US Supreme Court going Trump Rogue...why not?

I figured it out the other day. Conservative judges and justices who say they are strict constructionists are simply allowing themselves to throw out precedent setting cases and judgments based on the supposed intent of the founding fathers text in the Constitution. How else could you explain Justice Thomas’ reasoning on the use of cruel and unusual punishment on prisoners, where he felt the founding fathers didn’t intend the Eight Amendment to apply to them. Wow.

So it is today, contradicting courts across the country on Trump’s travel ban intended to target Muslims, the activist right wing court allowed part of the ban to be enforced until they could hear the case. You'll notice new Justice Gorsuch siding with Thomas and Alito...going with a religious ban? 

The Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the go-ahead Monday to begin enforcing part of the president's executive order restricting travel from six predominately Muslim countries. The court also agreed to take up the Trump administration's appeal of lower court rulings ... unanimous on granting the administration’s appeal. 

The only noted dissent came from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, who said they would have allowed the travel ban to be enforced in full. Because the Supreme Court will not hear the case until early October, the 90-day ban will likely have lapsed by the then. In that event, the case might then be dismissed as moot. But the administration would have succeeded in fully carrying out the executive order in the meantime.

Church and State Wall Tumbles: Those “Humpty Dumpty” conservative “strict constructionists” on the US Supreme Court are simply reinterpreting the Constitution. Can you reduce the wall of separation between church and state? Why not:

The Supreme Court reduced the wall of separation between church and state Monday in one of the most important rulings on religious rights in decades. The decision could doom provisions in 39 states that prohibit spending tax dollars to support churches. Monday's ruling said Missouri was wrong to exclude Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri from a program intended to help non-profits cover their gravel playgrounds with a rubber surface made from recycled tires. The church wanted to improve the playground at its preschool and daycare center.

No Precedent for Delaying Justice Nomination, No "Biden Rule." Republican keep on lying....

No better example of the right wing "bubble world" alternative reality than the fake "precedent" of never approving a justice nominee in a presidential year. They've been proven wrong so many times, and so many times they keep repeating it:

From today's PolitiFact came this revelation, with a picture:

As to Moore’s claim, we covered much of this ground in a March 2016 fact check when Ryan said: "There is a precedent" for not nominating someone to the U.S. Supreme Court "in the middle of a presidential election." We rated his statement False.

Now of course Republican laughing stock Joe Biden is so wise he's shaping their justice nomination policy around a comment he made some time ago:

Mitch McConnell cites non-existent clause in the “Biden Rule” as reason there will be no Senate hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland: The Senate Majority Leader said that the august body "will continue to honor the Biden rule," which doesn't exist

Who knew Biden still had this much sway in the Senate, especially with Republicans? McConnell's complete misreading of the "rule," which was nothing more than an observation, is something called "a Humpty Dumptyism." It predates the Biden Rule. It's "the practice of insisting that a word or sentence means whatever one wishes it to." 

I don't know how they did it, but they couldn't even get this one right. This is the "Biden Rule:"

Biden made an observation to the effect that if an outgoing president nominates someone before the summer of his last term in office, that person typically receives the Senate’s approval, but that if he or she is nominated during the summer, that person does not — meaning that McConnell even gets what could be called the “Biden Observation” wrong.

Republicans got the wrong impression somewhere along the way, that the people didn't decide that when they voted twice for Obama. Or they're just making it up as they go along. Did they forget?

Even after facing the inconvenient fact the "Biden Rule" is a power elite fiction made up by Senators, Republican true believers won't budge from their easy bubble world answer:

Alexander Hamilton's writings in The Federalist explained the "originalist" thought behind getting the Senates consent; basically trying to get politics out of the process:

To Hamilton the added advantage of providing “excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”

Scott Walker wonders why we didn't elect all 9 Supreme Court Justices?

There are nine justices Scott Walker, and they're not elected. Or are they judges...?

Walker: “Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’ ” 

Americans won't be happy if Hobby Lobby wins.

While D.C. Republican politicians insist on doing just the opposite of what the American public want, polling keeps telling them to wake up. Let's just say that if the conservative activist Supreme Court decides Hobby Lobby has the First Amendment right of religious freedom, there's going to be big trouble in this country. I've highlighted a new polls responses supporting employer provided birth control:

Most Americans support the Obamacare provision requiring employers to provide birth control coverage for their workers at no additional cost, according to new polling conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), and don’t believe that corporations should be able to claim religious liberty exemptions to get out of this policy.

6 in 10 Americans believe that both publicly held and privately owned corporations should be required to follow Obamacare’s birth control provision ... even in the cases of religiously affiliated institutions, like colleges and hospitals. Churches shouldn’t have to offer copay-free birth control.

The Journal of the American Medical Association found even stronger majority ... 7 in 10 respondents said that companies should cover the full cost of contraception in their insurance plans.

Another poll found that two thirds of female voters hope that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood lose their Supreme Court case. PRRI has consistently found that most religious Americans are supportive of expanding birth control coverage, too.

How many Americans would be affected?

About 14,000 workers are employed at the two companies that are currently seeking to eliminate coverage for birth control prescriptions and counseling … more than 70 other companies also sued over this Obamacare provision, and likely wouldn’t hesitate to remove contraceptive coverage if the ruling goes their way.

Research has also shown that ensuring women have access to the pill helps them invest in their careers and remain in the workforce. 

Gay Marriage Arguments from Supreme Court.

I put together a bunch of clips making the argument for gay marriage:

Americans Concerned about Romney Influence on Supreme Court.

I'm impressed! Americans have figured out how important the presidency is when it comes to who's on the U.S. Supreme Court:

Poll: Americans Fear Romney Would Further Shift Supreme Court Toward Big Business

Survey finds high court is a significant factor for voters … A newly released Hart Research Associates poll found that the Supreme Court is a significant factor for voters in the upcoming election. 

It found that 63 percent of all voters, and more than half of independent voters and presidential “swing” voters, say the issue of who will serve on the Supreme Court is an important consideration in their vote this year … a full 54 percent worry that Romney will nominate justices who will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans.

In contrast, voters believe that Obama is more likely to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” And they believe President Obama is much more likely to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” The voters surveyed were also concerned about Romney’s opposition to Supreme Court decisions favoring women’s rights, including Roe v. Wade … Indeed, 59 percent of all voters, and 62 percent of swing voters, say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.

The Justice John Roberts Flip!

Here's the story on Justice Roberts last minute reversal, and his resistance to the conservative members to change his mind. The reaction to Roberts decision shows how conservatives nationwide expect this court to be, and their alright with that.



According to Think Progress, there might be a problem with leaked information:

To be clear, at this point only two facts are confirmed: 1) According to Crawford, Roberts flipped his vote midstream; and 2) someone within the Court must have leaked her this information. It is perfectly appropriate for Justice Kennedy, or any other justice, for that matter, to internally lobby Roberts to try to obtain his vote in an important case. If a member of the Court has turned to conservative columnists like Will or reporters like Crawford in order to pressure and then embarrass Roberts, however, that would be a significant and unusual escalation from the justices’ regular tactics.

Authoritarian Tea Party Losers now Whine, have Temper Tantrum, call for Armed Revolution.

The right wing is pissed. So much for accepting the final word of the conservative activist supreme court. Only a few laws should not be questioned, the ones they like, but the Affordable Care Act...?

Check out this outrageous response, and the America they see:

The former spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party sent out an email that questioned whether armed rebellion was justified over the Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare. Matthew Davis, an attorney in Lansing, sent the email  with the headline: “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?” Davis added his own personal note saying, “… here’s my response. And yes, I mean it.”

“There are times government has to do things to get what it wants and holds a gun to your head," Davis said. "I’m saying at some point, we have to ask the question when do we turn that gun around and say no and resist.

"Was the American Revolution justified?”

“You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously,” Davis said. “Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation.”

Here's the whole letter. Know what we are dealing with as a nation from the radicalized right wing majority, a group that's just a hair away from repealing 2 centuries of progress. 

  Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?

Implicit in Benjamin Franklin's fabled response at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention was a dire warning: That the Republic would one day devolve into tyranny unless we the people prevented it.

In 2008, we the people elected Barack Obama as president, and the 100-year progressive trek to tyranny begun in 1912 with Woodrow Wilson's election was complete. It cannot be said too many times — for the purposes of emphasis and clarity — that the Constitution was possible ONLY AFTER the American Revolution; and that the war itself would not have been possible without the collective agreement, as so eloquently articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that the course of human events will sometimes justify one group of people to sever themselves from their oppressors.

In other words, America itself was possible only after its people summoned the will to risk their lives and their futures — as well as those of their children — for a freedom they did not enjoy but knew was their gift from God. Along with their desire to be free came their willingness to engaged in armed rebellion for their freedom.

If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified?

God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired.

Activist Conservative Supreme Court Ends Union Free Speech.

Citizens United allowed both corporations and unions to contribute money to campaigns, part of their "free speech" rights. But they decided to change that. Unions now have some new conservative court barriers put in place. This just ended labors influence. That might sound good to those twisted enough to be against labor, those workers who spend money supporting our economy, but in the end they and the rest of us are screwed.

Rachel Maddow couldn't have said it better:

After Montana Campaign Law Struck, Can we Finally say, "This is a radically activist conservative Supreme Court?

Here's Ed Schultz with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer on the activist Supreme Court's reversal of their 100 year old law. This really is the end of democracy as we know it, and the beginning of a new "Investment State."



I don't usually include pundit comments, but this time E.J. Dionne added a few things I've been saying here for years. This is authoritarian conservative elitism on steroids:

We've got a radically activist conservative Supreme Court legislating from the bench.

The media has fallen down on the job again. With all their 5-4 decisions, on highly controversial laundry list Republican issues, how could we as a nation not be talking about their activism? 

Especially now when a national health care plan is about to offend every small government Republican in the country, even though its not a government run program. Here's a great article from the Daily Beast tracing the historical nature of this court: 

We've heard conservatives say many times that the Warren Court overreached, legislated from the bench, and divided America. It’s typically called the most controversial court in American history … But the numbers tell a very different story. Even though Roberts has reigned on Maryland Avenue for just seven years as opposed to Earl Warren’s 16, the Roberts nonet (more accurately, quintet) has issued far more aggressive and in-your-face 5-4 rulings on controversial and high-profile cases and done far more to divide the country. I don’t know what they’ll do on health care, but they already deserve to displace the Warren Court in the controversy sweepstakes.

First I looked at (seven) representative and major Roberts Court decisions in hot-button issue areas.

Race: Parents v. Seattle & Meredith v. Jefferson, also known as the Seattle/Louisville desegregation case. The Court ruled that local school districts basically couldn’t do anything to ensure racial diversity in their schools.

Abortion: Gonzales v. Carhart upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

Campaign finance: Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission, which prohibited restrictions on many independent expenditures; also McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, which weakened key provisions of the McCain-Feingold law.

Equal Rights: Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which made it harder for (female) employees to sue employers on equal-pay grounds.

Free Speech: Morse v. Frederick, the so-called Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, in which the court limited free-speech rights of students.

Punitive Damages: Philip Morris v. Williams overturning an Oregon court’s smoking-based award to one ex-smoker.

(ALL) Seven of them were 5-4 decisions. Exactly the same five in the majority, and exactly the same four in the minority. Then I went back and looked at eight historic hot-button Warren Court rulings. In fact, of the eight, only one was a 5-4 ruling.

Once Roberts and Samuel Alito hit the bench, the Federalist Society clock started ticking loudly: We’ve got our five now, boys, and we don’t know how long we’ll have them, so let’s get moving. Desegregation? Boom, 5-4! Equal pay? Bang, 5-4! Campaign finance? Zap, 5-4! And so on. The express point has been to radically remake society, without a hoot of concern about whether it was being done by five or seven or nine.

In fact, to most conservatives, if a decision infuriated the Court’s four liberals, so much the better. Some might argue here that I’d better just face the fact that the country has gotten more conservative … America has if anything become more liberal than it was 40 years ago. So no, we’re not “more conservative.”

The main thing that changed is that rabidly right-wing billionaires started throwing many millions of dollars into politics, forming and funding groups like the Federalist Society, which have managed to assert their will.

And so: If we get a 5-4 ruling against the Affordable Health Care act or any part of it, this is the context to keep in mind. It will be another in a series of ferociously ideological one-vote-margin decisions from the court that we do not need history’s perspective to decide is far and away America’s most ideological.

Matching Public Funding an Unconstitutional Infringement of Private Free Speech Money?

The Nation's Chris Hayes is right when he said the biggest non-covered story was the Supreme Court decision declaring matching public funding unconstitutional.  In a twisted, contorted explanation, the Roberts court said the matching funds were an infringement on the free speech rights of private contributors. This takes the partisan activist decision of Citizens United, and heaps nonsense and lunacy on top to see if anyone is paying attention.

The Chilling Acceptance of Corporate Person Hood.

Doesn't anybody else get that empty gut feel that something is terribly wrong, when an on the paper creation, like incorporation, creates what is considered by law a "person?" A super person who will never die, and can't be locked up for being a danger to society.

Here's the Wyoming ad to attract business:

"A corporation is a legal person created by state statute that can be used as a fall guy, a servant, a good friend or a decoy. A person you control...yet can't be held accountable for its actions. Imagine the possibilities." 

Amazed? I know I am. Here's the whole story from Rachel Maddow that really drives the corporate person hood nightmare home.

Another Activist Supreme Court Decision on Free Speech: You have more of it if you have...Money!!!

So in summary; conservative Justice Thomas is taking gifts from clients before his court, and not reporting it; conservative Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser is threatening two women Justices; both courts have majority conservative activist justices, and now:

CNN: The Supreme Court has tossed out an Arizona law that provides extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups. A conservative 5-4 majority of justices said the law violated free speech, concluding the state was impermissibly trying to "level the playing field" through a public finance system.Arizona lawmakers had argued there was a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups.

Think about it; matching campaign funds doesn't prevent the other side from spending as much "free speech" as they want. This does not limit free speech. But in one of the more down the rabbit hole statements yet, Justice Roberts wrote:

The Constitution, the chief justice wrote, does not allow the state to "increase the speech of some at the expense of others."

This decision blatantly tells us all one thing: Some people have more free speech rights than the others.

Just how much Conservative Activism is allowed in our Courts? For lawless Republicans, it's not even a question.

Here's the latest on the most corrupt, partisan and bitterly angry Justice Clarence Thomas. This guy should be gone. Cenk Uygur and Rachel Maddow expose the ethically challenged Supreme court and its silent activist cancer.



Here's a followup:

Federal Judge Says Health Reform Constitutional, "Passive" is an affirmative action, a choice to do nothing.

Wow, this federal judge explained it so simply. Health care reform is now ahead 3 to 2, with the constitutionality of it pretty much settled...right. Judge Kessler called it a game of semantics.  It's like me deciding (taking action), not to pay my energy bill. I didn't lift a finger, but it doesn't mean I don't need heat or electricity or that I won't ever have to pay for it. TPM:

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the health care reform law … and found that Congress had the clear authority to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's 64-page ruling (below) takes aim at the argument espoused by many conservatives which holds that the passive act of not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an activity that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause. 

"It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice," Kessler writes. "Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality." 

Kessler, however, rejected the argument that Congress had the authority to enact the Affordable Care Act under the General Welfare Clause because Congress "did not intend [the law] to operate as a tax." 

The Justice Department welcomed the ruling, which was the "third time a court has reviewed the Affordable Care Act on the merits and upheld it as constitutional," a spokeswoman said in a statement.

Conservatives and Tea Party Americans Politicization of the Courts an Affirmation of their Convictions.

Why don’t conservative voters rebel against one party rule once their party is in complete control?

Why don’t small government Republicans protest state laws mandating people buy car insurance?

Why don’t constitutional conservatives oppose changes to the constitution?

Why would tea party believers in the “people’s government” want to take away the people’s ability to make their own future choices by enshrining laws in state constitutions?

Why didn’t the tea party movement protest enshrining “corporate personhood” in our constitution?

Why aren’t Republicans and tea partiers outraged over a Supreme Court Justices wife becoming an influence peddling lobbyist for “free enterprise and other core conservative issues?”

NY Times: The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas … is rebranding herself as a lobbyist and self-appointed “ambassador to the Tea Party movement.” She promised to use her “experience and connections” to help clients raise money and increase their political impact ... she was looking forward to a new role involving “lobbying on Capitol Hill.” 

Why aren’t conservatives worried about the politicization of the judicial branch of government when Justices speak at political gatherings?

Common Cause, a liberal group that has been critical of potential conflicts at the Supreme Court caused by Ms. Thomas’s work, said her new position, combined with Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent address before a closed-door seminar of the Tea Party Caucus, provided further evidence of “the politicization of the court. The level of bias we’re seeing is really troubling.”

Why are conservatives troubled by liberal bias, but not troubled by right wing conservative bias?

Why? Because conservative political influence is an affirmation of their convictions. Liberalism questions their authority and leadership. 

Or put another way, “their sh*t don’t stink.” 

Rights for Women not specifically in Constitution. Joan Walsh Has a Message for him.

Ed Schultz and Joan Walsh:

Michele Bachmann, the Constitution, Republican speakers, and Justice Scalia. Nothing Partisan about classes on the Constitution?

Think about it: A Constitutional course for new Republican House members, put together by that wacky extremist, Michele Bachmann. Wow, what an idea.

What's even more interesting; The Supreme Courts most "impartial" Justice, Antonin Scalia will be a participant. Do appearances mean anything to anybody anymore? Ed Schultz gets the scoop from the Nation's John Nichols.

Conservatives destroy judicial branch of government, just what the founding fathers would have wanted.

The grossly misnamed “Constitutional conservatives” continue to move toward a fictionalized version of our founding document, all the while portraying themselves the great protectors of our countries heritage.

NY Times: An unprecedented vote to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state was celebrated by conservatives as a popular rebuke of judicial overreach, even as it alarmed proponents of an independent judiciary.

The outcome of the election was heralded … as a national demonstration that conservatives who have long complained about “legislators in robes” are able to effectively target and remove judges who issue unpopular decisions. Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

They really are that dumb? The three branches of government are supposed to be independent...checks and balances...oh what the hell.

But critics of the campaign said the politicization of uncontested judicial elections represented a danger. “What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. “Something like this really does chill other judges.”

From its first decision in 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court demonstrated a willingness to push ahead of public opinion on matters of minority rights, ruling against slavery, school segregation and discrimination decades before the national mood shifted toward racial equality. Conservative groups this year launched similar campaigns in a number of the 16 states that use merit selection, targeting supreme court justices for rulings on abortion, taxes, tort reform and health care … all re-elected.

Protesters who claim judges who make “unpopular” decisions are "legislators in robes" are actually creating just that:

Joseph R. Grodin, a law professor who was one of the three California judges who lost a re-election bid. “But more than that,” he continued, “I think the damage is not on judges, but that courts will come to be seen and judges will come to be seen as simply legislators with robes.”

The judges declined requests for interviews but released a statement that decried what they called “an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.” The statement defended the system for selecting judges but offered what a veiled warning about populist impulses to remake the judiciary: “Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.”

“A lot of time we start in the courts because they’re there to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority,” said Carolyn Jenisen, executive director of One Iowa, an organization supporting gay rights, “Because they’re there to make tough decisions without regard to popular opinion.”

Related articles

• Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Signal to Bench (nytimes.com)


• Iowa voters boot three state supreme court justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage (hotair.com)