SCOTUS has done so much to roll back any progress this country has made but their stupidity on voting takes the cake.
Some think it will take decades to recover but others think we could never recover from this betrayal of the American ideal by SCOTUS…..
What say you?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
I make no bones about it that I think that SCOTUS is nothing more than a group of political hacks that are doing partisan work and in the process destroying what is left of this nation.
Then and when you need confirmation of their partisan crap Chief Justice had to go and whine about our perception of the court.
Chief Justice John Roberts wants Americans to know he doesn’t see the Supreme Court the way some critics might. Speaking Wednesday at a legal conference in Hershey, Pa., Roberts said many people wrongly believe the justices are “political actors” choosing outcomes based on policy preferences rather than legal analysis, NBC News reports. “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do,” he said. He was responding to a question about what the public most misunderstands regarding the high court, Politico reports.
Roberts, part of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority that has shifted federal law rightward on issues including abortion, guns, and voting rights, didn’t address any specific cases. But he stressed that the court is often obligated to hand down decisions that are disliked, saying rulings are “based on our best effort to figure out what the Constitution means and how it applies.” He acknowledged that the public is free to criticize the court’s work, while urging that critiques target decisions, not individual judges, warning personal attacks are “not appropriate” and can lead to “very serious problems,” especially amid heightened security concerns. He also did not mention President Trump, who himself has been among critics of the court at times, CNN reports.
Seriously?
This POS is saying this crap without laughing?
Our criticism can lead to ‘very serious problems’? Really thanx to the Roberts court we already ass deep in serious problems and they can thank themselves for all the problems…..Citizens United, abortion rulings, education rulings, allowing insider trading by politicians, gutted voting rights etc etc….
Roberts and his happy band of hacks have turned the court into a partisan political arm of government.
I have no sympathy for Roberts and his fragile feelings.
If he wants us to stop hating them then I propose he and his partisan dipsticks retire to Mar-A-Lago and let the country move forward for with them it will stand still and then start in reverse.
Any thoughts?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
If you have been paying attention you will see just how SCOTUS under the leadership of a political hack, Roberts, has been stripping away the powers of Congress and subverting the course of democracy.
Over the past several decades, the Supreme Court has slowly whittled down the power of Congress and, in large part thanks to President Donald Trump’s chaotic second term in office, has already managed to dethrone Congress’ role as the most powerful branch of government, argued legal scholar Duncan Hosie Tuesday.
“For now, the supernova of Donald Trump’s presidency has muted this systemic conflict in public view,” Hosie wrote in an analysis published Tuesday in The Atlantic.
“His second term – defined by galloping abuses of executive power buttressed by Trump v. United States – has played out against a Republican Congress and Republican Court aligned, if not enthralled, with him. But this alignment is likely temporary and contingent. Should a Democratic Congress return, the conflict will roar back into view.”
That conflict, Hosie argued, is the Supreme Court’s decades-long “power grab” to strip Congress of its ability to check the power of the executive branch, define rights for Americans, and even make laws — a “power grab” that has only accelerated during Trump’s second term. And, in large part to Trump’s unprecedented tenure in the White House, the “power grab” is going largely unnoticed, Hosie wrote.
“The short-term convergence of the branches should not obscure the larger transformation: Congress is no longer the first branch of government,” Hosie wrote. “The same gale-force winds of polarization that split Congress into warring camps has also produced a Republican-appointee-dominated Court systematically constraining congressional power while expanding its own.”
The threat of the Supreme Court’s ongoing “power grab” was so dire, Hosie warned, that it could very well bring about an end to the United States’ “constitutional democracy.”
https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2674879295/
This exactly the outcome that the outcome that I have been warning about over the past decade (probably longer)….this is just what will happen when political hacks are nominated then confirmed….they are destroying democracy and helping those that are doing the deeds in every way they can.
If these people cannot do their part at preserving this democracy then it is time to get rid of them and start over….when I say ‘get rid’ I mean remove them from office in any fashion that is necessary.
If they continue down the path they have chosen it will not be long to there is nothing left of the nation we built over the past 250 years.
Time for a change!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
A new year and a new focus on the political hacks we call the Supreme Court.
It is actually functioning as an extension of MAGA these days and it is time for us peasants to realize that it must be changed or replaced.
The justices of the US supreme court – even its conservatives – have traditionally valued their institution’s own standing. John Roberts, the current US chief justice, has always been praised – even by liberals – as a staunch advocate of the court’s image as a neutral arbiter. For decades, Americans believed the court soared above the fray of partisan contestation.
In Donald Trump’s second term, the supreme court’s conservative supermajority has seized the opportunity to empower the nation’s chief executive. In response, public approval of the court has collapsed. The question is what it means for liberals to catch up to this new reality of a court that willingly tanks its own legitimacy. Eager to realize cherished goals of assigning power to the president and arrogating as much for itself, the conservative justices seemingly no longer care what the public or the legal community think of the court’s actions. Too often, though, liberals are responding with nostalgia for a court that cares about its high standing. There is a much better option: to grasp the opportunity to set right the supreme court’s role in US democracy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/19/us-supreme-court-legitimacy
If we agree that something needs to be done with SCOTUS and its drift from neutral arbitrator to MAGA enforcer then what can be done?
There are a few suggestions….
Should Democrats retake the White House in 2028 and have majorities in both chambers of Congress, one legal expert is arguing there are numerous ways the six-member conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could be brought to heel.
In a Monday essay for Slate, legal writer and attorney Mark Joseph Stern directly addressed a reader’s concern that no matter what laws Democrats may try to pass under a potential new Democratic majority government, the Supreme Court could simply strike those laws down. Stern countered that there are several ways to re-establish Congress’ powers and prevent SCOTUS from acting as an unelected super-legislature.
First, Stern argued that Congress should immediately grant statehood to both Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. as part of a “suite of structural reforms.” He argued this was a necessary step to take in order to make sure that sparsely populated conservative states like South Dakota and Wyoming aren’t over-represented in Congress (both territories have already passed statehood resolutions, meaning all Congress needs to do is pass a bill to admit them).
“Remember, the senators who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court represented fewer people than the senators who voted to oppose him,” Stern wrote. “That is a huge structural problem that Congress can fix.”
Second, Stern proposed that Congress pass a law that would require the Supreme Court to have a 7-2 supermajority to strike down any legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. He noted that the Nebraska and North Dakota state constitutions already have amendments requiring a supreme court supermajority in order to toss out any laws, and called on a potential future Democratic government to “put it in there that the law cannot be struck down unless seven justices agree that it’s unconstitutional.”
Stern also advocated for imposing a strict time limit on the judicial review process, calling the Supreme Court to no longer be able to evaluate the constitutionality of any new laws more than one calendar year after their passage. He observed that the Supreme Court’s 2012 review of the Affordable Care Act took place after Democrats had already lost their majority in the House of Representatives in 2010, and that a one-year limit would mean that Congress’ partisan makeup would still be the same if the Court threw out any laws passed by that Congress and lawmakers wanted to try passing the law again.
The Slate author described these proposed reforms as a “good-faith effort by Democrats to recalibrate the balance of power by reestablishing Congress’ primacy and diminishing the Supreme Court’s untouchable supremacy.” However, he allowed for the possibility that these reforms may fall short. In that event, he called on Democrats to “add four seats” and pack the Supreme Court with new Democratic appointees.
“The current Republican justices have already shredded adherence to precedent. A future liberal majority should say no to unilateral disarmament and apply the same rules,” Stern wrote. “That is how Democrats put the court back in its place: by undoing its attacks on democracy and restoring the constitutional settlement the Roberts court has spent years dismantling.”
(alternet.org)
I do not think much will change (for now) no matter what happens in November.
Personally I think it is beyond time to put these smug bastards in their place or rid ourselves of their stench completely.
But that is just me.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
Those political hacks we called the Supreme Court has weakened voting rights yet again….was there ever any doubt?
These worthless lumps of crap did what they always do….and this time it was for Louisiana…..
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it may further weaken the Voting Rights Act, as justices heard arguments in a Louisiana redistricting case that could reshape how race can be considered in drawing voting districts.
- The case centers on whether states can use race at all when redrawing congressional maps to comply with Section 2 of the 1965 law, a key provision meant to protect minority voters from discrimination, NBC News reports. All six of the court’s conservative justices seemed open to limiting Section 2’s reach—potentially making it harder for civil rights groups to challenge maps they say dilute minority voting power.
- The dispute began when Louisiana, which has six seats in the House and a population that is one-third Black, was required—following a lawsuit—to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The state now opposes the redrawn map, joining a group of “non-African-American” voters who argue that any consideration of race in redistricting violates the Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments. The Trump administration backs this new position, arguing for a “colorblind” approach that the court embraced in last year’s decision ending race-based college admissions.
- The court could adopt a narrower proposal backed by the Trump administration that would keep Section 2 but alter the standard set in the 1986 Thornburg v. Gingles case, which would give states more flexibility to draw maps for partisan reasons instead of racial ones.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared receptive to this approach, saying recent rulings held that “race-based remedies are permissible, but they should not be indefinite,” the Washington Post reports. Liberal justices and civil rights advocates, however, argue that such a ruling would effectively gut Section 2, undermining protections for minority voters.
- A ruling favoring Louisiana could reduce the number of districts drawn to give minority voters a fair shot at electing their preferred candidates, likely leading to fewer minority lawmakers in Congress and state legislatures.
The AP reports that the ruling, expected by June, could lead to voting maps across the South being redrawn to eliminate majority Black or Latino districts that tend to favor Democrats. NBC reports that conservatives have long targeted the Voting Rights Act; the top court weakened it in previous decisions in 2013 and 2021.
This will have lasting consequences across the South.
All this bigotry is no longer semi-covert…..it is an assault on minorities and anyone that votes against the strong arm of the GOP.
Next up probably will be a take on the old Citizen United ruling…..which could make bribery more easily acquired….
Fifteen years after the Citizens Unitedruling opened the gates for corporate money to flow into US elections, the Supreme Court will soon hear another pair of cases that journalist David Sirota says are aimed at “eliminating the last restrictions on campaign donations and obstructing law enforcement’s efforts to halt bribery.”
One of the cases, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), was launched in 2022 by then-Ohio Senate candidate JD Vance (R-Ohio), now the vice president of the United States, and several other Republicans, who argued that limits on coordinated spending violated the First Amendment.
…
This time, Republicans in all three branches of government have seemed to work in tandem to get the law overturned.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/gop-scotus-legalize-bribery-sirota
SCOTUS is a worthless, useless appendage of our government that we need to eliminate as soon as possible.
Would you like to enter any thoughts?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
That’s right it is that magical time of year when SCOTUS listens to and then disregards everything to shove more crap down the throats of Americans.
It’s the first Monday in October, which means the Supreme Court gets back to work. This year, the overriding question is how much leeway the court will give President Trump as he flexes presidential authority. Justices are set to issue definitive rulings on major Trump policies—ranging from the legality of his tariffs to his push for greater control over independent federal agencies—that have so far been addressed mainly through temporary, emergency decisions, report the Washington Post and the AP. Details:
- Among the headline issues is a case that could determine whether Trump can fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, a move with significant implications for the independence of the central bank. The case will be heard in January, per the New York Times.
- Other pending matters include challenges to Trump’s sweeping tariffs, along with his efforts to end birthright citizenship, expedite deportations under a wartime law, and revoke protections for some 300,000 Venezuelan migrants.
- “It’s hard to imagine bigger tests of presidential power than these potentially once-in-a-century separation-of-powers battles,” Deepak Gupta, a lawyer at the firm Gupta Wessler, tells the Times. “And we’re seeing more than one of them at once.”
- Legal experts say the court, now dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority, will be forced to clarify its stance on presidential authority, either reinforcing Trump’s expansive view or pushing back. “It really is going to be a showdown,” Jennifer Nou, a law professor at the University of Chicago, tells the Post. “So many of the president’s big-ticket constitutional issues and policy initiatives are quickly coming up before the court. All of this is coming to a head.”
- The first big case of the new term is Tuesday, when the court will hear arguments about a Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy,” aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, per Reuters.
- The term also features major cases on voting rights, such as the legality of drawing majority-minority districts in Louisiana, and campaign finance rules.
Most of their cases will be to extend Donny’s executive powers….
Among the issues already on the court’s docket: a case that could end what’s left of the landmark Voting Rights Act; a case that could do away with one of the few remaining laws that limits campaign fundraising; a challenge to the Trump tariffs; a challenge to his firing of independent agency commissioners before their fixed terms are completed; and much, much more.
Indeed, coming soon is likely to be the unanswered question from last term: Did President Trump exceed his authority when he issued an executive order barring a constitutional provision that guarantees automatic citizenship for every child born in the United States?
Since Trump took office for a second term, the conservative court’s 6-to-3 majority has been rocking the boat big time. In just eight months, it has broken all records for granting a president’s wishes on the “emergency docket.”
By the end of last week, the court had granted 20 of Trump’s requests to block lower court orders opposed by the administration. In contrast, the court ruled against the administration in these emergency cases just three times.
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/06/nx-s1-5558414/supreme-court-term-preview
My guess most cases will have a 6-3 majority….the political hacks pertending to be judges will side with the despot in the WH as it has done so many times in the past 8 months or so.
Wanna venture any guesses?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
Almost daily there is some sort of gun violence all across this nation….in my area it is about every three days there is a shooting….some idiot attacks a school, a religious building, a protesting group or just for the Hell of it….and it is reported but it seems everyone looks elsewhere and could care less….so those ‘thoughts and prayers’ are about as useful as tits on a boar…..basically that is just saying ‘go f**k yourself’…..
With the recent death of a Right wing blowhard and the way they are deifying him there would be more concern for these twats on the direction of the gun situation….but apparently even the blowhard’s death does not change their mind on what needs to be done.
Donny’s AG, Blondi, may have the authority to change some of the laws….
The Attorney General has proposed regulations for procedures for persons to apply for removal of federal firearm disabilities. Most disabilities are found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Under § 925(c), a person prohibited from firearm possession may petition for relief from federal disabilities by applying to the Attorney General, who “may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”
In my view, overall the proposed regulations are fair and reasonably implement the above statutory provision. However, there are two items that should be eliminated or modified. Both provide that applications will be denied, absent extraordinary circumstances, if the applicant has been convicted of two types of offenses. Those convictions should be considered on a case-by-case basis instead of being subject to presumptive denial.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/01/second-amendment-roundup-removal-of-firearm-disabilities/
Then there is SCOTUS….
With the uptick in mass shootings SCOTUS has the opportunity to make it worse…..
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if states may bar people from carrying guns on private property without permission from the property owner, wading into a thorny Second Amendment dispute that could expand carry rights in malls, restaurants and stores.
It is the first major Second Amendment case the 6-3 conservative court has agreed to hear in more than a year. In recent years the court has decided a number of high-profile Second Amendment cases in ways that have expanded access to guns.
The appeals court was “absolutely right to say it’s constitutional to prohibit guns on private property unless the owner says they want guns there,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “This law respects people’s right to be safe on their own property, and we urge the Supreme Court to uphold it.”
Previously, the state’s law allowed someone with a permit to carry their handgun into a store, for instance, unless the property owner explicitly prohibited it. The new law flipped that around and required unambiguous written or verbal authorization. The law also barred the carrying of guns on beaches and in parks as well as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/politics/supreme-court-guns-hawaii-second-amendment
Just what this country needs…..more guns in crowded venues…..who comes up with this shite?
Would anyone care to venture a guess on how those political hacks at SCOTUS will vote?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego erg scribo”
Today is 01 August and the pause of Donny’s yo-yo economics of tariffs is ended and the gas pedal of economic war will be pushed.
Well maybe not so fast…right on cue Donny has hit the brakes….yet again….
Hours before the midnight deadline he imposed on himself, President Trump signed a new executive order Thursday evening imposing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners. The plan confirms some previously announced provisions while changing other parts, including the deadline: The tariffs apparently take effect at 12:01am Aug. 7, the New York Times reports, instead of Aug. 1. The rates seem to go as high as 50% on imports from nations Trump wants to punish or did not make enough concessions to the US.
Among the highest adjusted reciprocal tariffs, per CNN, are: Syria, 41%; Laos and Myanmar, 40%; Switzerland, 39%; Iraq and Serbia, 35%; Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Libya, and South Africa, 30%. Canada goes from 25% to 35% in theory; goods trading under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are exempt, per the Times. That covers most Canadian exports at the moment, economist said. A senior administration official told CNN that talks with Canada over fentanyl and tariffs haven’t been as constructive as the negotiations with Mexico, which was granted a 90-day reprieve on higher tariffs on Thursday. The increase on Canadian imports still goes into effect on Friday, per CNBC.
The order applies to 68 countries and the 27-member European Union, per the AP. Countries not named in the new order will face a baseline 10% tariff. Many countries that Trump listed in his Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs have settled in at 15% or 20%. Some of the tariff levels reflect frameworks already reached with trading partners, such as the UK and European Union. “The president has essentially reordered global trade,” an administration official told reporters.
This should inject some joy into the markets (again)….on the upside consumer prices should not rise too much during this lull.
Did Donny decide to extend the deadline because the Fed ignored his desire and did not raise points?
As long as we are on tariffs…..I have never thought this was a good idea….to me it was just a cope out to manipulate market prices…..but just how ‘legal’ are these exorbitant Tariffs?
A federal appeals court showed clear doubts Thursday about the Trump administration’s claim to sweeping tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a law that, notably, never mentions tariffs. The Justice Department contends President Trump can use the statute to levy broad new taxes on imports, but judges pushed back, questioning whether the law’s actual language supports that authority, CNBC reports. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate admitted that “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but said Trump’s actions are lawful.
The 11-judge US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel drilled into the statute’s intent, with one judge noting that the IEEPA mentions foreign exchange and currency but not tariffs. “There’s an old expression in the law, ‘noscitur a sociis’: ‘you know it by its friends,'” the judge said. “Tariffs seems to have no friends in that statute. So, why?”
- The 1977 law gives the president the power to regulate commerce in times of war or national emergency. Judges questioned Trump’s claim that trade deficits are a national emergency that tariffs can address, the AP reports. “If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness, and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with (it),” Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said.
- Neal Katyal, representing opponents of Trump’s tariffs, argued the administration’s reading of the law would let the president “do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency”—a level of executive power he called “breathtaking” and unprecedented in American history.
- A lower court struck down Trump’s sweeping tariffs in May, but the Federal Circuit Appeals Court paused that ruling, keeping the tariffs in place as the legal fight continues. The case—VOS Selections v. Trump—could become a landmark test of the president’s authority on trade, potentially shaping the fate of several similar lawsuits. The plaintiffs argue that Trump has usurped Congress’ authority to set tariffs, CNBC reports.
- Trump, for his part, has cast the case as crucial for his trade agenda and national security, warning in a Truth Social post Thursday that without the power to impose retaliatory tariffs, “our Country … would be ‘DEAD,’ WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS.”
- A ruling in the case isn’t expected immediately, but whatever the court decides, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, the New York Times reports.
SCOTUS? That is where the Constitution and laws go to die.
Sad that this nation has no one but political hacks that will protect the system….and we all know how pathetic these d/bags are on the Court.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
I have not been a fan of SCOTUS for many years, since about 2000, to me they are nothing more than political hacks that use nothing for their decisions other than political dogma….the interpretation of the Constitution means nothing to them.
These people are longer pretending that they use the Constitution as a guideline and that deserves a closer look….
It is quite the bit, really, to spend decades insisting on your “originalist” and “textualist” bonafides, and then when dealt an essentially unbeatable hand simply decide over and over again that that “original” “text” actually means whatever the hell you want it to mean. Or, perhaps more accurately, that the text you supposedly revere simply does not matter, or simply does not exist. I imagine the six conservative Supreme Court Justices sleep as well as anyone in the country.
On Monday, SCOTUS issued a ruling that blocked a May order from a US District Judge that basically ruled Trump could not dismantle the Department of Education unilaterally. That original ruling was just obviously, on-its-face correct: the Department was created by an act of Congress. The president does not, constitutionally speaking, get to just undo that because he feels like it. And yet.
The new ruling was unsigned, and came with no decision explaining the conservatives’ reasoning, such as it may be. This isn’t necessarily unusual for rulings like this, but it does highlight the ruling party’s increasing disdain for the pretenses that generally have been upheld in centuries of Washington’s procedural wranglings — and one might think that literally undoing the Constitution might require some explanation, if the Justices maintained some tiny modicum of shame. Alas.
https://www.splinter.com/the-supreme-court-isnt-even-pretending-anymore
In recent years I believe these ‘hacks’ need to address the people of this nation and these ‘elitist’ dipsticks need to explain their abandonment of the Constitution….
The Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump to dismantle the Department of Education. But it won’t say why.
Yesterday—almost exactly a week after the Court lifted a lower court’s block on Trump’s plans to fire thousands of federal employees—a majority of the justices decided to give the president the go-ahead for a different set of mass layoffs. Last week, the Court provided a handful of sentences that vaguely gestured at why it might have allowed the administration to move forward. This week, it offered nothing at all. There’s something taunting, almost bullying, about this lack of reasoning, as if the conservative supermajority is saying to the country: You don’t even deserve an explanation.
And this is not the only incident of these ‘hacks’ doing the bidding of a political party and it has only gotten worse in the past 20 years or so.
Time for these ‘people’ to step up and provide the leadership they are suppose to be….instead of the ones fueling the destruction of the Constitution of our great nation.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
“The South shall rise again”….has been the war cry of the racist and now it appears that it has happened and all with the help of the Supreme Court, especially John Roberts….
Back in 2011 there was a prediction, a look forward, if you will….
The tactics by the GOP are working the system to return to the 1950s and give racist their wish of a new confederacy…
This is an article from 2011….
The South’s alternative vision of the good society was defeated in the Civil War, and our 20th-century history can be told as a narrative of halting progress toward greater tolerance and equality. The major plot points include regulations on corporations in the early 1900s; women’s suffrage in 1920; a social safety net in the New Deal; the Supreme Court’s rejection of Jim Crow laws in 1954; the civil rights and feminist movements of the 1960s; the gay rights victories since the 1970s.
…
For the Confederacy that now dominates the GOP, truth is solid and fixed and divinely embedded in the structure of the universe. Humanity’s responsibility is to accept and believe the truth rather than test ideas against actual experience. The Confederacy’s obsession with “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution – a twin of biblical literalism – is the classic example: truth must be eternal, universal.
…
The new Confederacy rejects that process wholesale. Its leaders and authorities are the spiritual descendants of the conservative Christians and charismatic radio preachers who broke away from religious modernism in the 1920s and 1930s. For these leaders and their followers, faith justifies – and verifies – itself. You don’t believe an idea because it’s true. It’s true because you believe it.
https://inthesetimes.com/article/new-confederacy-rising
Now fast forward and to the court….
This mess we find our country in is all Chief Justice John Roberts’s fault. There are many other actors contributing to our current situation, but Roberts has been the most consequential of them. His actions lead to the conclusion that he wants to dismantle the “Second Founding” and return to a Confederate/Jim-Crow-style apartheid system.
Roberts has been working his entire career to undermine the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which were ratified after the Civil War. These amendments are also known as the Reconstruction Amendments. They are considered a “Second Founding” because they reoriented the Constitution from primarily promoting states’ rights to emphasizing individual rights and federal power in protecting those rights.
In 2013’s 5-4 Shelby County v. Holder decision, Roberts concluded that racism was a thing of the past. Racial discrimination in voting, according to Roberts, simply wasn’t a major problem anymore. This landmark case — by glibly pretending that racism is no longer a factor in elections, while allowing states-sponsored voter suppression and intimidation — reveals Roberts’s own latter-day racism.
When the history of the Trump era is written, John Roberts will be featured as the man who used Trumpism to finally win what southern racists call the “War of Northern Aggression.”
(whowhatwhy.org)
This ought to, if read, should offer up some interesting comments….we shall see.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”