Wednesday, July 31, 2024

“That Our Differences Do Not Divide Us”

Trump does know a lot of wives. Okay, sure. Convicted criminals, you mean. The comfort and company of all his imaginary friends. Just looking at the stills of the faces, he’s already losing them. And he went to the black journalists today; tonight he’s retreated to the safety of white people. The chyron: even Newsmax is bored.🥱  And now she’s beating you like a drum. 🪘  The crowd behind you doesn’t. The chart gets them to cheer. Nothing weird here, at all. 👂  Not weird at all. (The shooter was on a rooftop hundreds of yards away.) "MOM! Grandpa’s ready for his nap!”😴  You mean all the evidence available on-line and being relied on by Jack Smith, and in the committee report on my nightstand? Go back to looking at the chart, Grandpa.
"And we used bees for money!” 🐝  "He’s a Trump voter. But Hannibal Lecter would like to have you for dinner.” Yup; no cognitive issues here. 🙄 And taking jobs from black journalists. No comment. He’s so proud. You know who gets mug shot? Criminals. #TrumpSoWhite Still pretty sure he gets all his dialogue from B movies that are at least 50 years old. Also pretty sure he’s not chucking JD off the team any time soon. Or even benching him. Copium. It’s not just for breakfast anymore! 💯 
at No comments:

Donald Trump Is Not A Politician

He's trying to get votes," McCaskill explained of Trump's campaign. 
The ex-president has tried to make inroads with Black men, thinking that they can pull away some voters of color supporting President Joe Biden. The New York Post claimed that Trump's plan was successful, but that was before Harris. 
"What I'm trying to figure out is what votes did he think he was going to get, add to his MAGA base by doing what he did today?" McCaskill asked. "I can't imagine that he is so dumb that he thought he would add any Black votes by talking about Black jobs and saying what he said about the vice president." 
Some analysts have claimed Trump was trying to appeal to his far-right base with racially charged language and attacks. McCaskill said his base is already well aware of Trump's views. 
"They know he's one of many of them, agree with him about his less-than view of people that don't look like them," she said. "So, then the question: Is he trying to get us to talk about it? Is he so freaked out that he has not been dominating the airwaves for the last week that he was wanting to be so outrageous that we would sit here and talk about him today?" 
She questioned if Trump was "really dumb," not knowing that he couldn't get any more MAGA votes than he already had. 
"It certainly doesn't get him any of the votes he doesn't have. It certainly doesn't get him any Black votes. Or he is just that sick? You know, is he just that sick?" said McCaskill.
No, he’s not trying to get votes. Yes, he thinks he is.

And he’s way beyond “sick.” But nowhere near “cunning” or clever, or tapping into “economic anxiety”.

He’s a racist, xenophobic, and emotionally stunted old man; a textbook narcissist in rapid cognitive decline who is going to end his days seeing everything he values stripped from him, including his liberty.
at No comments:

One Drop

If by “imploding” you mean finally leaving the right wing media bubble because he’s desperate to do something to blunt Harris’ momentum. By doing that, he definitely imploded. Or, if you prefer, wilted like a hot house flower, two steps out of the hothouse. so Trump retreated to his bunker bubble: "Identity politics” is when white people don’t get to define the terms of identity. That’s why it’s bad. Lesson learned: Call me crazy, but I don’t think the campaign is concerned with the effect of Vance on the ticket. I also don’t think they’ve ever been too worried about being racist. That was just white copium from white pundits.
at No comments:

Following The Bouncing Ball

 When I got my Master’s in English and stopped reading literature, I got a job at a law firm and literally spent a year reading depositions. Most people don’t talk the way dialogue is written. It takes some getting used to, reading transcripts of what people actually say. I found transcripts were revealing. Like this:

"Senator J.D. Vance is your running mate," said Scott. "He's had a lot of controversy lately and I want to read you a few things that he has said in the past. He said the Democrats running the country are 'a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they've made. And so they don't, they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.'" 
She went on, "Did you know that he had these views about people who do not have children before you picked him to be your running mate, and do you agree with him?"  
"No, this he is very family-oriented and he thinks families a great thing," said Trump. "That doesn't mean he thinks that if you don't have a family, it's not. I know people with families. I know people with great families and I know people with very troubled families. "And I also know people with no families that didn't meet the right person. Things happen, you go through life, you don't meet the right person, not just talking to families here and some of those people that don't have children ... he strongly believes in family, but I know people with great families." 
"My interpretation, you'll have to ask him actually, but my interpretation is he's strongly family-oriented, but that doesn't mean you don't have a family, there's something wrong with this," he continued. 
"One of the bedrock principles of American life is one person, one vote," said Scott. "Senator J.D. Vance has suggested that someone who has children should have more votes than a person who does not have children. I just want to be clear here. Is that the position of your campaign?"  
“Well no, but it's not something I've ever heard before," said Trump. "I can tell you this right now. You have illegal aliens coming into our country in many from prisons and many from mental institutions. And they want to give them votes. I don't think they should have votes."
That last is right up there with abortions in the 9th month and even after birth. Utter and complete bullshit. I mean the part where he isn’t disavowing Project 2025 because he’s never heard of it and doesn’t know what’s in it, and doesn’t agree with anything in it. Or anything Vance ever said that Trump doesn’t want to defend now.

The rest of it is just rambling gibberish. The man’s not safe with anything sharper than a rubber ball.
at No comments:

How Many Campaign Ads For Kamala Is This?

One. (Entitled self-important rich white guy.) Two. (Racist self-centered old white guy.) Three. (Clueless misogynistic old white guy.) Four. (POLICY!) Five. (Old male chauvinist white guy.) Six. (Delusional old man completely divorced from reality.) Seven. (More old man misogyny.) Eight. (Law and order is in the eye of the demented old man beholder.) Nine and Ten. A: “Black jobs!” (DRINK!) B: Even the campaign knows a disaster when they see one.(MORE DRINKING!)
at No comments:

Let’s Take A Shortcut

If the government can tell Google and Facebook what to publish and how to publish it, they can do the same to FoxNews.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Just because you have to check your brain at the studio door to be a talking head at FoxNews doesn’t mean it’s a way to go through life.
at No comments:

Low Copium Is An Ugly Sight

Yeah, that’s what happened. Copium supply is running low at MAL. Probably the ketchup supply, too.
at No comments:

“Context Is All.”*

"Last month I pieced together the bonkers story of how Trump ousted Ronna McDaniel as chair of the Republican National Committee at the urging of Turning Point CEO Charlie Kirk, because she was resisting Kirk's proposal to run point on GOTV," writes Scher. "Some Republicans suggested Turning Point's plan to raise $108 million for his group to boost voter turnout in three states smelled like a 'grift,' yet Trump gave it the green light."
What’s wrong with that? Aside from the fact Charlie Kirk is an idiot?
The Turning Point strategy is premised on the notion that many 'low propensity' voters are disengaged Christians," writes Scher. "Trump echoed this belief in his remarks. Before he said 'you won't have to vote anymore,' he said, 'Christians have to vote, you know. I don't want to scold you. But do you know that Christians do not vote proportionately. They don't vote like they should. They're not big voters."

”Trump echoed this belief in his remarks.” That’s the part the video clips left out, though Trump repeated it to Laura Ingraham:

"Christians are not known as a big voting group. They don’t vote! And I explained this to them.”

The blind leading the blind. The people he was speaking to already turn out to vote for him. Unless he can get them to vote twice, he’s wasting a lot of money and effort. Which, of course, is fine by me. It also underscores my thesis that Trump is terrible at politics.

Of course, Trump also takes legal advice from this guy:
(The first question to Fitton is: “Please identify the criminal statute you allege was violated.”) So what can you expect?

I still say we treat Trump more seriously, and as more knowledgeable and rational, than the facts allow.


*And how many times have I had to make use of that quote?
at No comments:

Flying Low In Oklahoma

This is apparently still a thing in some dark corners of the intertoobs. Not sure why these fly in Oklahoma, but I imagine Walters wants copies in all the classrooms in the state.
at 1 comment:

Trump Campaign Suicide Watch

And please, let’s discuss policy: Trump’s last statement on Venezuela was at the GOP convention, when he said they’d be holding their next convention there, because it would be safer than anyplace in America.

So, yeah, Trump should start talking about policy.
at No comments:

🎶And The Days Grow Short, When You Reach September…🎶

September 18: sentencing hearing in Manhattan. That debate is scheduled for September 10, whether Trump shows up, or not.

Early voting begins 45 days before Election Day in Vermont, 40 days before Election Day in Illinois. Several other states begin in-person absentee voting 30-40 days before Election Day.

🎶And the days dwindle down/to a precious few/September…November…🎶
at No comments:

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Even His Surrogates Are Idiots

"Fix the economy”? What the fuck is wrong with it (aside from the brute inequality it rests on. We live happily in Omelas, but that’s not what he means). Point to one economic indicator showing the economy needs to be “fixed.” Inflation?  How would you fix that? Raise interest rates until economic activity freezes? Force low wage workers to go back to pre-COVID wages so we can exploit them as savagely as we once did?

Drill and frack? What part of America net exporting oil and gas and controlling the world market is reality you refuse to acknowledge? I’m sure that refusal/ignorance is great for campaigning, but for governing, it sucks.

“Dumb occupational licensing laws”? What, barbers shouldn’t meet basic sanitary standards? That’s why people aren’t making enough babies? Because barbers have to be licensed?

And the fertility crisis is biological, you ignorant shit. It is for the people who want to have children, and can’t. People who don’t want to have children don’t have a crisis. For people who do, the visible crisis is due to healthcare that gives them hope, hope they wouldn’t have without it. That’s not a crisis, it’s a cause for celebration.

Unless you mean the “crisis” is connected to the “Great Replacement” theory. Given you’re a Republican, you probably do. In which case you’re just another racist shit.
at No comments:

“Black Jobs”

And who’s controlling the narrative now? You were pretty much born with them, at least. Unless you’re telling us you identify differently. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Projection is such a cruel, cruel mistress. 😎
at No comments:

😎

Remember when Trump used to generate this kind of enthusiasm? Back when his schtick was fresh and people weren’t walking out on him early?

Been awhile, hasn’t it?

So has this:
Not going back.
at No comments:

Family Ties

Which explains his many marriages, and his even larger number of affairs.

It says nothing about Vance’s comments, except Trump’s very comfortable with those comments.

Besides: ("400 children”? Where the hell was he going with that?) What he’s been reduced to. He can’t come up with anything, so he’s repeating her lines. The Emperor is finally seen naked. So naked he has to rely on Eric.

Family, right, Donald?
at No comments:

🪜

Everything old is new again. And again. And again, Trump really is stupid.

$22 million a mile. $5 a ladder. With inflation, maybe the price of both have gone up. Or maybe next time around he’ll just order them to be shot. John Roberts is fine with that, after all.
at No comments:

🎶”I’m On A Losing Streak”🎶

🎶”I can’t get me no/girly action”🎶 🎶‘Though I try/And I try/And try tu-try tu-try try try!”🎶 🎶”I can’t get no/No No No!”🎶
🎶He can’t be a man/‘cause he does not smoke/the same cigarettes as me!”🎶 🎶"I can't get no!/No No No!"🎶


(I still love DEVO)
at No comments:

“Supreme Court Bad!”

Steve Vladeck argued that Biden’s proposed court reforms are simply a response to current sentiment he characterized as: “Supreme Court bad.” Unfortunately or not, that sentiment carries more weight after this article: Screw Article I’s provision that Congress alone can declare war, right?

 Please consult a law professor for any further information and give the professors full authority to propose and implement any Court reforms.
at No comments:

This Is My Favorite Part

How do you shut down a plan?

Disavow any knowledge of its actions?

Confiscate every printed copy and consign them to the flames? 

Acid burn every computer hard drive that ever contained any piece of it?

Burn it out of the internet, a la the movies?

Kill every person who ever had knowledge of it, just to be sure?

Or just declare “Nothing to see here!”? 

Does anybody think this really means anything, except that Trump was the hand in the Heritage Foundation glove the whole time?
at No comments:

“Dear America:”

"If you misrepresent your influence with Donald Trump, it will not end well for you.

“Especially that whole “weird “ thing. Just stop it!”
at No comments:

The Devil’s In The Details, But…

Professor Vladeck has issues with Biden’s broadly sketched proposals for reforming the Supreme Court.
Let’s start with term limits. Under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, the justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The critical point for constitutional purposes is that the nature and duties of the “office” the justices hold are largely defined by Congress. Thus, Congress had the power, from 1789 until 1911, to include circuit-riding as one of the functions of the office. My own view is that Congress can also define the office so that a justice hears merits cases for a fixed period of time, so long as they are given other duties thereafter—so that term limits can be imposed by statute, and not just by constitutional amendment. The problem is that, under an old but consistently followed series of cases, any “non-germane” changes to the nature of an office must be prospective (i.e., only apply to future officeholders), lest Congress use this power as an end-run around the Appointments Clause (by, e.g., giving confirmed officeholders different duties than what they were confirmed to do). So, in my view, statutory term limits would be constitutional only if they went into effect starting with the next justice. That means that, 30-40 years from now, when the last of the current justices leaves the Court, we’d have nine justices with term limits—but not tomorrow. In short, it could work only as a long-term reform, not a short- (or even medium-)term one.
That’s a very valid point, which only means we can’t remake the Supreme Court in a few years.  That’s not the same thing as saying there aren’t good reasons to try, or even better routes to how.

Obviously, I don’t feel like paraphrasing. 
As for a code of conduct, I’ve written about this before, but to me, far more important than the ethics and financial disclosure rules that apply to the justices is how those rules are to be enforced. And although the Post reporting refers to an “enforceable ethics code,” I don’t quite understand how that could be achieved consistent with the Constitution. If anyone other than the justices is given the power to discipline the Court’s members for violations of these rules, we’d no longer have “one Supreme Court,” as Article III, Section 1 says we must; we’d have two. Instead, I’m a firm believer that the way to cut this particular Gordian knot is through the creation of an Article III Inspector General without disciplinary authority over the justices, but with a host of monitoring and reporting obligations that, if structured correctly, ought to create exactly the right kinds of incentives for the justices to comply with the rules already on the books (versus where we are today). An “A3IG” is also long overdue for the lower courts (which continue to get into all kinds of inexplicable trouble), so taking that route versus a new substantive code would have salutary downstream effects, too.
Again, the devil is in the details; which aren’t available at this stage. On the next one I disagree almost completely:
As for a constitutional amendment to override the Trump immunity ruling, why just that one? What about an amendment to overrule Rucho and reaffirm that the federal courts can adjudicate severe partisan gerrymandering? Or an amendment to overrule Citizens United and allow Congress to meaningfully limit the money in our elections? Or an amendment to overrule Dobbs? All of these have the exact same chance of getting two-thirds of the House and Senate to approve them (0.0%), to say nothing of three-fourths of the states.
The visceral nature of presidential immunity (and/or Dobbs) may change the political outcome in November, which changes the political calculus in the states, too. Besides: no guts, no glory. Basically, the good professor is on much stronger ground when he’s discussing what the law requires. The way things are going, the people may well decide they need to take the law of the land back into their own hands. The support for the Court is at an historic low, after all. Give the electorate the idea their vote might lead to an amendment, and who knows what might happen? I’d leave this one to the political knowledge of Joe Biden.

The rest of the professor’s argument is no better than that last quoted paragraph: law professors (honestly the only members of the bar more ignored/disrespected by the public than any other segment of the Bar) should have been listened to before (or now); better proposals available ( I’m not sure even the details of Biden’s proposals are known); Biden’s ideas are DOA; etc. But Professor Vladeck (here more than ever) is operating in the (VERY) rarified atmosphere of law school professors, a place even Supreme Court justices rarely give a nod to (the most famous footnote in legal history is a citation to a law review article in Roe. That example is never cited for why law professors are the Unacknowledged legislators of the world. Quite the opposite, in fact. It’s the exception that proves the rule.). 

Biden is operating in the realm of politics and D.C. He’s trying to start a conversation, not finish one. His proposals have no chance of becoming legislation, because of the legislative calendar. But they may be an inspiring issue in the election coming up.

JFK was promoting a Civil Rights Act when he died. LBJ pushed it through largely because of the shock of JFK’s death. Biden, almost as shockingly, stepped away from pursuing re-election. Kamala Harris (if Trump wins these ideas are certainly dead) could well promote Court reform (if not these reforms specifically) in the memory of the goodwill Biden engendered by his bold and historic decision. Especially if that bold and historic decision secures any kind of blue wave in November at all.

Certainly better to light a candle than curse the darkness, no? 🕯️ 
at No comments:

“Family Is Good”

"Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine," he said. "You won’t have to vote anymore. In four years, you won’t have to vote again.” 
The comment raised alarms that Trump was hinting he would refuse to leave office, or cancel elections.
In an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Monday, Trump tried to clarify his words a bit, and walk back any possible implication of that. 
You won't have to vote in four years, he said, "because the country will be fixed, and frankly, we won't even need your vote anymore." 
"I thought everybody understood it," Trump added.
I can still read Trump’s statement as stupid, not threatening (mostly because I don’t confuse Trump the schoolyard bully with Iago the scheming deceiver). His statement is he will “fix ut” so tall problems are solved, forever and a day. It’s of a piece with flu’s claims of his greatness and success and how everything was fine until Biden took over. Only this time all shall be well into perpetuity, because Trump is that good.

But call it a threat to democracy, if you like. I just don’t think you have to.

Because the question is: why can’t Trump clarify his statement? 

He doesn’t even try to explain himself. Because he can’t? Because he knows he overstepped (unlikely. Trump is never uncertain and never wrong). Because he’s incapable of coherent speech?

I think we have a winner.

Now this is not a campaign issue. By which I mean, you can’t make an ad about this. But now we know why Trump doesn’t want to debate.
Trump told host Laura Ingraham he would like to debate, but noted "everybody knows who I am. And now people know who she is." 
"She's a radical-left lunatic. She'll destroy our country. She wants open borders," said Trump. 
Ingraham interjected, "Then why don't you debate her?" 
"Well wait," he replied. "Because they already know everything."
In his heart of hearts, he’s scared shitless. Or he’s a complete boob:
We’re effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via, via our corporate oligarchs by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made,” Vance said in 2021. “And so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. And it’s just a basic fact… Kamala Harris. Pete Buttigieg. AOC. The entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?” 
Ingraham asked Trump, "what can you say to our viewers tonight to reassure them that this was an excellent pick?" 
"Well, first of all," Trump replied, "he's got tremendous support, and he really does, among a certain group of people, people that like families." 
CNN's Harry Enten last week reported, "JD Vance is making history as the least liked VP nominee (non-incumbent) since 1980 following his/her party's convention. He's the first to have a net negative favorable rating." 
Trump continued, claiming Vance "made a statement having to do with families. That doesn't mean that people that aren't a member of a big and beautiful family with 400 children around and everything else. It doesn't mean that a person doesn't have, he's not against anything, but he loves family, it's very important to him. He grew up in a very interesting family situation, and he feels family is good. And I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that now."
Says the man who doesn’t seem to have a direct stake in his family; only in who he’s having the next affair with.
at No comments:

Trump Is A Political Force Of Nature

I still think it curious we can’t get a medical report on what happened and what his condition is. But, whatever… 🤷🏻‍♂️  Well, he’s not wrong.😑  Outreach? Shoring up the base? Defining his opponent? What’s the strategy here? "Only connect.”—E.M. Forster History can help you find the source of the weird. And explain the George Soros theme.

I don’t know what can explain this.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
"See sheep surrender.” (Now you have to watch the video. 😈)
at No comments:

Regarding Supreme Court Term Limits

The chief justice, now 69 and about to begin his 20th term, appears to have abandoned his usual institutional concerns.  
He upended constitutional norms, enlarged the institution of the presidency and gave Trump a victory that bolstered his litigating position even beyond the case at hand, for example, in his attempt to reverse the conviction in his Manhattan “hush money” trial. A jury in May found Trump guilty of falsifying business records.
But the Court must remain independent!
All told, Roberts appears to have reached a turning point. His vision for the high court became more aggressive, and he has perhaps shed the aura of ineffectualness that permeated some public commentary in recent years. 
He kept the most important cases for himself, including one that reversed a 1984 precedent giving federal regulators considerable power over health care, food and drug safety, the environment and consumer affairs. (As chief, Roberts makes most opinion-writing assignments; he regularly keeps important cases, but in the past has shared more and evened out assignments among the eight associate justices.) 
At the same time, his dealings with his conservative colleagues were more agreeable.
The Court’s independence depends very much on its behavior. FDR brought the Court to heel with his threat to expand it. The Court’s refusal to allow an income tax was reversed by Constitutional amendment. Steve Vladeck gave us the history of the modern Court, one created by statute early in the 20th century (Marbury has a lot less to do with it than imagined). Until that reform, the Court’s jurisdiction and, more importantly, control of its docket, was in the hands of Congress via statute. Certiorari was a rare practice of the Court, since what cases it heard were set by law, not the votes of justices. It may have had the power to decide constitutional questions; but it could only exercise it within the confines of the cases it had to hear and could rule on. The Court got more freedom in those decisions by statute. Statute can return the Court to status quo ante at any time and probably needs to, given the Court’s abuse of that power.

To put it bluntly:
The only other justice on the majority side to write separately was Thomas. He fully joined Roberts’ opinion but then questioned the constitutionality of the special counsel’s office. Trump’s lawyers had not challenged Smith’s appointment in this case, and it had been raised by only Thomas during oral arguments. 
Thomas’ solo statement has already had some influence. Earlier this month, US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, relied partly on that Thomas opinion as she threw out the classified documents case against Trump. 
Thomas, the longest-serving justice on the bench and arguably the most conservative of the nine, has become more influential over the years, to the point that some commentators have declared him more powerful than Roberts. 
Not this year, so very unlike 2022, when Thomas and other conservatives pushed through the Dobbs ruling and Roberts stood alone between embittered factions. The chief justice chided his colleagues on both sides for displaying “a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue.” 
This year, he stepped to the right, and he displayed no doubt.
Roberts has been in the Court 20 years; Alito for 18, Thomas for 23. Time for term limits, indeed.

There are many ways to control the Court’s rogue behavior. And even more reasons to do so.
at No comments:

📺….and nothin’ on….

Broadcast TV is now what Cable used to be.

When I was a kid, TV was the three major networks and, depending on how close you were to a major metropolitan area, an “independent” channel or two. The latter mostly ran movies and re-runs; the former were what everyone meant by “TeeVee.”

So all the political ads would be there, when the time came.

Then came cable, and political ads shifted there (somewhat), or you watched “premium” channels where you paid not to see ads.

Now comes digital broadcasting, and local network affiliates run multiple channels of reruns aimed at specific audiences (action, comedy, sci-fi, etc), or old-fashioned cable narrowcasting (aimed at evangelicals, shoppers, ethnic/national groups, etc.). 

And not many, if any, political ads.

And more streaming services than you can maintain subscriptions to.

I’m 69. I have several streaming services (some as benefits for other business services), and I watch those re-run nostalgia channels. I never watch the “Big 3” anymore. I never see political ads.

I know that statistically my age cohort are right-wing cranks yelling at FoxNews for being RINOs and watching Newsmax or RBN (or whatever it is), and still paying my excessive cable bill while complaining about the cost of food.

But voter registration among people below 35 is up (my age cohort are presumably all registered, so who else would be registering now?). So if I’m more politically and culturally aligned with young people, I’m good with that.

😎
at No comments:

Monday, July 29, 2024

“When Did You Stop?”

💯 
at No comments:

Dark Brandon In Austin

Biden’s plan calls for enacting 18-year term limits on justices, to be cycled out every two years. It also calls for an amendment dismantling presidential immunity and ensuring future presidents are held accountable for any criminal acts in office. Lastly, he called on the creation of an ethic code that can be enforced, to curtail conflicts of interest as evidenced by controversies surrounding lavish gifts and trips given to Republican justices by wealthy conservative donors.
Except Thomas is getting older and seeing the time when he shuffles off this mortal coil come closer, and he said “Fuck it, I’m going for it,” and cashed in. Monetarily and ideologically. He literally told people like Harlan Crow that he was tired of living on a government employee’s salary, and if he couldn’t live the life to which he wanted to become accustomed, he’d quit.

The rest is ProPublica history.

And the younger ideologues don’t act like they have decades left to grow into their extreme notions.  Ultimately there is no guaranteed guard against ideology. I suppose the only one we have is to get you off the bench after 18 years. Thomas was pretty much a null set until very recently. That’s a pretty strong argument for getting him shuffled off the Court before it’s reputation is lower than the whorehouse it already is.

Thomas has been there since 1991 when Poppy put him on. Alito’s been there since 2006. Under Biden’s proposal, he’d be coming off this year, and Thomas would have come off 15 years ago. And ideology has become, not just a badge of honor, but more powerful than stare decisis. That seems to be a direct result of a lifetime sinecure that only ends with death.

Ideology on the bench will always be a problem (it’s the real and primary subject of the philosophical field of jurisprudence). But “lifetime” in 1789 didn’t mean what it does in 2024.

Thomas is 76; Alito is 74. If they were lower court judges, they’d have been eased into retirement by now. Of course, they’d also be covered by a much stricter code of ethics overseen by an independent panel, not by the Justices themselves individually. There’s nothing in the Constitution establishing the Justices each being laws unto themselves. The Chief Justice is not their boss. When they refuse to acknowledge a boss, it’s time to remind them “independent” does not mean they are authority supreme.

We the people have reformed government of, by, and for the people before; and it always raised questions about tampering with the status quo. High time to have that conversation again.

The immediate question is: will Trump once again feel like he’s fighting two opponents? Biden trying to take away his immunity and his pet Court, while Kamala laughs all the way into the White House?

Future’s so bright…😎

at 1 comment:

Recapping The Week (at the start of the week…)

 Trump finally realized gas prices are low (when was the last time he pumped his own gas? ⛽️). He still has no idea why.   OOEC hasn’t controlled the world oil market since Biden took over.

It was in the news.

"Trump pissed off.” No wonder Trump is angry. How do you respond to a woman who laugh and enjoys life and actually knows what’s going on in the 21st century, and isn’t stuck with a frame of reference set solidly in 1970? (Even Maggie Haberman acknowledged that about Trump.) He’s weird, too. Yeah. Go with that. This, by the way, didn’t start with Trump. But he is it’s apotheosis.
at 1 comment: