Skip to toolbar
 
Home2020 Elections9/22 News Roundup & Open Thread

50
Leave a Reply

avatar
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
23 Comment threads
27 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Paul ADKmagsviewAint Supposed to Die A Natural Deathjcitybonewi62 Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
NYCVG

I will be ignoring any and all calls to action on the SCOTUS matter.

Dems are welcome to knock themselves out pretending that they have any interest, let alone any power, to decide this.

More Democratic Performance Theater. barf.

The only action I am intending to take this election cycle, apart from Early Voting myself, is to work with people in my high rise building organizing an effort to help our shut-in neighbors correctly fill in their absentee ballots and then delivering those ballots to the polls during Early Voting.

polarbear4
polarbear4

sweet!

polarbear4
polarbear4

TY Benny! my mornings are busier now and i’m so grateful to all you who open up the skies for us birdies.

polarbear4
polarbear4

gnashing of teeth, rending of garments. i’d like to see them mount a full MSM assault. we know they can do that.

or shut it down.

reason #infinity

polarbear4
polarbear4

magsview

See the clip above, Biden looks soooo feeble. An old man unconvincingly yelling about how he’s never broken his word.

Paul ADK

So there’s really no point of ANY progressive voting for Biden, is there?

Seems to me that if Biden loses, there will be no need to wonder why.

polarbear4
polarbear4

DNC probably put something in Ginsberg’s bedtime tea.

orlbucfan

Nope, she was already old and deathly ill. Pancreatic cancer is in the top 5 in killing its victims.

wi62

Pancreatic took my dad years ago

polarbear4
polarbear4

{{{{💗}}}}

polarbear4
polarbear4

polarbear4
polarbear4

polarbear4
polarbear4

wi62

Gov. Tony Evers issues new COVID-19 emergency order, extends statewide mask mandate
Evers want to extend it for 60 more days due to the spikes of covid with colleges and other schools starting, Of course Vos and Fitzgerald are going to sue saying Evers exceeded his powers as Gov. Its truly amazing that R’s are perfectly willing to offer up the 50 plus age people and those with preexisting conditions as human sacrifices as long as profits are coming in.

https://madison.com/wsj/

polarbear4
polarbear4

polarbear4
polarbear4

jcitybone

Fox Lied, 200,000 Died

jcitybone

Ryan Cooper says take a look at judicial review

https://theweek.com/articles/938865/democrats-have-better-option-than-court-packing

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People’s Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: “All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power.” So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it’s unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say “no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed.”

No doubt many liberals will object to this idea. It would be a fairly extreme step in terms of how America’s constitutional system functions, and a lot of Democrats fear the idea of a Republican president not being hemmed in by the legal system. Big chunks of liberal political advocacy (like the ACLU) rely on pressing political cases through the courts. Conversely, conservatives have long advanced the idea that they are against “judicial activism,” which makes liberals favor it more through negative polarization.

But in retrospect, Jefferson was absolutely right — American-style judicial review is, on balance, terrible. The Supreme Court still has a reasonably good reputation among liberals, probably because of the lingering afterglow of the Warren court’s decisions attacking Jim Crow apartheid, and the occasional other rulings advancing civil rights, like when gay marriage was legalized (though this probably only advanced what was already going to happen by a few months). But considered in context, the court has been a bulwark of racism, reaction, and capitalist tyranny for almost its entire existence. Rulings enshrining slavery and Jim Crow, protecting racist murderers, banning basically all public health or labor regulation, or legalizing corruption far outweigh the brief and (not terribly effective) period of Warren court decisions. By the same token, conservatives are lying when they say they are against judicial activism. What they mean is that the legal system should enact their preferences by judicial fiat, and strike down those of Democrats. Judicial review is better for the right than the left, because the right generally wants to stop reforms from being passed, the legal profession is structurally conservative, and the legal system is relatively immune to democratic accountability. All that is why McConnell is stuffing the courts full of right-wing judges. They hide this anti-democratic objective behind overheated rhetoric accusing their opponents of exactly what they are doing.

Others might object that undermining judicial review would violate the rule of law. Indeed, most Americans are taught from a young age that the Supreme Court being able to strike down laws is what it means to have the rule of law. But this is not true. For one thing, as Doreen Lustig and J. H. H. Weiler write in the International Journal of Constitutional Law, judicial review is not nearly as intrusive in every other country as it is here. Some nations, like Austria or France, have a special Constitutional Court which rules on constitutional questions, but relatively infrequently. In others, like Finland or Denmark, judicial review basically never happens. In no other developed democracy does basically every piece of major legislation have to run a years-long gauntlet of tendentious lawsuits trying to get through the courts what parties could not get through the legislature.

Moreover, simply refusing to agree to judicial review has happened before in American history. As historian Matt Karp writes at Jacobin, when the Civil War broke out, President Lincoln and Congress ignored the Dred Scott decision in a law banning slavery in all federal territories, and when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled Lincoln did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus, the president ignored him. As Karp argues, storming the citadel of reactionary court power was necessary to destroy slavery.

It would probably be unwise for an incoming Democratic president to announce immediately he or she is done with judicial review. But it should always be kept in mind as a potential option. Courts can violate the law, the Constitution, and the basic principles of representative democratic government. The lawsuit currently in progress trying to strike down ObamaCare (which will be heard after the election) is so utterly preposterous that should the court agree to it, it will reveal itself to be a judicial tyranny — a lawless negation of legislative power. When confronted with that kind of ruthless usurpation of America’s republican values, one should be ready to respond in kind.

polarbear4
polarbear4

agree that we need to start taking all options seriously and really chew on them.