The federal judiciary is broken, and the country cannot afford another four years of Trump judicial appointees being added to the courts. Harris should say so.
And I consider Mitch McConnell to be a little short of a constitutional criminal. The damage that this smug bastard has caused this country is beyond measure.
What the Supreme court has done is create for themselves an unequal third branch of government. Harris needs to state clearly that it is time to re-level the branches to the intended Co-Equal laid out in our constitution.
We should all be DEMANDING this necessary re-balance with our vote.
Blue all the way, so this administration won't be hamstrung from the get go.
We actually need to increase the size of the courts. And SCOTUS demonstrated why, by issuing decisions that will increase the load on all courts, including SCOTUS. Which means not only must we grab the Presidency, we have to hold Congress, too.
Agree with this thinking. A lot of D inclined voters, especially women, remember being mocked and dismissed when we said Trump would change SCOTUS for a generation and overturn Roe. Harris should get up there with the Email Lady who was right all along and lay out her plan for rebalancing the courts and for restoring abortion rights nationwide.
Harris should also point out that Ds are now the party of freedom and small government - NOT Republicans. That R hypocrisy should be a key message.
President Biden said that SCOTUS reform is necessary for a healthy democracy. Harris should as you say provide a forceful statement that connects the dots.
Vaguely related, I saw reporting that the opposition to capital punishment found in the last two platforms was removed. I'm not sure why they would do that. It seems gratuitous.
ETA: Well, she has time to talk about it during the campaign.
While it is arguable whether Trump is the worst or penultimate worst president of the United States … it is inarguable that he is the most corrupt. And so then, are not his words and “policies” also corrupt? And if so, then how can his SCOTUS selections - three justices! - not be ascertained as corrupt? What is remedy for this? Can a dedication to corruption stand?
Trump will lose and rightfully so . America wants to stay home of the free and not live in mini Russia . Trump is not a leader. He is not a president he is into creating hate and dividing us so China and Russia will adore him and we become a country with no liberty and no access to our lives and self determination. We are done with this man
I agree and think ALL Dem candidates should be screaming about the judicial cluster we're living with right now.
It's not just women's healthcare; it's government's ability to improve life, keep corporations in check, protect the planet, provide for the elderly, maintain a functioning society; it's ending gerrymandering and getting to one person-one vote; putting prayer back in churches; it's about elevating the common good.
Presidential power is great, but Congress has to be the branch to kick this off. Do we need to wait for McConnell to die? No, because there's a Mike Johnson at every corner.
Congress has to De-McConnell the Senate and take their power back -- Kamala can use this point to rally the troops for down ballot candidates. With 53 or 54 Senators and a house majority Congress can Constitutionally put a check on SCOTUS, implement reforms, and modernize their duties. Biden's already commissioned a study on it and reforms are overdue. KH should be driving this point home every time "she's speaking."
---------------------------------------
Please consider sending support to Tennessee candidates Gloria Johnson (so she can replace Marsha Blackburn in the Senate), and Megan Barry who's running against Mark Green in the House of Representatives. They need help registering voters in this state! :)
I agree with everything you suggest here… except that she should say a word about it at the convention. This is her moment to introduce herself and she should avoid giving right wing pundits anything that could be turned into a sound bite.
The more she shows respect for the institution (regardless of the people in it), the stronger her case is that she isn’t a “radical leftist.”
Naw. What the court is doing is very unpopular. THAT is the case that she isn't a radical leftist.
And, respectfully, f*ck right-wing pundits. They're attacking Tim Walz's son today. They're going to attack what she says. That's not her audience. They're the "weird" ones and much of the country agrees they're weird. That's why that line of attack is working so well.
The Court members of the far-right majority are going to cling to their seats no matter how infirm or in ill health they may become, and will only resign when there's a Repub president ready to put forward a Federalist Society/Len Leo- approved nominee in the wings. A President Harris can do NOTHING about the Supreme Court unless one or more of the radical-right Justices keel over from a fatal myocardial infarction or massive cerebral stroke. She is stuck with these Justices, and why pretend otherwise.
I don't think anything in here is "pretending" anything. Many of them are old. We've had a rapidly shifting court in recent years. They are, I believe, responsive to public pressure. Accountability journalism matters.
In short: I think pretty much everything about this comment is either wrong or irrelevant to what I wrote.
Well, sorry you feel that my comment was - in today's mot du jour - "weird", just color me skeptical, right? Bit prickly about the "pretending" remark also, nothing personal was intended, please. But I really must demur regarding the assertion of the Court and "public pressure"...I mean, Thomas and Alito just seem to double down every time there is any reporting calling out their lack of ethics and/or shocking opinions, and Roberts seemed to have gone way over his skis in his "immunity" opinion, writing for the majority.
I just don't see where "public pressure" is making any difference in this runaway Court's opinions, as the majority appears to dedicate itself to issue nrulings since Dobbs that deliberately run afoul and athwart of the will and the opinion of the majority of the public...that's MY opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
I redrafted and fixed because I was intentionally *not* wanting to equate my comment with the "mot du jour." See elsewhere, where I reposted.
In any event, I feel pretty strongly about this. Thomas and Alito are lost causes. They don't care about ethics or appearances. We know. I've written about 20 pieces on it. And yet, there are four other Republican appointees. And, you're just wrong if you don't see the public pressure — accountability and political — having any effect.
The Fifth Circuit was reversed or vacated six times in merits cases this term. Does that happen in a vacuum? No, it does not. Just as I think the opposite is true — that the court's able to use those while still allowing through other extreme rulings — I think it's clear that accountability matters and has led to the court being well aware of public perception.
Do you really think the mifepristone and EMTALA cases turn out how they did in an election year were it not for the public response to Dobbs?
I'll leave it there for now, but I think you're way off-base here.
OK, final comment...let's just see how the Court's votes break out when the mifepristone and EMTALA cases work their way back up for final review.
IF in fact EMTALA provisions are later fully supported and the Idaho challenge rejected on merit, AND if the latest FDA guidelines for mifepristone use remain law, no exceptions, THEN your thesis holds water and I'm wrong, full stop.
I think she should stick to SCOTUS. Plenty of material there, no need to get into weeds. A fish rots from the head down etc. Mifepristone case positions SCOTUS as the white knight, so that’s tricky. Student loans is a gold mine. Clean air regs good too.
Bottom line, it’s existential. Dems can hit the trifecta electorally and it won’t amount to a hill of beans unless the court is changed fundamentally.
And I consider Mitch McConnell to be a little short of a constitutional criminal. The damage that this smug bastard has caused this country is beyond measure.
What the Supreme court has done is create for themselves an unequal third branch of government. Harris needs to state clearly that it is time to re-level the branches to the intended Co-Equal laid out in our constitution.
We should all be DEMANDING this necessary re-balance with our vote.
Blue all the way, so this administration won't be hamstrung from the get go.
I want a WORKING government.
We actually need to increase the size of the courts. And SCOTUS demonstrated why, by issuing decisions that will increase the load on all courts, including SCOTUS. Which means not only must we grab the Presidency, we have to hold Congress, too.
Agree with this thinking. A lot of D inclined voters, especially women, remember being mocked and dismissed when we said Trump would change SCOTUS for a generation and overturn Roe. Harris should get up there with the Email Lady who was right all along and lay out her plan for rebalancing the courts and for restoring abortion rights nationwide.
Harris should also point out that Ds are now the party of freedom and small government - NOT Republicans. That R hypocrisy should be a key message.
And I’m still waiting for a Palestinian American Democrat to speak on stage!!!
President Biden said that SCOTUS reform is necessary for a healthy democracy. Harris should as you say provide a forceful statement that connects the dots.
Vaguely related, I saw reporting that the opposition to capital punishment found in the last two platforms was removed. I'm not sure why they would do that. It seems gratuitous.
ETA: Well, she has time to talk about it during the campaign.
While it is arguable whether Trump is the worst or penultimate worst president of the United States … it is inarguable that he is the most corrupt. And so then, are not his words and “policies” also corrupt? And if so, then how can his SCOTUS selections - three justices! - not be ascertained as corrupt? What is remedy for this? Can a dedication to corruption stand?
Trump will lose and rightfully so . America wants to stay home of the free and not live in mini Russia . Trump is not a leader. He is not a president he is into creating hate and dividing us so China and Russia will adore him and we become a country with no liberty and no access to our lives and self determination. We are done with this man
Thanks for this, Chris.
I agree and think ALL Dem candidates should be screaming about the judicial cluster we're living with right now.
It's not just women's healthcare; it's government's ability to improve life, keep corporations in check, protect the planet, provide for the elderly, maintain a functioning society; it's ending gerrymandering and getting to one person-one vote; putting prayer back in churches; it's about elevating the common good.
Presidential power is great, but Congress has to be the branch to kick this off. Do we need to wait for McConnell to die? No, because there's a Mike Johnson at every corner.
Congress has to De-McConnell the Senate and take their power back -- Kamala can use this point to rally the troops for down ballot candidates. With 53 or 54 Senators and a house majority Congress can Constitutionally put a check on SCOTUS, implement reforms, and modernize their duties. Biden's already commissioned a study on it and reforms are overdue. KH should be driving this point home every time "she's speaking."
---------------------------------------
Please consider sending support to Tennessee candidates Gloria Johnson (so she can replace Marsha Blackburn in the Senate), and Megan Barry who's running against Mark Green in the House of Representatives. They need help registering voters in this state! :)
Not ok
*blink*
I agree with everything you suggest here… except that she should say a word about it at the convention. This is her moment to introduce herself and she should avoid giving right wing pundits anything that could be turned into a sound bite.
The more she shows respect for the institution (regardless of the people in it), the stronger her case is that she isn’t a “radical leftist.”
Naw. What the court is doing is very unpopular. THAT is the case that she isn't a radical leftist.
And, respectfully, f*ck right-wing pundits. They're attacking Tim Walz's son today. They're going to attack what she says. That's not her audience. They're the "weird" ones and much of the country agrees they're weird. That's why that line of attack is working so well.
Agree; Strike while the iron's hot.
The Court members of the far-right majority are going to cling to their seats no matter how infirm or in ill health they may become, and will only resign when there's a Repub president ready to put forward a Federalist Society/Len Leo- approved nominee in the wings. A President Harris can do NOTHING about the Supreme Court unless one or more of the radical-right Justices keel over from a fatal myocardial infarction or massive cerebral stroke. She is stuck with these Justices, and why pretend otherwise.
I don't think anything in here is "pretending" anything. Many of them are old. We've had a rapidly shifting court in recent years. They are, I believe, responsive to public pressure. Accountability journalism matters.
In short: I think pretty much everything about this comment is either wrong or irrelevant to what I wrote.
Well, sorry you feel that my comment was - in today's mot du jour - "weird", just color me skeptical, right? Bit prickly about the "pretending" remark also, nothing personal was intended, please. But I really must demur regarding the assertion of the Court and "public pressure"...I mean, Thomas and Alito just seem to double down every time there is any reporting calling out their lack of ethics and/or shocking opinions, and Roberts seemed to have gone way over his skis in his "immunity" opinion, writing for the majority.
I just don't see where "public pressure" is making any difference in this runaway Court's opinions, as the majority appears to dedicate itself to issue nrulings since Dobbs that deliberately run afoul and athwart of the will and the opinion of the majority of the public...that's MY opinion, and I'm sticking with it.
Cheers
I redrafted and fixed because I was intentionally *not* wanting to equate my comment with the "mot du jour." See elsewhere, where I reposted.
In any event, I feel pretty strongly about this. Thomas and Alito are lost causes. They don't care about ethics or appearances. We know. I've written about 20 pieces on it. And yet, there are four other Republican appointees. And, you're just wrong if you don't see the public pressure — accountability and political — having any effect.
The Fifth Circuit was reversed or vacated six times in merits cases this term. Does that happen in a vacuum? No, it does not. Just as I think the opposite is true — that the court's able to use those while still allowing through other extreme rulings — I think it's clear that accountability matters and has led to the court being well aware of public perception.
Do you really think the mifepristone and EMTALA cases turn out how they did in an election year were it not for the public response to Dobbs?
I'll leave it there for now, but I think you're way off-base here.
OK, final comment...let's just see how the Court's votes break out when the mifepristone and EMTALA cases work their way back up for final review.
IF in fact EMTALA provisions are later fully supported and the Idaho challenge rejected on merit, AND if the latest FDA guidelines for mifepristone use remain law, no exceptions, THEN your thesis holds water and I'm wrong, full stop.
I think she should stick to SCOTUS. Plenty of material there, no need to get into weeds. A fish rots from the head down etc. Mifepristone case positions SCOTUS as the white knight, so that’s tricky. Student loans is a gold mine. Clean air regs good too.
Bottom line, it’s existential. Dems can hit the trifecta electorally and it won’t amount to a hill of beans unless the court is changed fundamentally.
This is a great idea.