Right Wing Donor Groups are 80-0 in the SCt courtesy of C.J. "Balls & Strikes" Roberts

Since the Republicans have been cheating by not confirming judges and not considering bills I am ALL for the dems hitting back hard.

DD

 

It'll be a messaging issue that Dems are terrible at.

 

It's a one hour read, but Senator Whitehouse's brief will become more relevant on what needs to be done to undo Robert's slow methodical decay.

Only posting the methodology.
https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/...-about-the-integrity-of-todays-supreme-court/

I then looked at the 78 cases to see which ones implicated interests associated with the Republican Party. These interests fall into four categories: (1) controlling the political process to benefit conservative candidates and policies; (2) protecting corporations from liability and letting polluters pollute; (3) restricting civil rights and condoning discrimination; and (4) advancing a far-right social agenda. Let’s review these.

First, political control: conservative interests seek to control the political process by giving their corporate, and often secret, big-money benefactors more freedom to spend on elections. This, in turn, helps them drown out opposing voices, manipulate political outcomes and set the agenda in Congress. For proof of this dynamic, look no further than how the Court’s decision in Citizens United proved the death knell for climate change legislation in Congress. Before that fateful decision, which lifted restrictions on corporate spending in candidate elections, Congress had held regular, bipartisan hearings and even votes on legislation to limit the carbon emissions causing climate change. But Citizens United allowed the fossil fuel industry to use its massive money advantage to strike at this bipartisan progress, and it struck hard. The fossil fuel industry set its political forces instantly to work, targeting pro-climate-action candidates, particularly Republicans. Outside spending in 2010's congressional races increased by more than $200 million over the previous midterm's levels—a nearly 450 percent increase.[7] Bipartisanship stopped dead.

Second, protection from courts and regulatory oversight: powerful corporate special interests can become accustomed to disproportionate sway in Congress, where they enjoy outsized influence through political spending and lobbying. With government regulators and in federal courtrooms, this type of influence should make no difference. Some regulators are not captured by the industries they oversee and use the power Congress has given them to protect public health and safety. In courtrooms, corporations may find themselves having to turn over documents that reveal corporate malfeasance. They may find themselves having to tell the truth. And they lose their influence advantage; they may even find themselves being treated equally with real people. In response to this corporate frustration, the Roberts Five have made it harder and harder for regulators and juries to hold corporations accountable.

Third, the Roberts Five are making it harder for people to protect their individual rights and civil liberties. In this group of cases, the conservatives reflect an elitist world view that corporations know best; that courts have no business remedying historical discrimination; that views and experiences outside the typically white, typically male, and typically Christian “mainstream” are not worthy of legal protection. Over and over, the Roberts Five have found ways to make it harder to fight age, gender, and race discrimination.

Finally, there are the “base” issues—abortion, guns, religion—that Republicans use to animate their voters. Republicans promise a Supreme Court that will undo reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and protections for women’s reproductive health, and they use this promise to drive turnout in elections. In this group of cases, the Roberts Five have invalidated federal and state laws, acting as a super-legislature to achieve by judicial fiat what Republicans cannot accomplish through the legislative process.

Seventy-three of the Roberts Five’s 78 partisan, 5-4 cases fall into one of these four categories. In other words, in cases where no other justice joined the conservatives in a 5-4 decision (or in nine cases a 5-3 decision), 92 percent delivered a victory for conservative or corporate donor interests.

The pattern is unmistakable and troubling. What makes it all the more troubling is how often the conservatives abandoned so-called “conservative” judicial philosophies to reach the desired outcome. Members of the conservative wing had assured senators at their confirmation hearings that they would simply “call balls and strikes,”[8] “follow the law of judicial precedent,”[9] and respect the “strong principle” of stare decisis as a limitation on the Court.[10] Once confirmed, they discarded these doctrines when they proved inconvenient to the outcomes the Roberts Five desired. Even the pet conservative doctrine of “originalism” was ignored when necessary. And doctrines about modesty and respect for decisions by elected members of Congress collapsed. In fact, as the Appendix at the end of this Issue Brief catalogues, in nearly 55 percent of the 73 cases, the conservative majority disregarded one or more of the following judicial principles: (1) precedent or stare decisis; (2) judicial restraint; (3) originalism; (4) textualism; or (5) aversion to appellate fact finding.

II. Conservative Outcomes
A. Controlling the Political Process to Benefit Conservatives
Of the Roberts Court’s 73 partisan 5-4 cases, 13 put a thumb on the scale to favor Republicans at the ballot box, by facilitating the flood of dark and corporate money into the political process, by restricting the ability of citizens to vote or have their votes matter, or by working to undermine labor unions, a traditional base of Democratic support.

Four of these 13 cases—FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Davis v. FEC, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC—systemically decimated both the historic Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold or BCRA) and prior Court precedents limiting corporate spending in elections.[11] BCRA was first introduced in 1995, and in the Senate, despite dogged opposition by now-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the bill passed on a 59-41 vote in 2001. Reformers in the House had to resort to a rarely used “discharge petition” to overcome opposition from House leadership and force a vote on the bill, and both chambers finally agreed on legislation that was signed by President George W. Bush in 2002. BCRA was a bipartisan effort by legislators solving problems pragmatically, based on their own experiences as candidates.

The first challenge to BCRA...​

 

I watched the entire video. That’s a really good presentation.

It really is frustrating, and it feels like the little guy is almost helpless against the big dogs. It also feels like a lot of people who vote Republican are just being used by the high and mighty.

At this point I have no problem with the Dems fighting fire with fire.

 

If the Democrats dont do it, then the people will.

 

Dems are ****ing p*****s . There’s a reason people don’t vote for them, hate trump all you want he’s a pos but he gets stuff done like this. His base is loving it while Dems are too busy playing the white knight or above the belt . You do what it takes to win, I don’t sympathize with the Democratic Party tbh. Being nice won’t get you anywhere, you have to be effective and strong.

 

The problem is the kids are growing up and voting, this country will be a socialist democracy before you know it...and the Republicans WILL NEVER recover.

DD

 

I am in favor of Term limits for the Supreme court, 18 years.....we start now, but if they have been there over 12 years this is their last 6...or something.

DD

 

The kids are also much more educated than their parents. Instead of taking Tucker Carlson at his word they actually research whether or not socialized healthcare would be an improvement over our current system.

Like women’s suffrage, civil rights, gay marriage, on and on the US always lags behind but gets there eventually. We will get universal healthcare it’s just a matter of when.

If the GOP continues to offer nothing but cut taxes and status quo they will slowly die.

 

I am not sure if packing the court is the answer but if dem take the presidency and the senate, the very first thing Biden should do on Jan 2nd is nominate merrick garland. The hypocritical pearl clutching from "the elections have consequences" party would be glorious.

 

Its a given they would have to expand the court to nominate Garland. But I am just not sure expanding the court to 13, 15, like others have suggested is the right path forward unless the idea is that the gop will never take control again.

But I can also see the counterpoint that even if dem don't take it to the extreme and pack the courts, there is no indication that gop will not use the next time they are in control to power grab anyway citing this "precedent". I guess, 137 supreme court justices it is....

One thing is certain tho, there has to be some type of retribution by dem for this blatant hypocrisy and lack of integrity. Not only did mcconnell not think twice about doing this, he did an end zone celebration with his speech Sunday.

 

But Trump is the Dictator? It doesn't matter what you guys post, the hypocrisy in these posts is something a 10 year old could figure out. You'll regurgitate the same BS articles, from the same biased sources and claim all this junk as facts.

You loose -it's crying and lets change the rules. There are plenty of socialist and commie countries, why not move? Or easier yet, go to California or any other majority democratic run state. You don't want to live in the greatest country in the world under a Constitutional Republic? Move, there are plenty of people trying to get out of their Commie shitholes and come here.