Total Hypocrisy, Franken Pushed Back on GOP
I listened to this and it angers me.
First, we hear from Justice Roberts about barricades around SCOTUS after Roe v Wade. Not one word about the barricades being erected after the January 6 riots at the Capitol. Erected due to violent protest causing injury, death, and destruction at the Capitol.
The next stop after the Capitol was supposed to be SCOTUS on January 6. “Barricades surrounding Capitol in wake of the Jan. 6 riot now coming down” – ABC News (go.com)
In the video:
Roberts: “It was gut-wrenching to drive into work and see barricades . . .” due to Dobbs protesters expressing their rights to do so. It was always in Robert’s plan or head to strike down abortion. But to do it after the 2022 elections. The more rabid of the Federal Society Justices took it up and forced the issue before the issue.
A divided court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, doing precisely that, on June 24. Thousands of demonstrators marched at the court in the weeks following the ruling. During one protest, more than 180 people were arrested for blocking traffic. The security fence prevented protesters from approaching the court’s steps or marble plaza.
People are supposed to remain silent when legislature and the courts fail them, since when? When can’t they peacefully protest a bad decision?
“Security fencing around court is removed, but building remains closed to public” – SCOTUSblog after Dobbs.
Thousands marched. No one stormed the building. No one enter the building. 180 protesters were arrested for blocking traffic.
It was “gut-wrenching” for Roberts. And January 6th with the threats to SCOTUS after the Capitol was sacked? Crickets .
“It was gut wrenching” when people showed up after the flawed Dobbs decision and protested.
“‘Total hypocrisy’: Franken pushes back on GOP strategist over SCOTUS” – Democratic Underground, September 10, 2022
Franken is angry and the GOP Strategist will not admit to the hypocrisy of Republicans led by McConnell.
Come back Al, we need you.
I can not upvote you for that comment. No means for me to do so.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed with a 52-48 vote. If using the filibuster for confirmations had been considered normal practice in 1991, he would not be a Supreme Court justice today.
On the other hand, Democrats lost a chance to fill a seat in 1968 (an election year) when Earl Warren resigned and LBJ nominated Abe Fortas.
There was not divided government, but was there a filibuster? https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7747167
While Al Franken was taking Republican Strategist Alice Stewart apart on CNN, former Sen, McCaskill, with an assist from Yamiche Alcindor, was doing the same to Stewart’s counterpart, Matt Dobbs, on Meet The Press.
Crooks and Liars clip: https://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2022/09/mccaskill-sets-republican-straight
Full 15 min segment from NBC: https://www.nbc.com/meet-the-press/video/full-panel-abortion-not-in-top-four-issues-for-voters-republican-strategist-says/NBCN182085618
Ken:
I am glad we have some smart people around who can answer back.
The party that controls 30 state legislatures can’t be worried about its long-term survival, can it? (Even if more than a few are controlled by gerrymandering.)
If they are, then they will fight like cornered rats.
For a long time now, they have been willing to do whatever it takes to win. As if they were indeed fighting for their lives, and implying that they have known for a long time that they couldn’t win a fair fight. Rather like the kid in grade school trying to trip the person about to win. Gerrymandering is like tripping the other guy.
Has anyone looked at the Nineth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because of what is being said about rights not enumerated in the Constitution by SCOTUS and Carol Stewart is precisely why it exists. Some history:
“The Amendment’s origin is fascinating history. James Madison proposed the Amendment to counter the Federalist arguments that a bill of rights was unnecessary or even unwise. The Federalists argued that the government created by the Constitution was permitted to exercise only those powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. The governmental structure itself with its checks and balances would be the best protection for individual rights. Besides, the Federalist argument continued, a bill of rights might even be dangerous because a list of some protected rights might be interpreted to mean that all unlisted—or unenumerated—rights were unprotected.”
That is precisely what they are arguing and what Carol Stewart is arguing. If it is not listed in the “original” constitution, it is not a right. That is simply not true.
Another attorney acquaintance from a distant galaxy wrote this the other day:
In Dobbs v. Jackson Woman’s Health, the majority opinion relied on an “originalist” construction of the constitution:
Because the constitution does not expressly “grant” a right to an abortion, and because there was no historical right to an abortion when the constitution was drafted, the Roe decision erroneously made up a constitutional right out of whole cloth. Underlying this opinion is the belief that the constitutional rights of individuals are limited to those expressly granted by the constitution or recognized as existing when the constitution was adopted.
In Federalist No. 84 (Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered), Hamilton addressed the argument that the constitution should not be adopted because (as proposed for adoption) the constitution did not contain a bill of rights. Without a bill of rights, objectors to the constitution argued, the rights of individuals will be subject to the whims of the legislature. However, Hamilton anticipated and dispatched the “theory” that the failure to expressly provide for a particular human right in the constitution meant that the legislature could decide when, and to what extent, the particular right would be recognized:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
Imagine what Hamilton’s reaction would be to the majority opinion’s reasoning and “originalist” construction if he were alive today. Hamilton was indeed prophetic. This quote from Hamilton lays bare the irony and intellectually dishonesty of the interpretation of the rights of individuals by the “originalists” (like Alito and Thomas) and their failure to acknowledge, much less respect the Founder’s intent and understanding. The majority “originalists” apparently think that human rights are granted by the constitution, which is contrary to the original intent of the Founders as expressed in the above quotation. According to the Founders (Hamilton), however, the rights of the individual are not granted by the state, but are inherent in the individual. But not anymore!
Publius too must be growing old now . . .
You don’t want to hear this, but IMO what’s in the Federalist Papers is irrelevant these days. It was useful no doubt when ratification of the Constitution was on the table. Now it’s mostly quaint.
It’s more likely the case that what the Federalists have to say now is of relevance, because there are a lot of them on the Court (all the conservative members.)
‘Capital punishment may be cruel, but it’s not unusual.’ – Antonin Scalia
Fred . . .
You don’t want to hear it. Sorry, they still believe in that shit.
Do you agree that the Federalist Papers are irrelevant today?