Conservative members of the Supreme Court have recently faced a barrage of attacks from press outlets working in conjunction with left-leaning interest groups over the past month. They have attacked Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts’ wife. Every single story has omitted key details or gotten basic facts wrong. For example, stories misrepresented Neil Gorsuch’s sale of property to turn a non-scandal into scandal. They also confused an LLC for an LLP and claimed Clarence Thomas had not filed paperwork that he had filed. Each of these attacks is not just revenge for the Court getting rid of Roe. They are trying to rough up the Justices by scaring them into restraint.
I have to go back to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012, where Roberts upheld an argument that was not made. His entire opinion held that the government did not have the authority to implement an individual mandate, then in essentially the last sentence, "if the individual mandate penalty payment can be read as a tax, then it may fall within Congress's taxing authority"... that was never presented. That was the definition of legislating from the bench.
Why? Because he didn't want the Court to look political? Well it looked f'ing political.
The only thing keeping this Republic a Republic is the Supreme Court. Pack it and you may as well change the name of the country to The United Socialist States of America. I've never bought into the country breaking up into pieces (which I see as bad). But if this continues, things could get very rocky down the road. I just do not see certain places in this country rolling over to Socialism
The Democrats can't pack the Supreme Court, as they can't get the votes in either House of Congress. Realizing that, they have embarked on a vicious campaign of slander and scandalmongering aimed at intimidation, just as you noted.
They might persuade Gorsuch to turn tail, but I doubt they can sway any others, especially Clarence Thomas. After their illegal demonstrations in front of Justices' homes failed, they should realize that they're paddling upstream against a stiff current. What they are most likely to do, IMO, is so royally anger both the Court and voters that they'll stir up Upchuck Schumer's whirlwind only to discover it hitting them.
Erick, the attack on the court really started with Chuck Schumer standing outside the SCOTUS building warning, "you Kavanaugh" and "you Gorsuch" that they will "reap the whirlwind."
The protests outside the justices homes, and an actual threat on the life on Kavanaugh, seem to be the outer bands of an even larger, more violent whirlwind yet to come.
For some reason Progressives like to brag about how FDR supposedly bullied the Supreme Court into validating New Deal legislation. In fact FDR’s bill never made it out of the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, where even the Democrats wrote that “It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” The bill never had a chance, and the justices who allegedly switched their votes were never afraid that FDR would be able to pack the court.
The four conservative justices, “the Four Horsemen,” Justices George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, and Willis Van Devanter, never stopped voting against New Deal legislation generally. The two justices who did appear to switch were Charles Evans Hughes, the chief justice, who had come from the Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt wing of the GOP, and Owen Roberts, who was appointed by Hoover.
While Hoover eventually repudiated his entire political background as a Progressive Republican, that didn’t come until after FDR defeated him soundly in 1932. Prior to the defeat Hoover had bolted the GOP with TR in 1912 and become a member of the Progressive Party, or Bull Moose Party as it was known the time TR grabbed the nomination from the founders, the LaFollettes of Wisconsin. Hoover was in fact such a notorious Progressive that even Democrat President Woodrow Wilson appointed Hoover both Chair of the Commission for Relief in Belgium and then Director of the United States Food Administration during World War I. Hover was an integral part of what was known at the time as Wilson’s War Socialism. As Secretary of Commerce, without even a law from Congress, Hoover grabbed control of the airwaves for the government. He also spoke out against Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s large cuts in marginal income tax rates, and then, as president, Hoover undid most of the tax cuts. Two years before FDR got Congress to authorize spending federal money to try to trick the economy into real grow, Hoover was doing the same thing, albeit under the guise of “loans” made to the state government for “work projects.” There’s even a biography of Hoover called Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive. So Roberts was the appointment of a Progressive president, not a conservative.
Hughes and Roberts, both from Progressive backgrounds, did swing away from invalidating New Deal legislature, but while they had voted against the National Industrial Recovery Act, they had always been swing votes in the Supreme Court, much like more recent justices Sandra Day O’Conner and Anthony Kennedy. Hughes and Roberts sometimes voted with the three liberals on the court, and sometimes with the four conservatives. That didn’t change after FDR’s toothless threat to pack the Court.
The Court, furthermore, didn’t strike down the NIRA and other early New Deal laws simply on liberty grounds or interstate grounds, but also on separation of powers grounds. In particular the Court held in Schechter Poultry v. United States that the NIRA unconstitutionally delegated Congressional legislature authority to the Executive branch. FDR’s lieutenants carefully crafted later New Deal laws to avoid having the Court strike them down over a lack of separation of powers. By avoiding the issue of Congress delegating its authority to the Executive, later new Deal laws at times persuaded the two swing justices to swing in favor of them. The swing justices were not intimidated by FDR’s toothless threat, and the four actual conservatives never voted to uphold New Deal laws at all.
I start conversations with progressives now asking for a definition of fascism. They can't give you one, at least not the one the dictionary has next to that word. The moment they admit the tactics of the left are fascist tactics it is over for them. It is truly authoritarian fascism for them to decide to pack the court because they can't win elections, can no longer get their way in the courts, and what they want is patently unconstitutional (and they know it.) The moment the Rule of Law no longer actually binds not just their aristocrats in high office but the common progressive as well, that's the day the shooting war inside our borders begins. There will no longer be anything to restrain those on the right when the law becomes an overt weapon of the left.
"Progressives have nothing to lose by trying to destroy the Court."
Nothing, except the assumption of basic honesty. One of their favorite stunts is to send armies of trolls to drown out conservative voices in places like the Wall Street Journal comments sections. To which there is a standard reply: "Everything you say is tendentious, false, deliberate obfuscation. EVERYTHING". They're worse than the Chinese
The war on the Supreme Court began with pres. Obama’s attack with his State of the Union speech.
As I remember it was about a recently decided case which was perceived by the left as injurious to their interests. Obama a lawyer, misstated the facts on purpose.
Wasn’t it Justice Alito who mouthed ,”you lie” & had to apologize afterwards?
The attacks continued with Sen. Shumer & now Sen. Durban.
Now they mistake facts and attack the wives of these great justices.
"Progressives have nothing to lose by trying to destroy the Court."
Alternatively, I think progressives have a lot to lose by attacking the court. The Roberts court has ruled in favor of many progressive interests. My guess is that the justices are clear that there is no longer any benefit trying to placate these radicals.
I have to go back to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012, where Roberts upheld an argument that was not made. His entire opinion held that the government did not have the authority to implement an individual mandate, then in essentially the last sentence, "if the individual mandate penalty payment can be read as a tax, then it may fall within Congress's taxing authority"... that was never presented. That was the definition of legislating from the bench.
Why? Because he didn't want the Court to look political? Well it looked f'ing political.
The only thing keeping this Republic a Republic is the Supreme Court. Pack it and you may as well change the name of the country to The United Socialist States of America. I've never bought into the country breaking up into pieces (which I see as bad). But if this continues, things could get very rocky down the road. I just do not see certain places in this country rolling over to Socialism
The Democrats can't pack the Supreme Court, as they can't get the votes in either House of Congress. Realizing that, they have embarked on a vicious campaign of slander and scandalmongering aimed at intimidation, just as you noted.
They might persuade Gorsuch to turn tail, but I doubt they can sway any others, especially Clarence Thomas. After their illegal demonstrations in front of Justices' homes failed, they should realize that they're paddling upstream against a stiff current. What they are most likely to do, IMO, is so royally anger both the Court and voters that they'll stir up Upchuck Schumer's whirlwind only to discover it hitting them.
Erick, the attack on the court really started with Chuck Schumer standing outside the SCOTUS building warning, "you Kavanaugh" and "you Gorsuch" that they will "reap the whirlwind."
The protests outside the justices homes, and an actual threat on the life on Kavanaugh, seem to be the outer bands of an even larger, more violent whirlwind yet to come.
Supreme Court Packing FDR
For some reason Progressives like to brag about how FDR supposedly bullied the Supreme Court into validating New Deal legislation. In fact FDR’s bill never made it out of the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, where even the Democrats wrote that “It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” The bill never had a chance, and the justices who allegedly switched their votes were never afraid that FDR would be able to pack the court.
The four conservative justices, “the Four Horsemen,” Justices George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, and Willis Van Devanter, never stopped voting against New Deal legislation generally. The two justices who did appear to switch were Charles Evans Hughes, the chief justice, who had come from the Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt wing of the GOP, and Owen Roberts, who was appointed by Hoover.
While Hoover eventually repudiated his entire political background as a Progressive Republican, that didn’t come until after FDR defeated him soundly in 1932. Prior to the defeat Hoover had bolted the GOP with TR in 1912 and become a member of the Progressive Party, or Bull Moose Party as it was known the time TR grabbed the nomination from the founders, the LaFollettes of Wisconsin. Hoover was in fact such a notorious Progressive that even Democrat President Woodrow Wilson appointed Hoover both Chair of the Commission for Relief in Belgium and then Director of the United States Food Administration during World War I. Hover was an integral part of what was known at the time as Wilson’s War Socialism. As Secretary of Commerce, without even a law from Congress, Hoover grabbed control of the airwaves for the government. He also spoke out against Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s large cuts in marginal income tax rates, and then, as president, Hoover undid most of the tax cuts. Two years before FDR got Congress to authorize spending federal money to try to trick the economy into real grow, Hoover was doing the same thing, albeit under the guise of “loans” made to the state government for “work projects.” There’s even a biography of Hoover called Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive. So Roberts was the appointment of a Progressive president, not a conservative.
Hughes and Roberts, both from Progressive backgrounds, did swing away from invalidating New Deal legislature, but while they had voted against the National Industrial Recovery Act, they had always been swing votes in the Supreme Court, much like more recent justices Sandra Day O’Conner and Anthony Kennedy. Hughes and Roberts sometimes voted with the three liberals on the court, and sometimes with the four conservatives. That didn’t change after FDR’s toothless threat to pack the Court.
The Court, furthermore, didn’t strike down the NIRA and other early New Deal laws simply on liberty grounds or interstate grounds, but also on separation of powers grounds. In particular the Court held in Schechter Poultry v. United States that the NIRA unconstitutionally delegated Congressional legislature authority to the Executive branch. FDR’s lieutenants carefully crafted later New Deal laws to avoid having the Court strike them down over a lack of separation of powers. By avoiding the issue of Congress delegating its authority to the Executive, later new Deal laws at times persuaded the two swing justices to swing in favor of them. The swing justices were not intimidated by FDR’s toothless threat, and the four actual conservatives never voted to uphold New Deal laws at all.
I start conversations with progressives now asking for a definition of fascism. They can't give you one, at least not the one the dictionary has next to that word. The moment they admit the tactics of the left are fascist tactics it is over for them. It is truly authoritarian fascism for them to decide to pack the court because they can't win elections, can no longer get their way in the courts, and what they want is patently unconstitutional (and they know it.) The moment the Rule of Law no longer actually binds not just their aristocrats in high office but the common progressive as well, that's the day the shooting war inside our borders begins. There will no longer be anything to restrain those on the right when the law becomes an overt weapon of the left.
"Progressives have nothing to lose by trying to destroy the Court."
Nothing, except the assumption of basic honesty. One of their favorite stunts is to send armies of trolls to drown out conservative voices in places like the Wall Street Journal comments sections. To which there is a standard reply: "Everything you say is tendentious, false, deliberate obfuscation. EVERYTHING". They're worse than the Chinese
The war on the Supreme Court began with pres. Obama’s attack with his State of the Union speech.
As I remember it was about a recently decided case which was perceived by the left as injurious to their interests. Obama a lawyer, misstated the facts on purpose.
Wasn’t it Justice Alito who mouthed ,”you lie” & had to apologize afterwards?
The attacks continued with Sen. Shumer & now Sen. Durban.
Now they mistake facts and attack the wives of these great justices.
What an insult; how deplorable .
"Progressives have nothing to lose by trying to destroy the Court."
Alternatively, I think progressives have a lot to lose by attacking the court. The Roberts court has ruled in favor of many progressive interests. My guess is that the justices are clear that there is no longer any benefit trying to placate these radicals.