“Another prominent suggestion is executive branch defiance of judicial decisions that progressives vehemently oppose.”
🤔 Do you mean something like what the Alabama state legislature is doing right now in drawing up their new districting maps? I seem to recall SCOTUS ruling against them in the most recent term vis-á-vis their maps. Now they’ve just turned around and drawn maps that are basically the same because, why not? They’ll just get taken back to court again where they’ll get struck down, appeal, struck down, appeal to SCOTUS where they again keep the maps in place for the 2024 election because the primary has already happened - just like in 2022. Rinse and repeat.
Progressives might complain a lot and throw a lot of “wouldn’t it be great if we …” types of theories around, but it sure seems to me that it’s not the progressives we need to worry about in the near term.
“Its not the progressives we need to worry about”. Take a look at illinois, Wisconsin and New York. All liberal democrat controlled and chalk full of redistricting monkey business.
Wisconsin is "liberal democrat controlled?" Not sure I agree 100% with your police work. Republicans have a lock on the legislature there because of redistricting.
The Supreme Court judge just elected openly and without apology campaigned on how she disagreed with the redistributing map, among other decisions she didn’t like. So much for judicial impartiality.
Wisconsin is actually a great example of how good judicial politics can work lol. Voters didn't like the republican maps so they voted in judges who would nullify them. If voters are displeased with the Dem majority in Wisconsin then they can vote in a Republican majority in a short amount of time. Supreme court justice positions are elected and have term limits.
Maybe she campaigned on undoing the partisan gerrymander because there is a partisan gerrymander? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Wisconsin is a 50/50 state - or close enough - yet Republicans currently control the legislature - though blessedly without the supermajority they had hoped for to enable them to override vetoes from the governor. The Democrats currently control ALL statewide elected offices except for Ron Johnson’s Senate seat. Those offices include governor, secretary of state, attorney general and the other Senate seat. I suspect if the Dems had run someone less progressive than Mandela Barnes, they’d have beat Johnson too.
If Wisconsin’s legislative makeup reflected the state’s voting pattern for offices not subject to the gerrymander, it would look nothing like it does today.
And? The statement was that progressives would be more inclined to thwart the rulings of the court. The states you listed gerrymander, but so do Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina… do you really want to have this argument? We can go tit for tat all day about which state is more gerrymandered.
There is only one state that was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States of America to redraw their maps to include 2 majority Black districts in lieu of the single one they’d drawn for 2022. And this is because all of the states I listed above + the states you listed are all true partisan gerrymanders. Alabama was unable to prove that case in a court of law, so now they’ve taken it upon themselves to give a hardy 😤 to SCOTUS - and the Black voters of Alabama.
I live in Illinois. Take a look at how the democrats gerrymandered not just the congressional boundaries but also the state judicial boundaries. And tried to do it before the census data was even out. So spare me the tears about Alabama.
Interesting article. The author seems to say if I am reading it right that as long as “conservative” justices rule against “conservative” cases, liberals should leave alone. Worrying about authoritarian rule only seems to be a concern if a republican is in office. Censorship of citizens free speech rights and accepting millions of dollars from foreign governments for no work be damned.
The SCOTUS nominee poison was first introduced during the Robert Bork confirmation process then carried through to Justice Thomas’ confirmation. The author seems to pretend those historical facts didn’t happen.
Republicans aren’t blameless but stop pretending that democrats are innocent bystanders and didn’t light the match that started this dumpster fire..
Oh please. The MAGA party has demonstrated they think that rules and laws only apply to their opposition.
Also, Bork was an authoritarian extremist who was willing to aid another criminal Republican president who thought his office made him above the law. If Senate advice and consent, or rather lack of consent, were ever warranted, it would have been Bork's nomination.
Clarence Thomas has also proved corrupt and undeserving of his seat. We had warning.
Thanks for proving my point. To paraphrase your point: If republicans would just nominate judges that agree with me then I’d be happy but they don’t so they are evil and incompetent.
Reducing the points i made to just "disagreeing" with right wing justices is an evasive rhetorical maneuver that one uses when one has no defense of his case. I could say too that your position is just based on "disagreeing", but like your comment that would be meaningless without addressing the points of disagreement.
“Roe v Wade is settled law”. I heard those words or words similar to them 7 times - Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Why? They learned from Bork that if you tell the people what you really believe, you’ll never get onto the Court.
Also, I think it’d be pretty nifty if they stopped nominating sexual predators.
I heard liberal justices during their confirmation hearings say that they have no pre-conceived conclusions about a case and yet they always vote in liberal lockstep. Show me proof that any of them are sexual predators? If you base it on he said/ she said then they’d have to stand in line behind Clinton, Biden, and host of democrats.
The liberal justices were in lockstep under RBG for sure. Under Breyer and now Kagan, that hasn’t always been the case.
And comparing elected leaders who are subject to voters and elections to people who are given a job for the rest of their lives is disingenuous at best.
“Another prominent suggestion is executive branch defiance of judicial decisions that progressives vehemently oppose.”
🤔 Do you mean something like what the Alabama state legislature is doing right now in drawing up their new districting maps? I seem to recall SCOTUS ruling against them in the most recent term vis-á-vis their maps. Now they’ve just turned around and drawn maps that are basically the same because, why not? They’ll just get taken back to court again where they’ll get struck down, appeal, struck down, appeal to SCOTUS where they again keep the maps in place for the 2024 election because the primary has already happened - just like in 2022. Rinse and repeat.
Progressives might complain a lot and throw a lot of “wouldn’t it be great if we …” types of theories around, but it sure seems to me that it’s not the progressives we need to worry about in the near term.
“Its not the progressives we need to worry about”. Take a look at illinois, Wisconsin and New York. All liberal democrat controlled and chalk full of redistricting monkey business.
Wisconsin is "liberal democrat controlled?" Not sure I agree 100% with your police work. Republicans have a lock on the legislature there because of redistricting.
The Supreme Court judge just elected openly and without apology campaigned on how she disagreed with the redistributing map, among other decisions she didn’t like. So much for judicial impartiality.
Wisconsin is actually a great example of how good judicial politics can work lol. Voters didn't like the republican maps so they voted in judges who would nullify them. If voters are displeased with the Dem majority in Wisconsin then they can vote in a Republican majority in a short amount of time. Supreme court justice positions are elected and have term limits.
Dude, if you're just going to switch topics any time I make a point, I am not going to waste my time with you.
“Dude”, you said you disagreed with me on Wisconsin. I was pointing out that I disagreed with your assertion. Try and keep up or go away.
Maybe she campaigned on undoing the partisan gerrymander because there is a partisan gerrymander? Not to put too fine a point on it, but Wisconsin is a 50/50 state - or close enough - yet Republicans currently control the legislature - though blessedly without the supermajority they had hoped for to enable them to override vetoes from the governor. The Democrats currently control ALL statewide elected offices except for Ron Johnson’s Senate seat. Those offices include governor, secretary of state, attorney general and the other Senate seat. I suspect if the Dems had run someone less progressive than Mandela Barnes, they’d have beat Johnson too.
If Wisconsin’s legislative makeup reflected the state’s voting pattern for offices not subject to the gerrymander, it would look nothing like it does today.
Just a thought.
And? The statement was that progressives would be more inclined to thwart the rulings of the court. The states you listed gerrymander, but so do Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina… do you really want to have this argument? We can go tit for tat all day about which state is more gerrymandered.
There is only one state that was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States of America to redraw their maps to include 2 majority Black districts in lieu of the single one they’d drawn for 2022. And this is because all of the states I listed above + the states you listed are all true partisan gerrymanders. Alabama was unable to prove that case in a court of law, so now they’ve taken it upon themselves to give a hardy 😤 to SCOTUS - and the Black voters of Alabama.
I live in Illinois. Take a look at how the democrats gerrymandered not just the congressional boundaries but also the state judicial boundaries. And tried to do it before the census data was even out. So spare me the tears about Alabama.
This writer comes to us via George Mason. Makes sense that I disagree with some of his opinions here.
Interesting article. The author seems to say if I am reading it right that as long as “conservative” justices rule against “conservative” cases, liberals should leave alone. Worrying about authoritarian rule only seems to be a concern if a republican is in office. Censorship of citizens free speech rights and accepting millions of dollars from foreign governments for no work be damned.
The SCOTUS nominee poison was first introduced during the Robert Bork confirmation process then carried through to Justice Thomas’ confirmation. The author seems to pretend those historical facts didn’t happen.
Republicans aren’t blameless but stop pretending that democrats are innocent bystanders and didn’t light the match that started this dumpster fire..
Oh please. The MAGA party has demonstrated they think that rules and laws only apply to their opposition.
Also, Bork was an authoritarian extremist who was willing to aid another criminal Republican president who thought his office made him above the law. If Senate advice and consent, or rather lack of consent, were ever warranted, it would have been Bork's nomination.
Clarence Thomas has also proved corrupt and undeserving of his seat. We had warning.
Republicans presidents keep nominating unqualified, prevaricating, principle-bending , and unethical justices.
Thanks for proving my point. To paraphrase your point: If republicans would just nominate judges that agree with me then I’d be happy but they don’t so they are evil and incompetent.
Reducing the points i made to just "disagreeing" with right wing justices is an evasive rhetorical maneuver that one uses when one has no defense of his case. I could say too that your position is just based on "disagreeing", but like your comment that would be meaningless without addressing the points of disagreement.
lol. Don’t feel Apparently I’m just a “bot” and no longer worth their time.
“Roe v Wade is settled law”. I heard those words or words similar to them 7 times - Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Why? They learned from Bork that if you tell the people what you really believe, you’ll never get onto the Court.
Also, I think it’d be pretty nifty if they stopped nominating sexual predators.
I heard liberal justices during their confirmation hearings say that they have no pre-conceived conclusions about a case and yet they always vote in liberal lockstep. Show me proof that any of them are sexual predators? If you base it on he said/ she said then they’d have to stand in line behind Clinton, Biden, and host of democrats.
Adhering to principle tends to render consistency.
The liberal justices were in lockstep under RBG for sure. Under Breyer and now Kagan, that hasn’t always been the case.
And comparing elected leaders who are subject to voters and elections to people who are given a job for the rest of their lives is disingenuous at best.
Well written and important to spread a more balanced view of the Court.