12 Comments
User's avatar
Nadine Stokes's avatar

Ugh I am very wary of letting the current Supreme Court take up this case...

Expand full comment
hw's avatar

Lower court extremist judges have been emboldened by our unrestrained SCOTUS, Durbin's comical impotence as Judicdiary Chairman, and Biden's continued refusal to entertain chages to SCOTUS.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 8, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
hw's avatar

Biden has the bully pulpit...he has the opportunity to educate the public, and explain (or have surrogates explain) why changes to the Court are essential.

There are many steps that can be taken short of Court expansion.

Term limits are popular across Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. No explanation is needed, but the airwaves should be flooded with demands for this change. This would blunt the impact of dark money.

Narrowing the jurisdiction of the Court requires painstaking education, but again would blunt the imposition of unpopular minority religious and cultural standards on the majority of the populace.

Democrats need to lead on the Court. Since they are unable to do so, they need to be forced by their base.

Expand full comment
Kevin Morgan's avatar

Biden should certainly be using the bully pulpit. But he does so to great effect, as with the abortion/choice issue, so don't count that out just yet.

Term limits would require a constitutional amendment. Even if dark money were eliminated from politics, the GOP would unite against such a change, because that's why they picked young judges for Trump to appoint - to lock in their majority for a generation or more. As much as that SHOULD happen - I'm for the proposal where each presidential term would see two vacancies to fill - it's not going to happen.

Narrowing the court's jurisdiction is more do-able, if we take a majority back in the House and increase our Senate majority (neither of which is guaranteed). But all that means is, as soon as we use that tool, the GOP will use it excessively when they take control again. Any change we make to any law that provides a benefit to progressive issues, the GOP will almost certainly later exploit to its maximum.

Expand full comment
mcvresearch's avatar

They are wrong and they are bigots by their reasoning all ant abortion laws are valid because women’s rights didn’t exist when the constitution was written

Expand full comment
Ian Mark Sirota's avatar

More cruelty from a Republican court.

Expand full comment
Tamara Prince's avatar

Be bqq

Expand full comment
Victoria Brown's avatar

What a mess! In the Constitution? Are they nuts?!

Expand full comment
Tamara Prince's avatar

“While calling the ruling “wrong on the facts and on the law,” Chase Strangio, who is one of the key ACLU lawyers on this and several other challenges to anti-transgender laws, added, “We also know that things are moving quickly and for many families, waiting for legal relief is not an option. The untenable position that adolescents, their caregivers and their doctors have been put in is not only illegal, but also deeply unethical and dangerous.”” So true.

Expand full comment
Teddy Partridge's avatar

Circuit splits, speculate spectators: Sutton's speciality.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jul 9, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Kevin Morgan's avatar

This is horse manure. Grade-Z horse manure, at that.

Right-wingers think even late teens is too early for a person to understand anything about their bodies, but they see nothing wrong with arming 6-year old kids with assault rifles to go "deer hunting". Talk about deranged.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 10, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jul 10, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 10, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

[He's gone.]

Expand full comment