These warnings not to mess with the Courts show the kind of fear that only comes from knowing you've overplayed your hand and you're on the precipice of losing. https://t.co/WOM6mgChFu
— Ilyse Hogue (@ilyseh) September 18, 2021
Alexandra Petri, at the Washington Post, remains a national treasure:
Every Speech that Supreme Court Justices Have Given for the Past Few Weeks, If You Replaced ‘Is the Supreme Court Becoming Increasingly Partisan and Losing Its Credibility as an Institution?’ With ‘Does the Supreme Court Have a Rodent Problem?’
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: Hi. Thank you for coming to the speech. I hated how the majority of the court all brought mice to work last week and released them from their sleeves. They should not have done that. It was wrong. I am mad any time I see a mouse, which keeps happening more and more in the court where I work. I know a lot of you say, “The Supreme Court has a rodent problem,” but — I don’t think so. I would hate it if we had a rodent problem. Every mouse is regrettable, but I don’t think one or two or even seven individual mice or, on occasion, a vole, translates to a rodent problem.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett: A lot of people think the Supreme Court has a rodent problem. A lot of people see a pack of mice running around the highest court in the land and climbing up people’s robes and doing what looks like fun mouse parkour, and they say, “That looks like a problem.” I don’t think it’s a problem, though. I think, “Those are some pretty talented mice!”
Justice Clarence Thomas: It would be very sad if the Supreme Court were filled with mice all the time, mice who made such a continual racket with their feasting and carousing and carrying-on that it was impossible for us to hear the arguments that were being made in front of us and we had to simply decide them based on our priors. But that is not happening, obviously.
Justice Barrett: There is a difference between having a rodent problem and individual justices bringing their mice with them to work every day and releasing them into the courtroom. You may look at the situation and say, “If the courtroom is always full of mice, what is the difference, exactly?” but I think there is a big difference. One is a problem; the other is a philosophy. [Releases a mouse from her sleeve.] Have fun out there today, Matthias.
Justice Thomas: A rodent problem is institutional. It would destroy us. I will not let that happen, and neither will the capybara I am bringing to work in a fancy little collar so he looks like he is also a justice…
What’s interesting too is that this charm offensive is entirely aimed at NPR liberals and the center-left. Folks on the right know the score and they’d be pissed to find out otherwise.
— Oboe (@EoboOboe) September 18, 2021
Never forget that their desire to hold onto power necessitates making the majority feel powerless to change the status quo. The essence of organizing is being able to see past that and do the hard work to manifest change anyway.
— Ilyse Hogue (@ilyseh) September 18, 2021
bbleh
And just out of curiosity, since when have contemporary Republicans shown much genuine concern for governmental institutions when there is a political or ideological battle to be won or money to be made?
I mean, they’re perfectly comfortable with sacrificing the lives of large numbers of their own constituents and supporters…
lollipopguild
With these people everything is projection.
Villago Delenda Est
The Federalist Society needs to be made persona non grata in the entire judiciary branch.
Kent
@Villago Delenda Est: The Federalist Society is a distraction. We would probably be in the same place without them. Plenty of other conservative groups would step up to “vet” judges. It is entirely about control of the Senate and White House. Nothing else
Personally I think Obama should have just gone ahead and seated Merrick Garland and announced through executive order that if the Senate refuses to take up his nominee then consent is to be presumed. If they object then they need to vote him down.
Unfortunately they didn’t bother playing hardball because they thought Clinton had it in the bank and would just appoint a younger and more liberal alternative.
azlib
Petri is a jewel. The revanchist on the Supreme Court are running scared. They know they overstepped. By reacting the way they did they are showing they are pretty politically tone deaf. Looks to me like the repeal of Roe v Wade wil be another Dred Scott decision.
Another Scott
They’re shameless and they’re very bad at gaslighting. They’ll find out how bad they are during the Women’s March on October 2.
In other news, …
Thread.
tl;dr – Beware Safari (apparently) doesn’t have real tabs any more. It has buttons that load URLs (apparently).
Be careful out there.
Cheers,
Scott.
James E Powell
What’s depressing is that it is certain to work on NPR liberals, the center-left, and the Beltway Courtiers.
Lyrebird
@azlib: I hope you and Ms. Hogue are correct!!!
And thanks AL, the Petri column is phenomenal.
piratedan
Just goes to show that while you may be a “legal expert” in the eyes of some, it doesn’t mean that you can lie effectively and not have people know that you’re completely full of shit.
Just Chuck
These institutions have either already been destroyed, or deserve to be. Either way they need to be replaced.
Winston
So which of these are your favorites?
https://youtu.be/Z8SYtmvEI9U
https://youtu.be/2Vv-BfVoq4g
https://youtu.be/qt_OkgSOrkU
If alien species are hell bent on the way to destroy us will they listen to our music first?
James E Powell
As far as I can tell, the FTFNYT does not consider the memo showing Trump’s plan to overturn the election to be nearly as big a deal as Hillary Clinton’s failure to follow best practices in email server management.
James E Powell
@Winston:
They’ll get Chuck Berry before they get any of those. Or at least that was the plan.
If we were sending out another Golden Record, what song or artist would you want to be on it?
Ksmiami
@Villago Delenda Est: in the whole country… ban them
piratedan
@James E Powell: i guess it depends… you want something representative or something inspirational? will just throw something out there as an example… Ray Charles version of “I can’t stop loving you “
VeniceRiley
History will record them as muthfookin fascists that hastened the planet’s demise.
Winston
@James E Powell: Well, I would like it to be one of those. Of course the list could be much longer and I hope it would include:
https://youtu.be/zLmFEIksvh8
https://youtu.be/cAu3a7CMA84
C Nelson Reilly
@James E Powell: I’m afraid you’re right
Omnes Omnibus
@Winston: If we want to live, we have to speak a language they can understand.
Poe Larity
Every Dem State legislature needs to start passing 100’s of these laws and call them “Texas Law” or “Abbot Laws”. Please add to my example:
– Any gun owner whose weapon has been stolen or used in a crime can be sued by any citizen for $10K for failure to secure their weapon
– Any owner not operating a vehicle in compliance with emission regulations can be sued for $10K by any citizen
– Any state, federal or contract employee not in compliance with vaccine regs can be sued for $10K by any citizen
Justice Thomas would find his real job right quick.
Kay
They go to these events and places where no one will ask them any real questions because their work– the opinions they write and the decisions they hand down – can’t even be defended in terms of their “judicial philosophy”.
“Originalism” doesn’t mean anything. It has absolutely no connection to the work they produce. It exists solely in these speeches and in Right wing legal theory. They spend all their time defending it in speeches because no one can locate it or define by reading their actual work- the opinions and orders. If it actually existed as a coherent, definable and recognizable legal framework that informs their work they wouldn’t have to promote it in front of (uniformly) friendly audiences who aren’t permitted to ask questions – the opinions and orders would stand by themselves. They don’t.
Danielx
@Poe Larity:
These ideas have merit….
Just Chuck
@James E Powell: Freebird!
prostratedragon
@Another Scott: Sometimes I hate that using software has me at the mercy of programmers and programming cycles. I use the VLC media player. This last new version has found that sweet spot where most of the desirable features and functionality that was useful in the previous version is now broken, but it’s still better (on my platform at least) than any alternative, so I have to use it anyway.
danielx
@Kay:
Well, it could be defended if they could actually say out loud that their “judicial philosophy” is that their decisions and orders are means to a desired end, the which is the defense and promotion of the political and economic interests of a certain group of people. But they don’t have to say it because their audiences know the whole speechmaking routine is kayfabe anyway.
It’s a philosophy, all right, but “judicial” is not the word I would use to describe it.
In the meantime, the house is burning down and Breyer is gravely concerned over what flavor of water might be used to put it out, at some point in the oh so indefinite future.
Winston
@Omnes Omnibus: Whales are trying.
Kay
I am just so, so tired of being ordered to respect incredibly powerful and privileged people.
I don’t think that is how respect works. If they’re not getting it, has it occurred to them that perhaps they are not earning it? When did it become the duty of the public to prop these people up and reassure them that their work is good, that they’re principled, that they’re not hacks? They’ll never be removed. We’re literally stuck with them for their lives. In addition to paying their salaries we also have to constantly reassure them that we agree with their own high opinions of themselves?
I’m not persuaded. I don’t have to go along. Barrett and Thomas cannot demand that I buy into their fantasy about the quality of the work they churn out. I don’t owe them that. If the public gives them a C- that’s the fucking grade. They can’t whine at us until we give them the A+ they think they’re entitled to.
NotMax
@Kay
If the Founders were “originalists” they wouldn’t have appended the Bill of Rights.
Steeplejack
@Another Scott:
That whole @darth thread is funny.
Edmund Dantes
@Kay: not to mention originalism fails because the reconstruction amendments re-wrote large aspects of how the Constituion works and is applied to its states and people.
Winston
@Winston: Also. Gimme Shelter, It’s just a shot away. But their coming with the virus, probably. Best version ever; https://youtu.be/6yGFuX2KDQs
Edmund Dantes
@Edmund Dantes: which is also why there is a non fringe belief in right wing law that the reconstruction amendments don’t count or aren’t even part of the constitution.
HumboldtBlue
@Kay:
The originalist argument dies with 3/5ths of Thomas.
Just Chuck
@NotMax: If they were “originalists”, we would still be a colony.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
One of the things that strikes me about this piece of shit Texas law is it will mean pretty much the end of gynecologists in Texas since assholes will just file harassment lawsuits arguing that the Gyno might be doing abortions in secret, fishing for a big pay off.
oldster
“Alexandra Petri, at the Washington Post, remains a national treasure:”
Seconded!! She’s f’ing brilliant, and this is a good example of it.
The Moar You Know
@Kent: the deadly lassitude of the last year and a half of Obama’s presidency is something that I’d like historians to look at. I have no good explanation for it; it’s not like they didn’t know what they were dealing with vis-a-vis the GOP – the Republican bastards made their intent and feelings perfectly clear in the first few weeks of the Obama administration. Nor do I believe Obama was such a dedicated fan of “bipartisanship” that he didn’t understand the problem. Nor do I believe for a second that they thought Hillary was a slam-dunk. The very idea is ludicrous. Americans were very well trained to hate Hillary, they surely knew that.
J R in WV
My Wife and I use Firefox browser, partly because it’s the one I know how to handle best. But really, the latest set of changes are terrible, change for the sake of making it smell like ME ME ME!
One example. There has always been a search bar in the middle of a newly opened tab. Gradually they have made that search tool more flexible, now you get to pick any one of several search engines, some of which are real and some of which will never find what you are looking for. And now, when you start typing in the search bar, you are actually typing up on the address bar, where Firefox will decide whether you want ot go to an address you typed, or search for the terms you typed.
So the big search bar in the center of the screen is totally wasted space, it isn’t used for anything. Everything happens up in the address bar at the top of the window… SAD !! Who dreamed that up, and why weren’t they told to shut up about that stupid pointless non-functional code and image???
And Chromium browser means every thought you have at your computer is owned and operated by Google, where “Go Do Evil” has relpaced “Do no Evil” as a corporate slogan.
And Safari only works on Apple tools. Nope. Apple runs on Unix / Linux but it is so well concealed and walled away you can’t even tell it’s in there. Shame they didn’t give back to the open source community as required, they just took it and ran away with it.
Steeplejack
@J R in WV:
Maybe some people need the visual cue: “Oh, here’s where I do a search.” But when have browsers ever had great design?