The Courts and Dark Money (ACB nomination)

[RunInRed 16,360]

Wow, if you don’t watch anything else from this week's hearings, this 20 minutes is worth your time ...

 

[homersapien 11,353]

That was a damning indictment of our judicial system - it's already corrupt.

• Unlimited dark money in politics
• Diminishment of civil juries
• Weaken regulatory agencies on behalf of polluters
• Voter suppression / gerrymandering / disproportionate representation

Presumably - assuming the Democrats assume control of the senate - all of this issues can be addressed legislatively.  But what good are legislative remedies given a partisan, 6-3 SCOTUS?

This is why I would support Biden "packing" the SCOTUS.  I think we are at a tipping point.  As this presentation proves, our system is already corrupt.  We need to overturn the effects of dark money in our government, starting with overturning "Citizens United". 

This may be our last chance.  I hope Biden has the balls to do it.

 

[homersapien 11,353]

Republicans have seen the enemy: Democracy

Opinion by

Paul Waldman

Columnist

Oct. 13, 2020

 

Brace yourself while I paint a picture of a nightmarish future. It’s one in which every American gets to vote without impediment or inconvenience. Where the presidential candidate who gets the most votes actually moves into the Oval Office. Where bills in Congress are debated and then voted on, the side with more votes prevails, then those laws take effect and the public can judge the results.

This is the terrifying political hellscape the Republican Party is determined to prevent. For a party with a dwindling base and a broadly unpopular agenda, there is no more profound threat than democracy.

In the first day of questioning in Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, she gave no indication that she will be anything but an enthusiastic participant in their effort to hold it back.

Following the spectacularly disingenuous blank-slate strategy of all Republican nominees, Barrett insisted that she has no relevant beliefs about the Affordable Care Act, the duly enacted law Republicans are asking the court to strike down, or any other law for that matter. “I can’t make any prior commitments” about whether she’d side with the GOP in its deranged lawsuit seeking to have the ACA nullified. “It would be inconsistent with judicial independence.”

And Barrett was asked: Would she commit to recuse herself from disputes over this election, given that the president has basically said she must be confirmed to help him steal it? She would not.

Every Republican watching surely nodded in satisfaction.

But Republicans see another threat, that a future Congress and president — perhaps even next year — might add more justices to the Supreme Court. Many liberals support this idea, not only because Republicans reduced the number to eight in 2016 and then increased it back to nine once President Trump took office, but also because the highly ideological conservative supermajority Barrett will solidify has been assembled even though Democrats won more votes in six of the past seven presidential elections.

So in Barrett’s confirmation hearings and a hundred cable news appearances, Republicans are raising the alarm. As Sen. Ben Sasse says, doing his best faux-outrage, expanding the court would be “the suicide bombing of two branches of government,” and “It’s grotesque” that Joe Biden won’t take a firm stance on whether at some future point he might support such a move (Biden says he’s “not a fan” of the idea, but that still leaves the possibility open).

Are Republicans being hypocrites on this question? Of course they are; back in 2016 many of them suggested that they might hold open one or more seats for an entire presidential term if Hillary Clinton won the election.

But there’s something more important going on than mere hypocrisy. Right now the bulwarks of Republican minority rule are under profound threat. This election they could lose both the presidency they won despite losing the popular vote, and the Senate which they control despite the fact that millions more Americans voted to be represented there by Democrats. Should that happen, the Supreme Court will be all they have left at the federal level.

Their minority rule has never been in more peril than it is right now.

And they’re counting on that Supreme Court to issue rulings that make it possible for them to retake power despite their minority status, by solidifying partisan gerrymandering, validating voter suppression and inhibiting the government’s ability to protect voting rights — and strike down laws passed by Democrats.

It’s all on the line for Republicans. Which is why they’re so freaked out about the idea of Democrats expanding the court.

Republicans know that they have a real advantage in that debate, which is that the elite media hold Democrats to a very different standard. Journalists simply accept that Republicans are shameless and ruthless — that they will trample any norm and break any tradition if it gives them an advantage — as the way things are.

On the other hand, when Democrats even contemplate playing hardball, they can expect to be hounded and scolded until the process question blocks out every other consideration. But here’s the problem: If one side breaks all the norms and the other side respects them, the norms lose all meaning. They don’t create a civil situation or a well-operating legislature. They’re just a shackle constraining one party but not the other.

Furthermore, sometimes you need the threat of norm-breaking to retain a system where norms mean something. Right now, Republicans obviously don’t fear any punishment for their own actions. So Democrats have to make a credible threat to retaliate, or they’ll just keep getting walked over.

That applies to the court itself as well. With a 6-3 majority, the conservative justices will be tempted to go hog-wild, not just nullifying the ACA and overturning Roe v. Wade, but invalidating any meaningful law a Democratic-led Congress would pass, dismantling the administrative state, striking down the rest of the Voting Rights Act, rubber-stamping discrimination against gay Americans, making it impossible for unions to operate, eliminating all campaign finance regulations, forbidding the government from regulating the environment, and who knows what else.

But the justices should have in their minds that if they do that while Democrats still control the presidency and Congress, four seats could be added to the court and there would be a 7-6 liberal majority.

Which would be at least a closer reflection of the will of the public — especially since, if Biden wins in November, Democrats will have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections.

I couldn’t put it better than Sen. Lindsey O. Graham did this week on Fox News:

If we lose the House, the Senate, and the White House, they’re going to change the rules of the Senate, Maria, so you only need a majority. Anything coming out of the House sails to the Senate. They’re going to expand the court from nine to whatever number they need to make it liberal. They’re going to abolish the electoral college, which means New York and California pick our president. They’re going to change America.

Imagine how awful it would be if “you only need a majority” to pass a bill! And the idea that the 59 million Americans who live in New York and California would actually have their votes matter in a presidential race as much as people who live in Wisconsin or Florida? The very thought makes Graham want to retch.

This is what Republicans fear. Democracy is pounding on their door, and they’ll do anything to stop it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/13/republicans-have-seen-enemy-democracy/

 

Just Do It.  Pack the court and don't look back.  Get unlimited dark money out of our political system and reestablish majority rule.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

Wow does this guy’s taco hurt.  He is about 95% wrong about all he is ranting about.

[RunInRed 16,360]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Wow does this guy’s taco hurt.  He is about 95% wrong about all he is ranting about.

Tell us more ... 

[TexasTiger 12,811]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Republicans have seen the enemy: Democracy

Opinion by

Paul Waldman

Columnist

Oct. 13, 2020

 

Brace yourself while I paint a picture of a nightmarish future. It’s one in which every American gets to vote without impediment or inconvenience. Where the presidential candidate who gets the most votes actually moves into the Oval Office. Where bills in Congress are debated and then voted on, the side with more votes prevails, then those laws take effect and the public can judge the results.

This is the terrifying political hellscape the Republican Party is determined to prevent. For a party with a dwindling base and a broadly unpopular agenda, there is no more profound threat than democracy.

In the first day of questioning in Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, she gave no indication that she will be anything but an enthusiastic participant in their effort to hold it back.

Following the spectacularly disingenuous blank-slate strategy of all Republican nominees, Barrett insisted that she has no relevant beliefs about the Affordable Care Act, the duly enacted law Republicans are asking the court to strike down, or any other law for that matter. “I can’t make any prior commitments” about whether she’d side with the GOP in its deranged lawsuit seeking to have the ACA nullified. “It would be inconsistent with judicial independence.”

And Barrett was asked: Would she commit to recuse herself from disputes over this election, given that the president has basically said she must be confirmed to help him steal it? She would not.

Every Republican watching surely nodded in satisfaction.

But Republicans see another threat, that a future Congress and president — perhaps even next year — might add more justices to the Supreme Court. Many liberals support this idea, not only because Republicans reduced the number to eight in 2016 and then increased it back to nine once President Trump took office, but also because the highly ideological conservative supermajority Barrett will solidify has been assembled even though Democrats won more votes in six of the past seven presidential elections.

So in Barrett’s confirmation hearings and a hundred cable news appearances, Republicans are raising the alarm. As Sen. Ben Sasse says, doing his best faux-outrage, expanding the court would be “the suicide bombing of two branches of government,” and “It’s grotesque” that Joe Biden won’t take a firm stance on whether at some future point he might support such a move (Biden says he’s “not a fan” of the idea, but that still leaves the possibility open).

Are Republicans being hypocrites on this question? Of course they are; back in 2016 many of them suggested that they might hold open one or more seats for an entire presidential term if Hillary Clinton won the election.

But there’s something more important going on than mere hypocrisy. Right now the bulwarks of Republican minority rule are under profound threat. This election they could lose both the presidency they won despite losing the popular vote, and the Senate which they control despite the fact that millions more Americans voted to be represented there by Democrats. Should that happen, the Supreme Court will be all they have left at the federal level.

Their minority rule has never been in more peril than it is right now.

And they’re counting on that Supreme Court to issue rulings that make it possible for them to retake power despite their minority status, by solidifying partisan gerrymandering, validating voter suppression and inhibiting the government’s ability to protect voting rights — and strike down laws passed by Democrats.

It’s all on the line for Republicans. Which is why they’re so freaked out about the idea of Democrats expanding the court.

Republicans know that they have a real advantage in that debate, which is that the elite media hold Democrats to a very different standard. Journalists simply accept that Republicans are shameless and ruthless — that they will trample any norm and break any tradition if it gives them an advantage — as the way things are.

On the other hand, when Democrats even contemplate playing hardball, they can expect to be hounded and scolded until the process question blocks out every other consideration. But here’s the problem: If one side breaks all the norms and the other side respects them, the norms lose all meaning. They don’t create a civil situation or a well-operating legislature. They’re just a shackle constraining one party but not the other.

Furthermore, sometimes you need the threat of norm-breaking to retain a system where norms mean something. Right now, Republicans obviously don’t fear any punishment for their own actions. So Democrats have to make a credible threat to retaliate, or they’ll just keep getting walked over.

That applies to the court itself as well. With a 6-3 majority, the conservative justices will be tempted to go hog-wild, not just nullifying the ACA and overturning Roe v. Wade, but invalidating any meaningful law a Democratic-led Congress would pass, dismantling the administrative state, striking down the rest of the Voting Rights Act, rubber-stamping discrimination against gay Americans, making it impossible for unions to operate, eliminating all campaign finance regulations, forbidding the government from regulating the environment, and who knows what else.

But the justices should have in their minds that if they do that while Democrats still control the presidency and Congress, four seats could be added to the court and there would be a 7-6 liberal majority.

Which would be at least a closer reflection of the will of the public — especially since, if Biden wins in November, Democrats will have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections.

I couldn’t put it better than Sen. Lindsey O. Graham did this week on Fox News:

If we lose the House, the Senate, and the White House, they’re going to change the rules of the Senate, Maria, so you only need a majority. Anything coming out of the House sails to the Senate. They’re going to expand the court from nine to whatever number they need to make it liberal. They’re going to abolish the electoral college, which means New York and California pick our president. They’re going to change America.

Imagine how awful it would be if “you only need a majority” to pass a bill! And the idea that the 59 million Americans who live in New York and California would actually have their votes matter in a presidential race as much as people who live in Wisconsin or Florida? The very thought makes Graham want to retch.

This is what Republicans fear. Democracy is pounding on their door, and they’ll do anything to stop it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/13/republicans-have-seen-enemy-democracy/

 

Just Do It.  Pack the court and don't look back.  Get unlimited dark money out of our political system and reestablish majority rule.

Lindsey’s a lying demagogue. It would take an amendment to end the electoral college. As bad as it is, it ain’t likely to change. America will dissolve first.

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

2 hours ago, RunInRed said:

Tell us more ... 

Appears to still be outraged over Garland. 

 

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

This may be our last chance.  I hope Biden has the balls to do it.

He will do as instructed assuming he can win... 

Democratic nominee Joe Biden on Friday said that voters don’t deserve to know if he would attempt to pack the Supreme Court if he wins in November and Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the high court.

 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Lindsey’s a lying demagogue. It would take an amendment to end the electoral college. As bad as it is, it ain’t likely to change. America will dissolve first.

That's my concern. 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

He will do as instructed assuming he can win... 

Democratic nominee Joe Biden on Friday said that voters don’t deserve to know if he would attempt to pack the Supreme Court if he wins in November and Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the high court.

 

 

I seriously doubt Biden said that.  Where exactly did that characterization come from?  You didn't attribute it.

[homersapien 11,353]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Appears to still be outraged over Garland.

Perhaps he's honestly concerned about the effect of dark money on our judicial nomination process.  

After all, that's what his presentation was about.  He said nothing about Garland,the process used by Obama used to nominate him, or why McDonell refused to even give him a hearing. 

But the original question was specifically asking where were the lies or untruths in his presentation?

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I seriously doubt Biden said that.  Where exactly did that characterization come from?  You didn't attribute it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/10/biden-says-voters-dont-deserve-to-know-stance-on-court-packing/#356cf6f57aac

TOPLINE

 

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Friday during an interview with KTNV, a local ABC affiliate in Las Vegas, that voters “don’t deserve” to know his stance on expanding the Supreme Court, 

[creed 1,629]

Hopefully Ms. Barrett didn't have to sit through this because it was wasting her time. And since he brought up the puppet theatre who is pulling his strings? He's entitled to his opinion but it was probably the wrong forum for expressing those opinions. He should have been asking specific questions about  Ms. Barrett's judicial approach.

[homersapien 11,353]

23 minutes ago, creed said:

Hopefully Ms. Barrett didn't have to sit through this because it was wasting her time. And since he brought up the puppet theatre who is pulling his strings? He's entitled to his opinion but it was probably the wrong forum for expressing those opinions. He should have been asking specific questions about  Ms. Barrett's judicial approach.

Nonsense.  It was entirely appropriate for him to bring up the process that is determining SCOTUS nominees.  In fact, there's no better time. 

And he was presenting facts, not opinions.  One can reach their own opinions based on those facts.

[creed 1,629]

That's fine just wrong forum in my opinion. Ms. Barrett didn't need to present, unless she agreed, for his speach.

[homersapien 11,353]

10 minutes ago, creed said:

That's fine just wrong forum in my opinion. Ms. Barrett didn't need to present, unless she agreed, for his speach.

Not sure I follow that reasoning. 

Seems to me that a hearing for a SCOTUS is the perfect place to reveal the role of dark money and the relationships of those organizations who are using that money to create and promote the nominee in question.

I suspect Ms. Barrett is perfectly aware of the process that got her nominated.  If not, she certainly should be.

[jj3jordan 2,040]

I guess it's impossible to think that she is a great judge, well qualified, and will be a superior justice.  

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

Cory Booker has pulled the race card out and has bet the house on it.

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps he's honestly concerned about the effect of dark money on our judicial nomination process.

 I was referring to the author of your opinion article. Tried to watch Whitehouse and opted out after 3 minutes. Have watched as much of the hearings as possible. Not much there other than dems politicizing the process

.https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/12/amy-coney-barrett-hearings-democrats-say-confirmation-will-destroy-affordable-care-act/#18cc8964a521

ACB is impressive. Kudos to President Trump for the nomination

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

 I was referring to the author of your opinion article. Tried to watch Whitehouse and opted out after 3 minutes. Have watched as much of the hearings as possible. Not much there other than dems politicizing the process

.https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/12/amy-coney-barrett-hearings-democrats-say-confirmation-will-destroy-affordable-care-act/#18cc8964a521

ACB is impressive. Kudos to President Trump for the nomination

Saltyyyyyy.  How much longer do you think until Ichy face palms himself to death?

[1716AU 728]

12 hours ago, creed said:

That's fine just wrong forum in my opinion. Ms. Barrett didn't need to present, unless she agreed, for his speach.

It's the right forum, and it was aimed at her.  This is why the Federalist Society wanted her so badly.  She is, just like Kavanaugh and especially Gorsuch, a proven shill for Oligarchs and Corporations.

 

[creed 1,629]

5 hours ago, 1716AU said:

It's the right forum, and it was aimed at her.  This is why the Federalist Society wanted her so badly.  She is, just like Kavanaugh and especially Gorsuch, a proven shill for Oligarchs and Corporations.

 

Okay, so it was aimed at her for the purpose of generating what result? In judicial hearing terms what was the ROI? 

[1716AU 728]

4 hours ago, creed said:

Okay, so it was aimed at her for the purpose of generating what result? In judicial hearing terms what was the ROI? 

I think, for the first time, a Democrat wanted the people to understand why the Republicans want to pack the court, and why Centrist Dems like Schumer and Pelosi, and Biden are not worried about it. I am as blown away as you that it was the fella that did it myself.  (Please believe me when I say that I do not like Democrats and I absolutely despise Republicans.) Republicans are just following their marching orders, and centrist Democrats are marginally better.

But EVERYWHERE Barrett has sat, she has found in favor of Corporations, every time, with only ONE exception.  EVERYTIME. To think that she will change because of this is really Pollyanna.  It has not changed Gorsuch, and it has not changed Kavanaugh. You might think that you have an anti-abortion judge in your corner, if you are Right Wing, but if it will effect corporations and the oligarchs, she will find their way, every time. Just like Gorsuch. Trump is actually under the false impression that they need him, but he is waaaaaaaay wrong on this one, and the polls are indicative of that.

The average American doesn't pay attention to that, especially the average Republican voter.

.  

 

[creed 1,629]

46 minutes ago, 1716AU said:

I think, for the first time, a Democrat wanted the people to understand why the Republicans want to pack the court, and why Centrist Dems like Schumer and Pelosi, and Biden are not worried about it. I am as blown away as you that it was the fella that did it myself.  (Please believe me when I say that I do not like Democrats and I absolutely despise Republicans.) Republicans are just following their marching orders, and centrist Democrats are marginally better.

But EVERYWHERE Barrett has sat, she has found in favor of Corporations, every time, with only ONE exception.  EVERYTIME. To think that she will change because of this is really Pollyanna.  It has not changed Gorsuch, and it has not changed Kavanaugh. You might think that you have an anti-abortion judge in your corner, if you are Right Wing, but if it will effect corporations and the oligarchs, she will find their way, every time. Just like Gorsuch. Trump is actually under the false impression that they need him, but he is waaaaaaaay wrong on this one, and the polls are indicative of that.

The average American doesn't pay attention to that, especially the average Republican voter.

.  

 

Thanks for the reply.

I guess I'm naive, I was expecting to tune-in and get a better sense of how she would handle certain judicial situations or get her thoughts on certain aspects of law (roe versus wade) and found I was getting a lecture on dark money. So I moved on to something else.

 

[homersapien 11,353]

18 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

 I was referring to the author of your opinion article. Tried to watch Whitehouse and opted out after 3 minutes. Have watched as much of the hearings as possible. Not much there other than dems politicizing the process

.https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/12/amy-coney-barrett-hearings-democrats-say-confirmation-will-destroy-affordable-care-act/#18cc8964a521

ACB is impressive. Kudos to President Trump for the nomination

I was referring to Sen. Whitehouse.  (But thanks for admitting you really don't know what you are talking about.) 

I would also point out that the problem of dark money in our political system is one that occurs on both sides.  It started with Citizen's United and won't end until it's revoked, which is not something ACB will be inclined to do.  I personally think it's one of the greatest threats to our democracy.

I have no problem with ACB personally.  But her elevation to the SCOTUS will be a huge win for corporate interests and the "have nots" in our society as opposed to the "haves".  We shall see.

My immediate problem is with the process, which I think has greatly damaged the country's political integrity and contributed to further polarization.  

[homersapien 11,353]

3 hours ago, 1716AU said:

I think, for the first time, a Democrat wanted the people to understand why the Republicans want to pack the court, and why Centrist Dems like Schumer and Pelosi, and Biden are not worried about it. I am as blown away as you that it was the fella that did it myself.  (Please believe me when I say that I do not like Democrats and I absolutely despise Republicans.) Republicans are just following their marching orders, and centrist Democrats are marginally better.

But EVERYWHERE Barrett has sat, she has found in favor of Corporations, every time, with only ONE exception.  EVERYTIME. To think that she will change because of this is really Pollyanna.  It has not changed Gorsuch, and it has not changed Kavanaugh. You might think that you have an anti-abortion judge in your corner, if you are Right Wing, but if it will effect corporations and the oligarchs, she will find their way, every time. Just like Gorsuch. Trump is actually under the false impression that they need him, but he is waaaaaaaay wrong on this one, and the polls are indicative of that.

The average American doesn't pay attention to that, especially the average Republican voter.

.  

 

What was it, 80 - 0 in rulings for corporations vs. the "little" guys?

Our judicial system has always favored the rich.  This will only accelerate it.

(I guess that since all MAGAs are rich, they are OK with that. )