Breyer doesn't seem to care that the court is a political tool now, even if he buys into the notion that it is.
Expecting people to do the right thing has always been a failure of Democrats. Republicans has spent the last 30 years incentivizing old people to leave their jobs for the next generation. It’s why they are about 5 years younger than we are.
We need to incentivize Breyer to leave. Or else he won’t until he dies.
Yep, it doesn't seem to be an accident that suddenly Barrett and Breyer are out in the media talking about how totally non-partisan and what a battle of ideas the court is.
It kind of pissed me off Breyer was doing that shit too. Like if the reasoning is shit and it is, how is it not nakedly political? Why damage control your broken institution?
Because these people don't believe it's broken. The not-Republican parts of the judiciary are largely institutionalists of some stripe. They believe in the idea of the non-partisan court. It's why they are losing this fight so badly. Just like the institutionalists in the Senate. They believe in the stupid mythology of the dumb institution they belong to and will ride that shit straight into hell.
Yep, it doesn't seem to be an accident that suddenly Barrett and Breyer are out in the media talking about how totally non-partisan and what a battle of ideas the court is.
It kind of pissed me off Breyer was doing that shit too. Like if the reasoning is shit and it is, how is it not nakedly political? Why damage control your broken institution?
Because these people don't believe it's broken. The not-Republican parts of the judiciary are largely institutionalists of some stripe. They believe in the idea of the non-partisan court. It's why they are losing this fight so badly. Just like the institutionalists in the Senate. They believe in the stupid mythology of the dumb institution they belong to and will ride that shit straight into hell.
Yep, it doesn't seem to be an accident that suddenly Barrett and Breyer are out in the media talking about how totally non-partisan and what a battle of ideas the court is.
It kind of pissed me off Breyer was doing that shit too. Like if the reasoning is shit and it is, how is it not nakedly political? Why damage control your broken institution?
He might very well die in office because he considers himself to be doing important work in a venerable institution. He’s the last person I’d expect to agree with the idea that SCOTUS is full of partisan hacks, or say it out loud if he did.
He did an interview last week where he said he didn't plan to die on the bench, but also that he wasn't going to stand down right now because of partisan calls.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.—Justice Stephen Breyer said he understands why liberals are panicking about the makeup of the Supreme Court—and the reasons many activists and lawmakers who admire his jurisprudence want him to resign.
“It isn’t really true that I was born on Pluto and don’t know what’s going on in the world. I think I do,” Justice Breyer, 83 years old, said in an interview at his rambling home near Harvard Law School, where he was educated and later taught administrative law.
“I don’t want to die there on the court, so I probably will retire at some point,” he said, between spoonfuls of soup at the kitchen table. “There are a lot of different considerations, including health and also including the institutional role of the court and so forth. I’ll take those and other things into account.”
“You know, when I grew up, every single justice on the court had been appointed by Roosevelt or Truman,” he said. Presidents and senators may have expectations for justices they place on the court, he added, “but they might get surprised because once that black robe goes on, the only thing that you do come to realize is that you are not an instrument” of those politicians.
Which is why the Federalist Society has a turnstile operation churning out a bunch of them that all think alike.
Breyer might be correct in the narrow sense that the latest batch (probably) aren't personally loyal to Trump, in the way(s) that the latter notoriously demands, or McConnell or any other specific senator. But if he thinks they aren't loyal to, and currently in the process of advancing, the broader agenda/cause of the Party and/or the Right, then he's deluded. (Or lying.)
Commander Zoom on
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Breyer might be correct in the narrow sense that the latest batch (probably) aren't personally loyal to Trump, in the way(s) that the latter notoriously demands, or McConnell or any other specific senator. But if he thinks they aren't loyal to, and currently in the process of advancing, the broader agenda/cause of the Party and/or the Right, then he's deluded.
Ideological, not partisan is how I've seen it phrased.
If ideological decisions always end up favoring one political party then it's a distinction without a difference.
But let's be honest, the ideology of the conservative wing of the court is the same as Scalia's which was "YOLO, imma going to rule how I want and make up some bullshit to fit while claiming I'm a textualist."
If my had my druthers, I'd prefer judges to be loyal to proper Justice and the well-being of the citizenry, but since I'm not getting anything I'd like on that front, can I just settle for people actually willing to call out the ideologues and fight them on it rather than make feckless calls for unity that won't even be acknowledged?
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Breyer might be correct in the narrow sense that the latest batch (probably) aren't personally loyal to Trump, in the way(s) that the latter notoriously demands, or McConnell or any other specific senator. But if he thinks they aren't loyal to, and currently in the process of advancing, the broader agenda/cause of the Party and/or the Right, then he's deluded.
Ideological, not partisan is how I've seen it phrased.
So like, "I'm not acting out of loyalty to the Republicans, I'm just acting out of loyalty to all the things that Republicans happen to believe through shocking coincidence"?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+20
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Breyer might be correct in the narrow sense that the latest batch (probably) aren't personally loyal to Trump, in the way(s) that the latter notoriously demands, or McConnell or any other specific senator. But if he thinks they aren't loyal to, and currently in the process of advancing, the broader agenda/cause of the Party and/or the Right, then he's deluded.
Ideological, not partisan is how I've seen it phrased.
So like, "I'm not acting out of loyalty to the Republicans, I'm just acting out of loyalty to all the things that Republicans happen to believe through shocking coincidence"?
They are sitting at the same table, they're just wearing Hugo Boss instead of Brown, if you catch my drift.
Breyer might be correct in the narrow sense that the latest batch (probably) aren't personally loyal to Trump, in the way(s) that the latter notoriously demands, or McConnell or any other specific senator. But if he thinks they aren't loyal to, and currently in the process of advancing, the broader agenda/cause of the Party and/or the Right, then he's deluded.
Ideological, not partisan is how I've seen it phrased.
So like, "I'm not acting out of loyalty to the Republicans, I'm just acting out of loyalty to all the things that Republicans happen to believe through shocking coincidence"?
Not all of them. The general idea is that people like Barret aren't loyal to the GOP or Trump, they're loyal the to interests that the GOP operates on behalf of, one level up. Usually its a distinction without a difference but we can expect them to often rule in ways that run counter to general GOP shit if its more in the interests of wealthy power brokers.
But they're all also a bunch of egomaniacs with absolute job security so personal idiosyncrasies get thrown in there too.
If ideological decisions always end up favoring one political party then it's a distinction without a difference.
But let's be honest, the ideology of the conservative wing of the court is the same as Scalia's which was "YOLO, imma going to rule how I want and make up some bullshit to fit while claiming I'm a textualist."
At least Scalia would put in the work and a build a supporting framework around his opinions, however bullshit they might be. The current conservatives are barely bothering to even do that anymore.
If ideological decisions always end up favoring one political party then it's a distinction without a difference.
But let's be honest, the ideology of the conservative wing of the court is the same as Scalia's which was "YOLO, imma going to rule how I want and make up some bullshit to fit while claiming I'm a textualist."
At least Scalia would put in the work and a build a supporting framework around his opinions, however bullshit they might be. The current conservatives are barely bothering to even do that anymore.
Same applies at the legislative (and the previous Presidency).
"Wait, I can be openly partisan/obstructionist/racist/sexist, and outside some grumblings from people who don't control my fate, I'm gonna suffer no consequences?"
Kavanaugh or Barrett could come out as literal Nazi's, openly praising Hitler, and there's not (and likely never will be) enough votes to impeach them.
+7
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Given Clarence Thomas is also bleating lately about people seeing the court as political, I wonder if they're actually feeling any of the pressure their deeply unpopular decisions are putting on them.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Given Clarence Thomas is also bleating lately about people seeing the court as political, I wonder if they're actually feeling any of the pressure their deeply unpopular decisions are putting on them.
I've definitely got the sense that the court has realized sitting on the TX law was a bridge too far.
They know they fucked up. Remember how the opinion they put out wasn't claimed by any of the majority as being written by them? They want the power and to do authoritarian things withit, but none of the consequences, including being called out on their bullshit. Don't believe their tears. If they don't want to out who threw that shitshow together, then they're all guilty of it and deserve to be scorned for it.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Given Clarence Thomas is also bleating lately about people seeing the court as political, I wonder if they're actually feeling any of the pressure their deeply unpopular decisions are putting on them.
I've definitely got the sense that the court has realized sitting on the TX law was a bridge too far.
What sucks is they will do absolutely nothing to correct it, and are still going to destroy roe v wade. They just are upset people see them as the unelected judicial dictators they have become. Like there is no law this group will not strike down on partisan reasoning.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Given Clarence Thomas is also bleating lately about people seeing the court as political, I wonder if they're actually feeling any of the pressure their deeply unpopular decisions are putting on them.
I've definitely got the sense that the court has realized sitting on the TX law was a bridge too far.
What sucks is they will do absolutely nothing to correct it, and are still going to destroy roe v wade. They just are upset people see them as the unelected judicial dictators they have become. Like there is no law this group will not strike down on partisan reasoning.
At this point I wouldn't put it past the court to cite that unsigned memo as precedent to destroy Roe v. Wade.
Given Clarence Thomas is also bleating lately about people seeing the court as political, I wonder if they're actually feeling any of the pressure their deeply unpopular decisions are putting on them.
I've definitely got the sense that the court has realized sitting on the TX law was a bridge too far.
What sucks is they will do absolutely nothing to correct it, and are still going to destroy roe v wade. They just are upset people see them as the unelected judicial dictators they have become. Like there is no law this group will not strike down on partisan reasoning.
At this point I wouldn't put it past the court to cite that unsigned memo as precedent to destroy Roe v. Wade.
At this point, I wouldn't put it past the court to rule that Roe and Casey were decided wrongly without saying how.
Given Clarence Thomas is also bleating lately about people seeing the court as political, I wonder if they're actually feeling any of the pressure their deeply unpopular decisions are putting on them.
I've definitely got the sense that the court has realized sitting on the TX law was a bridge too far.
What sucks is they will do absolutely nothing to correct it, and are still going to destroy roe v wade. They just are upset people see them as the unelected judicial dictators they have become. Like there is no law this group will not strike down on partisan reasoning.
At this point I wouldn't put it past the court to cite that unsigned memo as precedent to destroy Roe v. Wade.
At this point, I wouldn't put it past the court to rule that Roe and Casey were decided wrongly without saying how.
In some shitty reality, something like...
The court ruled today, 5-4, to overturn Roe and Casey, with the majority decision unsigned, and just five words long. "Cause fuck you, that's why."
Given Clarence Thomas is also bleating lately about people seeing the court as political, I wonder if they're actually feeling any of the pressure their deeply unpopular decisions are putting on them.
I've definitely got the sense that the court has realized sitting on the TX law was a bridge too far.
What sucks is they will do absolutely nothing to correct it, and are still going to destroy roe v wade. They just are upset people see them as the unelected judicial dictators they have become. Like there is no law this group will not strike down on partisan reasoning.
At this point I wouldn't put it past the court to cite that unsigned memo as precedent to destroy Roe v. Wade.
At this point, I wouldn't put it past the court to rule that Roe and Casey were decided wrongly without saying how.
The court ruled today, 5-4, to overturn Roe and Casey, with the majority decision unsigned, and just five words long. "Cause fuck you, that's why."
Just as a request, can we please not make posts that look like statements of fact but are not? That was a fun panic Google.
edit: not a mod and not trying to act like one; just also not sure if that was worth reporting. Mea culpa if so.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Here's a link to some of Thomas' comments talked about earlier in the thread. He comes off kind of reasonable here and it sure looks to me like he's chastising some of his fellow conservative judges on the court.
During a question-and-answer period, Thomas was asked what threats he foresaw to the autonomy of the judicial system. He responded that judges going "beyond" longstanding limitations had become a grave issue.
"When we do that, and we begin to venture into political, legislative or executive branch lanes and resolving things that are better left to those branches — where people actually have some input and some opportunity to participate in the electoral process as to who those leaders are," Thomas said, "Those of us, particularly in the federal judiciary with lifetime appointments, are asking for trouble."
The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch, and we may have become the most dangerous," he added. "And I think that's problematic."
That statement by Thomas sure seems to be directly in conflict with his recent actions. He definitely signed onto overturning the pre-clearance stuff in the VRA for a nonsense reason, as just one example out of many.
Thomas is a strange bird. I could absolutely imagine this being self-criticism.
Thomas has a few times had criticisms of the judicial branch where I'm nodding along thinking "Yes, you are right" even though he's part of the problem and also has terrible opinions with a side of corruption.
ok, I read more of his comments from other sources
he spends a lot of his time railing against "the media," for unfairly accusing him of voting based on his personal preferences
in context, I'm pretty sure he is complaining that prior judges were legislating from the bench when they created abortion rights, and now it is unfair that he is being criticized for reversing those incorrect decisions
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Thomas is a strange bird. I could absolutely imagine this being self-criticism.
Thomas has a few times had criticisms of the judicial branch where I'm nodding along thinking "Yes, you are right" even though he's part of the problem and also has terrible opinions with a side of corruption.
I often suspect the corruption side of it is why he signs on to a lot of these conservative opinions, he isn't interested in upsetting the apple cart for himself and his crooked wife.
he spends a lot of his time railing against "the media," for unfairly accusing him of voting based on his personal preferences
That bit is just projection, because that's exactly what he does. He's the Justice who started openly "just asking the question" about Facebook conspiracies in opinions last year.
Dark_Side on
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited September 2021
He's also saying, in essence, "if we go too hard too fast, we might get a packed court. Be more subtle."
Fencingsax on
+2
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Would that need the fillibuster killed to make a law to allow more judges or can they just appoint more people? I'm wondering what they could possibly do that would make Biden pack the court.
Would that need the fillibuster killed to make a law to allow more judges or can they just appoint more people? I'm wondering what they could possibly do that would make Biden pack the court.
Size of the judiciary is controlled by legislation.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I guess these justices are worried about the long game but court packing feels like a distant dream now with how much legislative control Rs effectively continue to hold and are likely to gain much more in the future.
+4
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
So we'd need to convince 10 republicans or the dems to kill the fillibuster. Yeah I'm not sure what they are worrying about.
Posts
We need to incentivize Breyer to leave. Or else he won’t until he dies.
Because these people don't believe it's broken. The not-Republican parts of the judiciary are largely institutionalists of some stripe. They believe in the idea of the non-partisan court. It's why they are losing this fight so badly. Just like the institutionalists in the Senate. They believe in the stupid mythology of the dumb institution they belong to and will ride that shit straight into hell.
and take us all with them.
He did an interview last week where he said he didn't plan to die on the bench, but also that he wasn't going to stand down right now because of partisan calls.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-feels-partisan-push-to-retire-11631543401
I'm sure death will take his wishes into account.
Which is why the Federalist Society has a turnstile operation churning out a bunch of them that all think alike.
Ideological, not partisan is how I've seen it phrased.
But let's be honest, the ideology of the conservative wing of the court is the same as Scalia's which was "YOLO, imma going to rule how I want and make up some bullshit to fit while claiming I'm a textualist."
So like, "I'm not acting out of loyalty to the Republicans, I'm just acting out of loyalty to all the things that Republicans happen to believe through shocking coincidence"?
They are sitting at the same table, they're just wearing Hugo Boss instead of Brown, if you catch my drift.
Not all of them. The general idea is that people like Barret aren't loyal to the GOP or Trump, they're loyal the to interests that the GOP operates on behalf of, one level up. Usually its a distinction without a difference but we can expect them to often rule in ways that run counter to general GOP shit if its more in the interests of wealthy power brokers.
But they're all also a bunch of egomaniacs with absolute job security so personal idiosyncrasies get thrown in there too.
At least Scalia would put in the work and a build a supporting framework around his opinions, however bullshit they might be. The current conservatives are barely bothering to even do that anymore.
Same applies at the legislative (and the previous Presidency).
"Wait, I can be openly partisan/obstructionist/racist/sexist, and outside some grumblings from people who don't control my fate, I'm gonna suffer no consequences?"
Kavanaugh or Barrett could come out as literal Nazi's, openly praising Hitler, and there's not (and likely never will be) enough votes to impeach them.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I've definitely got the sense that the court has realized sitting on the TX law was a bridge too far.
What sucks is they will do absolutely nothing to correct it, and are still going to destroy roe v wade. They just are upset people see them as the unelected judicial dictators they have become. Like there is no law this group will not strike down on partisan reasoning.
pleasepaypreacher.net
At this point I wouldn't put it past the court to cite that unsigned memo as precedent to destroy Roe v. Wade.
At this point, I wouldn't put it past the court to rule that Roe and Casey were decided wrongly without saying how.
In some shitty reality, something like...
The court ruled today, 5-4, to overturn Roe and Casey, with the majority decision unsigned, and just five words long. "Cause fuck you, that's why."
EDIT - My bad. Dumb way to make a dumb joke.
Just as a request, can we please not make posts that look like statements of fact but are not? That was a fun panic Google.
edit: not a mod and not trying to act like one; just also not sure if that was worth reporting. Mea culpa if so.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The judicial branch is very dangerous, because lower-court judges keep issuing injunctions that conflict with my own politics, basically.
Thomas has a few times had criticisms of the judicial branch where I'm nodding along thinking "Yes, you are right" even though he's part of the problem and also has terrible opinions with a side of corruption.
he spends a lot of his time railing against "the media," for unfairly accusing him of voting based on his personal preferences
in context, I'm pretty sure he is complaining that prior judges were legislating from the bench when they created abortion rights, and now it is unfair that he is being criticized for reversing those incorrect decisions
I often suspect the corruption side of it is why he signs on to a lot of these conservative opinions, he isn't interested in upsetting the apple cart for himself and his crooked wife.
That bit is just projection, because that's exactly what he does. He's the Justice who started openly "just asking the question" about Facebook conspiracies in opinions last year.
Size of the judiciary is controlled by legislation.