More originalism:
On First Amendment Thursday, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court delivered an unsubtle warning to public employee unions: You are living on borrowed time.
In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, the five—Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito—reached out to decide a question that was not argued or briefed; their opinion all but begs right-wing advocacy groups and public employers to use its emerging First-Amendment jurisprudence to take down public-employee unions and in essence find a Southern-style “right to work” law in the Constitution. In the days when right-wingers favored judicial restraint, this might have been called “judicial activism.”
It is the Court’s Scott Walker moment.
Even better, on an actual issue regarding the first amendment, the court just said “ehh, whatevs”:
In an 8-0 vote, justices concluded the Federal Communications Commission cannot enforce its current policies against “fleeting” expletives and nudity on over-the-air programs, both live and scripted. The agency had levied hefty fines on all four major broadcasters beginning nearly a decade ago.
The court’s ruling was narrow, as the justices declined to address whether the regulations violate free-speech protections guaranteed under the First Amendment. But it does establish important guidelines the government must follow when monitoring explicit content on the airwaves.
Ruling in favor of free-speech, in this case, would have upset the social cons, so time for a narrow ruling. When it comes to union busting, though, full speed ahead and let’s rule on stuff that isn’t even in the case. But, you know, IANAL.
Hill Dweller
There was no difference between George W Bush and Al Gore, who got fat.
The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik
Welp. If the signs we weren’t in the Neo Gilded Age weren’t there before, here it is.
And the best we can probably even do with a 2nd Obama term is hold court, so to speak. Wonderful.
Hill Dweller
Retiring Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) summed it up nicely today:
Violet
The Supreme Court makes me sick. I keep wondering if any of them will leave for any reason (dread disease, unfortunate accident, truly wanting to retire) if Obama gets a second term. Or will they all hang on out of stubbornness and ego?
cannonfodder
“Yea but Obama is still sending in drones so I’m not voting”
-John Cole…idiot.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@Violet: Why leave when they can have their LUZ twisting the Constitution into a pretzel striking down everything he does?
Baud
@cannonfodder: WTF are you talking about? John raises money for Obama on this site.
Turgidson
@Violet:
I’ll take the “hang on out of stubbornness and ego” for $1000, Alex.
Kennedy was the only one I thought might step aside when he damn well felt like it, regardless of who was in the White House…but in light of his mroe and more flagrant hackery, I don’t see him giving a Democrat a chance to replace him either.
I think severe illness or death are the only ways any of the “Bring Back Lochner!!!” Five would go away during a D presidency.
Also too, channeling DougJ, I’m sure an anonymous dkos diarist has made the same point in a much meaner way and perhaps even said they’re hoping for an untimely end for one of the rightie justices. So both sides do it, of course.
cathyx
No one is going to leave the supreme court until their work is done dismantling all worker’s rights.
Tom levenson
This is the real reason this election is for all the marbles. The winner picks the supreme court majority for the next 20 years. Think how much of what we think of as the liberal triumphs of the Great Society actually turned on court decisions. That’s where the stakes, and future of the Republic sit today. Vote Obama, early and often.
Yutsano
@Violet: Scalia will stay on until he drops if Obama is re-elected. Same with Thomas. Roberts may yet end up sidelined with a health issue, and Alito doesn’t look like he’s enjoying the job, what with everybody picking on him. But he also won’t leave if THAT ONE gets to pick his replacement. The most likely retirements are Kennedy and Ginsburg. Good luck to Obama replacing them.
taylormattd
Regarding the second part of your post, that FCC ruling is by no stretch of the imagination a swipe at the First Amendment.
The court struck down insipid FCC regulations about bad words and nudity as unconstitutionally vague, so they had no need to address other arguments.
Violet
@Turgidson:
Do the Supreme Court justices get security protection, like from the Secret Service? I’ve never thought about one of them being targeted. I guess it could happen.
TenguPhule
Execute them. Execute them all.
Its the only way to save the republic.
Lolis
Six months ago I didn’t believe it was a possibility that SCOTUS would overturn health care reform, now I am terrified that they truly are going to do it. The court has lost all credibility and it scares me as much as Congress.
Violet
@Yutsano: What health issues does Roberts have? I think I remember reading he’s got diabetes? I guess that could be a problem, but he seems awfully young.
freelancer
Probably want to spell out IANAL on the FP to avoid any confusion stemming from lack of familiarity with BJ insidery-baseball stuff.
/concern troll
OT, CWS is on espn3.com so that’s what I’m doing today. They say it’s muggy in Omaha today. I don’t miss that at all.
Keith G
@Tom levenson:
What have you been told that we missed?
@cannonfodder: You are very Romney-esque.
Lolis
@Turgidson:
Kennedy already looks half-dead though. I don’t think he will have the choice to last five more years on the court.
TenguPhule
Wrong Justice, that’s Sotomyer.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Baud:
Our poor Constitution. Obama keeps throwing it “out the window” and the Supreme Court keeps snagging it, wiping with it and then throwing it back in the window at Obama.
Fax Paladin
@TenguPhule: If it gets to that point, then there’s no republic left to save.
Narcissus
Great. So we’re down to one out of three branches of government actually functioning as advertised.
beltane
@Violet: It’s Sotomayor who has diabetes. Roberts suffers from occasional brain seizures though I’m not sure if it’s epilepsy or not.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Tom levenson:
__
Re-electing Obama is the first step in getting a SCOTUS that will preserve the republic rather than trying to destroy it from within, but it isn’t the last step.
Mark S.
Just as the Framers intended when they wrote the 1st Amendment. That’s some mighty nice originalism.
Litlebritdifrnt
If stats are anything to go by Thomas will die of a massive heart attack at some point in the future. Whether it is in the next four years is a crap shoot.
Violet
@beltane: Oh, right. Seizures don’t necessarily mean someone’s health is generally bad, though, do they? If they take medication, they’re generally able to function normally. Roberts always looks healthy to me. Alito looks like he’s not all that well.
Omnes Omnibus
Cole, I don’t think anyone has argued that there four, and often five, justices who will always choose the most right-wing result that is legally justifiable. Also, did you notice that Know v. SEIU was a 7-2 decision against the union?
The Institute For A Meaningful Apocalypse
Maybe Albert was wrong. Maybe God does play craps with the universe.
Valdivia
@Lolis:
I am with you on this. They scare me even more as they shroud their decisions in the aura of constitutional mystery. Assholes.
A Ghost To Most
We can haz enabling laws neow?
/fascistcat
PeakVT
In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, the five … reached out to decide a question that was not argued or briefed
So…. anyone want to revise their predictions on the outcome of the PPACA case?
Villago Delenda Est
@TenguPhule:
This.
TenguPhule
Its gotten to that point.
Omnes Omnibus
@PeakVT: No.
batgirl
@Omnes Omnibus: Hmmm, I could swear on NPR they were just reporting it as a 5-4 decision. Ahh, now I see it is one of those decisions were part was decided 7-2 and part 5-4. Anyone here you can explain the details?
Update: From Scotus Blog:
Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities.
Steeplejack
@freelancer:
Probably want to spell out CWS to avoid any confusion stemming from lack of familiarity with actual insidery-baseball stuff.
Comrade Dread
They are originalists, John. They would very much like to go back to the first draft when we had slavery, indentured servitude, and only white male land owners could vote.
That’s the glided age for these people.
PeakVT
@The Institute For A Meaningful Apocalypse: You have Einstein’s quote backwards.
TenguPhule
I predict that by a 5 to 4 vote, the US SUPREME COURT will shred every last measure of dignity and demonstrate once and for all that its broken beyond repair and can only be salvaged by removing the 5 corrupt Republicans from it by hook or by crook.
beltane
@Violet: Well, a seizure could be dangerous in certain situations. Alito just looks that way because he’s been pickled by his own bile.
It feels weird, just sitting here doing nothing while an unelected neo-fascist judiciary destroys this country. We have a military to protect us from foreign invaders but nothing much to protect us from a corporate, white supremacist tyranny.
Mark S.
@batgirl:
Here you go:
I don’t think the result was indefensible, but the right wing loons going out of their way to put new constitutional restraints on unions that wasn’t argued by the litigants stinks to high heaven.
Edited for clarity
Ruckus
Could someone explain why we as a country have decided to worship at the altar of the rich? (Yes that is a rhetorical question)
Could someone explain why I shouldn’t think the republic is doomed or worse? (And no this one is not)
Davis X. Machina
@batgirl: 7-2 on the procedural issue (not-mootness), 5-4 on the merits.
Litlebritdifrnt
@Comrade Dread:
I kid you not a caller to my local RWNJ radio station said that very thing this week, “only tax payers and land owners should be allowed to vote”. The sad part is he was deadly serious. What he failed to realize that in my part of the world (75,000 military and dependents) he would be disenfranchising the majority of the troops who rent and don’t pay local taxes. These people are insane.
Omnes Omnibus
@batgirl: The opinion, and the reasoning behind it, that Cole is talking about at the top was written by Alito and joined by the usual suspects. Sotomayor and Ginsburg agreed with the result but basically objected to the Alito opinion reaching out to decide unnecessary questions. This is from a quick read; I haven’t had time to go read it in detail yet, but then again, my opinion on legal matters shouldn’t count for much.
tybee
in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, i kinda think that closed shops should be illegal. why should someone be forced to join a union and contribute involuntarily to a political fund?
can someone convince me otherwise?
The Institute For A Meaningful Apocalypse
@PeakVT:
Are you certain?
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
my opinion on legal matters shouldn’t count for much.
Neither should the majority of the supreme court.
freelancer
@Steeplejack:
Nailed me there, steep.
JPL
@TenguPhule: but, but Alito didn’t say you lie… he just implied it.
nastybrutishntall
@freelancer: Given how we’re getting fucked, IANAL stands without explanation.
joes527
@Tom levenson: but then he’d have to get them confirmed, so just re-electing the guy on the top of the ticket won’t get the job done.
If the senate flips (likely) god help us all.
JPL
@joes527: It’s a start.
J. Michael Neal
@tybee:
No one is forced to do anything. Your argument is premised upon the idea that you have a right to a job with a specific employer. I could be convinced that this is a right that should be enshrined, but only if you’re willing to go along with *all* of the implications of that declaration.
If you are not prepared to concede that I have a right to work for exactly who I want to, then why should people bargaining freely in the labor market be prohibited by law from signing whatever contracts they wish to? That’s what right-to-work laws strike down.
Why do you hate the free market?
NR
@TenguPhule:
You’re right. They will do this by upholding the mandate.
Comrade Dread
@Litlebritdifrnt: I know. I’ve seen the same thing in blog comments.
It’s all because they are convinced that those people (and we all know who they say those people are) are living high off the government hog at their expense.
PeakVT
@Ruckus: The country isn’t doomed as in it will go the way of Yugoslavia sometime in the next couple of decades, but if Romney wins a whole lot of people will have their middle-class existence ground slowly ground away (and of course it will get worse for those who are already poor). Attempting to replicate the social structure of Brazil in the 1950s doesn’t really appeal to me.
Burnspbesq
Thank God for SCOTUSBlog, because Cole isn’t even fucking trying to figure out whether cases are correctly decided or not. He’s just babbling incoherently.
Linnaeus
@tybee:
Closed shops are illegal in the United States under the Taft-Hartley Act. You can’t be compelled to join a union. However, in states that don’t have right-to-work laws, a union and an employer can negotiate a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement that requires employees in the bargaining unit represented by the union who do not join to pay “agency fees”; these cover the costs of representation and don’t go toward political spending.
The SEIU got the 7-2 ruling against because it didn’t allow for an opt-out to the emergency political fund it was establishing (as it would normally in the course of collecting dues or agency fees), What Ginsburg and Sotomayor didn’t like was that the rest of the majority went further and opined on an issue that neither of the litigants brought before the Court and suggested that was needed was not an opt-out, but an opt-in, which would make collecting funds a lot harder.
Comrade Dread
Assuming there’s a miracle and the Democrats end up controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency, I think we may need to revisit Roosevelt’s idea to expand the court.
Litlebritdifrnt
@Comrade Dread: Yeah but in this case “those people” are the troops, who these people claim to worship. It is fucking bizarre I tell ya.
beltane
@Comrade Dread: We also need to look into impeaching a few of the human excrement called “Justices” removed from the bench.
Burnspbesq
John Cole:
Lyle Denniston:
Seriously, John, you’re embarrassing yourself.
joes527
@Comrade Dread:
Dude, you forgot to ask for flying unicorns pooping rainbows.
The Moar You Know
@Litlebritdifrnt: Same with a member of my local school board last week.
He got taken to the woodshed, hard, by one of the high schoolers who serve as student representatives to the board. Wish I could have recorded it, ’twas epic.
Burnspbesq
@Linnaeus:
Dead on. SEIU shot itself in the foot. Which doesn’t absolve the Court majority of reaching out to decide an issue that wasn’t briefed or argued.
I give Cole a hard time, and I will continue to do so, but in this case the Court did fuck up.
The Moar You Know
@tybee: No one gives a shit what you think. I’d no more try to argue you out of your stupidity than I’d try to argue with a rock.
Burnspbesq
@beltane:
Show me 67 votes in the Senate.
Mike Lamb
@Burnspbesq: Isn’t Cole arguing that the SCOTUS opted to issue a more narrow ruling when it could’ve gone for a more sweeping decision–in effect punting in order to appease social conservatives? Whether you agree with Cole’s underlying analysis of the motives, he’s right to the extent that the Court opted to avoid a larger issue. (And his point was to juxtapose the narrow decision re: the Fox decision with the more sweeping dicta in Knox that the justices decided to comment on out of thin air).
PurpleGirl
If you don’t join the union or pay something to the union for the representation, then why should you get the benefit of the union negotiated wage and benefits? If you want to go it alone, you should go it alone and see what companies want to give you.
JPL
@Linnaeus: The opt-in argument is interesting. I can have the union working on my behalf and not pay them a cent. Of course, the down side is there would be no unions and we’d be working at minimum wage.
Very nice explanation btw. thanks
beltane
@Burnspbesq: I was responding to a hypothetical “miracle” situation, not to the reality of our fatally broken country.
Ruckus
@Burnspbesq:
Correctly decided according to whom?
Keith G
@Burnspbesq: Damn your facts, Sir.
Steeplejack
@freelancer:
Sorry, couldn’t resist. I’m relatively sport-o-centric and still had to think for a minute what it was.
danimal
@PeakVT: I thought the ACA clearing the SCOTUS was a no-brainer a year ago unless the justices wanted to destroy the post-1930’s welfare state in the process.
I still think this, but I’m becoming more convinced the justices are going to go for the kill shot and destroy the post-1930’s welfare state. Hello, neo-Gilded Age!
cat48
They plan on repealing the New Deal; per Jeffrey Toobin who has a book coming out about it soon. Anyone who doesn’t vote or votes 3rd Party are asking for more of this shit.
beltane
@JPL:
What makes you think there will be a minimum wage in the future? It’s enough that our Very Special Job Creators create work, why should we be so ungrateful to expect them create paid work? If Mrs. Romney’s Dancing Horses don’t get paid for their services, why should the much less valuable two-legged beasts of burden get paid?
Steeplejack
@tybee:
Then how do you solve the “free rider” problem? “Yeah, I love getting the same pay and benefits that my union coworkers do, but I don’t wanna pay no dues to no union!”
ETA: Everyone seems to think that the benefits we enjoy at work–to the extent they aren’t being stripped away or rolled back–just sort of happened, like the weather. Don’t work six days a week? Thank a union. Work only 35-40 hours a week? Thank a union. Get overtime? Thank a union.
Of course, even as I write this I see how rare these things are becoming. (See “stripping” and “rolling back” above.)
kay
President Roberts is having a very productive year. His agenda is moving right along.
An opt-in law, huh? Wow. Did Scalia and Thomas offer amendments? Maybe Ginsburg can filibuster next session.
Chris
@Tom levenson:
Yeah, I just hope the current court doesn’t inflict too much damage on the country in the meantime.
JPL
@beltane: At least the horses get a tax deduction.
HEY YOU
SCOTUS can do as they please. Those that disagree, just don’t do spend any money in conservative businesses.
beltane
@danimal: In other parts of the developed world the 1st Gilded Age didn’t end so gracefully. Maybe we will live to see the day when the forces that drove Ayn Rand out of Russia will cause her followers to flee the US.
Cluttered Mind
@Litlebritdifrnt: Thomas actually died years ago, the Republicans are just pretending he’s still alive. It’s why he never talks.
Ruckus
@cat48:
If people don’t fight for these programs, they are gone.
How do you fight a supreme court that oversteps it’s bounds? Oh wait I forgot, they have no bounds. They are the last course of action. They have shown that precedent does not matter to the majority, that decades of law and decisions matter not one wit if it interferes with their conservative ends.
Cluttered Mind
@Chris: It’s kind of too late for that. Bush v. Gore shot our democracy in the head and Citizens United took it off life support.
Martin
@kay: President Roberts? No, the President isn’t granted that kind of power.
John Cole
@Mike Lamb:
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It’s Burnes, though- there will never, ever be a moment when he will not bow down to power.
Steeplejack
@cat48:
Quote from where?
Raptor Fence
It will be interesting to see when courts declare unions unconstitutional on free speech grounds and ignore the part of the first amendment that talks about free association. But hey, ORIGINALISM!!
John Cole
@Burnspbesq:
In one ruling, where it serves conservative purposes, they issue a major ruling on issues not even before them. On the other, when it doesn’t serve conservative purposes, they issue a narrow ruling and avoid the larger 1st amendment question before them.
And I’m embarrassing myself? Here’s actual lawyers slapping down your buffoonery:
I liked it so much more when you were simply writing paeans to all the really smart people you knew at Goldman.
cat48
@Ruckus:
Vote for the most liberal candidate for president. That’s how I pick candidates. I’ve never voted 3rd party. Always Dems. I’ve always voted for Justices b/c no candidate’s program is assured of being passed. I know that b/c I’m really old & had Civics in High School. Chait agrees that the Court is after the New Deal. He thinks when they overturn healthcare, they’ll get bolder about social programs.
The h/c repeal will give them a precedent to work from.
David Koch
Why are people picking on John Roberts? Russ Feingold personally vouched for him. If Russ says Roberts is one of the good ones, then he must be.
tybee
@J. Michael Neal:
if an employer has a job opening that i could fulfil, why do i have to join a union to get that job? the union isn’t offering the job. why do you hate america? :)
really, why should i HAVE to join the union?
unions are generally good but a close shop? dunno bout dat.
LGRooney
If the right wing wants to face a fucking revolution where the poor and downtrodden tear them and their families to pieces, we have lots of modern-day Romanovs in the USA, they’re continuing to move in the right direction. Although, and unfortunately, the “help” may be too busy with their KFC bucket and DWTS to peel themselves away for something to make life better.
tybee
@Linnaeus:
thanks for that explanation.
Ruckus
@John Cole:
You know you can’t have an opinion about the law without being a lawyer. Don’t you? Just because a law affects almost every part of your life and the politicians on the supreme court are trying to fuck you over that doesn’t mean you have any say about it. Geezzzz I thought burns had taught all of us that.
cat48
@Steeplejack:
The quote is from Toobin’s description of the book on Amazon. I heard about it on CNN. The name of the book is The Oath by Jeffrey Toobin & will be out in a few months. It’s a presale.
Lurker
@Ruckus:
Slavery ended 150+ years ago; women got the right to vote almost 100 years ago; civil rights improved for blacks and women about fifty years ago; civil rights are juuuuust starting to improve for LGBTQ.
Despite the threat of corporations like Weyland-Yutani taking over everything, I think we’re still making progress as a country.
Omnes Omnibus
@John Cole: I suppose you missed the part where burnsie criticized the Court for overreaching.
Chris
@LGRooney:
Seriously.
Churchill always said that Americans will do the right thing “after exhausting all possible alternatives.” For once he might have been wrong.
kay
@Martin:
I went to see Ginsburg speak shortly after Roberts was confirmed.
She’s generous: she says nice things about the conservatives. I wanted to tell her I’ve heard Scalia and others speak, and they don’t say shit about Ginsburg, they talk exclusively about themselves, but of course I didn’t.
Anyway. She referred to Roberts as “our handsome young chief”. I can’t help but wonder if she still thinks so highly of him.
Chris
@Lurker:
For most of history we’ve been making progress, however slow. It’s just in the last thirty years that we seem to have become intent on rolling the clock back.
The Institute For A Meaningful Apocalypse
These are times that try men’s souls.
We at the institute, are proceeding hastily toward marketing a compact SCOTUS survival kit. You get a tube of toothpaste, three condoms, and a canceled subscription to The Nation.
One football for punting, and a freeze dried bag of banker toes (very high protein and they come with an IV kit for the wine of your choice). A CD containing all of David Broder’s articles since WW 1, and a rolled up banner of an Applebee’s salad bar. For the lonely moments of what could have been.
We are avid believers in the bare minimum of Apocalyptic violence. So no weapons for self defense are included. Because somebody has to survive, right? Though optional, you can order one of these separately. We call it your personal death panel. “Kervorkian Model.”
Mr. Smith – Dean of Creative Destruction Studies
Ruckus
@cat48:
Sure I get voting for the correct (democratic) candidate. No problem there. What do we do in the mean time with the supreme court? Hold our breath? Punt? We have 2 sections of our government that are dysfunctional, with one of them actually accountable to no one and both of them realistically making themselves accountable to big money. How does electing a few democrats help? Don’t get me wrong giving up would be worse but will it change anything other than how soon the country fails? OK maybe how dramatically it fails. Because I don’t hold any expectations that it will get better.
Omnes Omnibus
@Chris: Progress has never been steady; it has always be two steps forward, one step back.
freelancer
@Steeplejack:
No worries.
Violet
@kay:
He’s still handsome but not as young as he used to be. Did she say anything besides complimenting things he has little or no control over (the face he was born with; his age)? If not, it was damning with faint praise.
Ruckus
@Lurker:
Were making progress. Absolutely. But it’s were now.
Yes I may be seeing the sky falling, but what if I’m not? I think right now we are in a very precarious time for the health of the republic and a majority of it’s inhabitants. Waiting to see what happens is not even close to enough.
Baud
@kay:
I’m glad Ginsburg is on the Court, but she strikes me as someone who comes from a world of social elites who can’t fathom that conservatives really are the way they are.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: The fact that the Court reached out and decided issues that weren’t really before is egregious, but this is not the first, nor will it be the last, Court to do it. It doesn’t make it right, today’s decision is not an unprecedented event.
pragmatism
This reminded me of our compatriot p.b burns, esquire today. deadspin.com/5920265/this-photo-of-his-car-tells-you-all-you-need-to-know-about-jerry-sanduskys-lawy…
Baud
@Ruckus:
We need to win the presidency
in 2012this year and in 2016 to take back the court. It’s doable.MikeJ
@pragmatism: Wow! He spent $20 to get personalized plates! Look at the way he flaunts it!
cat48
@Ruckus:
Well, unfortunately, this is not a short term fix NOW, with Roberts, Scalia, etc. It’s a long time fix. Dems have to think LONGTERM like the GOP rather what they don’t like right now. It’s absolutely crucial everyone understands that if you can’t pick Justices, none of your programs or policies are safe. It’s ok to not like our candidates, but if you prefer Dem programs; you have to vote that way at every election to pick Justices b/c THEY GET THE LAST WORD ON THE POLICY.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
Unfortunately that now seems to be 2 steps back and a half step forward.
If the court upholds ACA then maybe I’ll rethink my current stance. I’m sure not holding my breath.
kay
@Violet:
Well, he was brand new, and I think she’s genuinely polite, which is not a bad thing to be.
Like I said, I think her impulse is to be generous. I don’t think she should be trashing him right out of the box. This was before we discovered what he’s about. He COULD have been “balls and strikes”. He’s not, but she took him at his word.
It’s probably a good personal quality in a judge, not prejudging :)
JPL
@MikeJ: He should have renewed his tags.
mclaren
These are only the opening steps before the main push to turn back the clock to the middle ages.
The big change will come when the Roberts supreme court brings back debtors’ prisons and then slavery, and eventually bans all forms of public education (K-12 as well as college) and shuts down the public libraries for mass copyright infringement.
Now that automation + offshoring via the internet has made the American workforce superfluous, it’s time to reset the calender to the tenth century A.D. There will still be just as many jobs as there used to be, but different kinds of jobs: witch detectors, public torturers, heretic hunters, public executioners, and so on.
Naturally the obots like DougJ will frantically exhort us to choose the lesser of two evils Democratic presidential candidate, and this will drive us straight into the middle ages. It works like this: today’s lesser-of-two-evils Democratic president rejects torture but accepts kidnapping and the murder of U.S. citizens without charges or a trial. So the next Republican president will advocate the return of slavery and public impalement for running up debts you can’t pay. The next Democratic president will reject slavery and pubilc impalement, but will accept debtors’ prisons as a “necessary although regrettable response to the irresponsibility of unemployed American unwilling to pay down their debt.”
So the next Republican presidential candidate will simply up the ante, advocating mass rape as a the remedy for indebtedness and public torture for anyone with less than the half the federal poverty-level income. The next Democratic presidential candidate will abhor mass rape and public torture, but will regrettably accept the return of slavery as “the lesser of two evils” and will sign into law various new bills creating the federal Escape Debt Slave Enforcement agency. The next Democratic president will tout this as a huge job creator, and will give a glowingly eloquest speech about the importance of human dignity.
So the next Republican presidential candidate will up the ante again, running on a platform of roasting the babies of anyone under the poverty level while they’re alive. And the next Democratic president will denounce this proposal as outrageous and infamous, and will instead agree on a compromise which creates a Year Zero in which everyone under the poverty level is expelled forcibly into the countryside to be taken to killing fields and executed, while the remainder of the population languishes in slavery in order to serve the top 1%. This will be billed as “a grand compromise,” and, even as he’s taken away to the countryside to be executed (because he has a college degree — everyone with college degrees or who wears eyeglasses will be executed, as well as all the poor people in America), DougJ will spend his last few minutes of freedom praising the Democratic president who signs this bill into law, because “It’s the lesser of two evils. And if you think Year Zero is bad, just think what would’ve happened if we’d elected a Republican!”
Violet
@kay:
Yeah, it’s good quality in anyone, not prejudging, but especially in a judge.
Ruckus
@cat48:
Really I think it’s timing that’s the issue. We all know the conservatives don’t give a shit if the majority of us were to die tomorrow as long as they have a place to keep their(and our) money. We all know this has been going on for a good part of our history. We all know what we have to do if we want to fix things(vote democrat!!!). What do we do if the right has hit the mother lode of stupid politics and governance? What do you say when voting correctly is not enough for survival of the republic?
ETA Just read post 122. So it seems I’m not any where near the edge about this. Out there sure but not 20 miles with no food and water.
Lurker
@Ruckus:
Sure, the sky can fall. But it can rise back up, too. If humans can survive the Roman Empire, the Inquisition and the events of the early 20th century, I think we can survive a political, judicial and corporate system packed with assholes.
Punchy
What makes y’all think that if an opening does happen during Obama 2; Negro Buggalo, that the Rs in the Senate wont filly 43 consecutive liberal SC nommies? Why wouldnt they?
Raven
@mclaren: God you are such a fucking asshole, how is being you?
Baud
@Punchy:
Too much public exposure. Up to now, that’s the one thing the GOP hasn’t done (at the Supreme Court level).
dms
@John Cole:
Just for the record, as I was informed years ago by the owners of the blog, nobody at LGM is a lawyer. The blog title is sort of tongue-in-cheek.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: Maybe this will help, maybe it won’t, but here goes. I still think the ACA will be upheld. Most cases that make it to the Supreme Court have good arguments that can be made for either side, both supported by precedent, theory, etc.; that’s why they end up making it that far. Justices can end up picking the side with which they have the most sympathy. Given the current Court, it is frequently 5-4 for the assholes. On the ACA, however, there really just aren’t very good arguments against it. I don’t think Kennedy will be able to be that much of a hack – I actually think his decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United help here; if he does it again, he goes down in history as a hack. If Kennedy votes to uphold, I think Roberts will as well. If the CJ is on the winning side, the CJ picks who writes the opinion. Roberts will want a narrow opinion and will probably write it himself. Alito and Thomas are right-wing hacks who will vote no, and Scalia is a bombastic asshole who will probably vote no. Anyway, that is my reasoning.
Ruckus
@Lurker:
Part of the problem I see in your argument is that during the events you named most people still worked in largely agricultural endeavors. The could survive without much or very effective government. That is not true anymore.
Just Some Fuckhead
Oh my god. I bet they don’t have guns or money either. Poseurs.
Omnes Omnibus
@dms: Actually, I believe they have some now. Scott Lemieux isn’t one though.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Americia, Land of the Free Market and Home of the Slave Wage.
John Cole
@dms: You’re right. Scott, the author of the post I cited, is not a lawyer, and I was hasty. This is what he does for a living:
Clearly an uniformed rube who knows nothing about the law.
And Paul Campos is a law prof.
PurpleGirl
@Just Some Fuckhead: Haven’t you ever heard Warren Zevon’s song Lawyers, Guns and Money? Not saying that they took the blog name from the song, but there it is.
J. Michael Neal
@tybee: Why are you owed that job? Who are you to tell the employer that he has to hire *you* in contravention of a contract he freely negotiated and signed?
Just Some Fuckhead
@PurpleGirl: But can they sing?
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
I still remain hopeful no matter how it sounds(optimists have to do that. I do see the cup as full but only 1/8 now).
I’m hoping that you are correct, it sounds like a good assessment but I have little confidence.
Linnaeus
@JPL:
Exactly. This is what happens in right-to-work states, in which all unionized workplaces are open shops where people have the benefits of union representation – indeed the union is required to represent you regardless of whether you’re a member – but can avoid paying any of the costs.
So what’s really troubling about this ruling is that it potentially opens the door to a broader challenge to union security clauses. This Court could effectively impose right-to-work on the entire country in adjudicating such a challenge.
cat48
@Ruckus:
I think it’s normal to get discouraged & to think nothing can be done to better our situation. That happens to everyone that follows politics. As for #122, I’ve read the commenter a few times & just can’t relate, so I just skip them now so I don’t know what it said. These folks exist in life so I work around it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: If I am not correct, I will start to have a lot of sympathy for the “they’re all hacks” line of argument.
Paula
@Punchy:
It may be a “gallows moment” for me, but for some reason this is HI-LARIOUS.
kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’m in full-on “prepare to lose” mode.
I read a piece in the Times today where a couple who couldn’t get health insurance got it thru ACA and one if them said “it’s the only time the government has ever really helped us”
That’s like a direct contradiction of Ronald Reagan, Omnes :)
It CANNOT stand.
burnspbesq
@John Cole:
Try me again when you have a fucking clue.
PIGL
@tybee: Why, no I very much doubt that anyone could convince you. Sound arguments in favour of closed shops are easy construct, but that would probably not interest you, oh spouter of facile libertarian talking points. Can you convince me that it would?
Ruckus
@kay:
This is exactly what scares me. Anything good for the un-ordained beings of this world is not allowed.
Anne Laurie
@kay:
Perhaps Justice Ginsburg was using that ‘praise’ ironically — the way someone might agree that the blind date, though coyote-ugly, has such a nice personality.
kay
@Ruckus:
I get fatalistic when I’m tired, and I’m tired.
I was thinking today that both Clinton and Obama were/are two talented, hard working presidents and if either of them can’t get it done, maybe it can’t be done.
Truman, Nixon, Clinton, Obama. What’s to say anyone could come up with the magic formula to get past media and all the rest of the douchebags who have been working for decades to make sure health care remains reserved for those who deserve it?
OzoneR
SCOTUS actually overturned minimum wage once.
OzoneR
@kay:
BULLY PULPIT!
In all reality, I never thought and still don’t think the US will ever have true universal healthcare. The country is too diverse, too individualistic, too large for it to work.
If it ever did happen, it’ll come via the states, but not the federal government.
That’s why I commend Obama for doing what I believe was an idiotic thing to do, getting something passed that has some good stuff in it
someguy
@John Cole:
Ah, an appeal to authority. Just what I’d expect from an ex-Republican. I guess he’s smarter about U.S. law than the 8 justices – some of whom are relatively liberal, all of whom are pretty well credentialed themselves – who didn’t think it was necessary to issue a broader holding.
Consider that if the Court wanted to get into the First Amendment question, it’d have to articulate a clear set of rules and explain where the FCC went wrong, in effect giving the agency a roadmap to enact effective limitations on free speech next time around. Maybe it’s better to send them away with a 8-0 majority against them, and no hints on how to withstand Court scrutiny the next time.
PurpleGirl
@Just Some Fuckhead: I have no idea.
fuckwit
@TenguPhule: That’s severely fucked up, and such incitement shouldn’t be allowed anywhere IMHO. I can’t think of a single less democratic way to solve a problem. On other sites like dKos you’d have been banned for that instantly.
However, impeaching these fuckers, that I could get behind, big time. Thomas (and his wife) have had some very sketchy ethical stuff in the recent past, and Scalia’s close ties to politics seems like it might lead to some probable cause for an investigation too.
Baud
@fuckwit: Thank you for saying something.
Ruckus
@kay:
It’s awfully difficult to be effective even with hard work and brains when the shit is coming at you faster than a speeding bullet, from all sides and in supertanker sized loads. Which is of course why it is coming at that way. What it looks like when it hits the fan is not good but hitting the fan or not it still stinks.
OK the cliche factory is closed.
I really wonder what the conservatives are going to do when they get the country they think they want.
Yutsano
@OzoneR:
You aren’t paying attention.
General Stuck
Jeebus Cole, when you finally run off all the shithouse lawyers, Obots, and any semblance of nuance, what will be left?
kay
@Ruckus:
It felt overwhelming and unstoppable to me, but I am not a political professional.
I was thinking maybe you have to BUY TIME. Actually purchase ad time to relay basic, factual information on any given law/issue. That sucks, but maybe that’s the reality.
Left Coast Tom
@someguy:
Suppose this is so. Five of these 8 would be the very same justices who decided, on the very same day, that it was necessary to issue a broad ruling on an unargued topic. Isn’t that disparity the point of the complaint here?
shortstop
@kay: I’ve heard her speak several times. She is generous. Always. And funny as hell, though her late husband was even more so.
Mike Lamb
@Left Coast Tom: Precisely.
OzoneR
@Yutsano: Yes and that’s exactly what should happen if we’re ever to get universal healthcare. Hopefully it spreads to a larger state.
tam
I’m surprised no one thinks Scalia might be out within the next four years. He’s 76, and he doesn’t seem like the kind of man who exercises.
Sigh…who am I kidding? He’ll probably cling to that seat for another decade…
Ruckus
@tam:
And even if he is gone in a year who is going to be appointed with the senate we have?
TenguPhule
Now you’re just arguing over the price of your virtue.
Impeachment, execution, its just a matter of degree.
bob h
U.S. Constitution = “Rules for the Conduct of Social Darwinism in America”.
Omnes Omnibus
@bob h: “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., from his dissent in Lochner v. New York.
shortstop
@TenguPhule: Just knock it off.
PatrickG
@ taylormatt:
First, IANAL, but my girlfriend is, so by osmosis …
I don’t believe that is quite the way this went down. The court struck down these particular applications of FCC policy (i.e. fines), because: (1) rules were not clearly promulgated, (2) rules were changed arbitrarily, or to quote Justice Kennedy, “the commission had changed the rules in the middle of the game”, and (3) the FCC did not respond to written requests for clarification by networks PRIOR to the events that caused the fines.
In short, the Court did not say that the FCC did not have the power to regulate, they just said that the FCC was just unprofessional in this case.
Apologies if someone else responded to this elsewhere, I didn’t see it in a quick skim.