Sigh. @alfranken just said that Dems should "sit with" a 6-3 court and *wait for* the court to do something bad AND THEN, maybe, the Dems would have the political will to expand the court.
Since this is my part of the store, I will quickly say that this is dumb and bad.
* Expanding the court upon victory is going to be the HEIGHT of the Dems political power to do this. The illegitimate process to install ACB will be fresh.
Also, it's the height of the reform argument. Trump broke the court just like he broke everything else. LET'S FIX IT.
* There is the sense, from Dems, that they have "other priorities." But, people (include Dems) don't seem to understand that the POINT of a 6-3 Republican court is to THWART those priorities. THAT'S WHY THE GOP STOLE IT.
There's NOTHING that Dems want that survives a 6-3 court.
* Waiting for the court to strike down any particular priority will take a while. At least a couple of years.
If Dems think that they're going to pack the court after the 22 election they are INSANE. Even if Dems win the Senate now, they'll likely lose it in 22. Look at the map.
Those losses will be ASSURED if they let the Court GUT VOTING RIGHTS. Which they've already done. And poised to do some more, RIGHT NOW.
This is the critical point, you CAN'T win at the polls if you let a 6-3 PREVENT BLACK PEOPLE FROM VOTING.
I know Franken is just thinking about the politics of it all, and the politics are tough. But he (and his former colleagues) MUST be made to understand that the alternative is UNTENABLE.
WE CANNOT "sit" with a 6-3 court to cut VOTING RIGHTS AGAIN, and then fix it later.
You expand the court NOW and you concede minority white rule for a generation. THOSE ARE THE STAKES.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I understand why Republicans are invested in downplaying the scope of the immunity decision. If people understood what just happened they might want to do something about the Supreme Court.
I really don't understand why Democrats are downplaying the scope though.
My only guess is that Democrats think that if people understood how much power the Supreme Court just handed to the President, they might expect their President to use it.
Since Biden's not going to use it, I guess there's value in telling people it didn't happen?
And along those lines I guess there's value in Democrats (falsely) telling people that there's still some kind of ridiculous chance Trump is still brought to justice, because even thought that is now a complete lie, people like to believe "the system is working."
Look, I appreciate that people still want to find *some way* to think that Trump is going to be brought to justice for January 6.
But he WILL NOT be brought to justice. That part of the conversation is OVER. Trump won. People need to deal with that in their own way, but he WON.
The more relevant question is "NOW... WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?" Trump won. He iced the bookeeper. He killed Sean Connery. NOW, WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?
Are you prepared to go to the mattresses against the Supreme Court? Are you prepared to DEMAND court expansion as a condition for your next vote, in your next primary? Yes? Then we can talk. NO? Then there is no point.
20 minutes out from Supreme Court decisions. It's been an honor covering these last gasps of democratic self government.
Just so you know, my process is to read the case syllabus, which usually tells you the holding, then read the first few paragraphs of the dissent, which tells you what the actual fight was about.
First case is Corner Post v. Federal Reserve. 6-3. Party lines. Barrett opinion, Jackson dissenting.
Republican justices say that people can challenge administrative regulations, essentially whenever they want, statute of limitations be damned.
Supreme Court opinions in 20 minutes. I assume they "officially" have to punt EMTALA till after the election today. Not sure what else.
First case is Ohio v. EPA. It's about whether to enforce an EPA rule limiting pollution while people sue over the rule. 5-4. Gorsuch (whose mother used to run the EPA --into the ground-- for Ronald Reagan) rules against the EPA. Barrett joins the liberals in dissent.
@SCOTUSblog just said Gorsuch has two opinions today, and since they did this smaller EPA case... I wonder if the next one is Chevron...
Finished a recording with @ProfMMurray and @AudreLawdAMercy just in time for decisions.
Yay?
First case is Murthy v. Missouri. It's one of the social media cases, with vaccine deniers being pissed that they can't spread COVID-19 disinformation.
6-3, Barrett opinion, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissenting, says that they don't have standing.
Basically the government was using its social media presence to knock down COVID lies. Antivaxx people (and two states) said it violated their free speech. Court says they don't have standing to sue the government over the government's use of social media.