Bob Shepherd, polymath and educator, predicts the truly extraordinary goal of the far-right extremist Supreme Court. It mainly consists of dismantling the federal government’s powers. This was proclaimed by Steve Bannon in 2016 before the Trump election. In this rightwing dream, all federal laws protecting civil rights, women’s rights, climate change, etc. would disappear.
Shepherd writes:
Let me be as clear about this as I can be. My reading of what the Extreme Court has been up to is NOT that it means to do away with the doctrine of stare decisis. No. It means to establish, with Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health and West Virginia v. EPA, in this term, and with Moore v. Harper in the next term a new set of precedents designed to fulfil the conservative goals of a) shrinking the federal government down to a size at which it can be drowned in a bathtub and b) turning over power to state governments, many of which will be de facto theocracies under the new legal order. Dobbs provides a template or boilerplate for eliminating whole bodies of federal law and regulation related to unenumerated rights and with these these agencies and departments that do that regulation and enforcement. WV v. EPA is a template or boilerplate for eliminating government agencies or departments (or parts of these) that promulgate regulations pursuant to Congressional legislation on the basis of an argument that Congress can’t turn such decision-making over to Executive Branch agencies or departments because the Constitution insists that these are legislative matters. The idea, again, is to shrink the power and authority of the federal administrative state in full knowledge the fact that Congress,being divided, will not step into these various roles (will not, for example, agree on real climate change). And again, the effect of that will be, with the federal executive and legislature and courts all out of the picture, to turn all this power back to the states. And, finally, Moore will enable the court to rule that the feds cannot pass legislation to protect voting rights because determination of how voting is to be conducted is entirely up to state legislatures under this extremist reading of the Constitution. Again, the effect will be to eliminate federal power and agencies/departments and turn this all over to the states.
All this is revolutionary and is meant to be. It’s the fulfillment of a dream that conservatives in America have had for a long, long time. They have long believed in state’s rights, in the federal government being a monster not envisioned by the founders. This Extreme Court is simply making good on that.
And, btw, as with the various coup methods undertaken by Trump and his team, this has all been discussed on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast (or whatever he wants to call it). He recently devoted much of a program to this very topic: the ways in which work is underway to completely “dismantle the administrative state.”
The SCOTUS effort to dismantle “the administrative state” has been enable by Democrats ceding of the war of ideas to a decades robust conservative effort to promote their ideas and little effort to promote progressive candidates at the local, state, and federal level.
Well said! I truly wish the Democrats were up to the challenge. Based on their history of ignoring problems like losing lots of blue collar workers and Latino immigrants, they just hobble on seemingly oblivious to the problems. The progressives are aware and are wringing their hands, but the corporate Democrats are still in charge of policy.
This has never been a secret. We have no reason to be shocked, it was explained to us and it’s going according to plan.
Bannon, is an even more disheveled Pat Buchanan. Like Buchanan, he is a nationalist protectionist. He wrote the Trump inaugural address, which emphasized a supposed enormous infrastructure program that was going to come and put people back to work, and ofc Trump didn’t understand a word of it and wouldn’t have cared if he did understand it because he only cares about Trump, and so the promised infrastructure plan never happened. And, ofc, Bannon is the grifter with the fake wall scheme. But hey, why shouldn’t he rip off Trump’s base given that Trump is all about ripping off his own base?
Trump got enough Catholic votes to win the election in 2016. In 2020, Trump still had 63% of the white Catholic votes (those who attend church regularly). Those responsible for getting the Catholic votes, Bannon, Leo, Neil Corkery, Koch, right wing bishops and priests, et al.
THAT should be put on billboards across the land…
Arthur-
Worth a read, “Bannon, the Catholic vote, Democracy,” posted at Windy City Times, 2-2022, written by Prof. Patricca of Loyola.
It’s the Confederalist Society Court …
In an ideal world, the SCOTUS justices would be term limited, maybe something between 10-20 years? We are stuck with the right wingers for decades and that is why it is so crucial to vote Democratic. Trump appointed THREEE(!!!!!!!) rightwing religionists in his one term whereas Obama was only able to appoint 2 in his 2 terms and his last pick was blocked by that toxic toad, Mitch McConnell, with his fake crypt master gloom and doom voice.
The judges belong to a sect, conservative Catholic. We were gobsmacked by the overturn of Roe because the Catholic Church has wealthy right wing donors, excellent PR that perpetuates a false image and the Church has many in media and at blogs running interference for it.
Term limits is a great idea. It also deals with the problem of Justices serving well past their intellectual prime.
Mandatory retirement at some advanced age also would be good.
The problem with instituting term and age limits is that such rules would have a negative impact on one of the two parties. The negative impact would be washed out over time, but it would be a real, immediate impact. So one of the two parties probably would never agree to it.
You write great blogs especially around education. Would you be willing to speak at one of our upcoming Democratic Club meetings in the Villages of Florida? Yes, the Villages. Despite our reputation as a Trump stronghold, the Villages Democratic Club is the largest in the state of Florida.
Also, It is important that Democrats get across the right messages on inflation and supply chain issues. Maybe you should do a blog with Robert Reich?
Democrats blame media coverage for voters seeing Biden as a failure on Inflation. This excuse-making comes at a time when Democrats desperately need an actual course-correction. The problem with inflation is not the media coverage: itâs the inflation. The problem with the climate is not the coverage: itâs the climate. The problem with Bidenâs age is notâ¦. etc. etc.
The causes of inflation and supply chain issues (per Robert Reich and others) are:
1) Lack of Competition
Corporations are using inflation as an excuse to raise their prices, hurting workers and consumers while they enjoy record profits. If markets were competitive, companies would keep their prices down in order to prevent competitors from grabbing away customers. But theyâre raising prices even as they rake in record profits. How can this be? They have so much market power they can raise prices with impunity. Viewed this way, the underlying problem isnât inflation per se. Itâs lack of competition. Corporations are using the excuse of inflation to raise prices and make fatter profits.
2) Supply/Demand Issues
Big corporations like Walmart get many products from China. When China shuts down due to Covid, supply is significantly reduced. Supply is also reduced due to the war in Ukraine. At the same time, there has been pent up consumer demand due to the Pandemic. Corporations are passing on increased cost for “limited supply” products to consumers even though they could take a little less in profits. Why? Because they can. DeSantis has cut taxes for corporations by over $4.5 billion despite their greediness (no other way to say it.) At the same time, he has increased taxes on individuals by $1.5 billion. That is why, we refer to the GOP as the “Greedy Oligarch Party”.
The Response to Inflation at the Federal Level
Neither Biden’s nor the GOP’s solutions to inflation have addressed the fundamental problem of corporate greed. The solution of higher unemployment is not a sound strategy. One economist (Robert Reich) called it “rubbish”. He said using increased unemployment to fight increased inflation is like putting a person with a high fever in a freezer to bring down their temperature.
Despite what Manchin and the corporate media are saying, federal spending has actually declined. The subsidies that were part of the stimulus packages are over. If Joe Manchin was truly worried about inflation, he would support increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy to tamp down overall demand â and he would support antitrust enforcement to break up monopolies who are raising prices even as they rake in r Icord profits.
Also, I hope you will continue to highlight the issues in Florida as Fox and others are now touting our Governor, Ron DeSantis, as the heir apparent to Trump. I gave a talk at a Democratic Club meeting in the Villages in March (so it needs updating) on DeSantis and authoritarian rule. I have attached it FYI.
Robert Bigelow, a real estate tycoon that made a fortune from Budget Suites of America and then ploughed $350 million dollars into an aerospace company, just donated $10 million to the DeSantis war chest. BTW this guy also believes there are aliens walking among us. Lots of the super wealthy are banking on DeSantis. to win and then head to Washington. DeSantis’s plans are definitely about taking power away from the federal government and giving it to the states.
“this guy also believes there are aliens walking among us.”
There are.
Some of their names are DeSantis, Trump, McConnell, Cruz, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, K. , Gorsuch, Crony Barrister and Abbutt and they hail from the rings of Uranus.
Sue Dubman
Sounds like you don’t need Bob. Although he does add a bit of dark humor.
I would be curious as to what type of reception you get with your Progressive message on the Economy and inflation at that Democratic club. Putting millions out of work (Lawrence the ———– Summers) will certainly curb demand and thus inflation. That does not mean that the demand side was the cause nor will easing demand solve the supply side issues. A question that was put to Powell by both Warren and AOC and he agreed.
Sue Dubman
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/07/20/urgent-message-fed-dont-get-bullied-sparking-recession
Sue, I would be happy to talk to you about this. Have Diane send me your contact info.
Bob Shepherd
You may need Antifa to escort you in and out of the Villages.
IKR? One of Trump’s favorite stopping places, alas. However, please note that Florida verges on going blue and has for a long time.
joe manchin is “truly worried about”…Joe Manchin. My take on voter suppression in WVA is…opioid addiction. Let’s face it: when you’re strung out, you can barely walk, let alone vote. Has he solved the opioid crisis in WVA? Why should he, when his daughter’s company manufactures naloxone? (Remember Heather, CEO of Mylan, & the hugomongous price of Epipens?) He also made nearly $500K in 2021 from his “non-public shares in the coal co. Enersystems…a contractor for a power plant (in WVA) that burns waste coal,” releasing “more sulfur dioxide & nitrous oxide per unit of energy than any of the state’s coal plants”–Vice.
No surprise that he’s sabotaged the US clean energy plan…ANY kind of a plan.
manchin “truly worried about inflation?” How/why would he increase taxed on corporations (many known to have funded it45 & other Republicans) that PAY HIM?
No, actually, not a “him.” Another “it,” like 45: NO heart. NO soul.
Nothing but greed.
A trompe-l’oeil portrait, this.
Here’s the clearer, edited verion of this comment that I made on Diane’s blog. Diane, if you feel like replacing the post above with the edited version, that would be great.
Thank you so much for sharing this, Diane! Much love to you and yours!
I agree with all but the emphatic nature of the intro. I very much believe this is about destroying the constitutional meaning of stare decisis and precedent itself. I believe this to be an essential step to create the legal framework for everything you describe. Under the new order, stare decisis and precedent will continue to exist, but their definitions and references will be completely different. The shell will look the same, but the mechanisms have been completely replaced. This is essential to lull most people into fascism without really noticing it.
A metaphor for me is chemotherapy followed by a donor stem cell transplant. The stem cells are taken out and chemo wipes out the immune system (the Court’s decisions), the stem cells of the donor are introduced (definitions are kept, meanings are discarded withe new ones invented), and then reinserted to establish a new immune system (fascism with a legal, “democratic” framework). What you see as differences I see as part of a logical, intentional strategy and are very much related. One is a beacon for the other.
Thanks for the imagery that will likely keep me up tonight, as well it should. It is a chilling comment, particularly the “lulling into fascism.” It is so disturbing that so many people cannot see what is happening and what the right wing is working to get us to accept.
The shell will look the same, but the mechanisms have been completely replaced.
Yes. That’s typically how this works. It’s what Orwell was satirizing with his rewrite of the revolutionary slogans in Animal Farm. Precisely that.
Your metaphor is awesome, here, Greg. Just awesome. Well said.
I agree, and would only add that a metaphor that involves living tissue would probably be called a “meataphor”
A meataphor! LMAO!
“When I use a legal term like stare decisis, it means whatever I choose it to mean — neither more nor less” –John “Humpty Dumpty” Roberts
“Stare decisis” becomes “story decidesthis” — concocting a “story” with cherry picked facts to “support” a ruling, a la the Kennedy praying coach case
Well said!
I agree with Bob that the Court does not intend to get rid of stare decisis.
I agree with the mechanics of that statement and it actually underscores my argument. Stare decisis will continue to exist. The definition is changing dramatically and will be completely different from what it was last month if the current trend continues. As you well know, fundamental changes in the law often is like a fast eroding stone, you only notice it when you compare it over time.
So do I. Whenever it suits their theocratic and faux-originalist purposes, between five and six ECOTUS members will cite stare decisis and cleave to it with their ideological Krazy Glue.
I am haunted more these days by Dürrenmatt’s observation that the guards at Auschwitz were state employees. Imagine if the Proud Boys become an SA-like praetorian guard after January 2025. That’s not abstract fantasy anymore. They could be absorbed to get federal employee benefits, nicer uniforms, and not really have to change because the law will be interpreted to accommodate them. See numerous examples in totalitarian states and banana republics–which are not mutually exclusive concepts. They thrive quite well in tandem.
Imagine if the Proud Boys become an SA-like praetorian guard after January 2025. That’s not abstract fantasy anymore.
Exactly. DeSantis just created his own “state guard,” answerable only to him. Bill Barr sent little green men (soldiers sans insignia) to Portland, just as Putin did to Crimea and, originally, in the Donbas. Trump praised the armed “citizens militiamen” who took over the Michigan statehouse, and he wanted to send troops to shoot asylum seekers at the border and BLM protestors, and he was kept from doing that only because Milley and Esper and Nielsen refused to go along with him.
Bannon, Barr and Leo belong to the same religious sect.
Based on the religious cases decided by the Court, the conservative Catholic majority understand what their church wants. So, relative to stare decisis, a review of what conservative Catholics posted about it on the internet, would provide a compelling clue about the opinion of Gorsuch, Alito, Barrett,…. The American Catholic (5-26-2021), Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective. “…Stare decisis is for thee and not for me…”
Many thanks, Bob. How I wish I could take issue, even in a small way. I can’t.
Thanks too for “Extreme Court,” which I will shamelessly rip off.
I stole that from Duane or Jon. It’s perfect.
Bravo, brilliant Bob, you are exactly right, a long lurch to the right since Nixon took office is culminating now in a 50-yr campaign to nullify democratic rights, liberal access to federal policy-making, and national regulation of corporate practices vis a vis labor and the environment. This is an evangelical dream as you say but it is also a corporate dream b/c the right-wing SCOTUS is aggressively pro-capitalist, an unholy marriage of the Bible with Milton Friedman…..ira
Thanks, Ira, and much love to you and yours.
unholy marriage of evangelicals and conservative Catholics.
Judge Scalia was who and what Pat Buchanan wanted. A 2014 interview by Ryan Girdusky (founder of the 1776 PAC) posted at Buchanan’s site, explains the marriage. Thom Hartmann reported about Scalia’s stated view that separation of church and state initiated the attacks on Jews in Germany (available online). Scalia was wrong. The new Kertzer book about Pope Pius XII provides the evidence.
Supreme Court is acting unconstitutionally
The time has now arrived at which We the People must act decisively to save our republic from the unconstitutional dictatorship of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, our republic dies.
For too long, Congress — particularly the House of Representatives — has allowed the Supreme Court to dictate constitutional law because it is politically convenient to allow the Court to make the hard decisions, after which the politicians in Congress can say to angry voters: “Don’t blame us — it was that activist Supreme Court that made that ruling!”
“Originalists Who Ignore the Original:
The hypocritical self-ordained “originalists” on today’s Supreme Court ignore the original intent of our Founding Fathers on the issue of the Supreme Court’s ability to rule on the constitutionality of any law: James Madison, whom America honors with the title “Father of our Constitution”, clearly recorded in the minutes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that when our Founding Fathers wrote Article III of the Constitution that established the Supreme Court “the jurisdiction given [to the Supreme Court] was constructively limited to cases of a judiciary nature.” Madison himself had told his fellow Constitutional Convention delegates that “The right of expounding the Constitution in cases not of this [judiciary] nature ought not be given to that [Judicial] Department.”
During his presidency, Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, pointed out: “The question whether the [Supreme Court] judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law…there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”
Twisting the Constitution:
Founding Father Jefferson also pointed out the absolute danger to our republic of allowing the Supreme Court the non-constitutional power to decide the constitutionality of laws: “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so,” Jefferson noted. “They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is all the more dangerous because they are in office for life and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, ITS MEMBERS WOULD BECOME DESPOTS” and “Experience has already shown that the impeachment it [our Constitution] has provided is not even a scare-crow…The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may TWIST AND SHAPE INTO ANY FORM THEY PLEASE.”
The Court Crowned Itself King:
Since the Constitution does NOT give the Supreme Court any authority to decide on the constitutionality of laws, how did the Court seize the authority that it claims to have? Well, the Court GAVE ITSELF that alleged authority in its Marbury v. Madison ruling.
Must be nice to give yourself constitutional authority that the Constitution doesn’t give you.
When the Court gave itself that unconstitutional authority, Jefferson sadly said that it was “THE END OF OUR DEMOCRACY.”
He was right, as is clear today.
It’s Up to We the People:
Our Constitution is a contract between We the People, not between the states — in fact, state governments were not even allowed to vote on ratifying the Constitution; instead, special ratification conventions were created to which We the People sent representatives to vote on ratifying the Constitution. So, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, judging what is constitutional is the sole right of We the People by means of special conventions.
Clarence Thomas’s right to live in an interracial marriage is nowhere explicitly stated in the Constitution and was outlawed by many states, but the 9th Amendment protects that unstated right to interracial marriage and all other unstated rights, such as abortion; and the 14th Amendment then requires that all those unstated rights are protected from state and other laws that discriminate against those rights.
Benjamin Franklin, key Founding Father of America, shaper and signer of our Constitution, published a handbook titled “The American Instructor” that featured a long, detailed section on do-it-yourself abortion and conception prevention. The book was very popular throughout America, especially in the many farming towns where unwanted pregnancies were an economic hardship on farming families. Unlike the lie told by the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority that abortion was always condemned by We the People, abortion has in fact always been part of America, with the exception of believers of certain religions whose religious beliefs have at this moment trumped the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Franklin’s book should be republished and complimentary copies given to each of the “originalists” on the Court, along with a copy of the minutes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that were recorded by James Madison, The Father of our Constitution.
Beautifully argued and written, quikwrit! If you write that eloquently quickly, then you are a better man than I, Gunga Din.
Well said. Jefferson foresaw our current dilemma. A court with so much power and an ax to grind can wreak havoc. We have rogue court that is trying to rewrite our laws to suit their personal ideology. Several members of the progressive caucus were arrested for blocking traffic outside The Supreme Court while protesting the actions of the court.https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/politics/congress-members-arrested-abortion-protest-supreme-court/index.html
With all due respect to Thomas Jefferson—a man whose image is purportedly so offensive that a statue of him was removed from New York City’s City Hall—this is just silly.
If Republican-majority Congress passed a federal law banning abortion, thus invalidating the abortion laws in every state that provides abortion rights, what body—other than federal courts, including the Supreme Court—should determine whether those state laws are preempted by the federal law and whether the law is unconstitutional? The same Congress that passed the law?
I think you’re a bit harsh on the origins of judicial review (and although it’s beyond the scope of this comment, I also think you elevate the opinion of Jefferson, the founding father, a bit high; the Louisiana Purchase proved even he could rise above principle). Again, consider the context of the times. The Supreme Court at the turn of the century was not respected, nor did it occupy anywhere near the power or stature of the other two branches of government. Marshall recognized this situation and looked for an opportunity to test the limits of the Court’s authority compared to the other branches. Marbury gave him that suitable case and only he recognized it at the time.
But before we get into that, what constitutional authority could he assert? It was right there in Article III, section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”. Although the term judicial review or anything like it is in the Constitution, it was quite clear the framers intended the Court to adjudicate the ultimate meaning of the law. Marshall asserted that power in Marbury.
It is also a mistake to believe that the Court somehow “took” something, because Marbury also created a more subtle precedent that rests on the consent of the governed, not power. Remember, this was a weak institution in a weak young nation. (In our zeal to confer wisdom on the founders and framers, we forget they were really just trying to get by and hardly any world power and many of its citizens didn’t think it would last.). Jefferson could just as easily ignored the Court by foreshadowing the quote attributed to Andrew Jackson, that “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
The reason for the legitimacy is precisely because it didn’t take an army or force to enforce it. As much as everyone hated the decision, its power rests on the acceptance of the legitimacy of the Court and its decision. And that brings us back to quikwit’s proper solution, citizen engagement. It is because of citizen engagement, on that would not allow destruction of the system, that this check on the system succeeded. President Jefferson experienced the flip side of this faith by keeping the US out of a war at the end of his term, choosing citizen innovation and vigilance over war with Britain. He was reviled for this and left office with little support; it was easier to go to war, lose a few lives, get it sorted out and back to business.
Our form of government is often described in civics classes as on that is legitimate because it ultimately rests on the consent of citizens. What happens when that falls apart, as it has relentlessly in the past two decades, is a loss of the minimum of a sense of nationwide civic virtue that agrees the form of governing must never fall victim to narrow, partisan issues. That is the ultimate value of the Marbury decision. Although it is a myth that the Liberty Bell cracked while being rung at his funeral, I wish it were true. His understanding that the fragility of society could only be protected by a widespread acceptance of the legitimacy of the Constitution and vigilance based on knowledge of it and its history. That is now gone, or at the very least, close to it. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault is not judicial review, it is our inability to maintain it as a foundational block of constitutional law.
A real fascist like Stalin knew what he was talking about when he questioned the number of divisions the Pope had.
Good comment, Greg. And I agree about Article III, section 2.
Thank you. As I’m sure you gathered, I left out a “not” in that paragraph and I seem not to be able to press hard enough on the “e” to write one instead of on.
Beautifully said and well reasoned, Greg.
If you are actually right about the framers delegating to the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitutionally of laws — and I am not convinced you are — then you are forced by logic to admit that the framers made a serious (perhaps fatal) error in doing so.
If the Supreme Court has absolute power to rule on Constitutionality of all laws, that necessarily means they can overturn any law not only that the states make but also that the Congress makes including one meant to circumvent a supreme Court ruling. As Jefferson pointed out, that puts virtually limitless power in the hands of those who are not elected and hence not answerable to anyone: not to the people, not to the president and not to the Congress.
Some might believe that the framers were that dumb. But I don’t buy it. If they understood anything it was that it was a mistake to give any unelected group of people effectively unlimited power. They had just fought a war to break away from just such a system.
Surely the framers were aware of the concept of judicial review. John Marshall didn’t just dream that up out of thin air. So if the framers actually believed that the Supreme Court should have that power — which indeed, since Marbury v Madison has become their primary and most important power — why do you suppose the framers didn’t make the power explicit by saying something like “The Supreme a Court shall have the power to rule on the Constitutionality of all laws”? It would have been very easy to add that short phrase if that is indeed what they actually intended.
So why didn’t they?
I don’t believe they intended as much, not just because it’s not explicitly in the document but also because it violates the entire spirit of checks and balances of the Constitution and effectively gives the Supreme Court the final word on everything.
If the Supreme Court indeed has the power to determine the Constitutionality of any law, then the actual text of the Constitution matters not at all because the Supreme Court can decide it means whatever they want it to mean.
Once you go down that rabbit hole, there is no coming back.
“the fault is not judicial review, it is our inability to maintain it as a foundational block of constitutional law.”
The Constitution was designed specifically to ensure that even individuals behaving “badly” won’t be able to subvert the system. Depending on the “good” behavior of individuals as one must in the case of judicial review, turns that design philosophy on its head.
It’s clear that some are obviously not very impressed with Jefferson’s views on this matter (and one has even said he is right and Jefferson is wrong) but I must say I think he had a much better understanding of the problems created by John Marshall’s judicial review.
That’s not an argument from authority. It’s based on what I have read From Jefferson vs what I have read here.
Why shift the focus to Jefferson? It’s all in the minutes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and written in the hand of James Madison, the Father of our Constitution. Here it is again, as clear as can be:
James Madison, whom America honors with the title “Father of our Constitution”, clearly recorded in the minutes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that when our Founding Fathers wrote Article III of the Constitution that established the Supreme Court “the jurisdiction given [to the Supreme Court] was constructively limited to cases of a judiciary nature.” Madison himself had told his fellow Constitutional Convention delegates that “The right of expounding the Constitution in cases not of this [judiciary] nature ought not be given to that [Judicial] Department.”
It looks a lot like we simply got lucky for 200 years with regard to judicial review, but that our luck has just run out and that Jefferson was right when he said it would mean the end. And it is precisely because of unelected individuals on the Supreme court behaving “badly”.
But hey, it’s been a good 200 year run.
But of course the actual end won’t come until there is a President to enforce the laws that the Supreme Court effectively determines.
Stay tuned.
SDP, you make many good points, but as you surmised, we have disagreements about definitions and purposes. First, judicial review is not an absolute power or a final word, in my opinion. In plain English, it says, in effect, you didn’t get it right, and if you want to, get back to work and make it clearer. Note that in overturning Roe, this was part of the reasoning the majority used in redefining it as an exclusive state responsibility. However, in practical, not theoretical, terms, the power could be argued to be absolute because the Court knew full well that many state legislature would not act or try to make the laws more draconian. This was the problem with the Court in the 30s as well. Its theoretical, some would say ideological, views did not line up with practical reality of what people were experiencing. (Among the things the Court never addressed in overturning Roe are the facts that women will continue to seek abortions, legal or not. Ironically, they choose the opposite logic when it comes to gun regulations; these are useless because people will always break the law.)
I also don’t accept the validity of Jefferson’s supposed claim that this so-called unrestricted and unaccountable power rests in the hands in the judiciary if they can overturn acts of Congress or Executive Branch actions. The very same criticism can be made of the Executive or, in practical terms as we see now, about a few in Congress. I also think, as I argued earlier, one has to judge this decision-making in the context of the times and the consequences if the ruling had gone the other way. Had Marshall upheld Jefferson’s (Madison) case, it would have politicized every decision during administration transitions and put at risk the basic administrative continuity any government needs to survive differing players in the system. It would have further diminished the role of the judiciary and we may well have had a tradition that created two branches and made the Court a rubber stamp for whichever interests controlled political power.
But the biggest reason we have problems, as I have argued over and over again, is that the framers never envisioned a system where significant players in all three branches would not only undermine constitutional governance but seek to break it or that citizens would not hold them accountable to right the ship of State. If you look at the debates, they could envision one branch being taken over by selfish, mob-like interests, usually the Executive, but there is no discussion of which I am aware when they ever considered this would happen to all three. The Constitution and nation would potentially be governed only by the other two branches.
And they were naive enough to believe education would be the great leveler over time, providing opportunity that future generations would continue and nourish. And although it was never perfect, you could see the outlines of the potential of this nation up until the final decade of the 20th century. But it’s turned out that Obama’s Arc made about as much logical sense as American exceptionalism. Both were wrong. Both relied on a widespread sense of civic virtue and common ideals, the latter being centered on the notion of representative, accountable government. Now we know that just doesn’t happen mystically. It takes hard, honest work and Americans today seem not to be up to the job. What’s happened to the concept of judicial review is the latest evidence of this.
quickwrit, what is a “case of a judiciary nature”?
Well, I wonder how many days of 115-degree temperatures it is going to take for the people of Texas to figure out that their Senators and Congresspeople and Governor and Lieutenant Governor are wrong about climate change. A little thing called a reality check.
They will ever admit it because it is not in their jeans.
All jeans and no brains.
All bad genes and no clue. Oh how I long for the days of hats and cattle.
From Truth Times, July 4, 2025. Truth Times: Exceptional News for an Exceptional Nation
Senate Passes Election Integrity Act
Since the stolen election of 2020, patriots have grieved over that breakdown of democratic processes and vowed to ensure that this will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. Today, the Senate did just that by passing the Election Integrity Act of 2025. The key provision of this act: Henceforth, in Congressional and Presidential Races, the name of the incumbent will appear on ballots, and other candidates may be written in by voters. This ensures, for the first time, that the choice of leaders will be truly Democratic and not determined by politicians in back rooms who choose which candidates they will support.
Other key provisions: Fraud-prone mail-in balloting will be prohibited, and citizens will be relieved of the enormous burden of paying for polling places, which falls most heavily on the poor, by keying the number of polling places per district, nationwide, to local property taxes. So, the wealthy will pay more—as is only fair—and have more polling places, which is also fair because they will be shouldering the burden. It’s a win-win.
And, of course, ever since the Supreme Christian Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper, if it does happen that in some state, due to election rigging by Socialist Democrats, state legislatures can simply declare the election fraudulent and appoint their own slate of electors.
cx: And, of course, ever since the Supreme Christian Court’s decision in Moore v. Harper, if it does happen that in some state, due to election rigging by Socialist Democrats, that the wrong candidate is supposedly elected, state legislatures can simply declare the election fraudulent and appoint their own slate of electors.
From Truth Times, July 4, 2025. Truth Times: The News as You Like It to Be
“Well, they feel strongly about this”: President InSantis reacts to Portland violence
In recent weeks, an angry nation has watched as lawless Socialist Antifa TERRORIST mobs protested in the sanctioned sanctuary city of Portland against the appointments of electors by state legislators in various states that swept President InSantis to power. Refusing to accept democratic processes and the peaceful transfer of power BY PATRIOTS TO PATRIOTS, they have blocked streets, burned trash cans, and even written letters of protest that they have read aloud using megaphones.
Reacting to calls from around the country to take their city back, the Three Percent White Citizens Militia took action to regain control of this once peaceful, law-abiding city.
The violence, which left 49 dead and 86 wounded, erupted when the Yellow Shirt Moms, a militant, man-hating wokeanarchofeminist wacko wing of Antifa, held a candlelight vigil to protest the completely accidental alleged killing of one of their number by police.
As the Moms’ ominous Pachouli-oil-scented candles burned, reminding us of the fires that destroyed Rome, Citizens Militia patriots gathered, locked, loaded, and ready to protect and serve as necessary. “Stand back and stand ready,” Glorious Leader Who Shone More Orange Than Did the Sun said back in the Dawning, and that’s just what these brave patriots did. For a full hour, they exhibited remarkable order, resolve, and restraint. Then, however, the Yellow Moms dared light sage bundles to “cleanse” the area of the protest.
It was too much. “Burnign sage. It’s paganism, pure and simple,” said Whitey “Buzz” Beatty, former Navy Seal and Portland Gruppenführer of the Citizens Militia SA. “It was like spitting in the face of Christians. It’s just the kind of anti-Christian filth that has infected our schools and our country for too long. We had to snuff it out.”
President InSantis reacted immediately to the events that followed: “While we regret the actions taken by the CM SA, I need to remind you that this is a spontaneously arising citizens group, and, well, they feel strongly about this. As they should.”
Bob Shepherd
Thanks Bob I needed that. One cat six Hurricane hits central Flor-a- duh and inSantis is through. You say there is no such thing as a Cat 6. Not Yet !!!!!
From Truth Times, July 4, 2025. Truth Times: The Word, Revealed
Get More of the Truth Inside:
Market Rally. Doubling of Defense $$$ Drives Surge. p. BS
How can you support Presdient InSanetis and his Patriot Team? Learn how to organize your home prayer group to ensure that Jesus has His back! p. WTF
The new National Curriculum Working Group completes draft of Bringing God to the Savages, Part 1 of Back to the Future–Way, Way Back: the new National Curriculum . p. OMFG
Off-topic, although arguably not off-topic: Four Senate Republicans have said they support the gay-marriage bill that was passed in the House.
This is really great news.
Now find 6 more and its a story worth the headline. The real headline should read 46 Senate Republicans refuse to back same sex marriage Bill . Bill dead as a door nail.
Voting against the bill is also voting against inter-racial marriage-this Supreme Court could make it illegal for a white person to marry an Asian ancestry person, a black person, etc
An Italian? At one time in American history, Italian-Americans were not considered, “white”.
Anyone surprised that GOP politicians and activists
would decide to give rights to gay men and decide to take away rights from women?
It doesn’t take much reasoning to get there, does it?
Gay women, too, Linda.
Flerp
Equality of homosexual and heterosexual rights can result in male legal status that is the same for straight and gay men. Simultaneously, laws and policy can treat gay and straight women as lesser than men.
I interpret Pope Francis’ statements as a softening of attitude about gay equality. Francis seems to remain staunchly opposed to equality for women.
From the GOP standpoint, it’s a strategic no brainer. Male, same sex couples earn well above what heterosexual couples earn. Gay men earn more than women and, recent studies show, more than heterosexual men. Once rights for men are equalized, why would gay men choose the party of women and poor people (it’s a rhetorical question and a gross over simplification for effect).
After Peter Thiel’s (he’s gay) two Senate candidates are elected, the move toward full acceptance of LGBTQ is likely. Evangelicals pivoted on abortion, they’ll easily pivot of gay rights. The national population majority is already there. It’s not like the abortion play where 80% favor the right of a woman to make the decision. The latter reflects hard work by zealots.
I think the first time I saw Bannon interviewed he described himself as a Leninist. Let that sink in a minute. The same group of people who grew out of the severe anti-communist perspectives of McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan are now embracing a “Leninist”. In the popular Netflix series Pinky Blinders, the main character tries to explain how a supporter of labor could serve fascism at the same time. He starts drawing a circle that has the left and right perspectives next to one another. They then separate for a time only to reconnect, a circle. What Bob refers to as the “Extreme Court” is another manifestation of the same problem. Backed profoundly by corporate dollars spent by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, these so called judges are merely toadies for blind self interest. The problem we all have is that there is a degree of self interest in all of us that keeps solutions at bay while fortresses of inadequate principle are built. I am not advocating the dreaded false equivalency, but an awareness that the lure of self interest becomes destructive when it becomes the only model for success and this obtuse perspective only has to happen to a few. I am often frustrated by pundits who describe social movements in abstract terms as if we all coalesce to such direction. What is often left out of the discussion is the impact of a few bad actors who bring the eventual catastrophe. Self interest tells those who see themselves profiting from chaos that the Bannon’s, Trump’s, Desantis’ et al are allowing the land to be exploited. The elite forces who have so deftly placed the disruptors in the path of prosperity convince themselves that they will pull back when they recognize the danger. History tells us, whether it be through failed empire or the tragedy of two world wars, that this will not end well.
Historians/political writers describe Lenin’s grey cardinal, eminence grisé, as Stalin. Putin’s was Vladislav Surkov who is credited with creating fake social movements. “Culture Wars” is Pat Buchanan’s framing to hide the fact that the alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals, in that order, are the origin of the contemporary theft of American rights.
It isn’t surprising that Bannon would describe himself as a Leninist. Lenin was utterly amoral, utterly pragmatic, ruthless and merciless, an actually unideological person whose interest was only in his own power and yet, shockingly, given that, a demagogue. Before the Revolution, Lenin was a traitor who allied with Germany against his own country, and he betrayed the Revolution and many who thought he was a friend. All this fits Bannon like a Supervillain costume. Skin tight. Just right.
Final January 6th Committee public hearing this evening at 8:00 Eastern Time.
And then, ofc, the DOJ will do nothing. Because the idea of equal justice under law is a sick, bad joke, and it is the head jokester.
Absolutely! The Republican Party generally serves the wealthy. To that end they got control of the Supreme Ct., and they now will try to use it to weaken PUBLIC education, labor rights, women’s rights, etc.–anything that interferes with the transfer of wealth that’s taking place from us to their wealthy “clients.”
What’s most bizarre here in the US is that a great many of the people who are most exploited by Repugnican policy are fervent Repugnicans.
“I love the uneducated.” –Donald J. Trump
Kudos to Bob. It’s a major step forward when we finally begin talking about how outrageously well our rouge elements of society are succeeding at their Actual Goals — instead of wringing our hands about how badly they are failing out their Espoused Goals.
It means we may actually be wising up and casting aside the blinkers of a Wikipediot-style Assume Good Faith — It’s long past time …