Now that’s just not fair. The Bride of Frankenstein isn’t a villain, she’s a victim!
7 Likes
I agree with the rest strongly enough that this is not tough for me. And though I never thought I’d support adding more justices, if it DOES goes through AND Dems control both congress and the presidency, I think they should add six justices, not two.
4 Likes
And then next time Repubs control things, they’ll add 10, and so on. It’ll never end.
The Judicial Crisis Network is the flip-side of the Federalist Society.
https://trashpanda-x.github.io/darklantern/#Judicial%20Crisis%20Network
3 Likes
They very well might try to do that. Which is why every effort should be made to also advance statehood for PR and DC and also roll back GOP voter suppression efforts.
The Trump/McConnell GOP has made it its business to break the institutions of government. Those institutions aren’t going to be saved (or salvaged) by compromising with McConnell if/when the Dems control Congress and the Executive–they will be saved by throwing the GOP out of national power at every possible opportunity and preventing them from seizing it again.
The GOP knows very well it cannot maintain national power in anything resembling a truly representative republic. This is now (and has been for some time, contrary to the understanding of Democratic leadership) a battle to determine whether we will be a representative republic or not.
Fuck and yes. They should go for six, and “compromise” on adding four, with an absolute line of adding no fewer than two. If they go in hat in hand thinking two is their best case scenario, they’ll “compromise” for an expired Quiznos frequent diner card and a wedgie from Chuck Grassley.
5 Likes
Also, getting a handful of constitutional amendments rolling, directed at altering the power of the Senate and eliminating the Electoral College would not go amiss.
I remember an alarming discussion from several years back suggesting that a significant number of states had signed on to the idea of a new constitutional convention, which is the other Art. V-approved method of proposing amendments. I am not finding that discussion quite so alarming now.
EDIT:
Go for EIGHT, compromise on adding SIX, with an absolute line of adding no fewer than FOUR. Adding two just means anti-women justices will have a 6-5 majority instead of a 6-3 majority.
3 Likes
She’d still rule against humans.
At first I read this headline as
“Barron is Trump’s Supreme Court pick” and I thought “yeah, seems about right”.
4 Likes
Naw, that’s assuming a woman would rule “against men” just because she’d bring a different perspective to the bench.
For all we know the Bride of Frankenstein would turn out to be a powerful force for the equal rights of Reanimated-Composite-Americans.
3 Likes
Hey, anyone else remember that time a Supreme Court Justice died in office a full nine months before the election, and the Republicans kicked up a huge stink about how it wouldn’t be fair for Obama to appoint a new nominee in an election year?
3 Likes
The framers were pretty clear that America was intended to be an ongoing work in progress – something to be continually improved and built upon. Not something forever stuck in the mores of 1787. This whole idea of originalism is just yet another way to justify regressive policies and halt progress.
I’m more hopeless than ever now. I can’t even imagine what kind of awfulness the next few months will bring forth.
11 Likes
It’s official. We’re screwed.
11 Likes
and let’s be clear, none of the judges trump has placed on the federal courts are in any way surprising. any mainstream republican president would have appointed any of 200+ federalist society cultists. if mccain had been elected in 2008 he’d have appointed much the same kind of judges trump has, if romney had beaten obama in 2012 he would have appointed more or less the same kind of judges. this isn’t an example of trumpian ruthlessness, this is just mainstream republican ruthlessness. this is why we have to fight so hard against republican voter suppression to elect democrats and then fight to make our democratic legislators and president follow through.
What is happening with ginsburg, what has happened with all the judges since justice garland was not allowed to get a hearing, all of it is just standard, mainstream republicanism. the republican party has turned into a death cult and must be burned to the ground. if the united states needs a conservative party then let a new one be formed out of the ashes of this remorseless, radical, reactionary party that has developed since nixon resigned. as execrable as nixon was he would not have had a place in the republican party that reagan replaced nixon’s party with.
9 Likes
This assumes the elections aren’t rigged from the start.
4 Likes
Or that they are.
2 Likes
Just after the civil war. And then, they were cast aside as part of a “compromise” to get Rutherford B Hayes into office. Though honestly, if Tilden had won outright, it might have amounted to the same thing.
What confuses me is that she is supposedly part of this barefoot pregnant in-the-kitchen subservient-to-the-husband sect, and at the same time she’s likely to be a Supreme Court justice. These positions aren’t compatible. It just doesn’t work. I can only believe that she’s not an ardent believer, or at least that she’s willing to ignore principles sometimes.
1 Like
There are plenty of active anti-feminists out there. Phyllis Schlafly was one of the first and loudest, but others have carried on In the same vein over the decades. It’s like a mega-church pastor extolling his flock to follow jesus, while at the same time telling them to fund his new jet.
3 Likes
One of the most distasteful elements of the U.S. Republican Party’s mad scramble to squeeze in a new Supreme Court justice before Election Day is the little glass dish of women lawyers and judges it is offering up like toothpicked olives, or better, mixed nuts.
We don’t yet know Trump’s pick. Of those mentioned, there’s Barbara Lagoa — “I’ve heard incredible things about her,” Trump says — recently appointed judge Allison Jones Rushing, Amy Coney Barrett, and others.
It is the weaponizing of femininity to crush women. It is misogynist to the most cynical degree in a party that has made cynicism its central pillar — no to considering Obama court nominee Merrick Garland, but yes to replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and I hope we never see it so savagely practised in Canada.
When male judges are mentioned, American reporters provide a brisk list of professional qualifications. With the women, readers are told how many children she has birthed.
7 Likes
