We now have a Supreme Court that is moving every aspect of our society in a radical direction, blowing up any reasonable reading of the Constitution to fit its radical ideological and partisan views. It spits on the actions of legislatures and preempts the other branches. 1
The Framers did not expect the judiciary to be the dominant branch of government. The Court has justices jammed onto the bench by violations of fundamental norms, dishonest in their confirmations and untethered to any precedent. Congress can curtail its jurisdiction and more. 2
The Alito Court, with the regular connivance of a Chief Justice who lied himself in his confirmation hearing about precedent and calling balls and strikes with Citizens United, has lost its fundamental legitimacy. This is a genuine crisis for the country. Another one! 3
It also suggests an ominous harbinger. If Republicans move to manipulate electoral votes in 2024, it is very likely the Alito Court will let them get away with it, using the radical interpretation that state courts have no role in enforcing state constitutions or laws. 4
That state legislatures are supreme and unlimited in choosing electors. We are moving closer and closer to a version of Hungary, but with the elements of a Wild West added in.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@jacklgoldsmith in the NYT calls the 1/ committeels work “one-sided.” That is like calling the scientists who say the earth is not flat “one-sided.” The term is not neutral, it is pejorative. Itreflects a piece pushing against indicting or holding to account a lawless president.
He purports to present a “balanced” case of the dilemma facing the AG—Garland does face a set of tough challenges— but it is a complement to the Times’s news analysis: Trump had to show intent, ignoring, eg, the Enron jury instructions saying willful ignorance is no excuse
Jack argues a series of balancing tests, among them, that even if Trump is clearly guilty, if a jury might deadlock (perhaps because there is a Trumpist on it,) to bring the case could violate DOJ guidelines that to charge someone, you need to believe it will lead to conviction.
Advice for Democrats for the fall: lots of ads showing consequences of a GOP majority. Tape of ranting key figures: Jim Jordan to be chair of Judiciary and No 2 on Oversight; Elise Stefanik, on Intel and senior party leader; Scalise as Majority Leader; Andy Biggs on Oversight.
Make it clear that they will be a wrecking crew undermining America; sharing key intel with our adversaries, doing bogus investigations of House Ds and WH officials, blocking progress on legislation, denying $ for pandemic planning, trying to steal the 2024 election.
Aim these ads at suburban voters who might otherwise vote R to express their unhappiness with the status quo, and to charge up disillusioned Ds who might not vote. Do the same with the Senate, focusing on Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee and the other anti-American radicals.
This piece made me wince. 40 and 50 percent or more of those with serious mental illness have anosognosia, a part of the brain disease that means they have no insight into their illnesses. Untreated, they end up homeless, jailed or dead. Not by choice. 1 nytimes.com/2022/05/17/mag…
Gripped by delusions or believing that God has taken their souls, in a broken mental health system that bars loved ones from intervening, the lives they deserve are taken away. It is true that drugs do not always work, often have bad side effects. But for many, they do work. 2
Meds alone are not enough. Cognitive behavioral therapy is often extraordinarily effective. Wrap around services can make a huge difference. To ignore anosognosia, to pretend that any involuntary treatment or all medication is evil, consigns wonderful people to a living Hell. 3
Harry, you are right – that you are not quite in the mainstream. It may be Supreme Court tradition and practice that leaves every recusal decision up to the justice, but that is simply wrong as a matter of ethics. It is morally offensive for Clarence Thomas. 1
This is not the first occasion. Ginni Thomas has been an outspoken and active participant in many right wing activities that have interacted with decisions made by the court. Not once has he recused or explained himself. The simple fact that he can likely escape any consequences
From clearly unethical behavior does not excuse the reality that it is unethical. 31 page memo aside, Scalia was ethically insensitive. It is outrageous that the Supreme Court does not abide by the code of ethics that apply to other federal judges.
I have read Joe Manchin's statement. He quotes his predecessor Robert Byrd from a 2010 hearing on the filibuster-- wrongly. I was a witness at that hearing, talked to Byrd after. Byrd changed the rules at least 9 times to get around obstruction. He was open to rules changes 1
Not to eliminate the filibuster, but to keep the burden on the minority. He was dismayed and angry at what Mitch McConnell did to distort the rules. He shouted "Shame, shame!) at the Republicans on the floor when they forced him from his deathbed to make the 60th vote. 2
Byrd, I am convinced, having known him and talked to him many times over decades about the Senate and its rules, would not stand for the way Rs have misused the rules, especially to undermine democracy. He would support switching from 60 to end debate to 41 to continue it. 3
Far too many prominent scholars are saying drop voting and election reform and just do a bipartisan reform of the electoral count act. They ignore the total refusal of Republicans to cooperate on election reform, and buy their appeal to do something serious about ECA. So naive 1
It is an uphill battle to get voting and election reform, but it is urgent to head off massive chicanery in 2022. Republican offers on ECA are like Lucy and the football. The timing is obviously designed to head off election reform. Anything McConnell would agree to on ECA… 2
Would be more pablum than anything else. Remove the role of the VP (now that it is Harris) and raise the bar from one to perhaps 10 or 20 to challenge electors. Let’s see if 10 or more Republicans sign onto the meaningful ECA reform proposed by Angus King. ECA is about 2024. 3