General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo far, my friend's been right: The judiciary IS holding!
"The Judiciary branch is strong and WE. WILL. HOLD"
A few weeks ago, a dear old friend, a Republican-appointed federal judge, trying to console me during a moment of despair about the future of our country, said to me The Judiciary branch is strong and will hold. When I expressed skepticism, he leaned toward me, looked me dead in the eye, and said as firmly as he could without shouting: We are strong and WE. WILL. HOLD.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212113242
Roland99
(53,342 posts)usaf-vet
(6,092 posts)IMHO MoscowMitch has already bent the curve toward it coming out to be an extreme right-wing court.
The MoscowMitch effect.
One stolen seat (Merrick Garland's) and one bought seat given to an extreme right-wing judge who might very well be a sexual predator if his accusers were to ever get a fair hearing.
soldierant
(6,647 posts)and I attribute that directly to his concern about his "legacy" - or the "legacy" of the "Roberts Court." I also think it possible that he can be reached through that concern.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212729000
Excuse the shameless self promotion, please.
usaf-vet
(6,092 posts)As to approaching Roberts, I agree that it might help. I have no idea if it would be legal or not. But I like the idea.
soldierant
(6,647 posts)NCLefty
(3,678 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)OliverQ
(3,363 posts)corrupt, unqualified judges McConnell has approved.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)either at the trial or appellate level, to date?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)While there are, I suppose, various ways to charitably characterize the court granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the Daniels contract case, the $300K which Avenatti managed to have awarded to Trump in the defamation was an unqualified legal victory for Trump and a completely predictable own-goal by Avenatti against his own client (whom, it turns out, he was robbing).
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210560930#post23
Add to that count the previous defamation case of Cheryl Jacobus v. Donald Trump which Trump won, and which was predictive of the outcome in Daniels' case if Avenatti had ever been inclined to, you know, do legal research.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)budkin
(6,688 posts)Its Trump's court now.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Supreme Court Justices owe him nothing. They have lifetime appointments and don't owe him a thing.
budkin
(6,688 posts)They would not be there were it not for him.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The saving grace of selfish dickheads is that you can count on them to be selfish dickheads.
Sure, he appointed them. But if they don't do anything for him, that's just tough shit for Trump.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,021 posts)kudos to Stinky The Clown: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212466681
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2019, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Remember that he was George W. Bush's lawyer. GWB hates Trump. Kavanaugh now no longers owes anything to the Dumbass-in-Chief.
During Watergate, Nixon also banked on his appointments to SCOTUS voting for him in US v. Nixon (aka the Tapes Case). None of them did.
I was talking to one of my children today about CJ Roberts. I told my child that I cannot imagine that he would allow the Supreme Court to side with Trump on outright stonewalling of Congress by the President. That would result in the immediate destruction of the three co-equal branches of government in the US.
Then again, what do I know!
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)and I wouldn't put it past him to make legal decisions based on that old and honored precedent: owning the libs.
Farmer-Rick
(10,072 posts)Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
ad nauseam
Farmer-Rick
(10,072 posts)The Genealogist
(4,723 posts)What a shameful mark on this country to have a person like that on its highest court.
Farmer-Rick
(10,072 posts)To indispensable positions in government.
A democracy by its nature must put breaks on capitalism to prevent the abuse of citizens unlucky enough to be born without capital. To keep the filthy rich capitalists from taking away everything from everyone with less capital, a government must put restrictions on the richest. And a democracy is designed to do just that.
But filthy rich capitalist don't want that. So, they try to drown and kill democracy. It's not just our government the filthy rich want to destroy. They want to be rid of democracy all together.
That's why shorty Putin and the GOP fit like hand in glove. The filthy rich, who control the GOP, also want to be rid of democracy. That's why the GOP repeats Shorty Putin's talking points at every turn. They have the same goal...End Democracy.
Each corrupt perv they assign to indispensable positions in government, the closer they get to destroying democracy.
budkin
(6,688 posts)Never thought of it like that!
Kaleva
(36,145 posts)They were given the big pay out without having to do anything for Trump. If they go against Trump, there's not a damn thing he can do about it
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,268 posts)"Owing" something means an obligation to return a favor or a benefit. But if you have a lifetime appointment you aren't under an obligation to reward the person who gave you the job by doing something for them. Trump's appointees are traditional conservatives; they are pretty much Scalia clones, and I can just about guarantee that even Scalia wouldn't buy much of Trump's bullshit. Constitutional originalists like Scalia, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, reading the Constitution strictly and literally as they are likely to do, are just as likely to shoot down the DoJ's crazy arguments in favor of complete presidential immunity from everything as Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, if on different grounds.
certainot
(9,090 posts)fox can't do nearly as well. linmbaugh can attack a judge in ways fox hoists can't andd he can do it over and over till they and their relatives get threats
when he was attacking christine blasey ford for 6 weeks (like anita hill - ignored by dems/liberals) he even named the location/town of her parents to help the dittoheads/trump base narrow it down.
he will do that to this recent judge and will do it to the supreme court to help push any fence sitters to the right side
amywalk
(254 posts)themselves with their criminal behavior. Justice Kennedy gave up his seat so that his son wouldnt be in trouble. He works for Deutsche Bank and gave the Trumps and Kushners a billion dollar loan that saved his ass. This was a criminal conspiracy between Trump, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kavanaugh, Kushner and whoever paid his debts off. I feel like this will eventually come out as most things like this do. It doesnt mean they will be punished, but a girl can dream, right?
kag
(4,076 posts)Starts with "P" ends with "utin"? What're the odds?
"a girl can dream, right?"
Oh, what a dream this girl has...sigh.
DENVERPOPS
(8,677 posts)And of course their is the whole Gorsuch owing to was it roberts or kennedy that resigned to open the way for Trump/Gorsuch, to reward him for his son the banker taking care of Trump via the son as his personal banker when no other bank in U.S.would lend Trump money, etc.....
two decades ago I was telling people that the Republicans were intent on appointing all their federalist friends to all the appellate court at an incredible rate. The were slowed down a little bit during Obama, but not much. Now Moscow Mitch is setting records for Senate approval of their Republican Judges across the land........
WASF
amywalk
(254 posts)Get rid of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They must be impeached. They were illegitimate and installed under false pretences and must be thrown out. Along with a whole other slew of judges.
last single thing should be wiped out without exception or court challenge. Including installing Hillary Clinton as President.....
SCantiGOP
(13,855 posts)The history and majesty of the highest court impacts everyone who serves. No one wants to know that their grandchildren may read about how dishonorable they were in acting as a political hack.
Very few here thought Roberts would be the fifth vote to put gay marriage under the protection of the Constitution so people like McConnel and religious zealot county clerks could never interfere with it again.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Kaleva
(36,145 posts)"Kavanaugh was most closely aligned with Roberts, a conservative who takes more incremental approach to moving the court to the right. Kavanaugh voted with Roberts 94% of the time, the highest level of agreement among any two justices, according to Feldman.
The fact he stuck so closely to the chief is probably the most notable feature of his jurisprudence, said Nicole Saharsky, a lawyer who practices before the court.
That may suggest Kavanaugh shares Roberts concerns about the importance of the courts reputation as an independent branch that can rise above partisan politics, Saharsky added."
https://www.srnnews.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh-delivered-the-goods-for-conservatives-3/
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)If he believes that, he shouldn't be there at all.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Depending on what you believe Trump's "world view" to be.
Sure, that could mean a lot of things in cases involving civil liberties, commercial regulation, and a lot of other things.
But cases like this, involving broad assertions of presidential power, even at the expense of the judiciary itself, are not as predictable on the notion of a shared "world view". If that "world view" comprises "I have power and I'm not going to accept limits on it" then you can actually count on the court not to surrender power so easily to another branch of the government.
This, somewhat indirectly in the specific framing here, gets down to a question of how much power the courts would have in similar future circumstances.
That's kind of what I mean by you can count on selfish dickheads to be selfish dickheads. The structure of our system actually relies, to a certain extent, on there being selfish dickheads in it who will, at a minimum, jealously guard their own power.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)the rest of the ignorant masses. so in the case of the scotus majority, it wouldn't be a surrender of power, but affirmation of who has the legitimate right to power.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)They are also, fortunately, arrogant selfish dickheads.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)them.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,268 posts)as one of three equal branches of the government. They'll back away from clearly legislative decisions but they won't permit the executive to piss into their tent.
DENVERPOPS
(8,677 posts)that is until their 5 justice republican vote in 2010 for citizens united or whatever it was called that opened the floodgates of Corporate and Foreign election donations being allowed........If you ask most americans, they wouldn't even know anything about that totally corrupting decision.........
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,268 posts)Trump isn't anything of the kind.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,268 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)while the court is definitely conservative, I don't see them lying down for an all powerful unitary executive - I would expect that any claims of blanket immunity would lose 7-2 or 8-1, possibly even 9-0 if Roberts pressures the holdouts (Kavanaugh and Thomas?)
catbyte
(34,169 posts)Some of his rulings have indicated that he still values the rule of law and his legacy on the Court. I hope I'm not giving him too much credit.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)Don't worry about giving him too much credit. Most people do it. He easily looks nice, but he's as activist a conservative as SCOTUS has had.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)malaise
(267,798 posts)Fuck Don the Con and his enablers
ancianita
(35,812 posts)if ANY appeal gets a certoriari by SCOTUS.
As he goes, so the others will, so that the ruling will be unanimous.
But I doubt any appeal case will get a certoriari, because the arguments are stupid, by appeals justices opinions, so far; and because SCOTUS justices (I hope) know that the rest of the well argued and written precedent rulings preclude their listening to any appeals brought forward at all, at this point.
Roberts will just go sit there in the Senate, say and do nothing, hide his pleasure over the Senate exoneration of Trump. And the Repub traitors will know how he feels.
It will be just the way he presided over the prepping of the team that argued Gore v Bush before SCOTUS in the 2000 presidential.
I hold John Roberts as activist as any justice in US history.
Bush and Roberts fucked this country over.
And here we are in this sickening, toxic place with democracy in chains.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)To agree with them would be to accept the permanent legacy of simply surrendering to stupid arguments.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)That alone will keep them clear of this political process that's being well decided by appeals court judges already.
If they ignore those arguments, the whole judicial branch will go down to fascist corporatism. It can give corporate politics an unfair control of seating at the election table, but it can't allow corporatism to ignore the Constitution.
TalenaGor
(1,103 posts)And so far so good!!
in2herbs
(2,942 posts)strong because we have to rebuild the country, not restore it. It's been too ravaged to restore, IMO.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)ancianita
(35,812 posts)an eye on judiciary politics.
It was Republican Sandra Day O'Connor who was INCENSED over the Florida Supreme Court ruling to conduct an entirely new statewide recount. And things got rolling.
I'll never trust the judiciary to have commitment to the Constitution, but they know they will have to at least give the appearance of having consciences to shock.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,268 posts)with the possible exception of Thomas. He was a knee-jerk Nixonian conservative who had worked as Nixon's WH counsel and had never been a judge, and without exception that I can think of, always ruled for a corporation vs. an individual, the police vs. an accused person; and didn't seem to believe in civil rights much at all. He was also an arrogant dick who had a special robe made for himself with gold stripes on the sleeves. IIRC, O'Connor later regretted her decision in Bush v. Gore, which was probably the worst decision since Dred Scott - at least until Citizens United.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)AND finally realized that the alleged ruling by SCOTUS in 1886 never addressed corporate personhood, contrary to what corporate lawyers have been arguing ever since.
538 gives a look at everyone we know of but Rehnquist. Roberts's conservative vote record looks even worse than Alito's.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-roberts-has-cast-a-pivotal-liberal-vote-only-5-times/
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,268 posts)He criticized the notion of corporate constitutional rights, but on the ground that he thought the application of the 1st Amendment to the states via the 14th were limited, and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the 14th. Eventually he did endorse the right of corporations to spend in elections.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)And he as much as gave in to O'Connor's expecting the court to rule on Gore v Bush, when she made it clear that she wanted to retire, but would not under a Democratic president. With Bush's re-election in 2005, I think she retired then. Rehnquist died and then Bush had two nominees put in.
As Roberts' reward for prepping the Gore v Bush legal team, Bush then appointed Roberts to Chief Justice. Ugh.
warmfeet
(3,321 posts)AJT
(5,240 posts)ancianita
(35,812 posts)sheshe2
(83,324 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Caliman73
(11,690 posts)I do think that Trump and McConnell have created a situation for the future, appointing judges that the Bar considers unfit to serve and who are ideologues, but those are not the judges who are holding major positions right this second. I do think that who we have on the bench, be they Reagan and Bush appointees, are conservative, but not completely blinded.
Sure, put a business case in front of them and they'll rule for business, but as far as believing in the Unitary Executive, that was a pipe dream of Nixon and his ilk (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Barr, etc...) and never really caught on with the judiciary.
Good to see you Effie! Hadn't seen you around much lately.
H2O Man
(73,308 posts)barbtries
(28,702 posts)either refuses to hear it or upholds the decision i'm skeptical. and afraid.
bucolic_frolic
(42,661 posts)If judges ruled that some or all Congressional subpoenas could be ignored, every lawyer and crook would look for ways to overturn all subpoenas. It would be bad for business, chaotic, and shake civilization to its foundation.
I think SCOTUS may side with Trump on tax returns, but I don't see much elbow room for the concept of subpoenas.
Subpoenas are why we have the Fifth Amendment. You have to show up, but you can refuse to incriminate yourself.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I believed that and have been proud of how resilient our government has been. But the corruption is much farther along than I think even the most sophisticated observers realized before this, and our system of checks and balances has failed, even if it turns out to be not completely broken. Who would have believed both Republican congressional caucuses would turn traitor? Unbelievable. And the highest courts are mostly still to be tested.
...and release. Our. Courts. Will. Hold.
Gratitude for that belief.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)abomination I have thought...JHC are there no sane reps in House..in Senate, in the Military, in the DOJ, in the SD..I worked for the govt in DC...there are so many fine, honest, admirable, intelligent people. Too many to let the monster win.
Amaryllis
(9,523 posts)in light of all the right-wing judges Turtle has been pushing through. Curious if your friend has anything to say about that?
Response to EffieBlack (Original post)
MFGsunny This message was self-deleted by its author.
OliverQ
(3,363 posts)and most lawyers think they're going to hear the case, which is bonkers because there is no legal basis to hear the case. It's established law.
I do not think the Judiciary is going to hold.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And, at this point, it ISN'T "established law" since the Supreme Court has never ruled on this specific issue. Another court could come down on the other side since there's no Supreme Court precedent governing the issue. The Court deciding to take the case does not mean that "the Judiciary won't hold." It simply means they think it necessary for them to resolve an issue that it has never addressed in the past in order for all of the courts in the country to have a precedent to apply.
Don't read too much into it if the Court takes the case. If they do, wait and see how they rule. You may be surprised.
SWBTATTReg
(21,856 posts)the side of constitutional safeguards against bad laws and idiot lawsuits, even though there are laws clearly stating the president's tax returns and / or papers are subject to congressional review. Emoluments needs to be beefed up, for I feel that most if not all of rump's actions have been severely tainted by his business interests instead of American interests. There were very specific reasons why laws were passed to prevent such abuses, resulting from the Teapot Dome scandals and other scandals.
Keep hammering away in the courts, after all, the Senate is a toxic mess, locked into a republican majority (but under 60) that will never pass anything thank goodness, unless the democratically controlled House of representatives concur. Soon, we'll have it all back, and then the repairs will being, infrastructure needs will be addressed, other major issues will be addressed (since the Senate won't do anything, along w/ rump, who's worthless and hasn't proposed anything but more tax cuts, a joke).
2020 is coming fast...
FeelingBlue
(667 posts)Makes me cry.
Thank you. I hope hes right.
crickets
(25,896 posts)It lights another bright candle in the dark. Thank you (and your friend) for that.