Supreme Court Faces Increasing Scrutiny From Congress

[applegrove]

Supreme Court Faces Increasing Scrutiny From Congress

December 7, 2022 at 5:19 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 13 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2022/12/07/supreme-court-faces-increasing-scrutiny-from-congress/

"SNIP......

“Congressional Democrats are intensifying their critical focus on the Supreme Court in the wake of accusations of leaked decisions and improper outside influence, calling for new ethics rules to be imposed on the justices,” the New York Times reports.

“House Democrats plan to convene a hearing on the issue on Thursday. Senate Democrats say they are also considering taking a closer look at the court after disclosures of a concerted campaign by evangelical Christians to develop deep contacts among some conservative justices as they weighed major rulings on religious rights, abortion and contraception.”

.......SNIP"

[orthoclad]

1. It's about damn time

Two years ago I was so bouyed up. Statehood for DC and PR. Expand the Court to 13. etc.
Instead we got Dodd. And now, Moore will make Dodd look like just a warmup.

I keep hoping for an FDR. He faced down the Court and got something done.

[yankee87]

16. +1

Agreed

[calimary]

26. Hear hear!

It IS about damn time!

[Tetrachloride]

2. Increased scrutiny? Is that the "best" that can be done ?

[Auggie]

11. "Increased Scrutiny" is a media headline. Congress is convening a hearing. Read the post.

[stopdiggin]

35. in a word, yes.

on the other hand - I don't think the impact of this type of spotlight and 'scrutiny' should be easily discounted.

Integrity is a true watchword with the court. And you can bet that the justices (whatever their public statements) take it quite seriously.

[barbtries]

3. pack the court. nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. We lost the House. Too many unwilling to take the time to vote.

[Celerity]

18. the votes were not there in the Senate either to expand the number of SCOTUS justices

[Hermit-The-Prog]

32. That could change. Remember Pelosi saying that voters push Congress.

[Celerity]

34. That worked out so well with Manchin and Sinema........

[orthoclad]

19. Ah. Blame the voters.

In 2020, record numbers turned out to fire a monster. We hired a team to fix the country. There was an opportunity to make sweeping changes in the wake of the failed coup.

We should have been able to sweep the House in the wake of the previous years' disasters, especially the post-election 2021 coup. The Party fumbled it. The excuse that history favors the party out of power in midterms doesn't cut it; when in history has the country been under such an assault from within? Not even the Confederacy carried a flag into Congress.

We need to take a really hard look at why the plurality of US citizens don't trust either party enough to vote for them, a post-mortem as it were. That would gather a LOT more voters than scolding them.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

33. No, "The Party" did not "fumble[] it". We face a propaganda machine unlike any in history.

[stopdiggin]

37. and a lot of 'dumber than dirt' voters

that are more than willing to swallow the garbage being spoon fed to them.
Nobody is forcing these morons to believe that drag queens and children are among our most pressing issues. You chose to be that stupid.

Blame the voters? I've got no problem at all doing just exactly that. Actions have consequences. Stupidity does too.

The 'Party' fumbled it? Sorry, chump. The party offered you Pelosi and Biden ... You decided you wanted to go with Hershel Walker. Case closed.

[Mister Ed]

6. We must *please* stop using the right wing's framing on this.

The court has already been packed. We must call to "unpack" it, or "restore" it or "rebalance" it - anything but "pack" it.

Cries of "Pack the Court!" sound as unfair, unwise, and unacceptable to the general public as did cries of "Defund the police!" (another terrible and inaccurate framing of an important concept).

[LenaBaby61]

7. REALLY THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Hekate]

8. ABSOLUTELY!

Thank you

[barbtries]

12. sorry, i wasn't up to date on

the current correct lingo.

rebalance it then: add justices to restore justice.

[Mister Ed]

17. Thanks, and please understand I wasn't scolding you personally.

But we have to always beware of falling into the trap of taking up the right wing's framing.

[barbtries]

24. i read an OP

right around the time it became very clear that republicans and mcconnell had stolen the Court. I cannot recall who wrote it or where it was, but it was really good. It made the case for packing the Court as much as possible. I really wish I could find it and share it. It made so much sense.

I'm just getting old I guess. My DIL shared her Ancestry DNA and I told her she's exotic (indigenous Andes, Chilean, Italian). My son said it made me sound racist. that's not what i meant at all, it was more envy because mine is so bland, but anyhow. live and learn.

your example of defund the police hits home because I'm all for it, but get that the framing was unfortunate. On the other hand, it's only unfortunate because the right wing twists it and plays it for their own purposes and the great mass of media plays right along. Deliberately refusing to recognize it for what it is. Same with critical race theory. How horrible that there are people out there who would like to learn and teach actual history!!

my own personal pet peeve is "pro life." I do not hesitate to "scold" if you will, anyone who uses that term when what they mean is anti-abortion, anti-woman, you get it. My point is do not concede that to them. They are not pro life. I am pro life and pro choice.

bad enough that they've largely succeeded in making "liberal" a dirty word.

i hate republicans.

[ShazzieB]

29. You just mentioned one of my pet peeves.

The term "pro life" makes my blood boil. Boil, I tell you!

If someone wants to be anti-abortion, that's their right, Much as I deplore that stance, I recognize that people have the right to take that position. Whatever.

HOWEVER: holding a particular position does NOT entitle anyone to call themselves by a label that insults and slanders everyone who takes an opposing position.

When they call themselves "pro life," they are implying that all those who don't agree with them are "pro death" (whatever the hell that even means). I refuse to believe that isn't deliberate on some level.

I don't know for a fact that all the people on that side of the fence literally think the rest of us are "pro death," but I'm positive some of them do. I think a lot of people adopt the label without really thinking about it because it's become the standard code for opposition to legal abortion. But I believe that whoever originally invented that label knew exactly what they were doing, and I think many who use the label also know what it implies and happily embrace that aspect of it.

For all of these reasons, as well as the fact that it's just plain dishonest and disingenuous, I refuse to call the anti-choice crowd by that label. I only use the term when I'm ialking about why I object to it, as I am doing now, and I always put it in quotes to indicate that I regard it as false and misleading. I really wish everyone on the pro-choice side would do the same.

I would love to see the term "pro-life" become an object of derision. The fact that people who oppose reproductive rights use it to imply they are more virtuous than everyone else is deeply offensive to me.

[barbtries]

30. it is my pet peeve as well.

and i have no doubt that they deliberately chose the term to appeal to people, to get people used to hearing "pro life" - who wants to say they're not pro life?!

i mean they probably paid people to come up with that term and i am chagrined, constantly, at how commonly and thoughtlessly almost everyone throws it around.

between you and me, we can fix this.

[applegrove]

15. +100

[orthoclad]

23. We can "pack" the court

If we fight to expand it to 13.

Whining that we don't have enough power is like not even applying for a job because they might not like us. "Let them say no." Maybe if we had begun the fight, we could have held the House and taken more of the Senate. It might have given some of the plurality of unaligned US voters motivation to come out.

[calimary]

36. What would the Republicans do if they were standing in our shoes?

One thing: they wouldn’t “just let this go” or be too quick to be nice and kumbaya and “all is forgiven”.

Kumbullshit! I want to make them miserable and make ‘em pay.

[orthoclad]

38. The "right" would raise hell

year after year, until they got what they want.

They have the money and the organization.

[Gore1FL]

28. The GOP already did that. We need to rebalance it so it reflects the country. nt

[republianmushroom]

5. about time

[ThoughtCriminal]

9. I predict the conservative Justices will respond

with even less ethical behavior.

A sort of Supreme Tantrum for having their "ethics" questioned.

[peppertree]

10. +1

Despots in robes.

[barbtries]

25. Alito's behavior recently

confirms your belief.

[bringthePaine]

13. past due! welcome nonetheless👍

[kairos12]

14. SCOTUS is a Theocratic monstrosity.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. The current SCOTUS has become a partisan political organization with

Alito and company are all partisan hacks

[Lonestarblue]

21. With lifetime appointments, they cannot be held accountable no matter how poor their decisions

or how partisan their behavior. They know quite well that Republicans have taken impeachment off the table as a remedy when it is one of their own being impeached. As the sayin goes, ultimate power corrupts ultimately, and the radicals on this Court are glorying in their ultimate power to do anything they want. We need to add four justices immediately, although I doubt every Democrat will support that, but we also need some standards of behavior. There seem to be none now.

I’m all for starting a Constitutional Amendment for instituting term limits on all federal judges, along with some qualifications beyond being alive. The 29 year old Cannon was obviously not quakifies or experienced enough to be a federal judge.

[CitizenZero]

22. The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has been held up as being above politics, but it clearly is not. There needs to be more ethics oversight and maybe expansion of the court or maybe even term limits.

[Iggo]

27. Oh boy! Just in time!

[UTUSN]

31. Before it's too late? - or IS it?