Anyone with any reach into the eyes and minds of our electorate should repost this far and wide.
Thank you so much for the history and civics lesson.
{I see in this SO many ways that miscreants can work to subvert the considered will of the people, even so far as trying to UN-do our access to judicial appeal .. but this legislating and controlling from the SCOTUS bench has gone beyond the pale. Work certainly needs to be done to rein in this court.}
I have lived in Illinois for all my life except for a few months and couldn't understand why the Dems have backed Durbin for so many years. He talks a good game and drops a few crumbs to the Dems every six years, but otherwise is pretty much invisible.
That is my congressman, Rick Larsen, totally invisible until election time, I have written him a number of times and his office responds with a vanilla and non committal response.
That is how they survive, do nothing, no controversy
Careerism is the problem. The job has perks, Congressional Salaries are a little over $174,000 a year, great health insurance program, free travel, per diem, dinners, gifts, and inside knowledge where to invest and when to invest or sell. They may enter with a modest savings account or investment, but soon become millionaires.
I think Durban and Biden and Garland and about 60% of the democratic party are Republicans. They are dinos put in there by the billionaires who always destroy democracy!
Politicians come in two flavors. Ideologues and pragmatists. Pragmatists come in two flavors. Those who settle because they realize that can't reach for the stars and those that have no guiding star except their own career.
Impeachment and Constitutional amendment are checks on SCOTUS. Legal lingo and administrative law bypass our rights but provide a good living for the lawyer class that includes our government.
And it’s long overdo. The Democrats in many instances are crossing their fingers and waiting for Maga to come to their senses. Problem: Magas , No sense . Problem : Democrats, Risk averse.
It seems that payment for a favor in advance of receiving the favor is “bribery”, but that payment after receiving the favor ie. “on credit” is a “gratuity”.
This has the potential for an entirely new financial instrument—a credit card company that will submit your wish to SCOTUS or the politician of your choice, payable as you wish. Perhaps they can also grant the card holder the privilege of making payments tax deductible,
I agree that the senate should step in, but Hamilton did not write the Constitution and the concepts of stare decisis (precedent) and constitutionality come to us from British law. Congress has no authority to diminish those rights and to date has not tried. "Exceptions" do not mean Congress can end stare decisis and constitutionality.
On February 13, 1801, after the Federalists lost the 1800 election, a lame-duck Federalist Congress, determined to keep the judiciary in Federalist hands, passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created dozens of new federal circuit judges and justices of the peace — to be appointed by President Adams, before Jefferson could be sworn in on March 4. Importantly, the Act also conferred original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to “persons holding office” under federal law — that is, to order executive officials to take (or refrain from taking) particular actions.
The Judiciary Act of 1801, also known as the Circuit Court Act, was passed at the very end of President John Adams's administration and during the second session of the Sixth Congress. The act became law on February 13, 1801 after passing first the House (on January 20th, 1801) and then the Senate (on February 7, 1801).
Because of its last-minute nature of passage, many of the judicial appointments became known as midnight judges (or sometimes, midnight appointments). These appointments were challenged in the Supreme Court case Marbury et al. v. Madison.
On March 3, Adams signed, and the Senate confirmed, dozens of appointments, which led to the delivery of the “midnight commissions” — dispatched to new judges on the night before Jefferson’s inauguration — a task assigned to outgoing Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice John Marshall. But Marshall failed to deliver the commission of one William Marbury, who was to serve as justice of the peace for the District of Columbia.
When Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, he discovered a sheaf of undelivered commissions and promptly ordered them withheld. Marbury sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver Marbury’s commission. The case was set for argument the following term, and it was destined to become a landmark of American jurisprudence.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Marbury did have a right to his commission, which had been duly signed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but the section of the Judiciary Act that authorized the Court to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury sought was itself unconstitutional.
I think our problem is that some justices are corrupt. Others are ideologues.
I don't think Congress can eliminate the concept of constitutionality.
This is a bleak day for me today as SCOTUS has killed the SEC hearing process, I retired in 2018 and although I did not hear SEC cases per se, I am a past president of FALJC, the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, and was chair of another huge judicial organization that housed SEC judges, and was fighting an uphill battle to avoid being a judicial Dodo bird or Mastodon. I heard Sarbanes Oxley Dodd Frank whistleblower cases that involved the SEC.
The case began after the SEC launched in-house enforcement proceedings in 2013 against George Jarkesy, a conservative radio host who managed approximately $24 million in assets across two hedge funds with his investment advisory firm, Patriot28 LLC.
An administrative law judge found Jarkesy violated securities laws by making false claims about who was auditing the funds to investors, misrepresenting the funds’ investment strategy and overvaluing the funds to increase management fees.
Jarkesy appealed, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of him by invalidating the SEC’s scheme on three different constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower decision on the first ground: that Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.
But the justices did not address the lower panel’s other two findings that the SEC’s system was additionally unconstitutional because it improperly delegated legislative power and created impermissible removal protections for administrative law judges.
Another big win for big business.
The basis for the attack largely comes from the false allegation that American administrative law is “unlawful” and tyrannous -- "that we have recreated, in another guise, the world of executive 'prerogative' that would have obtained if James II had prevailed, and the Glorious Revolution never occurred. Administrative agencies, crouched around the President’s throne, enjoy extralegal or supralegal power; the Environmental Protection Agency, with its administrative rulemaking and combined legislative, executive and judicial functions, is a modern Star Chamber." See Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Philip A. Hamburger (2014).
One of the prime movers in the bump stock and Mifepristone and this case is the "New Civil Liberties Alliance" group of lawyers, which according to its newsletter, "is working tirelessly to uphold the fundamental rights and liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard NCLA’s Garland v. Cargill case, which challenges the ATF’s effort to rewrite a federal statute that bans bump stocks—something ONLY Congress can do."
Founded by Hamburger, the Alliance is funded by donations from individuals, foundations, and corporations. While NCLA does not disclose its donors, tax filings show notable donations from the Charles Koch Foundation ($1 million in 2017), Donors Trust ($1 million in 2019) , and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($300,000 in 2018).
Among its lawyers are Jeff Clark, who has been indicted a couple of times, https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/clark-trial/ and its board is chaired by Janice Rogers Brown, formerly of the DC Cir. Court of Appeals, who once said that the Social Security Act was unconstitutional in a dissent.
As recently as March, the Alliance provided testimony that in essence, administrative agencies are unconstitutional.
Congress is the House and the Senate, most Americans think they are one and the same when they hear or use the word Congress.
Article III section 1 Vesting clause
Section 1 Vesting Clause
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office
Section II Juticiability'
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Section 3. Jurisdiction"
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
which is an analysis and interpretation of the constitution I see lots of sub section interpreations which raises the question who interpreted and by what authority.
In fact there is nothing in the Constitution as regards appointments or approval of federal judges, nor their removal.
It is only by custom that the Senate, not the House, approves their appointment, and he who giveth can taketh away.
I included that link in my first reply, but it lacks the force of law. It is just someones analysis and interpretation and says so at the top.
There is nothing in the constitution or law that enumerates those interpretations, in other words they are some one's opinion, maybe DOJ, but it is an opinion only, not law. Same thing with Barr's bullshit rationale for not prosecuting the president.
Is our country ran by the opinion of the political appointee that sits as Attorney General? if so, then is Thomas Cromwell to Henry VIII
For the love of whatever you the reader find sacred in this world - Read. This. Piece.
Serious people need to start listening to Thom Hartmann in a very serious way. And serious people need to seriously do a damn thing about our Supreme Court in which a corrupt majority has perverted itself into a Court of Supremacy.
Thanks to people like Dick Durbin, the Democrats are no less responsible for the current state of affairs than the Repugnicans. I wonder if money has anything to do with it.
The existence of a court that, like a king, has absolute authority, has no accountability to citizens, and is above all law is the result of deliberate design. It was the intent of the designers.
@Ed. And why did the Founders design a Senate and the electoral college? I am aware that Hartman attributes noble intentions to them, but the people were already starting to rebel against the British. Maybe they didn't want to end up with a government with majority rule. The faction they were concerned with protecting was the wealthy property owners. I read Hartman's analysis of the status of the signers and most weren't wealthy, but they were upper middle by today's standards and positioned to become wealthy. none of them were low wage earners or slaves. even men couldn't vote unless they owned land. It has worked the way it was intended to work.
They certainly did NOT intend that citizens live under a democracy, but rather under a privileged ruling class instead of a monarchy. They modeled our government to an extent after the English government, and a reading of the Guardian shows that both nations have similar problems as the result. The founders were not saints, and any attempt to deify them as such certainly has to ignore history. They were courageous, and were aware that most would have been hung had their revolution failed. But they began this revolution motivated primarily with the ambition: "We can run this place." And they pulled it off.
And the "citizens united" decision by the Court ensured that the two cartel parties got hooked on corruption and evolved to do the same. The parties are so corrupt now that both are trying to out-jump the other to get the cash representing the interests of a foreign government. They encourage that government's interfering in our elections, dictating our foreign policy, limiting our citizens' exercise of their Constitutional rights, employing violence to discourage protests and subverting academic freedom of our universities.
And no, it isn't just one party doing this. If either party really stood for the interests of democracy and empowerment of the citizens, NONE of this could currently be happening.
Mr. Nuhfer, we all , no doubt, just finished watching the debate between Trump and Biden. It is clear now to all voters that Biden is a doddering, confused old man. The Democratic Party can no longer hide it. Trump lied, bloviated and mocked as he walked all over Biden. What is also clear is that our SYSTEM has failed us so badly that the Republican Party has backed a literal rapacious criminal and the Democratic Party has backed a tired, senile old man. This shameful spectacle is a symptom of the undeniably serious decline and immanent collapse of the American Empire. Our political system is on life support.
The Democratic Party should never have backed Biden at the beginning of this contest. Surely party members close to Biden could see his deterioration. The question then becomes: why did they not speak up a long time ago and tell Biden "thank you for your service, but you cannot be our candidate this time?" The answer is something along the lines of political atherosclerosis. An apt metaphor for BOTH political parties. Democrats have been slavishly supporting a senile man just as avidly as Republicans have been supporting a criminal. The metaphorical illness prevents either party from changing course. Because there has been no really significant difference between the parties for a lifetime now; we have come to this juncture in the road:
Criminality or senility, take your pick.
The Democrats are now forced to pick a more likely winner and back him or her at the nominating convention, which I believe is 68 days ahead. Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom come immediately to mind????
I think it's time for the Dems to grab the saddle horn with their best hand, for they are about to ride the bronco.
Mr. Nuhfer, I have always had the nagging thought in the back of my mind that the "American Revolution" was not a revolution. But instead was a colonial revolt, much more of a "Civil War" in which the local elite stationed in the colonies took power for themselves away from the British overlords. So they could be the new local overlords. We did not have a true revolution wherein the ordinary folks overthrew the elite. We simply exchanged elites.
It is notable that the new overlords insisted on creating a form of democracy for the political realm. But no democracy for the economic realm. This obvious, glaring fact is never discussed by the academic intellectual class in the U. S. It has been the fatal flaw in the whole system right from the start. It is the flaw which is now more clearly playing itself out in America. Today even Joe-Blow in the street can see this fault, which the academics from the elite Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, et. al. ignore. This is how we have come to the point where an egomaniacal moron has been elected to one presidential term. The wealthy elite have finally managed to purchase enough of our "democratic" form of government for themselves to be able to nullify its democratic nature. The Ancient Romans reached this point with the appearance of Caligula and Nero as they descended to their final collapse after about eight phenomenal centuries of democracy and empire. We might be doing it after only a paltry quarter of a century. Remember FUTURE SHOCK by Alvin Toffler?
The legislative body is extremely out of touch with the desires of the common citizens. For instance: almost 70% of Americans want universal, single payer government health care. But in the minds and hearts of our legislators that is out of the question. There are many other examples besides healthcare.
Any discussion about instituting a form of economic democracy in the U.S. has been hysterically shouted down by the wealthy and their Quislings in academia and government. They scream "Evil Communism," "Godless Socialism." "Marxism," "Leninism," "Stalinism." Noisy screaming has been substituted for informed discussion during my entire life. I recall when respected academics suddenly found their careers ended over this issue. The screaming Joe McCarthy even went so far as to claim that President Eisenhower was a "Commie." What lunacy! Even here in this blog where one would hope to find respectful debate we see the occasional hate-filled, overwhelmingly ad hominem attacks by some when this topic is only tangentially broached.
As we struggle with interpretations of what was written when we thought there was one galaxy and not two trillion, how about updating evaluations to considerations of the commonest of common sense? Where right and wrong is concerned, the conclusion couldn't be any clearer in this repulsive situation.
Michael Moore has a new version of the 10 commandments on his most recent podcast in response to Louisiana's law to post them in public schools. Why can't the Bill of Rights be posted instead?
This situation with the court is out of whack. Watering down the court by expanding it to 13 members would help but it does not address the problem of the court regulating itself. Congress needs to act but perhaps not until after the election when we have a Democratic majority in the House. Tranquilo, it will happen
I maintian that since the House has no say in the approval of cabinet members and federal judges, they have no say in their removal, that responsibility and authority, per the constitution, Art III lies solely with the Senate.
As to why the senate doesn't exercise it's authority, the three C's, cowardice, corruption and/or complicity.
Excellent assessment & explanation. This needs to be explained to voters by Biden & democratic candidates, in empirical terms.
A powerful argument in favor of Biden and down ballot Democrats, would be, if President Biden were to promise (& then implement) that with sufficient majorities, he will do everything in his power to neutralize the extreme partisanship, presently on full display within the Supreme Court. And, that he and a Democratic Congress will pass tough anti-corruption laws, that will rein in the Supreme Court and all those involved in bribing them and other public officials, through corporate personhood, separation clause disrespect, deceptive trusts, endowments, and other quasi-think tank types of indoctrination schemes. (Teddy Roosevelt proposed a solution to such corruption well over 100 years ago-the public financing of elections.)
Some argue against such court balancing schemes, they say Republicans will only retaliate with similar Court altering schemes. These arguments are moot, because, at the Court's present velocity and direction, we will rapidly descend, the rest of the way into autocratic oligarchy and a fascist government only pandering to the rich with peonage for everyone else. On our present trajectory, this election may very well be our last opportunity to get a handle on this right wing initiated corruption, a cancer eating away at our democracy, for far too long.
Vote blue, like your future and life depends on it, because it does.
By the way Thom, I also agree with your of assessment Julian Assange. In my view he is a journalist in the same contorted vein that one sided talking heads like Tucker Carlson are, only Assange benefits, thru aiding of espionage against the one-sided destruction of one type of ideology he is unhappy with. He saws off the branch that he clings to, that is responsible for his existence, for the benefit of ideologies that punish & repress journalism.
Richard, here is the problem I have with the Assange affair.
You might not remember but the first thing wikileaks was to leak documents pertaining to the national security state of big brother and for that he was lauded as a hero by liberals. Then he leaked the videos of the senseless murder of Iraqi's and other documents released by Chelsea Manning, who has since been pardoned by Biden. The whole invasion of Iraq was a war crime promoted by Bush for political means, Cheney to get the oil, Israel and Saudi Arabia because Saddam was claiming to be Nebuchadnezzar reincarnated and the new Saladin, which threatened the hegemony of Saudi King in the Arab world, and the safety of Israel.
Dubya went after Assange with a vengeance and the left championed his cause, until Hillary as Secretary of State wanted to burnish her credentials and have an in with the PTB and made it her priority to extradite and prosecute Assange.
Then Hillary ran for President.
Assange in retaliation was happy to play conduit for Russian intelligence,and release the emails they hacked from Hillary's server. (Shame on her for using and unsecured personal server) and handing Putin a tool.
At that point, the left flipped and overnight he went from feted hero to world class villain.
I am or consider myself progressive, but I remain consistent. Assange did us a service exposing the Orwellian national security state, but thanks to the media, and short memories, the left, liberals, progressives have forgotten that, and forgotten that the PATRIOT Act, has empowered big brother.
Clearly and cogently laid out, Mr. Hartmann!!!!!
Anyone with any reach into the eyes and minds of our electorate should repost this far and wide.
Thank you so much for the history and civics lesson.
{I see in this SO many ways that miscreants can work to subvert the considered will of the people, even so far as trying to UN-do our access to judicial appeal .. but this legislating and controlling from the SCOTUS bench has gone beyond the pale. Work certainly needs to be done to rein in this court.}
How much of a “ gratuity “ can members
of the Supreme Court expect for a
ruling of blanket immunity in the Trump case?
The picture says a thousand words, that's for sure...
Perfectly Clear!
If Dick Durbin cannot or will not do the job . Replace him .
He is supposed to be a check on the Court. Or at least his process is .
Durbin is a coward, he is probably dirty, like Menendez, and afraid of exposure. Political blackmail is rampant, look at Ladybug Lindsey.
I have lived in Illinois for all my life except for a few months and couldn't understand why the Dems have backed Durbin for so many years. He talks a good game and drops a few crumbs to the Dems every six years, but otherwise is pretty much invisible.
That is my congressman, Rick Larsen, totally invisible until election time, I have written him a number of times and his office responds with a vanilla and non committal response.
That is how they survive, do nothing, no controversy
Too many out of control SC judges, Magas in general. Too few Democrats wanting to go after these lying losers.
Careerism is the problem. The job has perks, Congressional Salaries are a little over $174,000 a year, great health insurance program, free travel, per diem, dinners, gifts, and inside knowledge where to invest and when to invest or sell. They may enter with a modest savings account or investment, but soon become millionaires.
Check opensecrets.org for millionaires in congress.
I think Durban and Biden and Garland and about 60% of the democratic party are Republicans. They are dinos put in there by the billionaires who always destroy democracy!
Cowards Bob.
Politicians come in two flavors. Ideologues and pragmatists. Pragmatists come in two flavors. Those who settle because they realize that can't reach for the stars and those that have no guiding star except their own career.
Impeachment and Constitutional amendment are checks on SCOTUS. Legal lingo and administrative law bypass our rights but provide a good living for the lawyer class that includes our government.
And it’s long overdo. The Democrats in many instances are crossing their fingers and waiting for Maga to come to their senses. Problem: Magas , No sense . Problem : Democrats, Risk averse.
It seems that payment for a favor in advance of receiving the favor is “bribery”, but that payment after receiving the favor ie. “on credit” is a “gratuity”.
This has the potential for an entirely new financial instrument—a credit card company that will submit your wish to SCOTUS or the politician of your choice, payable as you wish. Perhaps they can also grant the card holder the privilege of making payments tax deductible,
Lol. Financialization has infinite possibilities.
What about lying (a/k/a perjury) on financial disclosure statements?
I agree that the senate should step in, but Hamilton did not write the Constitution and the concepts of stare decisis (precedent) and constitutionality come to us from British law. Congress has no authority to diminish those rights and to date has not tried. "Exceptions" do not mean Congress can end stare decisis and constitutionality.
On February 13, 1801, after the Federalists lost the 1800 election, a lame-duck Federalist Congress, determined to keep the judiciary in Federalist hands, passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created dozens of new federal circuit judges and justices of the peace — to be appointed by President Adams, before Jefferson could be sworn in on March 4. Importantly, the Act also conferred original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to “persons holding office” under federal law — that is, to order executive officials to take (or refrain from taking) particular actions.
The Judiciary Act of 1801, also known as the Circuit Court Act, was passed at the very end of President John Adams's administration and during the second session of the Sixth Congress. The act became law on February 13, 1801 after passing first the House (on January 20th, 1801) and then the Senate (on February 7, 1801).
Because of its last-minute nature of passage, many of the judicial appointments became known as midnight judges (or sometimes, midnight appointments). These appointments were challenged in the Supreme Court case Marbury et al. v. Madison.
On March 3, Adams signed, and the Senate confirmed, dozens of appointments, which led to the delivery of the “midnight commissions” — dispatched to new judges on the night before Jefferson’s inauguration — a task assigned to outgoing Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice John Marshall. But Marshall failed to deliver the commission of one William Marbury, who was to serve as justice of the peace for the District of Columbia.
When Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, he discovered a sheaf of undelivered commissions and promptly ordered them withheld. Marbury sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver Marbury’s commission. The case was set for argument the following term, and it was destined to become a landmark of American jurisprudence.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Marbury did have a right to his commission, which had been duly signed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but the section of the Judiciary Act that authorized the Court to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury sought was itself unconstitutional.
I think our problem is that some justices are corrupt. Others are ideologues.
I don't think Congress can eliminate the concept of constitutionality.
This is a bleak day for me today as SCOTUS has killed the SEC hearing process, I retired in 2018 and although I did not hear SEC cases per se, I am a past president of FALJC, the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, and was chair of another huge judicial organization that housed SEC judges, and was fighting an uphill battle to avoid being a judicial Dodo bird or Mastodon. I heard Sarbanes Oxley Dodd Frank whistleblower cases that involved the SEC.
SEC v. Jarkesy. Roberts Jr. wrote for a six-justice majority in a decision divided along ideological lines, violated the right to a jury trial.. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf
The case began after the SEC launched in-house enforcement proceedings in 2013 against George Jarkesy, a conservative radio host who managed approximately $24 million in assets across two hedge funds with his investment advisory firm, Patriot28 LLC.
An administrative law judge found Jarkesy violated securities laws by making false claims about who was auditing the funds to investors, misrepresenting the funds’ investment strategy and overvaluing the funds to increase management fees.
Jarkesy appealed, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of him by invalidating the SEC’s scheme on three different constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower decision on the first ground: that Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.
But the justices did not address the lower panel’s other two findings that the SEC’s system was additionally unconstitutional because it improperly delegated legislative power and created impermissible removal protections for administrative law judges.
Another big win for big business.
The basis for the attack largely comes from the false allegation that American administrative law is “unlawful” and tyrannous -- "that we have recreated, in another guise, the world of executive 'prerogative' that would have obtained if James II had prevailed, and the Glorious Revolution never occurred. Administrative agencies, crouched around the President’s throne, enjoy extralegal or supralegal power; the Environmental Protection Agency, with its administrative rulemaking and combined legislative, executive and judicial functions, is a modern Star Chamber." See Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Philip A. Hamburger (2014).
One of the prime movers in the bump stock and Mifepristone and this case is the "New Civil Liberties Alliance" group of lawyers, which according to its newsletter, "is working tirelessly to uphold the fundamental rights and liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard NCLA’s Garland v. Cargill case, which challenges the ATF’s effort to rewrite a federal statute that bans bump stocks—something ONLY Congress can do."
Founded by Hamburger, the Alliance is funded by donations from individuals, foundations, and corporations. While NCLA does not disclose its donors, tax filings show notable donations from the Charles Koch Foundation ($1 million in 2017), Donors Trust ($1 million in 2019) , and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($300,000 in 2018).
Among its lawyers are Jeff Clark, who has been indicted a couple of times, https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/clark-trial/ and its board is chaired by Janice Rogers Brown, formerly of the DC Cir. Court of Appeals, who once said that the Social Security Act was unconstitutional in a dissent.
As recently as March, the Alliance provided testimony that in essence, administrative agencies are unconstitutional.
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116992/witnesses/HHRG-118-JU05-Wstate-ChenowethM-20240320.pdf
Congress is the House and the Senate, most Americans think they are one and the same when they hear or use the word Congress.
Article III section 1 Vesting clause
Section 1 Vesting Clause
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office
Section II Juticiability'
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Section 3. Jurisdiction"
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
When I go to Constitution annotated https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/#:~:text=Article%20III%20Judicial%20Branch&text=The%20judicial%20Power%20of%20the,to%20time%20ordain%20and%20establish.
which is an analysis and interpretation of the constitution I see lots of sub section interpreations which raises the question who interpreted and by what authority.
In fact there is nothing in the Constitution as regards appointments or approval of federal judges, nor their removal.
It is only by custom that the Senate, not the House, approves their appointment, and he who giveth can taketh away.
Article II, Section 2. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-5/ALDE_00013096/
I included that link in my first reply, but it lacks the force of law. It is just someones analysis and interpretation and says so at the top.
There is nothing in the constitution or law that enumerates those interpretations, in other words they are some one's opinion, maybe DOJ, but it is an opinion only, not law. Same thing with Barr's bullshit rationale for not prosecuting the president.
Is our country ran by the opinion of the political appointee that sits as Attorney General? if so, then is Thomas Cromwell to Henry VIII
That IS the Constitution. Require Senate approval. That's the law.
For the love of whatever you the reader find sacred in this world - Read. This. Piece.
Serious people need to start listening to Thom Hartmann in a very serious way. And serious people need to seriously do a damn thing about our Supreme Court in which a corrupt majority has perverted itself into a Court of Supremacy.
Great turn of phrase there Mr. Notabot: from "Supreme Court" to "Court of Supremacy." Almost Shakespearian.
Thanks to people like Dick Durbin, the Democrats are no less responsible for the current state of affairs than the Repugnicans. I wonder if money has anything to do with it.
The existence of a court that, like a king, has absolute authority, has no accountability to citizens, and is above all law is the result of deliberate design. It was the intent of the designers.
@Ed. And why did the Founders design a Senate and the electoral college? I am aware that Hartman attributes noble intentions to them, but the people were already starting to rebel against the British. Maybe they didn't want to end up with a government with majority rule. The faction they were concerned with protecting was the wealthy property owners. I read Hartman's analysis of the status of the signers and most weren't wealthy, but they were upper middle by today's standards and positioned to become wealthy. none of them were low wage earners or slaves. even men couldn't vote unless they owned land. It has worked the way it was intended to work.
They certainly did NOT intend that citizens live under a democracy, but rather under a privileged ruling class instead of a monarchy. They modeled our government to an extent after the English government, and a reading of the Guardian shows that both nations have similar problems as the result. The founders were not saints, and any attempt to deify them as such certainly has to ignore history. They were courageous, and were aware that most would have been hung had their revolution failed. But they began this revolution motivated primarily with the ambition: "We can run this place." And they pulled it off.
@Ed. I totally agree.
And here is the SCOTUS doing what it was intended to do: hold down the citizen working class to ensure their subservience to the ruling class.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/a-supreme-court-justice-is-why-you?publication_id=11524&post_id=145995190&isFreemail=false&r=rdp7&triedRedirect=true
https://americanprospect.bluelena.io/index.php?action=social&chash=f6185f0ef02dcaec414a3171cd01c697.2783&s=427bc886eff601b5add9cb018cd79ce7
And the "citizens united" decision by the Court ensured that the two cartel parties got hooked on corruption and evolved to do the same. The parties are so corrupt now that both are trying to out-jump the other to get the cash representing the interests of a foreign government. They encourage that government's interfering in our elections, dictating our foreign policy, limiting our citizens' exercise of their Constitutional rights, employing violence to discourage protests and subverting academic freedom of our universities.
And no, it isn't just one party doing this. If either party really stood for the interests of democracy and empowerment of the citizens, NONE of this could currently be happening.
Mr. Nuhfer, we all , no doubt, just finished watching the debate between Trump and Biden. It is clear now to all voters that Biden is a doddering, confused old man. The Democratic Party can no longer hide it. Trump lied, bloviated and mocked as he walked all over Biden. What is also clear is that our SYSTEM has failed us so badly that the Republican Party has backed a literal rapacious criminal and the Democratic Party has backed a tired, senile old man. This shameful spectacle is a symptom of the undeniably serious decline and immanent collapse of the American Empire. Our political system is on life support.
The Democratic Party should never have backed Biden at the beginning of this contest. Surely party members close to Biden could see his deterioration. The question then becomes: why did they not speak up a long time ago and tell Biden "thank you for your service, but you cannot be our candidate this time?" The answer is something along the lines of political atherosclerosis. An apt metaphor for BOTH political parties. Democrats have been slavishly supporting a senile man just as avidly as Republicans have been supporting a criminal. The metaphorical illness prevents either party from changing course. Because there has been no really significant difference between the parties for a lifetime now; we have come to this juncture in the road:
Criminality or senility, take your pick.
The Democrats are now forced to pick a more likely winner and back him or her at the nominating convention, which I believe is 68 days ahead. Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom come immediately to mind????
I think it's time for the Dems to grab the saddle horn with their best hand, for they are about to ride the bronco.
Mr. Nuhfer, I have always had the nagging thought in the back of my mind that the "American Revolution" was not a revolution. But instead was a colonial revolt, much more of a "Civil War" in which the local elite stationed in the colonies took power for themselves away from the British overlords. So they could be the new local overlords. We did not have a true revolution wherein the ordinary folks overthrew the elite. We simply exchanged elites.
It is notable that the new overlords insisted on creating a form of democracy for the political realm. But no democracy for the economic realm. This obvious, glaring fact is never discussed by the academic intellectual class in the U. S. It has been the fatal flaw in the whole system right from the start. It is the flaw which is now more clearly playing itself out in America. Today even Joe-Blow in the street can see this fault, which the academics from the elite Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, et. al. ignore. This is how we have come to the point where an egomaniacal moron has been elected to one presidential term. The wealthy elite have finally managed to purchase enough of our "democratic" form of government for themselves to be able to nullify its democratic nature. The Ancient Romans reached this point with the appearance of Caligula and Nero as they descended to their final collapse after about eight phenomenal centuries of democracy and empire. We might be doing it after only a paltry quarter of a century. Remember FUTURE SHOCK by Alvin Toffler?
The legislative body is extremely out of touch with the desires of the common citizens. For instance: almost 70% of Americans want universal, single payer government health care. But in the minds and hearts of our legislators that is out of the question. There are many other examples besides healthcare.
Any discussion about instituting a form of economic democracy in the U.S. has been hysterically shouted down by the wealthy and their Quislings in academia and government. They scream "Evil Communism," "Godless Socialism." "Marxism," "Leninism," "Stalinism." Noisy screaming has been substituted for informed discussion during my entire life. I recall when respected academics suddenly found their careers ended over this issue. The screaming Joe McCarthy even went so far as to claim that President Eisenhower was a "Commie." What lunacy! Even here in this blog where one would hope to find respectful debate we see the occasional hate-filled, overwhelmingly ad hominem attacks by some when this topic is only tangentially broached.
As we struggle with interpretations of what was written when we thought there was one galaxy and not two trillion, how about updating evaluations to considerations of the commonest of common sense? Where right and wrong is concerned, the conclusion couldn't be any clearer in this repulsive situation.
Michael Moore has a new version of the 10 commandments on his most recent podcast in response to Louisiana's law to post them in public schools. Why can't the Bill of Rights be posted instead?
This situation with the court is out of whack. Watering down the court by expanding it to 13 members would help but it does not address the problem of the court regulating itself. Congress needs to act but perhaps not until after the election when we have a Democratic majority in the House. Tranquilo, it will happen
Once again an outstanding and erudite analysis.
I maintian that since the House has no say in the approval of cabinet members and federal judges, they have no say in their removal, that responsibility and authority, per the constitution, Art III lies solely with the Senate.
As to why the senate doesn't exercise it's authority, the three C's, cowardice, corruption and/or complicity.
Citizen oversight committee to enforce common rules for judges.
Amazing article. Let’s get to work!! Someone lead and I will help.
Excellent assessment & explanation. This needs to be explained to voters by Biden & democratic candidates, in empirical terms.
A powerful argument in favor of Biden and down ballot Democrats, would be, if President Biden were to promise (& then implement) that with sufficient majorities, he will do everything in his power to neutralize the extreme partisanship, presently on full display within the Supreme Court. And, that he and a Democratic Congress will pass tough anti-corruption laws, that will rein in the Supreme Court and all those involved in bribing them and other public officials, through corporate personhood, separation clause disrespect, deceptive trusts, endowments, and other quasi-think tank types of indoctrination schemes. (Teddy Roosevelt proposed a solution to such corruption well over 100 years ago-the public financing of elections.)
Some argue against such court balancing schemes, they say Republicans will only retaliate with similar Court altering schemes. These arguments are moot, because, at the Court's present velocity and direction, we will rapidly descend, the rest of the way into autocratic oligarchy and a fascist government only pandering to the rich with peonage for everyone else. On our present trajectory, this election may very well be our last opportunity to get a handle on this right wing initiated corruption, a cancer eating away at our democracy, for far too long.
Vote blue, like your future and life depends on it, because it does.
By the way Thom, I also agree with your of assessment Julian Assange. In my view he is a journalist in the same contorted vein that one sided talking heads like Tucker Carlson are, only Assange benefits, thru aiding of espionage against the one-sided destruction of one type of ideology he is unhappy with. He saws off the branch that he clings to, that is responsible for his existence, for the benefit of ideologies that punish & repress journalism.
Richard, here is the problem I have with the Assange affair.
You might not remember but the first thing wikileaks was to leak documents pertaining to the national security state of big brother and for that he was lauded as a hero by liberals. Then he leaked the videos of the senseless murder of Iraqi's and other documents released by Chelsea Manning, who has since been pardoned by Biden. The whole invasion of Iraq was a war crime promoted by Bush for political means, Cheney to get the oil, Israel and Saudi Arabia because Saddam was claiming to be Nebuchadnezzar reincarnated and the new Saladin, which threatened the hegemony of Saudi King in the Arab world, and the safety of Israel.
Dubya went after Assange with a vengeance and the left championed his cause, until Hillary as Secretary of State wanted to burnish her credentials and have an in with the PTB and made it her priority to extradite and prosecute Assange.
Then Hillary ran for President.
Assange in retaliation was happy to play conduit for Russian intelligence,and release the emails they hacked from Hillary's server. (Shame on her for using and unsecured personal server) and handing Putin a tool.
At that point, the left flipped and overnight he went from feted hero to world class villain.
I am or consider myself progressive, but I remain consistent. Assange did us a service exposing the Orwellian national security state, but thanks to the media, and short memories, the left, liberals, progressives have forgotten that, and forgotten that the PATRIOT Act, has empowered big brother.