The current ruling gang on the Court, in my opinion, are not conservatives. Scalia was a conservative. These people are radicals. I find it funny, in a sad way, that you say a Supreme can only be removed by death or retirement. As I am positive you know, impeachment is the way to remove a plainly corrupt Justice. I think your failure to mention impeachment is a tacit nod to the fact that impeachment, whether of a Justice or of a President, has become a sad joke.
Thanks for your voice on this critically important topic. I, too, have never gotten the whole "originalism" argument. The people who founded the U.S., often to escape hidebound societies, don't strike me as those who were reluctant to change with the times.
The Dobbs decision was a huge blow to me. The stand on women's health is the primary reason I split with the Republican party in the 1980s. And if anything the recent rulings on presidential immunity are even more shocking, redefining everything I ever knew about my country and the promise of equality under the law.
At the very least I would like to see the Supreme Court have the kind of formal code of conduct all other Federal courts must adhere to -- one that would prevent the most egregious behavior documented over the past few years. I also support term limits and perhaps a mandatory retirement age (we have that for Ohio Supreme Court justices).
Putting my legal analysis aside, it’s been devastating to watch our hard-earned legal protections crumble under the authority of a tainted Court.
I believe that it was last year when SCOTUS had its Code of Conduct revised, but so much of that relies on their own integrity and willingness to abide by the letter and spirit of these policies. It’s difficult to believe that Thomas, for example, doesn’t believe there’s a conflict of interest in his participation in the Jan. 6 cases.
I am new to this newsletter and appreciate its structure and authors. Thanks and all the best to the two of you. BTW, I don’t have a legal background.
Regarding the banned commenter, it brings to mind a bit of an epiphany I had earlier this evening about contemporary hyper-partisanship and the possibility that it bears a more direct relationship to the popularity of fascism in the beginning in the ‘30’s than I’m used to thinking about. I probably need to start my own Substack publication, and will hold back on its full blossom.
Suffice to say, I’m glad to find a place where a distinction between principled conclusions and partisanship is maintained. Sadly that is lost to many. Looking forward to reading more of your work.
My little nation has been on the receiving end of the Doctrine of Discovery since 1492, a precedent which has never been overturned. Today we are a 'domestic dependent Nation' having been subjected to Removal and then Allotment before becoming homeless as a result of statehood which inserted a foreign authority over our courts and laws. So, yes, SCOTUS is wayward, a precedent with long standing partially remediated with the McGirt decision which the state overlords are now trying to rescind. It just goes on and on.
"This is hugely problematic because the Court is meant to ensure “equal justice under [the] law,” and a stacked Court isn’t exactly positioned to equally represent the American people."
Ever notice This was Not a problem when The Court was 6-3 Liberal-Conservative?
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) by stripping the Constitutional right to an abortion from U.S. citizens—a protection which had been in place for more than 50 years.
Do I Have To Say Brown v Board Of Education?
BTW it didn't Strip the rights to abortion. It Sent it back to The States, to decide. You would think someone with a a bachelor's degree in Law and Society and Public Communication, would be aware of this.
" I defy you to look me in the eyes and somehow argue that a 10-year-old girl who is impregnated by her rapist should be forced to carry that child to term."
1. OK I'll give you abortion in that case. Will you give me banning abortion in the other 97%(?) of abortions?
2. Lets see a guy commits a Really Horrible Crime...So lets kill one of the 3 humans involved. This makes sense...how?
PS On this subject you may say many things about me. Moderate is NOT one of them.
Hi, 'War for the West' - I want to highlight your conduct because I'm going to block you. You're more than welcome to disagree w/Kate. I don't agree with this article. In fact, we are going to have a civil conversation about it, which, ya know, is what grown ups do. Alas, you're not a grown up because you come in here with a fake name, 'War for the West.' My hunch is that you've never been at war, nor have any idea what that means. Bless your little heart. The reason I'm going to permanently ban you is because you used ad hominem attacks against the co-founder of this site, who is a judge & holds a law degree. The article is well written and reasoned. You're more than welcome to engage with Kate. But there will be no personal attacks.
So, you're gone. If I see you lurking around other parts of our social media platforms, then we will play a different game. That game is on my turf, and the rules are vastly different. But perhaps you're into that, since you use war in your handle.
I suggest, however, you read what I wrote this morning and act accordingly.
You’re exactly right to have picked up on my more liberal social views. GCV+F has one liberal-leaning and one conservative-leaning co-founder each. With our work, we hope to promote open and respectful discussion about the full realm of issues impacting our social, political, and military functioning, and anyone following our authors should be aware of this.
However, my social leanings play no role in my legal analyses, which are instead rooted in a faithful interpretation of the law. That’s what I’ve offered here - a critical analysis which is well-reasoned and supported (see all those citations?). What’s happening on the Court is an utter betrayal of our legal principles.
I loathe that I have to do this, because Will and I believe that people on opposite sides of the political spectrum can engage in meaningful and respectful discourse. This comment doesn’t qualify, and it unhesitatingly violates our principle of “dissent, with respect.” I’m once again being forced to limit someone’s speech because they can’t speak in an appropriate manner.
Another “conservative” incapable of the self-reflection he perpetually demands of others. Of course the “right” has never used the court to undermine the legislature.
The current ruling gang on the Court, in my opinion, are not conservatives. Scalia was a conservative. These people are radicals. I find it funny, in a sad way, that you say a Supreme can only be removed by death or retirement. As I am positive you know, impeachment is the way to remove a plainly corrupt Justice. I think your failure to mention impeachment is a tacit nod to the fact that impeachment, whether of a Justice or of a President, has become a sad joke.
That’s a really interesting distinction between conservatives and radicals. I think I’ll use your language moving forward!
And yes, you’re exactly right about my views on impeachment. I’m afraid it’s currently used more for political fodder than protection of the people.
Thanks for your voice on this critically important topic. I, too, have never gotten the whole "originalism" argument. The people who founded the U.S., often to escape hidebound societies, don't strike me as those who were reluctant to change with the times.
The Dobbs decision was a huge blow to me. The stand on women's health is the primary reason I split with the Republican party in the 1980s. And if anything the recent rulings on presidential immunity are even more shocking, redefining everything I ever knew about my country and the promise of equality under the law.
At the very least I would like to see the Supreme Court have the kind of formal code of conduct all other Federal courts must adhere to -- one that would prevent the most egregious behavior documented over the past few years. I also support term limits and perhaps a mandatory retirement age (we have that for Ohio Supreme Court justices).
Putting my legal analysis aside, it’s been devastating to watch our hard-earned legal protections crumble under the authority of a tainted Court.
I believe that it was last year when SCOTUS had its Code of Conduct revised, but so much of that relies on their own integrity and willingness to abide by the letter and spirit of these policies. It’s difficult to believe that Thomas, for example, doesn’t believe there’s a conflict of interest in his participation in the Jan. 6 cases.
Thank you for sharing! This is very well written and I think resonates with a lot more people than we realize.
I am new to this newsletter and appreciate its structure and authors. Thanks and all the best to the two of you. BTW, I don’t have a legal background.
Regarding the banned commenter, it brings to mind a bit of an epiphany I had earlier this evening about contemporary hyper-partisanship and the possibility that it bears a more direct relationship to the popularity of fascism in the beginning in the ‘30’s than I’m used to thinking about. I probably need to start my own Substack publication, and will hold back on its full blossom.
Suffice to say, I’m glad to find a place where a distinction between principled conclusions and partisanship is maintained. Sadly that is lost to many. Looking forward to reading more of your work.
My little nation has been on the receiving end of the Doctrine of Discovery since 1492, a precedent which has never been overturned. Today we are a 'domestic dependent Nation' having been subjected to Removal and then Allotment before becoming homeless as a result of statehood which inserted a foreign authority over our courts and laws. So, yes, SCOTUS is wayward, a precedent with long standing partially remediated with the McGirt decision which the state overlords are now trying to rescind. It just goes on and on.
Wave as you fly over.
"This is hugely problematic because the Court is meant to ensure “equal justice under [the] law,” and a stacked Court isn’t exactly positioned to equally represent the American people."
Ever notice This was Not a problem when The Court was 6-3 Liberal-Conservative?
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) by stripping the Constitutional right to an abortion from U.S. citizens—a protection which had been in place for more than 50 years.
Do I Have To Say Brown v Board Of Education?
BTW it didn't Strip the rights to abortion. It Sent it back to The States, to decide. You would think someone with a a bachelor's degree in Law and Society and Public Communication, would be aware of this.
Hey - Steve, no need to use ad hominem attacks here. That's your first warning.
"You would think someone with a bachelor's degree in Law and Society and Public Communication would be aware of this."
I suggest you watch your tone.
Warning #1.
That is your idea of an Attack?
The quote used to above is an ad hominem attack. You’re insinuating she’s dumb.
Thank you.
Not Dumb, just Not Telling The Truth. Telling The Leftest/Corporate Media Narrative.
Whatever. I’m not interested in a Talmudic debate.
Please refrain from using that tone here.
Thank you.
" I defy you to look me in the eyes and somehow argue that a 10-year-old girl who is impregnated by her rapist should be forced to carry that child to term."
1. OK I'll give you abortion in that case. Will you give me banning abortion in the other 97%(?) of abortions?
2. Lets see a guy commits a Really Horrible Crime...So lets kill one of the 3 humans involved. This makes sense...how?
PS On this subject you may say many things about me. Moderate is NOT one of them.
He mad too.
Hi, 'War for the West' - I want to highlight your conduct because I'm going to block you. You're more than welcome to disagree w/Kate. I don't agree with this article. In fact, we are going to have a civil conversation about it, which, ya know, is what grown ups do. Alas, you're not a grown up because you come in here with a fake name, 'War for the West.' My hunch is that you've never been at war, nor have any idea what that means. Bless your little heart. The reason I'm going to permanently ban you is because you used ad hominem attacks against the co-founder of this site, who is a judge & holds a law degree. The article is well written and reasoned. You're more than welcome to engage with Kate. But there will be no personal attacks.
So, you're gone. If I see you lurking around other parts of our social media platforms, then we will play a different game. That game is on my turf, and the rules are vastly different. But perhaps you're into that, since you use war in your handle.
I suggest, however, you read what I wrote this morning and act accordingly.
Have a wonderful day!
This was my response:
You’re exactly right to have picked up on my more liberal social views. GCV+F has one liberal-leaning and one conservative-leaning co-founder each. With our work, we hope to promote open and respectful discussion about the full realm of issues impacting our social, political, and military functioning, and anyone following our authors should be aware of this.
However, my social leanings play no role in my legal analyses, which are instead rooted in a faithful interpretation of the law. That’s what I’ve offered here - a critical analysis which is well-reasoned and supported (see all those citations?). What’s happening on the Court is an utter betrayal of our legal principles.
I loathe that I have to do this, because Will and I believe that people on opposite sides of the political spectrum can engage in meaningful and respectful discourse. This comment doesn’t qualify, and it unhesitatingly violates our principle of “dissent, with respect.” I’m once again being forced to limit someone’s speech because they can’t speak in an appropriate manner.
Blocked.
Another “conservative” incapable of the self-reflection he perpetually demands of others. Of course the “right” has never used the court to undermine the legislature.
He mad.