Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Governing Bar So Low You Could Trip Over It

BY MICHAEL S. JOHNSON | OCT 10, 2018

The Senate confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was a new low in American politics and jurisprudence. The bar was set so low you could trip over it.

Senators on both sides of the partisan divide thought so, too, and said so publicly. Senator John Cornyn of Texas said on the Senate Floor we could not take a lower road, because we were already on the lowest. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called it a new low in American history. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, said “both sides horribly handled the process around this nomination.”

Maine Senator Susan Collins, said we had reached ‘rock bottom’. Cover-up and whitewash, liar, con artist, the decline in decency were a few of the terms used to describe the participants and events.

There were breathtaking invasions of privacy, unspeakable expressions of anger and hatred, ugly protests and vicious death threats. Senator Cory Gardner revealed that his wife received a graphic text of a beheading after the vote. Kavanaugh’s wife received threatening emails with incredibly vile language. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford got the same treatment and ultimately was forced from her home because of threats. Continue reading →

The Incredible Shrinking Presidency

BY RICH GALEN
Reprinted from Mullings.com

Rare Opening SIDEBAR:

After it was reported that President Obama said in Africa, “I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker,” I Tweeted: “Hell, he didn’t even scramble jets to save a U.S. Ambassador.”

That was re-Tweeted 204 times as of 9 o’clock last night which counts as “Trending” at Mullings Central. If you’re not already, you should follow me on Twitter at @richgalen.

End Rare Opening SIDEBAR

The President is in Africa on a perfectly meaningless goodwill trip to somewhere and somewhere else while back here in our nation’s capital it was one of the most important weeks in the history of the Republic. Continue reading →

A Civil Conversation

BY JOHN FEEHERY
Reprinted from TheFeeheryTheory.com

George Zimmerman. Paula Deen. The Supreme Court. Immigration Reform. Can we have a healthy discussion about race and ethnicity in this country?

We are about to find out.

The media loves this stuff. It loves to pick at the scabs of racial animosity because that helps to sell newspapers, boost ratings, and drive web traffic. MSNBC will have wall-to-wall coverage of the Zimmerman trial. It is a constant feature in their daily and nightly shows.

The facts of the case are fairly routine. There was a scuffle and somebody got shot. It happens every day in America, usually multiple times a day.

Continue reading →

What Does ‘True Equality’ Mean Today?

BY FRANK HILL
Reprinted from TelemachusLeaps.com

The debate in the Supreme Court over marriage equality has certainly opened up the core essential debate we have had in America since the Founders founded this nation in Philadelphia in 1787, one of the epochal beginnings to any great civilization the world has ever known: ‘What is equality in 21st Century America today?’

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…..’ is the rallying cry that the Founders used from the Revolution of 1776 to underpin the US Constitution. Continue reading →

The Long Slog

BY JOHN FEEHERY
Reprinted from TheFeeheryTheory.com

Probably the best thing for Republicans would be for the Supreme Court to rule that gay marriage is legal and let us all move on, but I don’t think that is going to happen. The media is completely focused on the goings on at the nation’s highest court, as if there is nothing else in the world that matters. And that means I have to give my two cents worth.

It used to be that the prospect of gay marriage was a sure political winner for the GOP. Karl Rove worked with different groups to get referendums on various state ballots to help drive the Christian right to the polls, the theory being that if Christians went to the polls, they would vote for George Bush. Continue reading →

Waiting On Line

BY RICH GALEN
Reprinted from Mullings.com

From New York City

Someone decided that it was a good story to write about the people who are paid to wait in line (or, as we say in New York, “wait on line”) so that rich people can get a seat.

The issue at hand is the oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

There are only 50 seats available for the public during the arguments and, for reasons that are alien to me, 50 people want to go and be there.

Line holders are a long-time Washington tradition. Continue reading →

Momentous Supreme Court Decision

BY FRANK HILL
Reprinted from Telemachus.com

Well, no one saw that coming, did they?

Virtually every professional pundit said they ‘knew’ that the individual mandate would be overturned by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority today.

They got the 5-4 majority correct. They just didn’t envision Chief Justice Roberts siding with the 4 Justices appointed by Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama. On anything. Ever.

So what the heck happened and what does this all mean now for your health care; your taxes and our national budget deficits and economy? Continue reading →

Supreme Court Decision Threaded Needle

BY JOHN FEEHERY
Reprinted from TheFeeheryTheory.com

In many ways, it was a perfect decision.

John Roberts probably didn’t want to face the heat for destroying President Obama’s top legislative achievement. And the country probably couldn’t survive a Constitutional crisis that pitted the President vs. the Supreme Court.

But Roberts neatly threaded the needle by declaring the use of the Commerce Clause as an excuse to dictate to people to buy insurance unconstitutional, while acknowledging that Congress does have the power to tax, and that the mandate amounted to a tax.

This serves Republicans well, because if there is one thing that Republicans are good at, it is running against tax and spend Democrats. Continue reading →

Contempt is Holder’s Reputation

BY JOHN FEEHERY
Reprinted from TheFeeheryTheory.com

In 1821, the Supreme Court found in Anderson v. Dunn, that Congress’ power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was “… not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.”

Outside the power of purse, this is one of the most potent weapons the Congress has to assert its power over the Executive Branch.

Bribery of a Senator or a Representative used to be viewed as holding Congress in contempt. I could say something funny here, but I am going to let you draw your own conclusions.

The beauty and the weakness of our constitutional system is that the legislative and executive branches don’t always get along. Sometimes, the Congress wants to find out exactly what the President’s people have been up to, and sometimes the President doesn’t feel like sharing. Continue reading →

Court Campaign Decision a Whopper

BY GARY ANDRES

Many immediately proclaimed last week’s Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision as a huge win for business “special interests.” But those quick draw reactions are based more on ideology and political rhetoric than hard facts. While this latest change in the campaign finance landscape creates new options for both business and labor, it’s unclear if and how either side will use these new opportunities.

The Citizens United case overturns a variety of campaign finance laws enacted over the past century. For example, it nullifies part of a century-old statute known as the Tillman Act (1907), which barred corporations from using treasury funds to engage in the political process. It also vitiated similar prohibitions imposed on unions after World War II. Moreover, the decision invalidates part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) that prohibited certain types of ads within 60 days of a general election and 30 days from a primary. Bottom line: Both corporations and labor unions may now use their general treasury funds to pay for unlimited independent expenditures, including advertisements, for or against candidates at any time.

Continue reading →