"Something is rotten in Denmark" seems appropriate here. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans feel the deck is stacked against honest effort and have a feeling of hopelessness that their votes have any impact? It is long past the time that these people's 'businesses' are seriously looked into, the loopholes allowing these duplicities closed, and those benefiting be prosecuted! Enough!
Give 'em hell Martha! I couldn't agree more with what you say! The present Supreme Court is perhaps best described by Justice Robert's having no idea whatever what stimulated the outcry over the reversal of the long standing Roe vs Wade decision. My guess is he also remains confused about why things didn’t work out too well for ole Marie Antoinette following her infamous "Let them eat cake!" response to the starving citizens of France who could not afford bread? Way to go Robert’s way to go!
I like to follow the $ trail and certainly there is a trail here, but nothing more than "I don't like it" versus illegal activity suggested in the article. The Senate did vote the new judges in by their due process after those hearings, as wild as the hearings were by the opposing party. The President nominates (even if it is Bozo the clown) and the Senate votes....that's the deal. Interesting article here but more on the gossip side of speculating what the rich may be doing behind the closed doors. I would suggest Politico does a graph of gained riches from all the senators (who are elected to protect our interests) rather than private citizens such as Mr. Leo who undoubtedly is motivated to get conservative judges into the limelight of judges to be considered for appointment by the President.
I'm not confident that you understand the principals underlying the creation of the Supreme Court. As is suggested by the word "supreme" the idea behind the court is that in a political and judicial system virtually guaranteed to be corrupted by self interest, a system that swings wildly back and forth between the extremes of liberalism and conservatism, between the "haves" and the "have nots" there should exist a balanced court to which citizens could turn for justice. Whether liberal or conservative no American should ever to willing to accept a Supreme Court as stacked to one side as today's "far, far less than supreme" court. I mean a joke is a joke and all that but one need look no further than Kavanaugh's appointment to appreciate just how low this court has sunk. During the hearings I literally kept dreading that Kavanaugh was going to throw himself on the floor and start kicking his feet and banging his head on the floor while screaming that's not fair, that's not fair! After all he just "likes to drink beer" and he "worked his butt off in law school!" And then we have a Supreme Court Justice who was himself accused of sexual improprieties and whose wife is a cheerleader for the radical right but of course never mentioned her radical right agenda to a husband ruling on the same matters. Last but far far from least we have the Citizens United decision. If ever there were a more disingenuous name for a court decision I am unaware of it. Against a background of near complete control of the media, almost complete control of the political system, and the expenditure of billions and billions of dollars on advertising, the court somehow decided that not allowing those monied special interests to buy our political representatives was an abridgment of their right of free speech. Like I said earlier a joke is a joke…but this court is not really all that funny. By the way do you like to drink beer?
I didn't see anything that would disqualify K to rule on constitutional principles and why repeat the media bias "accused of sexual improprieties" to condemn another individual court member. Remember in the K case, the accuser there later admitted to making the sexual accusations up; i.e. lying at the hearings.
So what you seem to be saying here is that a person so immature as to almost fall to the floor to slap his face and kick his heals is A OK as a Supreme Court Justice? Not to mention his juvenile "Do you like to drink beer?" sarcastic reply to the Senator questioning him, or the fact that his primary accuser of sexual improprieties was incredibly credible? When you say "the accuser there later admitted…i.e. lying at the hearings" you seem to be inferring that his primary accuser (Dr. Ford) had lied when in fact it was not her that lied but some woman named Monroe-Leighton who apparently saw a way to get her name on TV. I will also note that you completely failed to respond to my statement regarding the importance of the court to be balanced and that any attempt to "take it over" by either the right or the left literally negates the entire purpose of the court as designed by the founding fathers.
Lincoln, It's interesting to me how we both agree on the island issues and disagree on national politics! There are people on the left and right who try to influence our politics thru the judicial system.
Have we become so insensitive that we have to follow them home and harass them there ?
Remember we only argue over things that are uncertain
Leonard Leo’s Supreme Court justice appointments have followed me home, into my bedroom, into my doctors offices, where matters like my personal healthcare choices that don’t concern them are now illegal in certain states. Pregnancies that can threaten the lives of women are now not a matter for women to decide in the privacy of their home or doctor’s offices but by Leonard Leo’s appointments based on his & their shared religious beliefs.
You bet we’ll protest. There are consequences to choices made & peaceful protest is still protected. So far.
Spotlights are only threatening and unpleasant when a person has something hidden that he does not wish to be illuminated. Happily we still live in a country and society where people are actually sometimes held responsible for their words and actions. Ole Lenny Leo may be a great cook and a real wine expert but he's also involved in an attempt to capture the Supreme Court and subvert its rulings to benefit the most rich and powerful members of our increasingly polarized society. Seems only fair that a major proponent of "Let them eat cake!" is occasionally forced pay a price for his arrogant elitism by taking a bite or two from a humble pie that he himself cooked up.
The Chief of Police is right to have his men keep a tight eye on that Lenny Leo mansion. It is only a matter of time before an assassination takes place, or is attempted. Mr. Leo's private army of guards will not stop the assassins, notwithstanding that they are (presumably) recruited from ex-Iraq War vets; they will get whacked first. As the Chief has authority outside the compound, his men are best positioned to interdict the assassin team while they position themselves on the island and do their reconnoiter. But make no mistake: assassination is coming. Welcome to America, land of the gun.
There is no left or right (other than in your observations) in being an astute judge on the Supreme Court....interpretation by the majority of the court on a law's constitutionality is the key. The beer comment was a retort to college beer drinking questions of college life by certain committee members--and answered at their immature level......questions asked totally for the cameras, but not relevant at all. Having interviewed hundreds of applicants in my career I know what is relevant and what is not.
Yet several of these candidates were questioned as to their thinking and interpretation of "Roe," and uniformly responded that "Roe was settled law." The reasonable interpretation of that response would be that the Roe Decision was not going to be disturbed, even if originally decided in dubious grounds, as society had moved on and incorporated the Decision into its life construct. Then, sure enough, the challenge to Roe comes up and the same candidates, now confirmed Judges, all line up to disturb and reject the very Decision they all declared was "settled law."
Did the candidates, all apparently already Judges, flat-out lie? Yes, that is exactly what they did. Hard to argue that these are other than ideologues for the Far Right. And you already know where that ultimately ends up.
I had to just "like" this comment because there is no "Love" option available…might I suggest that Substack add a "Love" button? That said I would add that when a nation supposedly founded upon individual freedom and civic responsibility is apparently okay with members of the Supreme Court deliberately lying during the confirmation hearings in order to be confirmed that nation is in serious trouble. From here on out I will be spelling supreme with a lower case "s". Truth in advertising virtually demands that.
"There is no left and or right...in being an astute judge on the Supreme Court." If I didn't think you were joking I'd get upset by that absurd statement. For some time Supreme Court decisions have been unusually predictable dependent upon whether the judge belonged to one party or another. While that in essence violates the principle of an objective, open minded, balanced court it is an unfortunate byproduct of our increasingly "have" and "have not" society. Where the real problem begins is when hired guns like Lenny Leo come into the selection and appointment process with a bag full of Dark Money and orders to pack the court with judges who will toe the line laid down the ruling elite and corporate masters.
"Something is rotten in Denmark" seems appropriate here. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans feel the deck is stacked against honest effort and have a feeling of hopelessness that their votes have any impact? It is long past the time that these people's 'businesses' are seriously looked into, the loopholes allowing these duplicities closed, and those benefiting be prosecuted! Enough!
Give 'em hell Martha! I couldn't agree more with what you say! The present Supreme Court is perhaps best described by Justice Robert's having no idea whatever what stimulated the outcry over the reversal of the long standing Roe vs Wade decision. My guess is he also remains confused about why things didn’t work out too well for ole Marie Antoinette following her infamous "Let them eat cake!" response to the starving citizens of France who could not afford bread? Way to go Robert’s way to go!
For background on Leo and his work on behalf of the Federalist Society, please read Colin Woodard's 2019 reporting in the PPH. https://colinwoodard.com/trumps-judge-whisperer-buys-maine-mansion-hosts-fundraiser-for-susan-collins/
Thank you for this! And sent right on time as this is the only thing I’m working on today...the LL “eco-system”
I like to follow the $ trail and certainly there is a trail here, but nothing more than "I don't like it" versus illegal activity suggested in the article. The Senate did vote the new judges in by their due process after those hearings, as wild as the hearings were by the opposing party. The President nominates (even if it is Bozo the clown) and the Senate votes....that's the deal. Interesting article here but more on the gossip side of speculating what the rich may be doing behind the closed doors. I would suggest Politico does a graph of gained riches from all the senators (who are elected to protect our interests) rather than private citizens such as Mr. Leo who undoubtedly is motivated to get conservative judges into the limelight of judges to be considered for appointment by the President.
I'm not confident that you understand the principals underlying the creation of the Supreme Court. As is suggested by the word "supreme" the idea behind the court is that in a political and judicial system virtually guaranteed to be corrupted by self interest, a system that swings wildly back and forth between the extremes of liberalism and conservatism, between the "haves" and the "have nots" there should exist a balanced court to which citizens could turn for justice. Whether liberal or conservative no American should ever to willing to accept a Supreme Court as stacked to one side as today's "far, far less than supreme" court. I mean a joke is a joke and all that but one need look no further than Kavanaugh's appointment to appreciate just how low this court has sunk. During the hearings I literally kept dreading that Kavanaugh was going to throw himself on the floor and start kicking his feet and banging his head on the floor while screaming that's not fair, that's not fair! After all he just "likes to drink beer" and he "worked his butt off in law school!" And then we have a Supreme Court Justice who was himself accused of sexual improprieties and whose wife is a cheerleader for the radical right but of course never mentioned her radical right agenda to a husband ruling on the same matters. Last but far far from least we have the Citizens United decision. If ever there were a more disingenuous name for a court decision I am unaware of it. Against a background of near complete control of the media, almost complete control of the political system, and the expenditure of billions and billions of dollars on advertising, the court somehow decided that not allowing those monied special interests to buy our political representatives was an abridgment of their right of free speech. Like I said earlier a joke is a joke…but this court is not really all that funny. By the way do you like to drink beer?
I didn't see anything that would disqualify K to rule on constitutional principles and why repeat the media bias "accused of sexual improprieties" to condemn another individual court member. Remember in the K case, the accuser there later admitted to making the sexual accusations up; i.e. lying at the hearings.
So what you seem to be saying here is that a person so immature as to almost fall to the floor to slap his face and kick his heals is A OK as a Supreme Court Justice? Not to mention his juvenile "Do you like to drink beer?" sarcastic reply to the Senator questioning him, or the fact that his primary accuser of sexual improprieties was incredibly credible? When you say "the accuser there later admitted…i.e. lying at the hearings" you seem to be inferring that his primary accuser (Dr. Ford) had lied when in fact it was not her that lied but some woman named Monroe-Leighton who apparently saw a way to get her name on TV. I will also note that you completely failed to respond to my statement regarding the importance of the court to be balanced and that any attempt to "take it over" by either the right or the left literally negates the entire purpose of the court as designed by the founding fathers.
Lincoln, It's interesting to me how we both agree on the island issues and disagree on national politics! There are people on the left and right who try to influence our politics thru the judicial system.
Have we become so insensitive that we have to follow them home and harass them there ?
Remember we only argue over things that are uncertain
Leonard Leo’s Supreme Court justice appointments have followed me home, into my bedroom, into my doctors offices, where matters like my personal healthcare choices that don’t concern them are now illegal in certain states. Pregnancies that can threaten the lives of women are now not a matter for women to decide in the privacy of their home or doctor’s offices but by Leonard Leo’s appointments based on his & their shared religious beliefs.
You bet we’ll protest. There are consequences to choices made & peaceful protest is still protected. So far.
Spotlights are only threatening and unpleasant when a person has something hidden that he does not wish to be illuminated. Happily we still live in a country and society where people are actually sometimes held responsible for their words and actions. Ole Lenny Leo may be a great cook and a real wine expert but he's also involved in an attempt to capture the Supreme Court and subvert its rulings to benefit the most rich and powerful members of our increasingly polarized society. Seems only fair that a major proponent of "Let them eat cake!" is occasionally forced pay a price for his arrogant elitism by taking a bite or two from a humble pie that he himself cooked up.
The Chief of Police is right to have his men keep a tight eye on that Lenny Leo mansion. It is only a matter of time before an assassination takes place, or is attempted. Mr. Leo's private army of guards will not stop the assassins, notwithstanding that they are (presumably) recruited from ex-Iraq War vets; they will get whacked first. As the Chief has authority outside the compound, his men are best positioned to interdict the assassin team while they position themselves on the island and do their reconnoiter. But make no mistake: assassination is coming. Welcome to America, land of the gun.
There is no left or right (other than in your observations) in being an astute judge on the Supreme Court....interpretation by the majority of the court on a law's constitutionality is the key. The beer comment was a retort to college beer drinking questions of college life by certain committee members--and answered at their immature level......questions asked totally for the cameras, but not relevant at all. Having interviewed hundreds of applicants in my career I know what is relevant and what is not.
Yet several of these candidates were questioned as to their thinking and interpretation of "Roe," and uniformly responded that "Roe was settled law." The reasonable interpretation of that response would be that the Roe Decision was not going to be disturbed, even if originally decided in dubious grounds, as society had moved on and incorporated the Decision into its life construct. Then, sure enough, the challenge to Roe comes up and the same candidates, now confirmed Judges, all line up to disturb and reject the very Decision they all declared was "settled law."
Did the candidates, all apparently already Judges, flat-out lie? Yes, that is exactly what they did. Hard to argue that these are other than ideologues for the Far Right. And you already know where that ultimately ends up.
I had to just "like" this comment because there is no "Love" option available…might I suggest that Substack add a "Love" button? That said I would add that when a nation supposedly founded upon individual freedom and civic responsibility is apparently okay with members of the Supreme Court deliberately lying during the confirmation hearings in order to be confirmed that nation is in serious trouble. From here on out I will be spelling supreme with a lower case "s". Truth in advertising virtually demands that.
"There is no left and or right...in being an astute judge on the Supreme Court." If I didn't think you were joking I'd get upset by that absurd statement. For some time Supreme Court decisions have been unusually predictable dependent upon whether the judge belonged to one party or another. While that in essence violates the principle of an objective, open minded, balanced court it is an unfortunate byproduct of our increasingly "have" and "have not" society. Where the real problem begins is when hired guns like Lenny Leo come into the selection and appointment process with a bag full of Dark Money and orders to pack the court with judges who will toe the line laid down the ruling elite and corporate masters.