HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So far, my friend's been ...

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:39 PM

So far, my friend's been right: The judiciary IS holding!


"The Judiciary branch is strong and WE. WILL. HOLD"

A few weeks ago, a dear old friend, a Republican-appointed federal judge, trying to console me during a moment of despair about the future of our country, said to me “The Judiciary branch is strong and will hold.” When I expressed skepticism, he leaned toward me, looked me dead in the eye, and said as firmly as he could without shouting: “We are strong and WE. WILL. HOLD.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212113242

80 replies, 6883 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply So far, my friend's been right: The judiciary IS holding! (Original post)
EffieBlack Nov 25 OP
Roland99 Nov 25 #1
usaf-vet Nov 26 #66
soldierant Nov 26 #67
usaf-vet Nov 26 #73
soldierant Nov 28 #74
NCLefty Nov 26 #71
Iliyah Nov 25 #2
OliverQ Nov 25 #3
EffieBlack Nov 25 #4
jberryhill Nov 25 #5
JudyM Nov 26 #60
budkin Nov 25 #6
jberryhill Nov 25 #7
budkin Nov 25 #8
jberryhill Nov 25 #10
Hermit-The-Prog Nov 25 #16
DonaldsRump Nov 25 #53
Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 26 #69
Farmer-Rick Nov 25 #55
kag Nov 26 #64
Farmer-Rick Nov 26 #68
The Genealogist Dec 3 #76
Farmer-Rick Dec 4 #77
budkin Nov 25 #54
Kaleva Nov 25 #20
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 25 #31
certainot Nov 26 #63
amywalk Nov 25 #52
kag Nov 26 #65
DENVERPOPS Nov 25 #56
amywalk Friday #78
DENVERPOPS Friday #79
SCantiGOP Nov 25 #9
Kurt V. Nov 25 #13
Kaleva Nov 25 #18
lagomorph777 Nov 26 #61
jberryhill Nov 25 #23
Kurt V. Nov 25 #29
jberryhill Nov 25 #30
Kurt V. Nov 25 #33
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 25 #35
DENVERPOPS Nov 25 #57
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 25 #32
Kurt V. Nov 25 #36
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 25 #38
NewJeffCT Nov 25 #28
catbyte Nov 25 #41
ancianita Nov 25 #44
ancianita Nov 25 #50
malaise Nov 25 #11
ancianita Nov 25 #12
jberryhill Nov 25 #24
ancianita Nov 25 #26
TalenaGor Nov 25 #14
in2herbs Nov 25 #15
yaesu Nov 25 #17
StarfishSaver Nov 25 #19
ancianita Nov 25 #22
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 25 #37
ancianita Nov 25 #42
The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 25 #45
ancianita Nov 25 #48
warmfeet Nov 25 #21
AJT Nov 25 #25
ancianita Nov 25 #27
sheshe2 Nov 25 #34
EffieBlack Dec 3 #75
Caliman73 Nov 25 #39
H2O Man Nov 25 #40
barbtries Nov 25 #43
bucolic_frolic Nov 25 #46
Hortensis Nov 25 #47
Laura PourMeADrink Nov 25 #49
Amaryllis Nov 25 #51
MFGsunny Nov 26 #58
OliverQ Nov 26 #59
StarfishSaver Nov 26 #62
SWBTATTReg Nov 26 #70
FeelingBlue Nov 26 #72
crickets Saturday #80

Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:42 PM

1. SCOTUS is different tho. Thanks to #MoscowMitch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 12:20 PM

66. Maybe not? I think it depends on how Robert's wants historian's to describe the "Robert's" Court.

IMHO MoscowMitch has already bent the curve toward it coming out to be an extreme right-wing court.

The MoscowMitch effect.
One stolen seat (Merrick Garland's) and one bought seat given to an extreme right-wing judge who might very well be a sexual predator if his accusers were to ever get a fair hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usaf-vet (Reply #66)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 02:34 PM

67. Roberts has already surprised me a time or two

and I attribute that directly to his concern about his "legacy" - or the "legacy" of the "Roberts Court." I also think it possible that he can be reached through that concern.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212729000

Excuse the shameless self promotion, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soldierant (Reply #67)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 11:08 PM

73. Just read your "shameless self promotion". Right on. I think we are on the same page.

As to approaching Roberts, I agree that it might help. I have no idea if it would be legal or not. But I like the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usaf-vet (Reply #73)

Thu Nov 28, 2019, 03:33 PM

74. Thank you. Sorry it took me so long to acknowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usaf-vet (Reply #66)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 06:19 PM

71. It's a hell of a thing to have to rely on this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:42 PM

2. Thanks, I agree!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:42 PM

3. It's hard to believe that considering how many

corrupt, unqualified judges McConnell has approved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OliverQ (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:44 PM

4. How many cases has Trump won

either at the trial or appellate level, to date?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:53 PM

5. Both actions filed by legal genius Michael Avenatti

While there are, I suppose, various ways to charitably characterize the court granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the Daniels contract case, the $300K which Avenatti managed to have awarded to Trump in the defamation was an unqualified legal victory for Trump and a completely predictable own-goal by Avenatti against his own client (whom, it turns out, he was robbing).

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210560930#post23

Add to that count the previous defamation case of Cheryl Jacobus v. Donald Trump which Trump won, and which was predictive of the outcome in Daniels' case if Avenatti had ever been inclined to, you know, do legal research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OliverQ (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 09:57 AM

60. About 50 appellate judges. McConnell brags about it. It's his legacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:56 PM

6. It means nothing when SCOTUS is the final word

Its Trump's court now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:57 PM

7. We don't know that


The Supreme Court Justices owe him nothing. They have lifetime appointments and don't owe him a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:09 PM

8. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh owe him everything

They would not be there were it not for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:13 PM

10. So what


The saving grace of selfish dickheads is that you can count on them to be selfish dickheads.

Sure, he appointed them. But if they don't do anything for him, that's just tough shit for Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:29 PM

16. is Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver a selfish dickhead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hermit-The-Prog (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:36 PM

53. As awful as Kavanaugh is ...

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2019, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Remember that he was George W. Bush's lawyer. GWB hates Trump. Kavanaugh now no longers owes anything to the Dumbass-in-Chief.

During Watergate, Nixon also banked on his appointments to SCOTUS voting for him in US v. Nixon (aka the Tapes Case). None of them did.

I was talking to one of my children today about CJ Roberts. I told my child that I cannot imagine that he would allow the Supreme Court to side with Trump on outright stonewalling of Congress by the President. That would result in the immediate destruction of the three co-equal branches of government in the US.

Then again, what do I know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 03:56 PM

69. Yes, but I can't imagine he is any less disdainful toward liberals,

and I wouldn't put it past him to make legal decisions based on that old and honored precedent: owning the libs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hermit-The-Prog (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:37 PM

55. JusticeBeer Bong Weinie Waver....it can not be posted enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #55)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 11:16 AM

64. Agreed.

Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
ad nauseam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kag (Reply #64)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 03:21 PM

68. A perfect post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 04:25 PM

76. I prefer Justice Suds McDudeBro myself, but this name fits as well

What a shameful mark on this country to have a person like that on its highest court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Genealogist (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 4, 2019, 08:11 AM

77. You know capitalism has won when creepy, dishonest, corrupt and incompetent fools are assigned

To indispensable positions in government.

A democracy by its nature must put breaks on capitalism to prevent the abuse of citizens unlucky enough to be born without capital. To keep the filthy rich capitalists from taking away everything from everyone with less capital, a government must put restrictions on the richest. And a democracy is designed to do just that.

But filthy rich capitalist don't want that. So, they try to drown and kill democracy. It's not just our government the filthy rich want to destroy. They want to be rid of democracy all together.

That's why shorty Putin and the GOP fit like hand in glove. The filthy rich, who control the GOP, also want to be rid of democracy. That's why the GOP repeats Shorty Putin's talking points at every turn. They have the same goal...End Democracy.

Each corrupt perv they assign to indispensable positions in government, the closer they get to destroying democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:36 PM

54. That's a good point

Never thought of it like that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:33 PM

20. They owe Trump nothing

They were given the big pay out without having to do anything for Trump. If they go against Trump, there's not a damn thing he can do about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:59 PM

31. But now that they're there, they don't have to do what he wants them to do.

"Owing" something means an obligation to return a favor or a benefit. But if you have a lifetime appointment you aren't under an obligation to reward the person who gave you the job by doing something for them. Trump's appointees are traditional conservatives; they are pretty much Scalia clones, and I can just about guarantee that even Scalia wouldn't buy much of Trump's bullshit. Constitutional originalists like Scalia, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, reading the Constitution strictly and literally as they are likely to do, are just as likely to shoot down the DoJ's crazy arguments in favor of complete presidential immunity from everything as Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, if on different grounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 10:41 AM

63. the cons and now putin use linmbaugh and sons to intimidate judges. that another thing

fox can't do nearly as well. linmbaugh can attack a judge in ways fox hoists can't andd he can do it over and over till they and their relatives get threats

when he was attacking christine blasey ford for 6 weeks (like anita hill - ignored by dems/liberals) he even named the location/town of her parents to help the dittoheads/trump base narrow it down.

he will do that to this recent judge and will do it to the supreme court to help push any fence sitters to the right side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:20 PM

52. Kavanaugh and Anthony Kennedy have seriously compromised

themselves with their criminal behavior. Justice Kennedy gave up his seat so that his son wouldn’t be in trouble. He works for Deutsche Bank and gave the Trumps and Kushners a billion dollar loan that saved his ass. This was a criminal conspiracy between Trump, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kavanaugh, Kushner and whoever paid his debts off. I feel like this will eventually come out as most things like this do. It doesn’t mean they will be punished, but a girl can dream, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amywalk (Reply #52)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 11:21 AM

65. "...and whoever paid his debts off."

Starts with "P" ends with "utin"? What're the odds?

"a girl can dream, right?"

Oh, what a dream this girl has...sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:42 PM

56. And of course

And of course their is the whole Gorsuch owing to was it roberts or kennedy that resigned to open the way for Trump/Gorsuch, to reward him for his son the banker taking care of Trump via the son as his personal banker when no other bank in U.S.would lend Trump money, etc.....

two decades ago I was telling people that the Republicans were intent on appointing all their federalist friends to all the appellate court at an incredible rate. The were slowed down a little bit during Obama, but not much. Now Moscow Mitch is setting records for Senate approval of their Republican Judges across the land........

WASF

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DENVERPOPS (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 07:02 PM

78. One of the first things that needs to be done after we win in November 2020 is to

Get rid of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They must be impeached. They were illegitimate and installed under false pretences and must be thrown out. Along with a whole other slew of judges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amywalk (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 07:24 PM

79. Every

last single thing should be wiped out without exception or court challenge. Including installing Hillary Clinton as President.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:13 PM

9. And they have a legacy that will live for hundreds of years

The history and majesty of the highest court impacts everyone who serves. No one wants to know that their grandchildren may read about how dishonorable they were in acting as a political hack.
Very few here thought Roberts would be the fifth vote to put gay marriage under the protection of the Constitution so people like McConnel and religious zealot county clerks could never interfere with it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:23 PM

13. agree. but they have the same world view as trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurt V. (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:31 PM

18. Do they? Kavananaugh tends to vote the same as Roberts whom Trump supporters hate.

"Kavanaugh was most closely aligned with Roberts, a conservative who takes more incremental approach to moving the court to the right. Kavanaugh voted with Roberts 94% of the time, the highest level of agreement among any two justices, according to Feldman.

“The fact he stuck so closely to the chief is probably the most notable feature of his jurisprudence,” said Nicole Saharsky, a lawyer who practices before the court.

That may suggest Kavanaugh shares Roberts’ concerns about the importance of the court’s reputation as an independent branch that can rise above partisan politics, Saharsky added."

https://www.srnnews.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh-delivered-the-goods-for-conservatives-3/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 10:24 AM

61. "Kavanaugh shares Roberts' concerns about the importance of the court's reputation"

If he believes that, he shouldn't be there at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurt V. (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:43 PM

23. Here's the thing about that


Depending on what you believe Trump's "world view" to be.

Sure, that could mean a lot of things in cases involving civil liberties, commercial regulation, and a lot of other things.

But cases like this, involving broad assertions of presidential power, even at the expense of the judiciary itself, are not as predictable on the notion of a shared "world view". If that "world view" comprises "I have power and I'm not going to accept limits on it" then you can actually count on the court not to surrender power so easily to another branch of the government.

This, somewhat indirectly in the specific framing here, gets down to a question of how much power the courts would have in similar future circumstances.

That's kind of what I mean by you can count on selfish dickheads to be selfish dickheads. The structure of our system actually relies, to a certain extent, on there being selfish dickheads in it who will, at a minimum, jealously guard their own power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:55 PM

29. imo its much more simple than that. the view that some ppl , by pedigree and genetics are to lead

the rest of the ignorant masses. so in the case of the scotus majority, it wouldn't be a surrender of power, but affirmation of who has the legitimate right to power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurt V. (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:56 PM

30. You think that either of them thinks Trump is their "superior"?


They are also, fortunately, arrogant selfish dickheads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:01 PM

33. no way. lol. but he is a billionaire with judge sister and an MIT uncle. all to be considered by

them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:02 PM

35. Judges tend to be very protective of their constitutional importance

as one of three equal branches of the government. They'll back away from clearly legislative decisions but they won't permit the executive to piss into their tent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:46 PM

57. That is only ONE cute trick they pull

that is until their 5 justice republican vote in 2010 for citizens united or whatever it was called that opened the floodgates of Corporate and Foreign election donations being allowed........If you ask most americans, they wouldn't even know anything about that totally corrupting decision.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurt V. (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:59 PM

32. Actually, they don't. They are traditional conservatives and Constitutional originalists.

Trump isn't anything of the kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:03 PM

36. see 29. it isn't about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurt V. (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:08 PM

38. Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:55 PM

28. I don't think so

while the court is definitely conservative, I don't see them lying down for an all powerful unitary executive - I would expect that any claims of blanket immunity would lose 7-2 or 8-1, possibly even 9-0 if Roberts pressures the holdouts (Kavanaugh and Thomas?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to budkin (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:14 PM

41. Not necessarily. Remember that John Roberts was the swing vote that saved the ACA.

Some of his rulings have indicated that he still values the rule of law and his legacy on the Court. I hope I'm not giving him too much credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:19 PM

44. Here. ACA was his one true swing vote, out of the total of 5 liberal votes in his 800 ruling record.

Don't worry about giving him too much credit. Most people do it. He easily looks nice, but he's as activist a conservative as SCOTUS has had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:58 PM

50. Oops. Sorry I forgot to post the link to my comment above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:16 PM

11. The institutions are holding

Fuck Don the Con and his enablers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:22 PM

12. While I can't stand Roberts, I know that he knows he will have to stand with the appeals courts

if ANY appeal gets a certoriari by SCOTUS.

As he goes, so the others will, so that the ruling will be unanimous.

But I doubt any appeal case will get a certoriari, because the arguments are stupid, by appeals justices opinions, so far; and because SCOTUS justices (I hope) know that the rest of the well argued and written precedent rulings preclude their listening to any appeals brought forward at all, at this point.

Roberts will just go sit there in the Senate, say and do nothing, hide his pleasure over the Senate exoneration of Trump. And the Repub traitors will know how he feels.

It will be just the way he presided over the prepping of the team that argued Gore v Bush before SCOTUS in the 2000 presidential.

I hold John Roberts as activist as any justice in US history.

Bush and Roberts fucked this country over.

And here we are in this sickening, toxic place with democracy in chains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:44 PM

24. The arguments are remarkable stupid


To agree with them would be to accept the permanent legacy of simply surrendering to stupid arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:48 PM

26. Right on. SCOTUS will HAVE to walk back its own stupid arguments in Gore v Bush in 2000.

That alone will keep them clear of this political process that's being well decided by appeals court judges already.

If they ignore those arguments, the whole judicial branch will go down to fascist corporatism. It can give corporate politics an unfair control of seating at the election table, but it can't allow corporatism to ignore the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:25 PM

14. I've held onto that post for months now!

And so far so good!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:28 PM

15. My mind went to your very post on this when I heard the news. I hope the judiciary branch stays

strong because we have to rebuild the country, not restore it. It's been too ravaged to restore, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:30 PM

17. Nope, they will break eventually, a Democracy will not stand under the weight of fascist capitalism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yaesu (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:33 PM

19. Whomp Whomp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yaesu (Reply #17)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:39 PM

22. I gotta say, anyone who knows what happened in SCOTUS in 2000 will always have to keep

an eye on judiciary politics.

It was Republican Sandra Day O'Connor who was INCENSED over the Florida Supreme Court ruling to conduct an entirely new statewide recount. And things got rolling.

I'll never trust the judiciary to have commitment to the Constitution, but they know they will have to at least give the appearance of having consciences to shock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:07 PM

37. William Rehnquist was actually worse than anyone on the Supreme Court now,

with the possible exception of Thomas. He was a knee-jerk Nixonian conservative who had worked as Nixon's WH counsel and had never been a judge, and without exception that I can think of, always ruled for a corporation vs. an individual, the police vs. an accused person; and didn't seem to believe in civil rights much at all. He was also an arrogant dick who had a special robe made for himself with gold stripes on the sleeves. IIRC, O'Connor later regretted her decision in Bush v. Gore, which was probably the worst decision since Dred Scott - at least until Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #37)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:14 PM

42. Perhaps. I don't know his record. He was totally against corporate personhood, however.

AND finally realized that the alleged ruling by SCOTUS in 1886 never addressed corporate personhood, contrary to what corporate lawyers have been arguing ever since.

538 gives a look at everyone we know of but Rehnquist. Roberts's conservative vote record looks even worse than Alito's.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-roberts-has-cast-a-pivotal-liberal-vote-only-5-times/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #42)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:22 PM

45. Not exactly.

He criticized the notion of corporate constitutional rights, but on the ground that he thought the application of the 1st Amendment to the states via the 14th were limited, and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the 14th. Eventually he did endorse the right of corporations to spend in elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:36 PM

48. True. He at least had some understanding of who the Constitution was written for.

And he as much as gave in to O'Connor's expecting the court to rule on Gore v Bush, when she made it clear that she wanted to retire, but would not under a Democratic president. With Bush's re-election in 2005, I think she retired then. Rehnquist died and then Bush had two nominees put in.

As Roberts' reward for prepping the Gore v Bush legal team, Bush then appointed Roberts to Chief Justice. Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:36 PM

21. Hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:48 PM

25. It will come down to the Supreme Court.....sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AJT (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:50 PM

27. Don't sadly believe it. That's not how rulings are working right now. It won't end up in SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:02 PM

34. Welcome back, Effie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 3, 2019, 04:09 PM

75. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:08 PM

39. I think your friend is correct.

I do think that Trump and McConnell have created a situation for the future, appointing judges that the Bar considers unfit to serve and who are ideologues, but those are not the judges who are holding major positions right this second. I do think that who we have on the bench, be they Reagan and Bush appointees, are conservative, but not completely blinded.

Sure, put a business case in front of them and they'll rule for business, but as far as believing in the Unitary Executive, that was a pipe dream of Nixon and his ilk (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Barr, etc...) and never really caught on with the judiciary.

Good to see you Effie! Hadn't seen you around much lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:13 PM

40. Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:15 PM

43. until SCOTUS

either refuses to hear it or upholds the decision i'm skeptical. and afraid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:31 PM

46. Subpoenas have been a staple of jurisprudence since the late middle ages

If judges ruled that some or all Congressional subpoenas could be ignored, every lawyer and crook would look for ways to overturn all subpoenas. It would be bad for business, chaotic, and shake civilization to its foundation.

I think SCOTUS may side with Trump on tax returns, but I don't see much elbow room for the concept of subpoenas.

Subpoenas are why we have the Fifth Amendment. You have to show up, but you can refuse to incriminate yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:35 PM

47. Yes! And my feelings on reading this last May are still the same.

"The judiciary is strong and will hold." Deep breath...

I believed that and have been proud of how resilient our government has been. But the corruption is much farther along than I think even the most sophisticated observers realized before this, and our system of checks and balances has failed, even if it turns out to be not completely broken. Who would have believed both Republican congressional caucuses would turn traitor? Unbelievable. And the highest courts are mostly still to be tested.

...and release. Our. Courts. Will. Hold.


Gratitude for that belief.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:49 PM

49. Hope so much it is true. Throughout all this

abomination I have thought...JHC are there no sane reps in House..in Senate, in the Military, in the DOJ, in the SD..I worked for the govt in DC...there are so many fine, honest, admirable, intelligent people. Too many to let the monster win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:14 PM

51. I remember when you posted that before. It was, and is now, very comforting. Especially

in light of all the right-wing judges Turtle has been pushing through. Curious if your friend has anything to say about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 08:51 AM

59. The Supreme Court stayed Trump's tax release case

and most lawyers think they're going to hear the case, which is bonkers because there is no legal basis to hear the case. It's established law.

I do not think the Judiciary is going to hold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OliverQ (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 10:34 AM

62. The Court has "legal basis to hear the case" because IT decides what is established law

And, at this point, it ISN'T "established law" since the Supreme Court has never ruled on this specific issue. Another court could come down on the other side since there's no Supreme Court precedent governing the issue. The Court deciding to take the case does not mean that "the Judiciary won't hold." It simply means they think it necessary for them to resolve an issue that it has never addressed in the past in order for all of the courts in the country to have a precedent to apply.

Don't read too much into it if the Court takes the case. If they do, wait and see how they rule. You may be surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 06:00 PM

70. Thanks for repeating this post again, and it is nice to have at least one solid tier still on ...

the side of constitutional safeguards against bad laws and idiot lawsuits, even though there are laws clearly stating the president's tax returns and / or papers are subject to congressional review. Emoluments needs to be beefed up, for I feel that most if not all of rump's actions have been severely tainted by his business interests instead of American interests. There were very specific reasons why laws were passed to prevent such abuses, resulting from the Teapot Dome scandals and other scandals.

Keep hammering away in the courts, after all, the Senate is a toxic mess, locked into a republican majority (but under 60) that will never pass anything thank goodness, unless the democratically controlled House of representatives concur. Soon, we'll have it all back, and then the repairs will being, infrastructure needs will be addressed, other major issues will be addressed (since the Senate won't do anything, along w/ rump, who's worthless and hasn't proposed anything but more tax cuts, a joke).

2020 is coming fast...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 06:31 PM

72. This...

Makes me cry.

Thank you. I hope he’s right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

Sat Dec 7, 2019, 10:39 AM

80. I remember your first post, and I hold this one as dear.

It lights another bright candle in the dark. Thank you (and your friend) for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread