The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Likens Supreme Court to an "Advocacy Group"
As the election approaches, the President sharpens his criticism of the Supreme Court.
Several news outlets, including CNN, NBC, and the Washington Post, are reporting on comments President Biden made last night during a "virtual fundraiser" for a Democratic congressional candidate in which he likened the Supreme Court to an "advocacy group," though the precise words of his remarks vary slightly across the various accounts.
From the NBC account:
"I view this off-year election as one of the most important elections that I've been engaged in because a lot can change because the institutions have changed," he said. "The Supreme Court is more of an advocacy group these days than it is … evenhanded about it," Biden said when speaking about the upcoming midterm elections on Nov. 8.
CNN deletes "of" from the quote, and adds "an" in the ellipsis. I have not seen video of the remarks, which apparently focused on the stakes in the upcoming election.
Historically, making the federal judiciary into a campaign issue has tended to help Republican candidates more than Democratic ones. Some Democrats--apparently including President Biden--are trying to change that in the wake of Dobbs. We will see whether these efforts are successful.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Truth is a defense.
..on his word as a Biden?
Is he an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance? Has he spoken with his son about his son's business dealings?
Michael, you should just create a special function on your computer that automatically types "I have nothing on what we're actually talking about so I'll just change the subject to Hunter Biden."
What does "his word as a Biden" mean to you? Besides "dirt"?
I think you and Mr. Bumble are the only ones here who made it about the Bidens.
Who do you think the very first word in the headline of this blog post references?
The person who called the Supreme Court an advocacy group, which is the subject of this thread. By your logic, what Biden had for breakfast yesterday is on point too because it's about Biden.
You beclown yourself in that pathetic attempt to deflect the discussion from the doddering, dishonest, deranged Joe Biden and the ways he continually corrupts the White House.
No, I think when Joe Biden says or does something stupid it's fair game in a thread on that subject, but not on threads about other subjects. The subject of this thread is what he said about the Supreme Court, not some generic open season on anything and everything related to Joe Biden and his family.
I once knew an atheist who insisted on turning every conversation into a diatribe against religion, and people largely stopped talking to her just because it was so tiresome to not be able to talk about anything else. That's you here. You think everything is about Hunter Biden. It's not.
It is absolutely about Joe Biden being a senile liar and hypocrite, and his lie about never talking to Hunter Biden about the latter's bag man activities is absolutely on point.
Obviously Biden is unconcerned about SCOTUS being partisan as long as he can get five of them to be partisan for him.
But your hatred of Biden is so intense that you think anything that makes him look bad is on point to every conversation. If someone says good morning to you, you probably respond "Hunter's laptop."
Again, the subject of this post is exactly an instance of Joe Biden being a liar and hypocrite, and his lie about never talking to Hunter Biden about the latter’s bag man activities is absolutely on point.
Why am I so unsurprised when you assert ad hominem idiocy in lieu of attempting a rebuttal?
One of the beauties of truth is that it doesn't matter who says it . . . or doesn't.
Given the amount of ad hominem argumentation you use, I doubt you really believe that.
So is insanity and dementia...
"Truth is a defense."
Not for intentionally misleading.
He is correct.
You are correct.
Your problem is thinking this is suddenly a new concern. In 1973 it was already a well-known concern, but that cemented it as the Supreme Court as crypto-legislature.
What you say is nothing the anti-abortionists haven't been complaining about for 50 years.
They played the game the hard way, so it's facetious to call it out as a concern now.
I support abortion rights. But I also see the politics.
Shall I facetiously describe court decisions I Iike as well-reasoned and ones I don't as cheesy political decisions?
No need. Both are.
Everybody loves democracy. Until they don't.
Everyone? I certainly don't love democracy, but I'd probably prefer it to what we have.
Must agree: they are a group advocating for the Constitution.
True, in the same way that Trump was advocating for democracy.
Elaborate further please.
Not everyone thinks "the Constitution" means what the current court seems to think it means. Just as there is wide disagreement that Trump defines "democracy" the way most people define it.
When I was growing up, there was an elder in my church who defined "anti-Semite" as "anyone who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." Most people wouldn't find that definition persuasive either. It's basically trying to win an argument by re-writing the definition of something.
Martin,
That is a snark, not a substantive comment
Well there is a lot to be said for that proposition.
Glenn Reynolds wrote an article recently about the lack of democratic (small d) input in our national priorities:
We live, allegedly, in a democracy of sorts. While it is not a plebiscitary democracy, in which every issue is put directly to the people, but rather a representative democracy, it is nonetheless supposed to be a system in which things that the populace wants generally get done, and in which things that the populace doesn’t want done aren’t. It has probably not escaped your notice that this is not a particularly accurate description of our society today.
In fact, one of the most striking things today is the extent to which things that are popular with the political class, but unpopular with the mass of voters, somehow become national priorities nonetheless. By large margins voters in America (and pretty much every other country) are opposed to mass immigration; elites, on the other hand, are very much in favor. Likewise, affirmative action, whether in employment, judicial appointments, or college admissions, is very unpopular, and yet it is the norm today, though sometimes thinly disguised."
Of course Reynolds doesn't involve Trump, but it's hard not to see that it was Trump who championed some of these positions preferred by large majorities but abhorred by the elite.
Trump was a populist, and his support is from championing popular positions, so yeah I do think that's good for democracy.
Interesting lack of reference to the popularity of the right to abortion and contraception.
Whereas, American's opinions on affirmative action vary widely depending on the context and the wording of the survey. When polled regarding school admissions, the majority is against. When polled on affirmative action programs in general for racial minorities, the majority is for.
Interesting lack of reference to the popularity of the right to abortion and contraception.
Popularity is irrelevant. There is no constitutional right to abortion. I don't know what your reference to contraception is about.
I think one conservative somewhere said something about contraception. Therefore, all conservatives must think the same way.
Clarence Thomas merely said the quiet part out loud. The reasoning of the majority in Dobbs places all substantive due process precedents at risk.
Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Bear It are to individual liberty what Herschel Walker is to family values.
"Interesting lack of reference to the popularity of the right to abortion and contraception."
On the contrary, the somewhat nuanced popularity of the "right" to abortion and contraception, unlike that of, e.g., mass immigration, is reflected in the policies in effect, arguably to excess. It is therefor entirely uninteresting that Reynolds did not mention it as it is not an example of the phenomenon to which he refers.
Boy is that a tone deaf response.
The Supreme Court said in Dobbs that absent clear language in the constitution that abortion law was up to the democratic process to determine.
Obviously states like NY, CA, MA long ago repealed any anti abortion laws legislatively, but it's worth noting that when Roe came down abortion was illegal in California by act of the legislature in 1900 and 1950, and the law was not changed formally until 2002.
Roe in no way was any sort of a demonstration of the democratic process.
The recent example of Kansas where the ruling of the state supreme court legalizing abortion was put to the voters to confirm their interpretation of the Kansas constitution, or amend the constitution to make it clear that abortion was not a protected right in Kansas is an excellent example for the entire nation.
Even during Trump's tenure, many of his policies were unpopular:
2015 Polling:
Reducing legal immigration overall: <48%
Naked repeal of ACA: <36%
Cutting Medicaid: <27%
Barring transgender troops: <27%
Leaving Paris Accord on climate: <32%
Building border wall: <33%
https://time.com/4892348/donald-trump-policies-polling/
Carefully buying into the validity of poll results .
wording of the question can greatly skew the answers
Issue polls are garbage, without exception.
Polls sucks. So let's just take it on faith from the InstaWingnut!
No, nothing YOU say can be taken on faith, including your implication that the TIME poll ought be expected to be reliable. Every word you write is a lie, including "and" and "the".
A Time poll can’t override the will of the voters, just one example is the Paris accords, Trump campaigned explicitly on scrapping the Paris agreement “Donald Trump Pledges to Rip Up Paris Climate Agreement in Energy Speech” NBC news, May 26, 2016.
That’s a great example of democracy at work, stating your position during the campaign, and following through when elected, polls or no polls.
Trump campaigned on building the wall, leaving the Paris accords, unleashing domestic energy production, renegotiating NAFTA, scrapping the Iran agreement and reimposing sanctions, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, appointing Supreme Court justices that would respect the 2nd amendment and reverse Roe, and reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%.
He did a pretty good job on following through on all of those, and even if you disagree with all of them vehemently it’s hard to say that campaigning on your priorities and implementing them to your best abilities is anti-democratic.
Wow, I like the way you write and the care you take in explaining your positions; I almost never agree with you, but now - here you go! Agreed!
That is not their function. They are sworn to apply it, guided by the institutional mores of stare decisis. It's not some colonial reenactment exercise.
They are not sworn to be guided by stare decisis. In fact, when stare decisis conflicts with the Constitution they are sworn to ignore it.
They are more of a church than an advocacy group. That involves advocating for some religions, but not much else.
Religion gets a pass on compliance will generally applicable laws (and other provisions of the constitution), everyone else gets the hammer.
The supreme court is not much of a campaign issue for democrats. They don't have any power there, and can't get it anytime soon. Any sort of reform won't ever be coming.
Still a master of understatement...
The Supreme Court judges according to law.
They judge according to their opinion of the law which is at least partially informed by their faith and their politics. Their current opinion being that stare decisis should not limit their decisions.
And what else do you expect them to judge by? Your view of the Constitution? Earl Warren's, whom they reach by seance conducted in Chambers?
Yes, the current justices on the Court have a view of the Constitution and how cases arising under it should be decided. It is different from what other justices about 50 years ago thought. Which in turn was different from what justices 50 years before that thought. So what?
Their current opinion being that stare decisis should not limit their decisions.
Stare decisis has never been an absolute limit.
Stare decisis is just an excuse for not doing something anyway.
They’re well beyond ‘not an absolute limit’ these days,
Yawn. Everything is illegitimate when the lefties lose. Wait until they get hammered in the midterms. "Elections are illegitimate" will be the new vogue.
ChrisC predicts that after a half-century of getting their asses kicked in the culture war, clingers are about to turn that tide! Because intolerance, ignorance, depleted backwaters, childish superstition are making big comebacks in modern America!
Keep whistling and ignore that graveyard.
It was already the vogue after Trump won.
The first time or the second time?
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog Of John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, And All "Stolen Election" Clingers.
Did that look clever to you when you typed it?
Implying that my completely obvious observation is unclear just makes you look like even more of a moron than usual, which is quite an accomplishment.
Such an ironic comment coming from a right-wing twit whose leader epitomized election denialism.
The Warren court was much more unpopular in a much more right-of-center country and it didn't stop their rulings.
Buckle your seatbelts -- it is WAY past time for a correction.
DWB — The Eisenhower 50s were far to the left of today's politics. It may have been a historical point of inflection, marking the leftmost point of typical American conservatism ever.
I also think you misunderstand today's response on the political left to where the right has now arrived. It has as much or more to do with how the right got there than with issues the right now advocates. Notably threatening and novel is a perception that the political right no longer cares about either issues or process, but has shown instead that it cares only about power. That strikes me (aged 76) as unprecedented in my lifetime.
Stephen, maybe you could list some issues specifically where conservatives are more to the right now than they were in the 50's.
Back then they did lead the way in desegregating schools, both with Eisenhower's Warren court, and calling out the national guard in Little Rock. But it's still the GOP on the side of colorblindness, and when proposals are made today about racially segregating public or private accomodations they are almost certainly from the left.
And other issues like prayer in schools, anti-communism, lower taxes, anti-abortion, right to work, it's hard to make an argument about some sort of more liberal conservative movement, except to say the Democrats largely agreed with them on most of those issues, except for unions and desegregation.
The Republicans were way to the left of where they are now. Eisenhower would never get the GOP nomination for president.
Not long ago I happened across Richard Nixon's 1972 state of the union address on YouTube, so I listened to it. It was remarkable. He spoke about the need to build strong communities, to invest money in America's future, to enact programs that made Americans' lives better. No Republican would go there today. By the time it was over I was ready to vote for him myself.
Nixon was a liberal (and so was Bush the Greater) ... and I remember a time when a Democrat could be anti-communist and still a Democrat.
Still, it was not the GOP that was pushing racism/segregation -- the 1st conservative Republican president (Coolidge) was pro civil rights and pushed for federal anti-lynching laws.
As for progressivism -- that has always been racist.
DWB — Where I lived in the 1950s and 60s—and all over America—the GOP, in the persons of its most committed middle class voters, were actively enforcing racism/segregation via deed restrictions which purported to exclude blacks from home ownership in the whites’ neighborhoods. At the same time, many Democrats—the sub-group we would now call progressive Democrats—opposed and attacked those deed restrictions in court.
The notion that Republicans have always been anti-racist with regard to blacks is preposterous. Nobody alive today can remember a time when Republicans have not generally favored anti-black bigotry, and campaigned accordingly.
Democrats are the party which has evolved away from that former anti-black racism, to the extent that any political group has done so. Much remains to be done. Democrat or Republican, white Americans are not as a group active anti-racists today.
Uh ... no -- you will NOT rewrite history -- leave me the "dogwhistle" BS is is a damn lie.
NO!
"Eisenhower would never get the GOP nomination for president."
Yes, the GOP would never nominate the most popular man in the country.
Ike and Nixon were part of the New Deal consensus which stated breaking down over Vietnam and Reagan finished off. Left/right don't mean the same thing anymore.
lol I've always wondered whether these 'America was more leftwing in the 50s-80s' people are just delusional or trolls. Please tell me how specifically in absolute terms how a 50s-80s typical Republican would look upon gay marriage, transgender hormones for children etc.
How would a 50s-80s typical Democrat would look upon gay marriage, transgender hormones for children etc.
Recall that Obama said in 2012 that he opposed gay marriage.
They're just embarrassing themselves with the 'Nixon would be a modern California Democrat who loves transgender drugs for children' schtick gaslighting now. Its frankly hilarious
Democrat lies are not hilarious. We're way past that point.
I don't know how either Democrats or Republicans would have thought about gay marriage in the 50s and 60s because they most likely never thought about it. I do know that once people did think about it and it became obvious just how weak the arguments against it were, public opinion shifted in its favor fairly quickly. it's a logical extension of the principle that in a free society, people should generally be free to live their lives as they choose.
oh okay now we’re going from ’50s republicans were hardcore Bernie Sanders leftists’ theory thats so dumb you can’t defend it to ‘we have no idea what society in the 50s thought about homosexuals’. Wow…I can’t really tell if you are this far gone or are just a troll trying to get a rise lol.
The culture war didn’t get going until the 80s. Prior to that, left vs. right was based almost entirely on economic policy, focused on things like labor protections vs. laissez faire capitalism.
You seem to think the culture war is the only thing that matters, which is sad. It doesn’t matter at all.
I guess you won't mind losing it, then. That doesn't seem to square with your position on Dobbs, but no hobgoblins, eh?
I didn't say the 50s Republicans were hardcore Bernie Sanders leftists. I said they were to the left of where they are now. Which is true.
They thought about it so much that even California voted against it -- rewrite history much????
Well Homosexuality was universally against the law in the US in the 1950's, with no pushback until the Stonewall riots in 1969.
You don't think all the sudden between '59 and '69 people became more conservative and anti-gay?
I suppose the GOP was all over woman's lib and equal pay for equal work in the 50's too, and the Republican platform thought the Rosenberg's and Alger Hiss were framed.
No, I think political and social inertia is a real thing; if you've believed something all your life because you've never really thought it through, it doesn't mean that would still be your position if you did think it through. Most people just accept what they've grown up with without any real question.
And when someone comes along and says, Let's think about this, it may take awhile to overcome the inertia. But the relatively brief amount of time for gays to gain public acceptance compared to, say, black civil rights underscores my point. People hadn't thought about it before.
At the presidential running level, gay marriage was not solemnized by the Dems until Obama II IIRC.
This is not ancient history.
It's fun to rage at the Republicans for being a couple of elections later, after hundreds of years, millenia really, of both, nay, all sides against it.
See also raging at backwards countries who are also a few years behind.
As rhetoric, it's good for arm twisting, though.
To historians of the future, the whole thing will seem a very rapid flashover, historically.
"just delusional or trolls" ... It's awfully generous of you to assume it's one or the other, rather than both.
Stephen, maybe you could list some issues specifically where conservatives are more to the right now than they were in the 50’s.
Kazinski, I will let President Eisenhower list them for you. Here he is in a letter to his brother in 1954:
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this–in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
There is more in the letter in that vein, and also some stuff which cuts the other way. It’s an interesting look back at a different time. The letter was to his brother Edgar, written on November 8, 1954.
Ah, the innocence of youth, before we had actually seen what all those things cost in the long term.
You are right that it is very leftist to project one's ignorance and foolishness onto others, though.
The left has spent 90!!!! years just making things up, using the court to make changes the people would never vote for.
Overturning that theft and chaos is ANYTHING but a will to power.
Sadly it is too late, but the wailing and gnashing is at least semi-entertaining.
I agree with you that by popular vote the South would not have gotten rid of segregation and Jim Crow but that's not a reason for the court not to do it.
The reason for the Court to have done that was the 14th Amendment. Not their own sense of morality or what's good for America.
Uh ... no. Several federal civil-rights bills were passed and it was Democrats that resisted them every step of the way.
And don't with the "they all became Republicans" BS -- the VAST majority stayed Democrats until their dying day. Yellow-dog Democrats????
I said the *South* would not have passed it by popular vote, which is not quite the same thing as Congress forcing it on them with the help of the courts.
As for those old Dixiecrats, there's a difference between staying in the party you've always been in out of sheer inertia versus where the following generations chose to go in the first instance. If those Dixiecrats came back from the dead, today they'd all be voting Republican.
Funny -- because when they WERE alive and voting they continued to vote Democrat until they died.
NO!!!!
Except for all your caterwauling you think these days Dems are racist against whites, as I recall.
What that means about your thoughts on blacks these days is not too hard to figure.
Yes, he pretty clearly thinks that Dems are racist against Blacks too.
So blacks vote for the party that hates them??
Since the Democrats started "loving" blacks, a marriage rate HIGHER than whites is now the worst in the nation and we've got, what, 5 or 6 generations of hardcore, intergenerational poverty? In NYC there were more black babies murdered by abortion and there were born!
Perhaps you might "love" them a tad bit less, please?
During the Jim Crow era in the South, black voters voted for the Democrats - the ones creating and enforcing Jim Crow - 80-90% of the time.
They've voted Democrat since FDR bribed them with a small black-only public works program, despite his exclusion of them from the far larger white-only programs everyone else got.
So yeah, blacks have voted for the party that hated them in the past.
Do tell what you think my "thoughts on blacks these days" are.
Be aware: both of my wives have been black and all ten of my children are mixed.
I give you another chance: I hereby publicly condemn ALL racism, be it anti-white, anti-black or whatever else you think should be included as a "race."
Join me -- I give you a chance to condemn ALL racism.
Step up.
I miss the good old Eisenhower days of omnipresent pronoun policing, free taxpayer funded abortions for all, open borders with full benefits for all illegals, and endless Pride parades celebrating transgenderism in all the major cities.
Yeah, I'm a little disappointed that nobody came up with any specific positions where the GOP has shifted rightward.
Nobody wants to admit the big gulf between the parties was due to the shift of the Democrats far to the Left. Kennedy and Eisenhower and Goldwater and Reagan weren't that far apart. In fact Reagan was a Roosevelt Democrat, except on Unions and threat of Communism he didn't shift much to the right at all.
I think the modern GOP may have "moved to the right" on guns, although that actually means having taken a more liberal position. Back in the day, the right was quite happy to use gun control laws to disarm "undesirables" the same as the left.
I thought questioning the legitimacy of institutions was, you know, bad.
damikesc — Maybe it depends on whether the questioning is being done with an eye to restoring legitimacy, or destroying it. Pretty sure if you polled Americans to discover who they think is more concerned about Supreme Court legitimacy, President Biden or Justice Alito, Biden would come out on top. But I admit I am not certain. I would like to see that poll done.
You're "pretty certain" of an unending parade of nonsense.
Among the disappointingly small percentage who knew who Justice Alito is, I think these results would track pretty closely with "Do you like Democrats or Republicans?"
So, it's OK when you do it?
If you're conservative yes it is bad if you're prog not so much. Thats why for example it was okay to question the election in 2016 but not in 2020;
This isn’t new.
Prof. Bernstein, 2015 (talking about Joe Biden’s then-boss and his disdain for the law):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/15/so-sue-me-if-only-we-could/
Why did you choose to edit out the word "legal" in the quote, "...mantra popular on the legal left"?
Bernstein was certainly criticizing Obama, but even he recognized the distinction between legal left and political/policy left. I infer from your edit that you do too.
Because the broader (non-"legal") left believes the exact same thing, except perhaps more stridently?
Projection, as usual.
Where is Truth Minister Fruit Loops when we really need her?
So? I liken the Biden Presidency as a totalitarian crapshow.
Last I checked, you ignored Trump's behavior entirely. That means your opinion doesn't matter anymore - if it ever did.
Trump’s “totalitarian behavior” consisted of what?
I was off Trump’s train before ever getting on it (his endorsing Pence’s moronic touchback amnesty as sufficiently fulfilling “They all must go!” was a couple weeks after his announcement speech, iirc) but the lefty criticism of him (not to mention the Russia Hoax) is just loony tunes gaslighting.
The SC has handed the left massive victories fairly recently from SSM to Obummercare and has been no reliable friend to the right even in the post Trump composition era with covid legislation and rejecting his election challenges and the right did not question its fundamental legitimacy on the scale the left has if they step off the reservation once.
"no reliable friend to the right even in the post Trump composition era"
Bostock was just 2 years ago!
Attacking the supreme court is good for conservatives in the long run anyway. Federal courts have too much power.
Negative power is a good thing, otherwise Congress and the President gain more power.
Obviously a supreme court legislating is the worse kind of power, just restricting the other two branches to their enumerated powers is their proper role.
I think just about everyone can see the problem with Congress not exercising their powers and willingly ceding their power to the executive and judiciary, all 3 of the branches should fill their roles properly, neither overstepping or shirking.
One of Biden's simian appointees just stayed Suddaby's TRO. No surprise there.
" One of Biden’s simian appointees "
Why doe the Volokh Conspirators attract so many boorish bigots to this white, male, right-wing blog?
Why does the Volokh Conspiracy censor liberals, and scold people for other comments, but never seem to get around to confront (1) the flat-out bigots that they have cultivated as an audience or (2) the calls for liberals to be gassed, raped, placed face-down in landfills, shot int he fact as they open front doors, sent to Zyklon showers, sent through woodchippers, etc.?
Why will no Volokh Conspirator address these points?
The record is vivid and the answers seem obvious.
As usual, nothing from the Volokh Conspirators.
What a bunch of paltry cowards.
Thank you for demonstrating their lack of character, nekit2010g.
"As usual, nothing from the Volokh Conspirators."
As usual, your irrelevant repetitive shit interests no one.
It's a waste of time to argue about "who was liberal" or "who was conservative" in the 1960's or '70's or '80's, etc. The issues were different then, from what they are today.
Look at history a bit farther back for perspective. People think of Wilson as being on the Left because he was a Progressive and he supported US membership in the League of Nations. But he also re-segregated the federal work force. Teddy Roosevelt was an imperialist, so he must have been on the Right, right? But he was at least as much a Progressive as Wilson, and he supported voting rights for Negroes in the South (in those days, if they'd been allowed to vote they'd have voted Republican).
Idiotic political ideas should be criticized on their merits, not based on which party currently espouses them.
I'm not following. Surely support for segregation and disenfranchising "Negroes in the South" is not the conservative position today either!
It wasn’t a conservative position in the 50’s either.
Orval Faubus was more of a Henry Wallace Democrat on the far pink side of Democrats, but still a rabid segregationist that Eisenhower had to bring out federal troops to make him follow the Supreme Courts ruling.
I'm sorry, are you saying that racial segregation and discrimination are exclusively right-wing features?
And do you think that blacks in the South would have voted for Republicans? You do realize that many blacks DID vote, all through the Jim Crow era, and that they voted almost exclusively for the Democrats? Loyalty to the party of FDR (he made some black-only works programs) kept them voting that way for many years after.
You also seem to be trying to suggest the "issues were different" and therefore meaningful comparisons cannot be done, based on selecting exactly one feature you think doesn't fit from certain people. And yet, even with most modern politicians, you can easily select one feature that doesn't match their party platform - and yet, you can still make meaningful comparisons when the issues are no different.
SCOTUS ruled PA Democrats can’t use undated ballots in elections. PA Democrats just told SCOTUS “F-U, you and what army will enforce that”.
I’d expect heavily armed FBI raids on non-liberal SCOTUS justices’ families soon.
No one needs to listen to the deranged ravings of an "advocacy group".
You are precisely the commenter the Volokh Conspiracy wants and deserves.
You are precisely the noxious smell Volokh ought to ban again.
You keep on expecting liberals to do some fascist shit any day now that never happens.
Since you, undeterred, keep coming up with new shit, it looks a lot like you don’t really believe any of it.
Nah, "liberals" doing fascist shit never happens.
And you're not lying if you believe it.
We just don't know how broken your brain is.
“I’d expect heavily armed FBI raids on non-liberal SCOTUS justices’ families soon.”
Don’t pretend this is the latest campus kerfuffle he’s invoking.
I’ll bet you didn’t bother to read his comment, did you?
They are doing heavily armed FBI raids on Christian family men for sitting in hallways of abortion clinics and singing hymns.
The Democrats are using the power of government institutions against political opponents. It's an easy inference to make that they will start escalating from regular white Christian family men, to more powerful conservatives or perceived political opponents.
Read the news everyone in awhile and turn off MSNBC or CNN.
I read his comment, but that doesn't restrict the scope of YOUR sentence. Anyway, if the FBI can raid Trump over nothing why should I think Thomas is off-limits for attempted exemplary intimidation next?
well, when 5 of the 9 supreme court justices are appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote, its easy to see why many feel there is something wrong. the court is probably conservative for a generation now. did the majority of voters want that? no. but that is what our "democracy" gives us. a counter majoritarian presidency (with Trump at least--not Biden), a counter majoritarian congress (thanks gerrymandering!), and a counter majoritarian supreme court. sure gives most of us a lot to think about.
“…the court is probably conservative for a generation now… a counter majoritarian supreme court. sure gives most of us a lot to think about.”
Your brain is as broken as Biden’s. He’s got brain rot. What’s YOUR excuse?
so substantive. good on you.
Short Bus Sadida speaks. I quoted you. Mentioning Obamacare, Obergefell, etc. I deemed entirely superfluous. Until now.
so... let me see if I can extract meaning from that. those are two supreme court decisions that align with popular sentiment? and so you think mentioning those responds to what I said? um, ok ... keep on keeping on!
There’s no need to keep proving that you are as dumb as a box of bricks. We already get that. But while I can’t fix stupid, it may be possible to educate you if I gos slow enough, I guess. So…
1) I quoted you: “…the court is probably conservative for a generation now… ”
2) When you professed incomprehension I gave counterexamples the showed what a dumbass take that was: “Obamacare, Obergefell, etc.”
If you still don’t get it I give up.
I get now why you always lead with insults. Those are your best points.
The first insult is invariably to my intelligence, as you did in the first post of yours that I responded to.
AmosArch came up with the exact same examples, as they are in fact the most egregious of recent memory, and Bob from Ohio adds Bostock to Obamacare and Obergefell, but the rebuttal examples are legion. Someone else points out that Roe wasn’t “conservative”, either. If you don’t want to be called an idiot don’t say idiotic things. We are way past the point where those fucking with our lives have any claim on politeness.
What would the popular vote have been without the people fraudulently foisted upon the American people?
um, yeah. back to that. lol.
This criticism wouldn't be very persuasive if it's premises were true, but of course they're not true: Roberts and Alito were broke appointed after Bush won the popular vote in 2004.
thanks for the correction. so 3 out of 9 justices have been appointed by a president (trump) who didnt win the popular vote. and those 3 justices form half of the current conservative majority on the court. so its still fair to say then that that conservative majority does not at all represent the choice of the majority of voters, and would not exist if the choice of that majority had been honored. and so my main point remains true. that our "democracy" gives a huge amount of power, in all three branches of government, to the minority views, and often more power than to the majority views (i.e., in the case of the current supreme court, in the case of the current congress, in the case of trump). that is taking "protecting the minority" WAY too far. the system is out of balance. it can not reasonably be called a democracy that gives power to the people when it actively takes it away from the majority of those people.
There is no nationwide popular vote in the US for anything, and every US president in the modern era has won the vote in the Electoral College, the only one was kind of matches that description.
Of course, in the past 11 elections, more Republican presidents have won the "popular vote" than Democrats. 4 times, to the Democrat's 3. So I guess Republicans are more legitimate and so are their SCOTUS appointees, eh?
No doubt John Roberts will want to straighten Biden out on this issue.
https://is.gd/EK4KZG
Of course forcing same sex marriage on unwilling states was OK and so was allowing the state to close your business if you didn't want to produce a work of art for someone based upon your religious objection. Compulsory speech is cool as long as it is cool, that is....
To the extent that the Supreme Court is seen as political and factors into voting decisions, my bet is that it would tend to help the side that feels like they aren't benefiting.
Kind of how midterms tend to go against the party that controls the presidency. After one side wins, it seems as though two factors come into play (1) people disappointed that their party did not deliver enough and (2) people just satisfied, and so less willing to put effort into voting.
I think this may explain why things seem to swing back and forth. OTOH, Dems did control the House for a long time... but I am not sure if one party will have control of a major government institution over such a long period of time in the modern era.