government entities. That’s why Montana delegates, including Catholics, overwhelmingly affirmed its no-aid provision in 1972 when it adopted a new constitution. And that’s why religious groups from a variety of faiths support the no-aid rule as an essential protection for religious liberty.
As government’s reach extends into so many areas of our lives, some parents and some religious schools will continue to claim “discrimination” to justify government aid to religion. Of course, with government funding comes government rules. Our country’s experience for more than 200 years demonstrates that religious liberty is best protected when the government avoids funding religious exercise. The Supreme Court should allow Montana and other states to continue to say “no” to government funding of religious schools and to preserve public tax dollars for public schools."
The article conveys a view that was once understood and widely acknowledged -- and which through the 1980s Republicans like Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed worked tirelessly to rebut: that religion was best preserved and made meaningful by a separation from politics. And these folks gained the upper hand in the "debate" by going the route that has proved so effective for Republicans elsewhere -- casting themselves as victims in a secular society where the spoils are given, with discriminatory animus, to the irreligious. But over time, the alliance between -- or the near coextensive nature of -- government and religion will make religion a deep and awful charade, which truly religious folks should abhor.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:57 amMight end up with Taliban style schools here in about 100 years..... given how quickly things have changed. Who would have thought we would elevate the Presidency.seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:55 am Meanwhile, a few blocks away, the Supreme Court is thinking about the frictions between Church and State:
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4 ... f-religion
"Can the government use your tax dollars to pay for religious teachings? No. At least that used to be the clear answer under our constitutional system that wisely separates the institutions of religion and government. But education voucher proponents have worked persistently over decades to chip away at the no-funding principle that prohibits the government from funding religion. In the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, argued at the Supreme Court last week, voucher proponents once again asked the court to clear the way for tax support of religious education.
The case involves a state tax credit program that funds scholarships to private schools. In order to comply with its state constitution, Montana restricted the program to avoid funding religious schools. Parents of students who attend religious schools claim the state’s different treatment of religious schools violates their religious freedom. The case continued even after the entire program ended. A decision that requires such funding could fundamentally alter the relationship between the institutions of religion and government.
Since our country’s founding era, Americans have professed a commitment to religious liberty and debated how the government should best protect free exercise without establishing religion. After Virginia cut financial ties with its established church, the Virginia legislature passed Thomas Jefferson’s bill for religious freedom, which said that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” The idea that religion should be independent from government taxation and free of its control distinguished this uniquely American experiment.
Most states followed Virginia’s lead in protecting religious liberty by adopting explicit provisions that avoid government sponsorship of and government interference in religion. Beginning in 1835, many state constitutions expressly prohibited public dollars from being spent on religious schools. These “no-aid provisions” protect the free exercise of religion without forcing taxpayers to support religious teachings of groups they supported, much less actively opposed. Religious instruction, which certainly is an important religious activity, would be recognized as the responsibility of the religious community to which it is accountable, and not the responsibility of the secular government.
In their zeal to tap government resources, some advocates portray the no-funding principle as anti-religious, arising out of anti-Catholicism of the late 19th century. But the no-funding principle is an affirmative way to protect religious freedom for all people that was codified in our laws and state constitutions more than a half-century before the first significant wave of Catholic immigration. These provisions, like Montana’s, have kept public dollars from being awarded to any religious schools.
In fact, no-aid provisions protect religious liberty by guarding the rights of people of all faiths and the nonreligious. They remind us that religion is distinctive and beyond the competence of the government. They are the corollary to special religious exemptions that religious schools enjoy. These commonsense measures ensure that religious institutions are accountable to and dependent on their religious communities, not government entities. That’s why Montana delegates, including Catholics, overwhelmingly affirmed its no-aid provision in 1972 when it adopted a new constitution. And that’s why religious groups from a variety of faiths support the no-aid rule as an essential protection for religious liberty.
As government’s reach extends into so many areas of our lives, some parents and some religious schools will continue to claim “discrimination” to justify government aid to religion. Of course, with government funding comes government rules. Our country’s experience for more than 200 years demonstrates that religious liberty is best protected when the government avoids funding religious exercise. The Supreme Court should allow Montana and other states to continue to say “no” to government funding of religious schools and to preserve public tax dollars for public schools."
And then the contempt hearings for non-compliance?njbill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:58 pm Supreme Court sets oral argument for March 31 on three of Trump’s tax return cases. Decision by the end of June.
https://apple.news/AyX2OmhweTUeZre8LwUzA0w
At this point, if his "taxes" are released and the forensic money guys can't nail him for money laundering or something similar, I really don't care any longer.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:32 pm That will be interesting. At least one of the cases, maybe more, involves subpoenas to Trump’s accountant or bank, I think. Pretty sure the non-Trump entities have said they will comply. One of the cases arises from a New York State grand jury subpoena. One would think it would be less likely that the tax returns would leak in that case, but more likely if the House gets them.
I have been saying for a while now that Trump has really screwed this up. As it has turned out, his tax returns may get leaked this summer or fall. Had he released them shortly after he was elected in 2016, this would all be old news by now.