Supreme Court liberals have been caught in public recently praising their conservative brethren. This has provoked the ire of many progressives, who are convinced they must be idiots, but I'd like to propose a radical alternative: the justices might be lying in order to form good relationships with conservatives.
Why? Because when you're in a 6-3 minority you can't do anything unless you manage to persuade a couple of conservatives to vote with you. And it's a lot easier to do that if you make nice internally and praise them externally.
Just a thought.
Pretty sure Roberts is the only persuadable one, and only in cases he doesn't care about, and that just makes it a 5-4 minority for the liberals.
Alternate explanations for libs playing nice with the Federalists: Stockholm Syndrome or learned helplessness.
Robert will, although it's interesting to wonder how often he flips knowing that it won't change the majority.
Gorsuch will and Kavanaugh might swing occasionally on some narrow issues.
Gorsuch is arguably to the left of the country on Indigenous rights, save for the American Indian Movement.
I think it’s less than Roberts is persuadable on the merits as it is that he worries about the institutional legitimacy of the court—which has been in decline since Bush v. Gore and is presently in a death-spiral. I think Roberts understands that even a constitutional order which immunizes the court from accountability has its limits and is becoming increasingly brittle as the court becomes explicitly partisan.
Why do you think its in a death spiral? Because the curt is not more evenly split or because there are currently more conservative justices? If there were six liberal and three conservative justices would it also be in a death spiral?
Mitch McConnell killed the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. It is currently a right wing political tool.
The SCOTUS as it is now doesn't make sense, because it gives nine people appointed for life the right to make fundamenta decisions.
The right way to fix it is to enalrge it to 30 - 50 judges, e.g. the circuit judges. The discussion and arguments would be handle by some sub-group of these, and then the whole court decide.
That will create a court much more representative of the public.
Why would the court need to be representative of the public? That is desirable for legislators who make political decisions. For legal matters I'm not sure how that comes into play. Justices should only be making decisions based on constitutional law. Whether the public will potentially agree or disagree with their rulings should be irrelevant. The law is the law. If people don't like it then they should ask their legislators to change it.
"The law is the law."
Cool story, bro.
One of the best.
It's weird though how the law changes depending on who is interpreting it.
You are overlooking the reality that when the court makes a ruling on constitutional grounds, that ruling cannot be overturned by the majority of the people. It requires a constitutional amendment (something which has proven to be nearly impossible).
What’s more, this court represent a very narrow, very conservative segment of American society but it’s the same group that the anti majoritarian structure of the constitution has given an effective veto.
In the context of the current situation with the Supreme Court, the only way to improve things for the majority of Americans is to expand the court and strip jurisdiction of most constitutional matters from its jurisdiction.
Or start winning elections. Elections have consequences.
Evidently that’s only true when it’s Republicans winning elections. Perhaps that’s because the Democrats are too focused on building a strong Republican Party.
In terms of making fundamental decisions, the Supreme Court as an institution is “now” the same as it has been always. Presumably then you feel it has never made sense?
Speaking for myself only, the court’s never made sense and it’s rarely focused on preserving rights as opposed to the status quo. With the exception of a few years when its prerogatives were threatened and it felt the necessity to bend to the popular well, the court has very rarely been a force for good. And in the absence of genuine neutral principles, it has generally been a force for conservatism.
What has changed is that the court has become more overtly political, starting at least with Bush v. Gore and, at this point, it is basically just an arm of the Republican Party.
It is a death spiral less because of the ideology and more because of the overtness and ruthlessness of how that rightwing ideology is being imposed on the people.
I think we all understand that getting along with one's coworkers makes life easier.
The complaint is that praising fascists is bad for the country and that in this case that factor should take precedence over feeling comfortable at work.
+1
And the rejoinder is that, as you correctly note, this is much more than a matter of water-cooler relations. The fate of the nation is at stake.
When the stakes are that high, sometimes strategies other than shouting "Authoritarians BAD" are called for.
Yes, it's true that some kind of "honey vs. vinegar" strategy is at work here.
It's just that the fascists on the SC were selected very carefully for their ideology and that strategy won't work.
And labasting them relentlessly will work?
Alerting the country that the Supreme Court is a broken institution that needs to be fixed has some chance of success.
Attempting to persuade fascists not to be fascist while letting on to the rest of society that everything is fine has none.
Oddly enough, yes, it just might. We know that the court not only reads election returns but it has responded to political pressure in the past. Remember the famous “switch in time that saved nine” was a response to unrelenting pressure from FDR. While the court packing plan might have failed, it did shift the court’s political decision making in a more socially beneficial direction.
Right now, the right wing majority on the court is effectively being protected by the timidity of the Democratic leadership so they evidently feel unbounded by the need to preserve a sense of the court’s legitimacy. If we can move the Democratic leadership, the majority’s concerns for the preservation of its own power might prompt at least some moderation of their political agenda.
Failing that, the democrats must expand the court and strip it of jurisdiction over constitutional matters.
If there are ever any fascists appointed to the Supreme Court your comment would then have some relevance.
Roger Taney was Chief Supreme. & a Democrat.
It's a twofer. You can bash a fascist AND a Democrat.
I'll take your word on it. Never heard of him and don't have time to research him at the moment. With my prior comment I was admittedly just considering current/recent judges.
Are you also Swedish?
Oh Geez google Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Not interested in a tiresome debate about the definitions of terms, but four current SC justices would absolutely have been Mussolini supporters in that context.
You're right. But if I were in their shoes, I would not be able to continue the charade. Faced with this level of futility for the foreseeable future, I'd pull a Justice Souter and just retire early and get the F out.
Alternative explanation: the liberal justices work with conservative justices every day and see them as human beings with both flaws and strengths rather than as caricatures.
I'm with you, GenXer.
I think that’s a perfectly accurate analysis. But it evokes what I call the fallacy of the “good Nazi” who get sympathetic profiles in The NY Times accompanied by gauzy photographs. Everyone has a good side, very few people are horrible every minute of every day. But they are our enemies and if one cannot bring oneself to act accordingly, that’s a big part of how we got into our current predicament.
I think you’ve also accurately described the situation with congress and Fox News, too. Except for more recent additions (who are clearly seen as social outliers), all of the Fox News personalities or congresspersons are convivial and no doubt freely acknowledge that their craziness is performative. So, naturally, their liberal friends are non-confrontational and accommodating which is good for them as individuals but terrible for civil society.
Are you really comparing SCOTUS justices to Nazis? Come on. That's ridiculous.
I think you've missed my point. Even the worst people can be convivial. They can be good neighbors, they can be in the PTA at your kid's school, and they can be people you go to the opera with. It's easy to fall into the trap of feeling like you ought to keep giving them the benefit of the doubt or feel that, if push comes to shove, they'll do the right thing.
That's a big part of why our elites in both parties can't deal with the far-right: there's a need to humanize them and count on their better instincts as a way of avoiding social awkward situations. That's possible a good way of dealing with your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving but when the elites do it, that's a serious threat to democracy.
Did somebody say "Ruth Bader Ginsburg"?
+1
I do hope so.
What happened to being friends and accepting others flaws?
Scalia and Ginsburg went to the opera together on many occasions and both respected the other for their wit and wisdom in the court decisions.
NOW would be the time for a rich powerful third party presidential candidate with no D or R in front of their name. BOTH parties need a bit of a comeuppence. but the R;s more so than the D's
But in this case I would not "spare the rod" for either group
The cardinal rule of American politics that both the Republicans and Democrats firmly agree to is that no third party shall rise to challenge them.
I believe that no independent/third-party candidate has ever managed to get on all 50 States ballots.
Which pretty much guarantees that an independent can't win a majority of the Electoral College - and that means either party that controls the majority of State delegations in the House picks the president.
In short, it's a stacked deck. Running as a third candidate is simply an exercise in either ego or for getting a national platform, or both.
In 1992 Ross Perot’s third party run enabled Bill Clinton to win with a plurality of the popular vote. Perot got 18.9% of the vote to help Poppy Bush lose, though Perot did not win any electoral votes.
This has been pretty well debunked by now. Of course we may never know for certain but most after the fact analysis concluded that Perot drew pretty equally from both candidates . As Clinton won with 43% to Bush's 37.5%,it would require Bush getting the vast majority of Perot voters to win and no one has ever presented strong evidence for that.
Minor trivia - save that it illuminates our peculiar presidential election system.
Lincoln won with 40% of the votes cast, but a clear majority of the electoral college (obviously).
We are all looking at 3rd party candidates through the lens of what they did to help Candidate X while hurting party Y
Take Ross Perot, add a few Billion to his wealth. Polish him up (a lot) but keep his folksy way. Keep his charts (He was Katie Porter before Katie Porter).
Donald Trump was the right person at the right time in America. He talked tough, he didn't care what others thought (think) about him and believed above all else that he was "above it all". Now the GOP is tearing itself apart by either being pro or anti Trump.
The time is ripe for a 3rd party candidate. Siphon off the moderate republicans and conservative Dems.
AArgh. No, Ross Perot was not Katie Porter. He was a puffed up little Napoleon who got the "ride in on a white horse and save us" vote. Perhaps John Anderson in 1980 was the kind of centrist you envision but usually third party candidates are vanity/purity projects, imho. One of them gave us George W. Bush in 2000 which was a disaster and probably helped set the stage for Orange Caligula as well.
As noted earlier. You simply can't get a national election organized on enough ballots.
As far as I know, most states make it very difficult for an independent to run on their ballots in a national election, and creating a third party has been made exceedingly hard.
Both major parties collude on this for obvious reasons, they don't want anyone else to get in the great game of power politics.
Now it can be done, Ross Perot managed to get on all 50 states.
Nadar got on 43 by comparison.
With the horse and buggy systems of first past the post winning all the marbles. And with mostly well-organized local party organizations, and throw in the traditional loyalist vote for the major parties.
It really is impossible.
H. Ross Tha Bosssplit his vote share almost equally between probable Climpton voters & probable Bush-41 voters. He didn't swing the election.
In fact, it could be argued the only state where he definitively helped was Utah, where he siphoned so many more Climpton votes that Billy Boy finished third. So, he helped Bush.
Is banning abortion now just a "flaw"? How about allowing the free flow of anonymous cash into political campaigns? Or eliminating the federal governments ability to regulate anything? And Ginsburg's friendship with Scalia had no effect on his hard right opinions.
And his friendship had no effect on her hard left left opinions.
I'm not sure why so many people think having a president with no loyalty from anyone else in government would be so great. Third party runs for president are basically PR stunts. Want to start a third party? Start with your county commission and school board and work your way up from there.
The progressive understanding of how change is accomplished:
1. Have the right ideas (the maximally progressive ideas)
2. Scold and shame people into coming around to your point of view
3. Win!
Luckily our Supreme Court justices have a better understanding of human nature.
Bingo.
"Luckily our Supreme Court justices have a better understanding of human nature."
Meh
The conservative understanding of how change is accomplished
1 - End a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy
2 - expand gun rights
3 - Let guys like Greitens use a gun to kill other republicans
Win !!!!!
Oh wait............
I would say it's this actually:
1) Be as right wing as it is possible to be.
2) Be a huge a hole
3) Work very hard to prevent the people who don't like you from voting or having their votes count.
Sounds like the excuses of a battered partner.
Maybe they all just genuinely like each other and respect each other? Most people do not hate other people just because they don't share the exact same political (or, in this case, legal) opinions. I'm a conservative but some of my best friends are liberals.
How do you explain you, then? Outlier?
Explain me in what way??
Purity.
Must.
Be.
Signalled.
Always.
Because, you're either with us, or against us...
Sotomayor is trying to protect the institution of the court and the sanctity of the robe by pretending Clarence Thomas isn't a perverted psychopath. Surely, this politeness will pay dividends when they're deciding how long to imprison women for getting abortions.
The Supreme Court, as an institution, is inherently illiberal. We shouldn't protect it. We should do everything in our power to defang it.
Perhaps they are being nice now because in less than 2 weeks, after the conservative majority shit-can Row V. Wade and allow nut jobs to carry concealed Glocks into the NYC Subway, their dissenting opinions will likely be a blistering criticism of the majority and the devastation it will bring to the lives of many of our citizens.
Uh doi.
Also there is this:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/sonia-sotomayor-conservative-supreme-court/index.html
Sotomayer gushes that Ihomas remembers the names and birthdays of people who work at the SC. That makes up for gutting voting rights and cancelling women's access to abortion, which don't matter much to her
I suspect that, a week from now, we'll have greater clarity on how persuadable the far-right-wing majority is going to be. /s