Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE Abolish ICE
Give every immigrant a mansion.
Take them from rich people.
Could you produce propaganda? The right tends to be very direct coming up with short strong concepts that inspire emotional nationalistic responses.
Surprisingly, the most realistic take on how Democrats can stop Trump’s pick from getting onto the Supreme Court comes from Jennifer Rubin.
Since not everyone can access the Washington Post, I’m going to quote large portions of her opinion piece:
"Democrats are now pondering what can be done to thwart appointment of a right-wing justice who will eradicate decades of jurisprudence. Not much, although senators and progressives are vowing to play “hardball” or “go to the mat” or something. There are certain delaying tactics senators could take, and while those tactics only slow down the process but do not stop it, there are myriad things that can happen between now and the time a new Congress is sworn in. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III may release a report that suggests grounds for impeachment and/or indictment, thereby calling into grave question the legitimacy of a Trump nominee. Senators may vacate their seats for health or other reasons. In short, senators could take as much time as humanly possible both to fully vet nominees and to head off election-eve votes.
Beyond that, however, Democrats need a single GOP vote to flip and to hold onto every one of their members, provided Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) does not return. The most likely Republicans to lure to their side are Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) who both support abortion rights and voted against a GOP health-care bill that would have unwound Obamacare. Democrats in quiet conversations, ads, rallies, demonstrations and every other means possible will try to convince them that a vote to confirm Kennedy’s replacement is a vote to criminalize abortion, to be blunt. (More accurately, it is a vote for a justice who in all likelihood will not support abortion rights, thereby allowing states to restrict and deny abortion.) Their votes for previous justices didn’t matter because, as we noted, the swing vote was not at issue. Now it is, and their votes to confirm a judge clearly disposed to limiting rights to abortion (or contraception, for that matter) will be their legacy. Maybe they will be immune to such arguments; perhaps they simply aren’t willing to go out on a limb, but if Democrats have any hope of stopping the train it will need to involve one or both of these senators.
If Democrats are serious, they’ll need to threaten boycotts (akin to those against North Carolina over the “bathroom bill” and Arizona on immigration) of those states if their senators vote to put an anti-Roe judge on the court. It’ll be a full-court press — donors, business, activists, local politicians. It might not work — it probably won’t work — but it will surely engage their base.
Beyond those two, retiring Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) have the ability to ensure only a judge of the highest character, experience and institutional loyalty (to the judiciary) is selected. Any hint of cronyism or winks and nods between Trump (or his indicted campaign colleagues) should bring the process to a screeching halt. A nominee to be confirmed must assure the Senate that U.S. v. Nixon, which ordered the president to respond to a subpoena was rightly decided. If the nominee refuses to say or suggests the unanimous decision was wrongly decided that should be grounds for rejecting a nominee.
In sum, Democrats’ best chances rest in delaying the process (and waiting for lightning to strike) and imploring the two pro-abortion-rights Republican women not to criminalize abortion. Democrats could always get lucky; Trump could send up an obviously unfit candidate, making it easy for Democrats to hold the line and for queasy Republicans to force a post-election vote. Beyond that, there simply isn’t much they can do. Thanks to the Russians, former FBI director James B. Comey and fewer than 80,000 voters in three key states, the fabric of American life could be radically altered."
“While it would be wonderful to learn that some heretofore secret Senate parliamentary trick could be unveiled at the last second to bring about a Hollywood ending, such a thing does not exist. The intellectual and emotional energy of people who oppose Republican rule will be better spent focusing on how to move forward from here. The correct question is not “How can we stop this?” It is "How do we fix it?”
I’m surprised the Republicans haven’t done it already.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. There’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this. In fact, the Constitution doesn’t even specify how many Supreme Court Justices there has to be, just that there has to be a Court.
But in order to do it, the Democrats would need to at least control the Presidency and the Senate.
The thing about Court Packing though, which I’m not automatically against, is that once you start doing it, whichever party controls the Presidency and Senate will just keep adding to it.
Much like Harry Reid abolished filibusters for judicial nominees and Mitch McConnell extended that to Supreme Court nominees, this would start a cycle that would just keep going and we’d end up with an ever increasing Supreme Court.
Did you read the article?
Nonetheless, this shouldn’t dissuade us. Political scientist David Faris makes a compelling case that court-packing — along with statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico and other reforms — amounts to a prerequisite for lasting progressive change. In his new book, It’s Time to Fight Dirty, Faris proposes to expand the roster of the Court to eleven or thirteen immediately, and then pass a law allowing presidents to appoint a new justice every two years. Meanwhile, the most senior justices would be shuffled into a type of emeritus position with lesser responsibilities. The nine most junior cases would do most of the judging, with more senior justices momentarily pulled into duty in the case of a justice’s death.
I did, but I dismissed that as not realistic. The Democrats would need to control the Presidency and both the House and the Senate. I don’t see that happening, and there would be such a Conservative backlash against it that I don’t think it would last. From a procedural standpoint, it’s much easier to just increase the size of the court by itself.
There is literally nothing stopping Trump from waking up tomorrow and announcing that he’s nominating 5 more justices to the Supreme Court. Then, the Senate would just vote to confirm them. What Faris is proposing is orders of magnitude more complicated, and less likely to happen.
Trump would still need Congress to repeal or amend the Judiciary Act of 1869, wouldn’t he? If so, it’s not quite as trivial a matter as you suggest, though the Republicans are still in position to do it.
You’re right. Reading over my last message, I can see where I wasn’t clear, sorry. Because the Republicans control Congress and the Presidency, they could increase the size of the court if they wanted to at any point.
Similarly, if you’re playing extreme hardball with court packing, you could potentially change the law to allow it and then change it back again just before the next election, so it’s still possible to set it up so that a party needs all three of House, Senate and Presidency to do it.
Yes, which is why I think that packing the court, while possible, isn’t very likely.
Every time y’all say judge packing, I think of bearing packing, and now all I can think of is just smushing a supreme court judge full of grease.
I find myself arguing with a number of people who appear to not understand the history of the US labor movement and why unions are a good thing.
I’m beginning to wonder if, much like vaccines, they won’t grok it until they go away and then they’ll realize what they’ve lost.
It amazes me that anybody could look back at laissez-faire capitalism of the early 1900’s and think that they won’t be one of the poor exploited workers. Sorry guys, you’re not that special.
One the bright side, the Janus decision could have some pretty serious unintended side effects that might actually be good:
This is from back in February, when the Court first heard oral arguments, but the overall point is still valid:
"…killing agency fees on free-speech grounds could give workers free-speech protection to complain publicly about employers. Former Reagan administration solicitor general Charles Fried warned in an amicus brief that the court risks setting in motion “drastic changes in First Amendment doctrine that essentially threaten to constitutionalize every workplace dispute.
Among the potential responses already being contemplated by labor: seeking to overturn laws such as Wisconsin’s limiting what unions can ask for in bargaining; challenging laws that make public-sector bargaining illegal for some; and allowing workers to opt out of paying for pension-fund and municipal lobbying.
“The ruling could both wildly increase workers’ bargaining power and clog the lower courts with First Amendment challenges to routine uses of taxpayer money,” Shaun Richman, a former organizing director for the American Federation of Teachers, wrote in In These Times.
And the chaos won’t be limited to labor law. Among the other things that might be challenged if government-imposed payments become unconstitutional “compelled speech”: bar dues, student-association fees, utility bills, auto-insurance premiums, continuing-education requirements for doctors and other professionals, homeowners association dues, training for school-bus drivers and others, vaccinations, attorney-supervised real estate closings."
That’s an interesting analysis, but it sounds more like a decision with a high potential for chaos than one with clear positive potential.
High chaos means many court cases could be decided under this new SCOTUS, potentially further shaping the landscape.
So, uneasy is the word of the day.
I completely agree, but I was just trying to show that there are all kinds of unintended consequences to some of these terrible decisions, and not all of them could be bad.