When a fox attacks a hen house, is it uncivil for the hens to raise a ruckus? Two Supreme Court justices say it is. Elevating collegiality above social justice, right-wing extremist Amy Coney Barrett and progressive jurist Sonia Sotomayor have jointly been hailing America’s top Court as a model of genteel political discourse, claiming that the six Republicans and three Democrats disagree agreeably. “We do not interrupt one another, and we never raise our voices,”
Polite or not is irrelevant. No major political change was achieved by really rude or polite decorum. The assault on peoples' rights by this ultra-conservative court is about being hugely wealthy or not. The wealthy get most of this court's decisions, disguised usually, but regular citizens don't have enough friends in the 6 versus 3 court because they aren't wealthy enough to engage in bribery in its various forms, ie. The Heritage Foundation, the Koch organization, etc. Louis Brandeis warned us all about allowing great wealth in the hands of a few, but he spent his life fighting against monopolies and huge trust in the early 20th century and knew well what power the ultra-wealthy wielded then. The rich mostly don't give a damn about good schools, health care, human rights, the environment, decent pay for regular workers. Thomas Piketty's grand opus on wealth shows clearly that wealth always makes more money than labor and tends to not bear the burden of national debt, so they always are getting further ahead and getting away with not supporting their nations or their own citizens and neighbors. Their sons (now daughters too) tend to get out of military service, while ordinary families lose members to our wars. They are always seeking more money and more power, so are not going to be stopped unless The People stop them and keep stopping them as a regular feature of democratic life. Polite discussion is nothing in this class warfare.
I agree. Time to take the gloves off & call this gaggle of arch conservatives out for who they really are, anti-women, pro-fascist, Trumpists who should not be in the court’s majority in the first place!
I agree - it's the Supreme Court, not the Courtly Supremes. Courtliness is just a front for deeply corrupt behavior. I'm disappointed in Sonia Sotomayor has endorsed such a cover instead of exposing the rot beneath.
What aggravates me as much as anything is the liberals knew damn well Thomas has been taking bribes for decades, not “financial assistance” not “gifts”, BRIBES and said nothing. They all suck.
As a women’s rights activist for many years, many times have I caused good trouble for the cause. I will continue with a lack of decorum as long as those in power continue to treat me as a second class citizen. I love how you make a point in a witty, concise manner which also makes me smile.
Trump -- cultivating The Angry Know-Nothings and promising the destruction of the (imperfect) system we support, a destruction The Want It All Billionaires Crave, and are willing to pay for it!
Us? -- hand-wringers, (pious pontificators), bursting with indignation at the assault on what we say we want to protect.
Who has the most to gain? Who has the most to lose? Who cares enough TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN NOVEMBER? We'll all find out when the polls close. Mike Drop.
To my mind and I keep repeating this time and time again.
I live in France: We have separation of Church and State this means that Politicians do not choose who is on our Supreme Court.
Incidentally: NOT REPORTED in MSMedia is the fact that allowance of 'abortion' is written into our constitution now (3 weeks ago) Why was this not reported?
I think Amy "phoney" Barrett was asleep when the ruckus was going on! Of course, we should insist on defending democracy! If we don't, we will get atrocious autocracy and we will have no one to blame except ourselves.
I'll let the ju.stices on the SCOTUS have their own rules for decorum. But I'll respond to their rulings as I please. It is not within their purview to tell me what to think or what to say about their rulings.
The current Supreme Court has a trust problem and a credibility problem and an ethical problem and their public approval ratings are sinking lower and lower. (And the bad news for all of us is that they don't care. And basically snub their noses at us and say too bad, na na you can't do anything to us and we certainly won't do anything to "fix" our mess) I remember reading about the Canadian Supreme Court where someone said that they did not always know how the court would rule. That is sadly not the case with this court. Many of their rulings are very obvious nods to those that have bought and paid for them. Like the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, etc. Changes need to be made in the court starting with the loss of lifetime tenure, bad "justices" can do too much damage for too long with little to no recourse to get rid of them. Being polite is one thing, abuse of power and one sided predetermined rulings are completely different. Like Rachel Bitecofer says in her book "Hit 'Em Where It Hurts: How to Save Democracy by Beating Republicans at Their Own Game". "Republicans (and the current Supreme Court, my words) are a threat to our Freedom, our Health, our Wealth, and our Safety".
Polite or not is irrelevant. No major political change was achieved by really rude or polite decorum. The assault on peoples' rights by this ultra-conservative court is about being hugely wealthy or not. The wealthy get most of this court's decisions, disguised usually, but regular citizens don't have enough friends in the 6 versus 3 court because they aren't wealthy enough to engage in bribery in its various forms, ie. The Heritage Foundation, the Koch organization, etc. Louis Brandeis warned us all about allowing great wealth in the hands of a few, but he spent his life fighting against monopolies and huge trust in the early 20th century and knew well what power the ultra-wealthy wielded then. The rich mostly don't give a damn about good schools, health care, human rights, the environment, decent pay for regular workers. Thomas Piketty's grand opus on wealth shows clearly that wealth always makes more money than labor and tends to not bear the burden of national debt, so they always are getting further ahead and getting away with not supporting their nations or their own citizens and neighbors. Their sons (now daughters too) tend to get out of military service, while ordinary families lose members to our wars. They are always seeking more money and more power, so are not going to be stopped unless The People stop them and keep stopping them as a regular feature of democratic life. Polite discussion is nothing in this class warfare.
1) The simple answer is "NO" or "Hell, NO!"
2) The "Supreme Court" is a depraved joke:
2a) Dred Scott
2b) Buck vs. Bell
2c) Citizens United
2d) Dancing around that vulgar boor, Trump, instead of doing the right thing.
2e) Obvious corruption
I agree. Time to take the gloves off & call this gaggle of arch conservatives out for who they really are, anti-women, pro-fascist, Trumpists who should not be in the court’s majority in the first place!
I agree - it's the Supreme Court, not the Courtly Supremes. Courtliness is just a front for deeply corrupt behavior. I'm disappointed in Sonia Sotomayor has endorsed such a cover instead of exposing the rot beneath.
Strident and outwardly active WE NEED TO BE!
our current Supreme Court has 3 known sexual predators deciding cases. our Supreme Court needs to enact and follow strict ethical guidelines!
The world is full of lying corrupt weasels that don't like it when you notice they are lying corrupt weasels
What aggravates me as much as anything is the liberals knew damn well Thomas has been taking bribes for decades, not “financial assistance” not “gifts”, BRIBES and said nothing. They all suck.
As a women’s rights activist for many years, many times have I caused good trouble for the cause. I will continue with a lack of decorum as long as those in power continue to treat me as a second class citizen. I love how you make a point in a witty, concise manner which also makes me smile.
Thank you for expressing the above. I had the pleasure of hearing the tone in which it was said in my head and that felt good.
Antonin Scalia used to be very strident and sarcastic in his dissents. Remember "argle bargle" and "jiggery-pokery?"
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-look-at-the-justice-antonin-scalias-most-unusual-word-choices
Trump -- cultivating The Angry Know-Nothings and promising the destruction of the (imperfect) system we support, a destruction The Want It All Billionaires Crave, and are willing to pay for it!
Us? -- hand-wringers, (pious pontificators), bursting with indignation at the assault on what we say we want to protect.
Who has the most to gain? Who has the most to lose? Who cares enough TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN NOVEMBER? We'll all find out when the polls close. Mike Drop.
To my mind and I keep repeating this time and time again.
I live in France: We have separation of Church and State this means that Politicians do not choose who is on our Supreme Court.
Incidentally: NOT REPORTED in MSMedia is the fact that allowance of 'abortion' is written into our constitution now (3 weeks ago) Why was this not reported?
I think Amy "phoney" Barrett was asleep when the ruckus was going on! Of course, we should insist on defending democracy! If we don't, we will get atrocious autocracy and we will have no one to blame except ourselves.
I'll let the ju.stices on the SCOTUS have their own rules for decorum. But I'll respond to their rulings as I please. It is not within their purview to tell me what to think or what to say about their rulings.
The current Supreme Court has a trust problem and a credibility problem and an ethical problem and their public approval ratings are sinking lower and lower. (And the bad news for all of us is that they don't care. And basically snub their noses at us and say too bad, na na you can't do anything to us and we certainly won't do anything to "fix" our mess) I remember reading about the Canadian Supreme Court where someone said that they did not always know how the court would rule. That is sadly not the case with this court. Many of their rulings are very obvious nods to those that have bought and paid for them. Like the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, etc. Changes need to be made in the court starting with the loss of lifetime tenure, bad "justices" can do too much damage for too long with little to no recourse to get rid of them. Being polite is one thing, abuse of power and one sided predetermined rulings are completely different. Like Rachel Bitecofer says in her book "Hit 'Em Where It Hurts: How to Save Democracy by Beating Republicans at Their Own Game". "Republicans (and the current Supreme Court, my words) are a threat to our Freedom, our Health, our Wealth, and our Safety".
Don't you admire Barrett's qualifications? She came to the Supremes from occupying Notre Dame law school's Tomas de Torquemada chair of Jurisprudence.