Shelby County took the door off. Callais bricked up the room from the inside. Same Court, same project, twelve years apart, and we are still supposed to read each ruling as an isolated act of legal reasoning.
Alito rewrote the statute. Congress made the test effect, not intent, because intent is unprovable and discrimination wears a suit now.
Requiring Black voters to prove they were targeted as Black and not as Democrats, in a country where ninety percent vote one party, is not a legal standard. It is a permission slip. And grounding it in the Fifteenth Amendment means Congress cannot legislate around it. They know. That is the point.
Landry suspended only the House primaries. Not the Senate. Not the amendments. Ballots already sitting in mailboxes in Ramstein and Shreveport are confetti. The middle ages had more consistent rules.
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
It was passed immediately after the Civil War which was fought over Slavery (despite what the bigots will try to tell you). A clue is the reference to "previous condition of servitude". The entire amendment is designed to ensure Black people get to vote as equals. The word "abridged" means to make it lesser, not as good.
This idea that the 15th amendment was to ensure equal rights for Whites is absurd. White people have more than suficient representation. The idea that this decision was purely , rigorously based on the text while ignoring both clear historical intent and the obvious consequences, reducing the number of black representatives in congress, reducing the opportunity for Black voters to have the candidate of their choice... is absurd.
Congress clearly put their understanding of the Amendment into the legislation they passed, and then SCOTUS (previously) upheld that legislations clear intent, but THIS SCOTUS decides that their interpretation, however overtly biased it might be, invalidates past decisions and the law, because white people want to gerrymander blacks out of holding seats from their state.
The original sin is that Gerrymandering was not made illegal long ago. It would just take a bill, passed by congress, signed by a president, then Gerrymandering becomes illegal in ALL the states. Put it on the list for 2029.
It’s a curious thing, these poor partisan hacks get infuriated when they’re caught do their crimes—Trump especially rails mightily whenever he’s caught.
What the hell is a Supreme Court Justice doing on prime time TV
Edit: I mean, obviously the gutting of the VRA is the bigger issue. But its just so jarring how nakely partisan and lacking in scruples the majority supreme court justices are.
I think it’s important to note that Jackson is a black woman. I think that plays a role in Alito’s sneering. The RW justices don’t really think POCs or women are qualified to participate in public life, and that bigotry underlies much of their thinking. This includes Thomas, who is an example of a familiar type: a POC who identifies with white power and has internalized the idea that most POCs are inferior.
My heart goes out to Justice Jackson, who accomplished ten times more in her judicial career than the dishonorable Supine Court colleagues who dare berate her. To rise to this top position in the U.S. judiciary and be defeated in every vote for justice by a deeply corrupt majority is a terrible fate. I hope the time will come when the supines will be held accountable and she'll have worthier colleagues, who'll merit the title of Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
This is why I predict that the majority will overturn birthright citizenship and Alito and Thomas will immediately retire so Bove and Blanche can take their seats. Letting Trump shit all over the country so hard we'll be digging out of the cesspit for generations.
“Do as I say… not as I do.” Can we throw the conservative cranks off the Supreme Court when we rid this nation of the plague with which it infected? They are almost criminal and really need to be taught a lesson. Thanks, Liz. I am furious over these butt-kissing freaks🤬
Who let the dogs out? On what planet do these “conservative” justices live who declare that there’s no discrimination? Their actions and words belie their misbegotten decisions to dismantle VRA. Maybe they want another Civil War.
The Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the worst, right next to the Court that gave us Dred Scott. Not only are many of the conservative justices obviously partisan, they are of a character that would get them thrown off the bench of any lower court. Gorsuch lies in his opinions, a lot. Thomas and Alito take bribes. They deserve to be impeached.
I know a thing or two about living rough. Steinbeck was one of my favorite authors. Once the number of people living in modern day Hoovervilles increases to the point where it cannot be swept under the rug, once a modern day Bonus Army finds its legs and a modern day FDR welcomes the hatred of the oligarchs, the changes needed will begin to materialize. FDR was all in on expanding the SC and he would have done it if enough of the New Deal blockers had not "retired" because they saw the writing on the wall. Justice is blind but not in a good way for the present court.
We have over 600k people, as best we can count them, living homeless. I too was a reader of Steinbeck, but it was a different world. Our current day Hoovervilles aren't even a priority for most politicians.
I agree that the court should be expanded, with other improvements.
Please don’t call them conservatives! I suppose if you consider them conserving the principles of the confederacy, then perhaps they are conservative in that respect. With respect to modern principles of what a government should do, they are radical extremist fascists, not to mention corrupt individuals. Perhaps they should be called the illiberals instead? I do wonder about Thomas – does he think he is white?
"Illiberals" is about the mildest name I can come up for them. And I really don't think Thomas knows he's Black, but he's going to be reminded of it some day if things keep going the way they are.
Excellent review of how the most corrupt, racist, SCOTUS of the last 75 years is also the most reckless and partisan. The conservative Roberts' Court makes rules and then breaks them at their partisan convenience. This is likely the fotsy Supreme Court that has taken away rights from people and given entities more rights. I am surprised the conservatives don't have the 1984 slogan of Slavery is Freedom hung on their office walls. If dems don't fix this court runaway train, they will only have themselves to blame for hurrying America's decline. In an Alito explanation, The Court will elect Clarence Thomas as Grand Dragon to show they aren't racist.
Congress is elected district by district, state by state. Each member has huge numbers of people that voted for them, supporting them. Power comes FROM the people. The President, even with the antiquated Electoral College, represents millions of people in support of him (though that number has recently shrunk for Trump). Again, the power comes from the people, and the executive branch has people with guns to back that power up.
The Courts have power only through their credibility, their fairness, impartiality, so that even when a person loses, there is credibility that the decision itself was based on the law and the Constitution and not personal or political bias. Without credibility, they are just a bunch of people in robes expressing their personal, biased opinions. Why would anyone follow their dictates unless it agrees with their opinions as well. In this case, the states that want to follow this decision will do so. But if the court were to decide that some states or people... can not do something, it would not be surprising to find people stop respecting their decisions.
Right now, Republicans benefit from pretending this SCOTUS makes valid decisions that should be upheld and enforced. Democrats, in their ongoing efforts to protect the Status Quo, will follow the court's rulings no matter how absurd they are.
In 2029, come the glorious day, we NEED to take control of the court, then pass an amendment to make the court non-partisan by removing the partisan president and partisan congress from the process of installing judges / justices. This is doable. The Red States will vote for the Amendment as a better alternative to an overtly liberal court actually making decisions.
There are multiple, realistic ways to take control of the court. One would be to READ the constitution and simply have the president indicate the Justices (and certain other judges who were overtly partisan) who were not on 'good behaviour' and the Senate hold hearings and determine if in fact they were not on good behaviour, for instance taking bribes or having lied under oath in their Senate Confirmation hearings or just making overtly biased decisions as shown in their changing the rules to benefit one party over another. I prefer this one since it clarifies WHY the court is being changed.
Another, cruder way is to simply expand the court to 17 seats.
We need to include term limits for SC justices, as well. Lifetime appointment is rarely good for anything. And the Chief Justice should be the one with the most seniority on that bench, not the one lucky enough to be appointed when the prior one dies.
I have an idea: What about an amendment to have Each Appellate court appoint one of their number to a seat on SCOTUS for a three year term, to cycle back into the appellate court (number of appellate courts defines how many seats on SCOTUS). The Appellate courts also manage the hiring of judges in their district, and promoting them as needed to the appellate court. Takes the politics out of the courts.
The chief justice, if they think they need one, is chosen among them. In other words they elect their leader. Judges will still be a lifetime job, but with an effective Ethics enforcement including ongoing investigations to keep them clean, and 'bad' behaviour is to include overt bias.
Give the judges the tools and guidelines for setting up their own system, loose enough to allow it to handle situations, such as a judge who needs to move to another part of the country, can be transferred to being a judge there. Such as having houses, maybe a secure apartment complex for the Justices to stay in DC, since it is only for three years, no need to sell a house and buy a new one. An appellate judge might rotate back to district court judge for a few years to make room for one to be promoted...
Also, immigration judges should be part of the Judicial branch, and no more 'administrative warrants', ONLY Judicial warrants. Give them enough resources to do their jobs in a timely manner, so that we do not perpetually have these super long delays on critical issues of the day. Rules to prevent rich people from running out the clock ('the people' also have a right to a "speedy trial") or otherwise abusing the process. Any historical readings of the constitution or laws should be tried first at the district court level with competing historians. No more amatuer historian judges who tend to read into history what they want to see.
Shelby County took the door off. Callais bricked up the room from the inside. Same Court, same project, twelve years apart, and we are still supposed to read each ruling as an isolated act of legal reasoning.
Alito rewrote the statute. Congress made the test effect, not intent, because intent is unprovable and discrimination wears a suit now.
Requiring Black voters to prove they were targeted as Black and not as Democrats, in a country where ninety percent vote one party, is not a legal standard. It is a permission slip. And grounding it in the Fifteenth Amendment means Congress cannot legislate around it. They know. That is the point.
Landry suspended only the House primaries. Not the Senate. Not the amendments. Ballots already sitting in mailboxes in Ramstein and Shreveport are confetti. The middle ages had more consistent rules.
Johan 🐌
"15th Amendment
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
It was passed immediately after the Civil War which was fought over Slavery (despite what the bigots will try to tell you). A clue is the reference to "previous condition of servitude". The entire amendment is designed to ensure Black people get to vote as equals. The word "abridged" means to make it lesser, not as good.
This idea that the 15th amendment was to ensure equal rights for Whites is absurd. White people have more than suficient representation. The idea that this decision was purely , rigorously based on the text while ignoring both clear historical intent and the obvious consequences, reducing the number of black representatives in congress, reducing the opportunity for Black voters to have the candidate of their choice... is absurd.
Congress clearly put their understanding of the Amendment into the legislation they passed, and then SCOTUS (previously) upheld that legislations clear intent, but THIS SCOTUS decides that their interpretation, however overtly biased it might be, invalidates past decisions and the law, because white people want to gerrymander blacks out of holding seats from their state.
The original sin is that Gerrymandering was not made illegal long ago. It would just take a bill, passed by congress, signed by a president, then Gerrymandering becomes illegal in ALL the states. Put it on the list for 2029.
It’s a curious thing, these poor partisan hacks get infuriated when they’re caught do their crimes—Trump especially rails mightily whenever he’s caught.
What the hell is a Supreme Court Justice doing on prime time TV
Edit: I mean, obviously the gutting of the VRA is the bigger issue. But its just so jarring how nakely partisan and lacking in scruples the majority supreme court justices are.
I think it’s important to note that Jackson is a black woman. I think that plays a role in Alito’s sneering. The RW justices don’t really think POCs or women are qualified to participate in public life, and that bigotry underlies much of their thinking. This includes Thomas, who is an example of a familiar type: a POC who identifies with white power and has internalized the idea that most POCs are inferior.
My heart goes out to Justice Jackson, who accomplished ten times more in her judicial career than the dishonorable Supine Court colleagues who dare berate her. To rise to this top position in the U.S. judiciary and be defeated in every vote for justice by a deeply corrupt majority is a terrible fate. I hope the time will come when the supines will be held accountable and she'll have worthier colleagues, who'll merit the title of Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
This is why I predict that the majority will overturn birthright citizenship and Alito and Thomas will immediately retire so Bove and Blanche can take their seats. Letting Trump shit all over the country so hard we'll be digging out of the cesspit for generations.
I fear you're right.
“Do as I say… not as I do.” Can we throw the conservative cranks off the Supreme Court when we rid this nation of the plague with which it infected? They are almost criminal and really need to be taught a lesson. Thanks, Liz. I am furious over these butt-kissing freaks🤬
Who let the dogs out? On what planet do these “conservative” justices live who declare that there’s no discrimination? Their actions and words belie their misbegotten decisions to dismantle VRA. Maybe they want another Civil War.
Expanding the court isn't enough. The six fuckwits need to be removed and imprisoned.
The Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the worst, right next to the Court that gave us Dred Scott. Not only are many of the conservative justices obviously partisan, they are of a character that would get them thrown off the bench of any lower court. Gorsuch lies in his opinions, a lot. Thomas and Alito take bribes. They deserve to be impeached.
I know a thing or two about living rough. Steinbeck was one of my favorite authors. Once the number of people living in modern day Hoovervilles increases to the point where it cannot be swept under the rug, once a modern day Bonus Army finds its legs and a modern day FDR welcomes the hatred of the oligarchs, the changes needed will begin to materialize. FDR was all in on expanding the SC and he would have done it if enough of the New Deal blockers had not "retired" because they saw the writing on the wall. Justice is blind but not in a good way for the present court.
We have over 600k people, as best we can count them, living homeless. I too was a reader of Steinbeck, but it was a different world. Our current day Hoovervilles aren't even a priority for most politicians.
I agree that the court should be expanded, with other improvements.
The court is corrupt and they like Trump do not want Dems investigating them if control of Congress is lost.
Please don’t call them conservatives! I suppose if you consider them conserving the principles of the confederacy, then perhaps they are conservative in that respect. With respect to modern principles of what a government should do, they are radical extremist fascists, not to mention corrupt individuals. Perhaps they should be called the illiberals instead? I do wonder about Thomas – does he think he is white?
"Illiberals" is about the mildest name I can come up for them. And I really don't think Thomas knows he's Black, but he's going to be reminded of it some day if things keep going the way they are.
Thanks, Liz. Depressingly great, honest piece. 😱😤
Excellent review of how the most corrupt, racist, SCOTUS of the last 75 years is also the most reckless and partisan. The conservative Roberts' Court makes rules and then breaks them at their partisan convenience. This is likely the fotsy Supreme Court that has taken away rights from people and given entities more rights. I am surprised the conservatives don't have the 1984 slogan of Slavery is Freedom hung on their office walls. If dems don't fix this court runaway train, they will only have themselves to blame for hurrying America's decline. In an Alito explanation, The Court will elect Clarence Thomas as Grand Dragon to show they aren't racist.
Congress is elected district by district, state by state. Each member has huge numbers of people that voted for them, supporting them. Power comes FROM the people. The President, even with the antiquated Electoral College, represents millions of people in support of him (though that number has recently shrunk for Trump). Again, the power comes from the people, and the executive branch has people with guns to back that power up.
The Courts have power only through their credibility, their fairness, impartiality, so that even when a person loses, there is credibility that the decision itself was based on the law and the Constitution and not personal or political bias. Without credibility, they are just a bunch of people in robes expressing their personal, biased opinions. Why would anyone follow their dictates unless it agrees with their opinions as well. In this case, the states that want to follow this decision will do so. But if the court were to decide that some states or people... can not do something, it would not be surprising to find people stop respecting their decisions.
Right now, Republicans benefit from pretending this SCOTUS makes valid decisions that should be upheld and enforced. Democrats, in their ongoing efforts to protect the Status Quo, will follow the court's rulings no matter how absurd they are.
In 2029, come the glorious day, we NEED to take control of the court, then pass an amendment to make the court non-partisan by removing the partisan president and partisan congress from the process of installing judges / justices. This is doable. The Red States will vote for the Amendment as a better alternative to an overtly liberal court actually making decisions.
There are multiple, realistic ways to take control of the court. One would be to READ the constitution and simply have the president indicate the Justices (and certain other judges who were overtly partisan) who were not on 'good behaviour' and the Senate hold hearings and determine if in fact they were not on good behaviour, for instance taking bribes or having lied under oath in their Senate Confirmation hearings or just making overtly biased decisions as shown in their changing the rules to benefit one party over another. I prefer this one since it clarifies WHY the court is being changed.
Another, cruder way is to simply expand the court to 17 seats.
We need to include term limits for SC justices, as well. Lifetime appointment is rarely good for anything. And the Chief Justice should be the one with the most seniority on that bench, not the one lucky enough to be appointed when the prior one dies.
I have an idea: What about an amendment to have Each Appellate court appoint one of their number to a seat on SCOTUS for a three year term, to cycle back into the appellate court (number of appellate courts defines how many seats on SCOTUS). The Appellate courts also manage the hiring of judges in their district, and promoting them as needed to the appellate court. Takes the politics out of the courts.
The chief justice, if they think they need one, is chosen among them. In other words they elect their leader. Judges will still be a lifetime job, but with an effective Ethics enforcement including ongoing investigations to keep them clean, and 'bad' behaviour is to include overt bias.
Give the judges the tools and guidelines for setting up their own system, loose enough to allow it to handle situations, such as a judge who needs to move to another part of the country, can be transferred to being a judge there. Such as having houses, maybe a secure apartment complex for the Justices to stay in DC, since it is only for three years, no need to sell a house and buy a new one. An appellate judge might rotate back to district court judge for a few years to make room for one to be promoted...
Also, immigration judges should be part of the Judicial branch, and no more 'administrative warrants', ONLY Judicial warrants. Give them enough resources to do their jobs in a timely manner, so that we do not perpetually have these super long delays on critical issues of the day. Rules to prevent rich people from running out the clock ('the people' also have a right to a "speedy trial") or otherwise abusing the process. Any historical readings of the constitution or laws should be tried first at the district court level with competing historians. No more amatuer historian judges who tend to read into history what they want to see.