Tuesday Open Thread

“Men often are valued high when they are most wretched.”

–John Webster

19 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ParkHill says:

    "The post-legal Supreme Court" Important Read of the Day by Ian Milhiser at vox.com.

    This follows up in detail on Josh Marshall's observation that the Supreme Court is a corrupt extension  of the Republican Party.

    The highest Court in the most powerful nation in the world appears to have decided that it only needs to follow the law when it feels like it.

    Last December, for example, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that fundamentally alters the Union — giving states sweeping authority to restrict their residents’ constitutional rights.

    At least, that’s what happened if you take the Court’s 5-4 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson seriously. Jackson involved Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8, which allowed “any person” who is not employed by the state to sue anyone they suspect of performing an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, and to collect a bounty of at least $10,000 from that abortion provider. The Court allowed that law to take effect, even though abortion was still considered a constitutional right at the time.

    If you apply the logic from Jackson more broadly, any state could pass a law unleashing such litigious bounty hunters upon people who exercise any constitutional right. Perhaps a state wants to make it illegal to own a gun, or maybe it wants to allow bounty hunters to sue any Black family that sends its child to a predominantly white school — and the federal judiciary will simply stand back and let it happen. Realistically, the Court is unlikely to allow these sorts of attacks. But to spite abortion, the conservative majority was willing to open the door to them.

    • ParkHill says:

      Time for more aggressive challenges to the Supreme Court take over. From Josh Marshall at TPM.

      This is a really insightful discussion about the traditional caution exercised by the Presidency and the Bureaucracy when it comes to challenging Supreme Court constraints. If the Supreme Court is corrupt, then the game has become political rather than legal. It would be more useful to have politically salient examples of Supreme Court overreach, rather than avoiding the legal risks.

      I want you to read this TPM Reader email. If you care about Roe, Dobbs or what seems like the White House’s response just not up to the challenge of the moment, you should really read this. It’s not exculpatory. But it explains the nature of the breakdown, the outdated model they appear to be stuck in.

  2. westslope says:

    ParkHill, just what would you have done, given current political realities? Be specific and show your work,

     

    • ParkHill says:

      What I would have done with what? Be specific.

      If I was who? Show your work.

      • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

        Pretend you are the President of the United States, Park Hill. Today is Day One of your administration.

        How do you fix what the Supreme Court did in the Dobbs case? And please be specific.

        • kwtree says:

          Always keeping in mind that the requestor never provides evidence for his predictions of Doom for Dems who Deviate from his center-right positions.

        • ParkHill says:

          Well I'm not Joe, and it isn't day one of the administration, but… We can't fix Dobbs if we don't gain two senate seats and hold the House. That is the immediate, necessary and minimum goal.

          I appreciate Biden's basic competency and old-school moderation of tone, but we are up against a scorched earth, anti-democracy Republican Party. Instead of negotiating, I'd take a page out of Liz Cheney's playbook – Clarity of purpose and moral outrage. And put it on replay.

          I'd use the next four months until the election to create a sense of urgency and to boost Democratic turnout. SCOTUS striking down Roe v. Wade is a particularly outrageous abuse, that is waking people up.

          I would have the House and Senate to repeatedly present bills on Voting Rights, Mail-in Voting, Gerrymandering, Women's Health Care, etc to force elected officials to choose a side. Even if we have votes that fail or losses in the Courts, do so loudly and publicly, to pump up the awareness that the Republicans are against us, but also to demonstrate that we Democrats willing to confront them.

          I would do whatever I could to goose turnout among the strongest Democratic sectors, in particular women, younger people and college educated. I'd present a package of promises to younger people on issues where they are getting screwed: tax system that has tilted toward the wealthy, student debt, rents, house prices, sexual privacy, women's health care. 

          • westslope says:

            PH, agreed on bringing bills up to a vote, early and often. Put pressure on Schumer and Pelosi to do so. The Dems still suck at messenging, both content and delivery. Give up for now the longer range pipe dreams that turn center-oriented voters off, such as full student loan forgiveness. Where has the outrage been on McConnell blocking Medicare negotiating directly with drug companies AND making our economy more competitive with China? Can't the Dems keep their troops on the main page instead of playing to the networks with whatever flew into their brains today?

            As for the tree, until you and other progressives'' get enough people elected to matter, all you're accomplishing is making it harder for Dems who want to make progress, even if it's incremental, to win elections.

            As for the boulder guy and visions of abolishing the filibuster, you need at least two more D senators and then persuade all of the Ds to vote for it. That's not the world we live in today.

            Until then, lay off Biden. He beat trump, didn't he? He's playing a lousy hand as well as anyone could. He doesn't need back-biting and bank-stabbing allies demanding the impossible.

             

            • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

              "As for the boulder guy and visions of abolishing the filibuster, you need at least two more D senators and then persuade all of the Ds to vote for it. That's not the world we live in today."

              I'm not even sure that Sinema and Manchin are the only two obstacles. They are the only two who have publicly and vocally said they oppose removing the filibuster.

              But there are others (John Tester, Michael Bennet, Hick, Dianne Feinstein) who may not be all that enthusiastic over getting rid of it. But why should they open their mouths when "Sinemanchin" has rendered it to be a non-issue.

          • Schrodingers Dog says:

            'Clarity of purpose and moral outrage. And put it on replay,' Exactly.  The Repubs have turned the moral outrage angle into a fine tuned machine.

             On our end, let us take a page out of their playbook. Start lighting up the issues, point by point, one issue at a time. Pick an issue, being health care, unaffordable housing, tax inequity, gerrymandering, etc, and start generating the conversation. Start with the local paper letters and comments.  Keep it simple (even if it's not, it's not a debate), use FACTS, make the point, and point out which side is probably going to do something about it. Small Sharp Points. A lot of 'em. All the time.

  3. BoulderPatentGuy says:

    If Biden were a Republican & it were the Dems who nominated Gorsuch after not bringing the prior president’s nomination to a vote, he would have canned the filibuster for changing the number of Supreme Court seats & added two to negate Gorsuch.  I realize If Biden were to do this now, it still puts the liberal justices at a disadvantage, but it least it gets the liberals back to “fair”.  Dems should show they’re willing to play GOP hardball as well & I think it would galvanize voters if their messaging is appropriate to those that will listen to it reasonably.

  4. kwtree says:

    The Jan 6 hearings are live tiday. So far, lots of detail about militia group planning for violence with willing collusion by sitting congress people. Cippilone isn’t exactly covering himself in glory; he said he thought Eastman’s coup plan was “nutty”, but as we know, he did very little to stop it.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      I thought the testimony today was powerful – especially the live testimony from the two witnesses at the end.

      As to Cippilone, I think his testimony was effective because he came across as a knowledgeable guy who was doing the best he could within the limits of his job. The testimony from these Republican insiders is so powerful because they clearly are insiders and were strong supporters of the President.

      For the people these hearings don't get through to – nothing will.

    • kwtree says:

      Ar least Muckrakers is sticking to what’s known and documented now, in its crusade against Boebert and ither unethical congresspeople.

      The pdf of the complaint lists Jayson’s half- mil unreported “consultant fee”, the unreported valuable Glock gift , the Utah accident that injured Tori Hooper and endangered the son, ( but phone call link doesn’t work), attacking Wheeker for making false allegations against Boebert (Wheeler probably is on shaky ground there), and of LaBo sending reprehensible and inflammatory tweets ( duh, but that’s up to Twitter to disallow those). 
       

      I think Muckrakers should include LaBo’s role in the insurrection; she had contact with many insurrectionists and militia people, and encouraged their violent planning in person, and in social media (Gab , Parler, and Twitter). I have links for some of those.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      After the previous bullshit charges Muckrackers spewed out, I don't pay attention to anything they do now.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.