The Problem With This Election, or When Is a Coup a Coup and When Is It Not?

Headline: "MP claims "judicial coup" overturned Kenya election result; A Kenyan MP has filed a petition calling for the removal of Chief Justice David Maraga" (source)

By Thomas Neuburger

The problem with this election is that it brings to a head the general problem of dealing with Movement Republicans — those whom Paul Krugman in 2003 correctly called "a revolutionary power" — that like all revolutionary powers "does not accept the legitimacy of our current political system" and therefore has no intention of operating within the rules that govern the rest of us. 

They don't want to "work within" the system to reform it, because they don't believe the system should exist. They want to strip it to its bones and rebuild it.

A Revolutionary Power

This perfectly explains Republican Party behavior, from Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Bush-Cheney to McConnell. Nixon's re-election committee believed that the "other side" was so dangerous that anything that prevented a Democratic Party win would be justified — even murder, though I can't now find the John Mitchell quote, spoken under oath, that admits it.

Nixon and Reagan both treated with the enemies of their country — negotiated against their government's peace efforts during wartime — to extend the killing of American soldiers (Nixon) or extend the foreign captivity of American citizens (Reagan) for personal and partisan gain. 

Bush senior was Reagan's point man in Republican pre-election negotiations with the Iranian government to extend the captivity of their hostages, he carried the campaign's promises, made sure the hostages weren't released until after Carter was out of office, then swore an oath he had no intention of upholding — to defend the Constitution.

Cheney attempted, the entire time he was in office, to convert the presidency from an office checked by the other three branches to a "unitary executive" capable of acting close to king-like. He too swore to uphold the Constitution, yet worked his entire professional life to overturn it. His president, Bush junior, instituted the largest mass surveillance regime in American history, a regime that's still with us, and likely killed for good the 14th Amendment in the process.

McConnell's sins you likely know already, the latest being his help in putting Amy Coney Barrett onto the Supreme Court. 

Note this though: His sin is not in supporting Trump's nomination this late in Trump's term of office — Trump had that right just as Obama had the right to nominate Merrick Garland up to the day he left the White House (Ruth Bader Ginsberg publicly concurred). McConnell's sin is in helping put a culturally radical Movement Republican onto the Court, someone who, like the rest of her kind, will work like the devil to turn the country into a place no one but she can live in, then force the rest of the country to live in it anyway.

This is the revolutionary force that confronts us in this election, and the particular problem with this election isn't that they'll be returned to power, but that Trump, their bumbling president, will be retained through anti-constitutional means, the way George W. Bush was "elected" through anti-constitutional means. The Founders in 1789 had no idea that the Supreme Court could select a president; they didn't even countenance the thought that the Supreme Court could invalidate the law (that came in 1805 in a coup of its own by Supreme Court justice John Marshall). 

Republicans staged a coup once, a real one, and got away with it. I think a great many of them would gladly do it again.

"Fraud" versus Fraud and the Response to Each

What would happen if the electorate chooses Joe Biden? The radical Republican Party would scream "fraud" with every breath to invalidate that choice, then act as if Democratic fraud actually occurred, with all that this implies.

Yet Republicans are committing fraud as we speak. Among other acts, they are using their judicial operatives in the courts, Movement Republicans loyalists, to uphold challenges to Democratic Party voters.

If the unlikely occurs and the election turns on a case in the U.S. Supreme Court — as it did in 2000 — and the Court installs Trump as the winner with a ruling as specious as the 2000 ruling was, Republicans will have done in fact what they falsely accuse Democrats of doing in their dreams — they will have stolen the presidency, twice.

In addition, if Biden wins, it's pretty certain that many MAGA hat Trump supporters will take to the streets, that calls for "resistance" will be many, and the mantra "not my government" will be heard from a great many lips. From the Trump-supporter point of view, a Biden win will look like a coup that literally invalidates the authority of his government and justifies revolt.

But what if Trump wins because the Supreme Court installed him, despite the polling, the invalidation of ballots, the false claims of fraud, and the open and outright corruption of Republican judges? 

In this case, it will not simply appear to be a coup — it will be one in fact. 

How Should Anti-Trump Voters React to a Coup?

If this should occur, how should those who witness it respond? What should the people do if the Court, for a second time, steals the presidency? 

The fact is, they should react exactly as MAGA supporters are going to react if Biden were elected. The pro-Trump side will think it sees a coup, but they will be wrong. If the Court hands the election to Trump in an outright theft, Biden supporters will know they've seen a coup, and they will be right.

And that's the problem with this election. It could all come down to dueling charges of theft, one of them imagined and one of them very real. Will the nation, in rejecting the behavior of the "fake coup" side, reject their only valid response if a real one occurs?

  

Any President Could End Judicial Review With a Single Sentence

Krystal Ball explains judicial review

by Thomas Neuburger

"The weird thing about judicial 'originalism' is that the explicit principle of judicial review is nowhere to be found in the Constitution."
—Ryan Cooper, "Democrats have a better option than court packing"

The Supreme Court has no mechanism to enforce a power it was never given. A single sentence could end their having it.
—Yours truly

It's refreshing to finally read someone other than Thom Hartmann (and myself, thanks to Mr. Hartmann) agree that Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court unilaterally gave itself the power to overturn Congress, was wrongly decided.

Read the last part of that sentence again. First: The Constitution did not give the Supreme Court power to overturn Congress. The Court was designed simply to be the highest rung in the ladder of courts of appeal. The right to overturn Congress was given to the Court by the Court.

Then consider: What would happen if it was wrongly decided? "Law" that was decided by the Court would be overturned — both Roe v. Wade and Citizens United — but more, a two-and-a-half-century-long practice of the Court overturning laws, would be overturned. The supreme importance (sorry) of the Court in our lives would be overturned.

We'd no longer be slaves to nine justices and their decisions; we'd be slaves to our laws instead, for good or ill, as the Founders deliberately intended.

In many ways, the practice of "judicial review" by the Court is the most undemocratic element of a system that contains many undemocratic elements, from the Electoral College to the Senate itself. That undemocratic element ... would end.

The Fight to Replace RBG

Now consider the fight over the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the justice who recently passed away. Why is this battle so consequential? Only because the Court and its power is consequential.

But what if it wasn't? What if the Court, stripped of the power to overturn Congress, was simply a higher court of appeals?

If that were the case, the escalating war between pathological Republicans and status quo-serving Democrats for control of the Court would be made entirely moot. We'd see no more headlines like the ominous "Ginsberg's passing brings political chaos". Who would fight to the death to control the Court if the Court had so much less power?

"Rule by the bench" would largely disappear from American lives, and in the main our lives would be better. Yes, a "constitutional right of privacy" may not have been discovered (Griswold v. Connecticut) if judicial review had never existed, though Griswold leans heavily on the Fourteenth Amendment, but also, corporate personhood (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific) and the free speech rights of money (Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United) would both have died prior to conception.

In short, without judicial review, we'd have to rule ourselves via our laws and our lawmaking process. Perhaps that would increase the percentage of people voting.

Does the Court Control the President?

But let's look at a simple specific case. What if Congress expands Medicare and the Court says No, that isn't constitutional? Does the President have to do what the Supreme Court orders? The short answer, frankly, is no. Would that not solve our "Supreme Court problem" in an instant, with no muss or fuss whatever?

It's hard to say that more simply, but I'll try. What if the president, instead of obeying the Court, just listened and moved on? The extraordinary power of the Court over American life would simply and instantly end. No further action needed.

The Origins of Judicial Review

Here's Ryan Cooper to explore this in more detail:

[T]here has been comparatively little attention to the simplest and easiest way to get around potentially tyrannical right-wing justices: just ignore them. The president and Congress do not actually have to obey the Supreme Court.

The weird thing about judicial "originalism" is that the explicit principle of judicial review is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. All of that document's stipulations on how the courts are to be constructed are contained in one single sentence in Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." 

Note that judicial review, a right "discovered" in 1803, was itself an act of partisan political manipulation:

Actual judicial review was a product of a cynical power grab from Chief Justice John Marshall, who simply asserted out of nothing in Marbury vs. Madison that the court could overturn legislation — but did it in a way to benefit incoming president Thomas Jefferson politically, so as to neutralize his objection to the principle.

So the Court gave itself this power to benefit Jefferson in a dispute with Madison, and did it in a way that made Jefferson less likely to object.

The following describes well and succinctly the obvious political background to the case. It's roots are in the conflict over appointments between an outgoing, lame duck administration, and an incoming administration of the opposite political party:

In the weeks after the Federalist president John Adams lost his bid for reelection to Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson in 1800, the Federalist Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams placed Federalist judges in these new positions. However, several of these 'Midnight' appointments were not delivered before Jefferson took office, and Jefferson promptly stopped their delivery as President. William Marbury was one of the justices who was expecting an appointment that had been withheld. Marbury filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to issue a writ of mandamus that would require Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the appointments. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, denied the request, citing part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional.

Justice Marshall and the rest of the Court split the baby, gave Marbury the right to his commission, but said it couldn't be granted because one part of the law that granted it conflicted with one part of the Constitution. From the same source:

Though Marbury was entitled to his commission, the Court was unable to grant it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and was therefore null and void.

So here we are, two and a half centuries later, ruled by a Court that's almost always far more conservative that the nation it rules.

Jefferson himself, by the way, hated judicial review. He called it the "despotism of an oligarchy ... Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so."

Ending Judicial Review With a Single Sentence

The solution is simple — the president can just ignore the Court, which has no constitutional mechanism to enforce a power it was never given:

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

"No, I'm trusting Congress on this one, and I'll continue to operate the program as Congress instructed."

Presto-chango, no more judicial review. Gone forever. No more ideological battles over Supreme Court seats. No more retaliatory court-packing schemes and appointments. All gone forever, gone in a single stroke.

The good news is, this is all a president would actually have to do. The the only downside is, some president would actually have to do it.
    

SCOTUS: What If The Worst Happens?

Pray RBG outlives McConnell and Trump

I often talk about how I went to the same high school as Bernie-- James Madison in Brooklyn. Bernie graduated in 1959, a couple of years before I started. And a few years before Bernie started, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a student there. I was just 2 years old when RBG graduated from Madison but somehow the school seems more worthwhile because she was a student there. (Carole King too.)

RBG, one of the most admired women in America, was born in 1933. She'll turn 88 next March 15th. Unless Mitch McConnell's and John Thune's and their Senate cronies' Satanic prayers are answered. CNN reported that the Senate Republicans are sitting around hoping they can fill another Supreme Court seat before they are swept out of power in November, even talking about confirming a neo-fascist between November, when they are defeated at the ballot box, and January when the new Senate is sworn in!

CNN's Ted Barrett and Manu Raju: "Senate Republican leaders, undeterred by the scathing criticism leveled against them for blocking President Barack Obama's election-year Supreme Court nominee in 2016, are signaling that they are prepared to confirm a nominee by President Donald Trump even if that vacancy occurred after this year's election. The push comes despite ample apprehension from influential Republicans that the GOP could pay a political price for treating a nominee under Trump differently than they did under Obama. It also comes as Democrats are increasingly worried about the fragile health of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the 87-year-old liberal jurist who recently made public a new bout with cancer, and the possibility of other retirements. 'We will,' said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranking Republican leader, when asked if the Senate would fill a vacancy, even during the lame-duck session after the presidential election. 'That would be part of this year. We would move on it.'" Thune is not up for reelection this year. But McConnell is... and so is Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham.

[T]he veteran Iowa Republican who chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2016 and helped block Judge Merrick Garland-- Obama's nominee -- by refusing to schedule election-year confirmation hearings, said he would not fill a fill a vacancy now for the same reason.

"My position is if I were chairman of the committee I couldn't move forward with it," Sen. Chuck Grassley told CNN.

The current Judiciary Committee chair, Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has professed differing views about whether he would try to confirm a nominee during the last year of Trump's term.

Asked about his past opposition to moving a nominee in a presidential election year after the primary season, Graham said: "After Kavanaugh, I have a different view of judges," referencing the brutal 2018 confirmation process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

"I'd like to fill a vacancy. But we'd have to see. I don't know how practical that would be," Graham told CNN Monday. "Let's see what the market would bear."

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who's a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that if a vacancy were to occur, he would like to get a nominee confirmed before the court's term begins in October.

Hawley said he would be "shocked" if Trump didn't try to fill a vacancy despite GOP arguments in 2016 that voters should decide which president selects a nominee during an election year.

Hawley said the difference between then and now is that Obama couldn't run again but Trump is on the ballot trying to win a second term.

"I think we have a different set of circumstances. We have a President who is very actively running for reelection," Hawley said. "He's going to be on the ballot. People are going to be able to render a verdict on him like they couldn't on Obama. My guess is he would absolutely nominate somebody. I would be shocked if he didn't."

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, who is running for reelection, told Iowa PBS last week she supports confirming a potential nominee this year, according to the Des Moines Register.

"(If) it is a lame-duck session, I would support going ahead with any hearings that we might have," she said. "And if it comes to an appointment prior to the end of the year, I would be supportive of that."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has repeatedly vowed to fill a vacancy this year and has said the difference between now and 2016 is that by the time Obama, a Democrat, nominated Garland to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans controlled the Senate. Right now, Republicans control both the White House and the Senate.

A vacancy could put some GOP senators in a tough spot. Asked if he supported filling a vacancy this year, Sen. Thom Tillis, a vulnerable Republican running for reelection in North Carolina, said, "I am praying for Justice Ginsburg's health. That's all I'm really focused on right now."

Asked about filling a vacancy caused by retirement, not death, he downplayed the likelihood that would happen.

"I don't think there are many indications that there are. Normally those moves are made back in June over the session. I don't see any real possibility that there will be one," Tillis said.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee include-- besides Graham, Grassley, Ernst and Tillis-- John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), Josh Hawley (MO), Mike Crapo (ID), John Kennedy (LA) and crackpot neo-fascist Marsha Blackburn (TN). Instead of plotting to replace RBG, maybe they should be considering why Trump has set a pack of extrajudicial facsist goons loose on Portland and is threatening to do the same thing in Chicago and Detroit.

Or, in the words of David Graham (at The Atlantic): America Gets an Interior Ministry. "For decades, conservative activists and leaders have warned that 'jackbooted thugs' from the federal government were going to come to take away Americans’ civil rights with no due process and no recourse. Now they’re here-- but they’re deployed by a staunchly right-wing president with strong conservative support. In Portland, Oregon, federal agents in military fatigues have for several days been patrolling the streets amid ongoing protests about police brutality. These forces, employed by the Department of Homeland Security, have snatched people off the streets of the city, refused to identify themselves, and detained people without charges. Ostensibly, they are present to protect federal buildings from protesters. In practice, they seem to be acting on a much wider mandate, either to suppress protests or (more cynically) to provoke confrontation on behalf of a flailing White House that sees it as electorally beneficial." What can citizens do? Vote to defeat every single politician who doesn't speak out forcefully against this, on every single ballot, in every single constituency.

Choice Survives Trump's Supreme Court To Fight Another Day-- John Roberts Disappoints Team Red Again

As usual, there was a lot of news yesterday-- head-spinning. But one thing that no-one should overlook is the importance of the Supreme Court striking down a Louisiana abortion law that was meant to prevent abortions in the state. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the 4 liberals on the Court to override the far right contingent working to overturn Roe v Wade. Roberts said "respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority," an indication that he would probably vote to uphold Roe v Wade as well.

Last week Roberts also sided with the liberals to preserve workplace equality for the LGBTQ community and to uphold the DACA program. I checked over at Breitbart to see what the lunatic fringe was taking the news.

I also checked in on some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates who are running against anti-choice candidates, starting with Audrey Denney, who is running against a California GOP dinosaur, Doug LaMalfa (CA-01). "This is a terrifying moment in U.S. history, when 46 years of precedent for recognizing women’s right to privacy and sovereignty over their own bodies is being systematically dismantled," she wrote. "The policymakers who have put forward these archaic bans on safe and legal abortion claim to be doing so because they value human life... Making the decision to end a pregnancy is a difficult and tragic one-- but having the right to make that decision is foundational to protecting women’s health, privacy, and well-being. If the people who wrote these laws truly cared for the sanctity of life, they would be working tirelessly to reduce our country’s maternal mortality rate (currently the worst among industrialized nations), but instead they are limiting or eliminating care, and more mothers are dying during childbirth. They would be investing in initiatives to improve infant and child health and access to early education and child care. They would be fighting for paid family leave, so that parents have adequate time to regain their own health and support their new child. They would be losing sleep over the 12 million children in this country who will go to bed hungry because their parents are trapped in poverty, unable to earn a living wage... The legislators who support abortion bans have failed us. They have failed their constituents. They have failed our nation. Their time is up."

Jon Hoadley know exactly what she's talking about. He's running for Congress, while still a member of the Michigan state legislature, where he often has to debate with the kinds of failed legislators Denney was writing about. "Reproductive healthcare is healthcare," he told me today. "Frankly, I was surprised but also encouraged to see the Supreme Court affirming the right to access to healthcare for folks in Louisiana, and across the country. For Michiganders, Fred Upton has been a steadfast vote to scale back or otherwise diminish reproductive healthcare. While this decision from the Supreme Court is encouraging, it's critical that we elect leaders up and down the ballot who will continue to protect healthcare going forward." And that reminds me-- this Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right will allow you to contribute to pro-Choice candidates all on one page. Just click on it.

Julie Oliver is running for a seat in Central Texas, taking on an entrenched anti-Choice incumbent, Roger Williams. "Every woman should have the choice of when she wants to have children, when she doesn’t, and every woman should have the freedom to raise those children in a safe, healthy environment," said Julie today. "But in Texas, ideological attacks on womens' reproductive healthcare have led to a tragic, alarming maternal mortality crisis that disproportionately harms Black women and their babies. We need to enshrine Roe v. Wade and repeal the Hyde Amendment."

Chris Armitage is a man in eastern Washington running for a seat held by a woman-- but she's anti-Choice and he's pro-Choice. "Cathy McMorris," he told me, "wants to criminalize abortion; she doesn't believe in a person's jurisdiction over their own body. She wants to see Roe vs Wade overturned. She is an extremist who is trying to create an America where victims of rape have no choice, and their voice over what happens to their body is once again taken away, as the government forces them to have a child without their consent. Then in Cathy's America they also cut SNAP benefits so that the mother and child subsequently starve. We can do better, we need to stop Cathy, and I will be the candidate to unseat her."

Kathy Ellis lives in southeast Missouri, a hot house of right-wing ideology and anti-choice fanaticism. Her opponent, in fact, is a right-wing fanatic who vehemently opposes women's choice. She told me that "As a candidate in a state like Missouri-- with some of the strictest abortion laws in the country-- I’m relieved to hear of SCOTUS’s decision today. It’s one many hope-inspiring decisions we’ve seen recently, and it reminds us that organizing and advocacy works. Now, about my opponent Jason Smith who is staunchly anti-choice and parades around his Right to Life endorsement at every chance he gets-- it’s time for him to go. He’s clearly on the wrong side of history and his stance on this topic is one held by only a few Americans. Even in a district like mine that’s rural and recently red, we’ve seen large actions and progress surrounding abortion rights. It’s time for a leader who agrees with the majority of Americans on this topic. Further, if Smith was truly 'pro-life,' he’d fight for healthcare for all, access to healthy food, and strong education systems. Instead, he regularly votes against all of these things. It’s a facade, and the American people see that clearly."


  

Why Did Trump Order Barr To Fire Geoffrey Berman Friday Night?

Yesterday Neal Katyal, a former Acting Solicitor General, and Josh Geltzer, Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, penned a piece for The Atlantic on why Trump keeps losing at a conservative Supreme Court. "The legal reasoning may look like it turns on obscure technicalities," they wrote, "but the administration’s cases are falling apart because of something much more deeply wrong... Trump keeps losing not because of something obscure, but because of something fundamental: his abuse of the executive branch. Much of his administration’s approach to governance rests on attempting executive actions that lack any meaningful justification rooted in expertise, or even rational thought."

Trump’s abuse of the executive branch is one of the most damaging aspects of his presidency, because it rejects a reasoned approach to making government policy. Trump has made clear-- most notably during the impeachment process-- that he disdains the civil servants who bring deep expertise and valuable experience to important policy questions. So it’s not surprising he blew off their advice that adding a citizenship question to the census would not help in any meaningful way and would harm the core enterprise of the census itself. Trump doesn’t care what they have to say, and his Cabinet members—like the commerce secretary-- seem not to care, either. Such disregard is not merely some technical violation-- it’s a body blow in Trump’s assault on civil servants.

This is part of Trump’s bigger disregard for law and process. Trump has made clear time and again that he doesn’t really care what the law says... Trump doesn’t see law as a constraint, but something to be manipulated-- and that’s clearly a message his Cabinet seems to have received. Consequently, they play fast and loose with the law. The Court, in this decision and last year’s, is essentially saying that the law still matters.

Ultimately, that’s precisely what’s at stake as long as Trump is president. If all that matters is a president’s policy preferences, then law-- including judicial review-- is basically a facade: Dress it up enough, and it’ll pass muster. But if law matters-- if building a record and considering facts and providing honest reasons matter-- then Trump is sure to keep losing.

Once Trump realized he couldn't manipulate U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara he fired him and quickly called in Geoffrey Berman-- a long time Republican campaign donor who had maxed out to Trump and who had worked as a volunteer on the Trump transition team-- for an interview. Satisfied that he could manipulate Berman, he had Attorney General Pete Sessions appoint him to head the Southern District of New York-- at the same time he appointed 16 others to head DOJ offices around the country on an interim basis until the Senate could confirm them; Trump never formally nominated any of them and the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York, acing on behalf of a unanimous court, then appointed Berman U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirms someone nominated by the president.

Berman soon started investigating Trump cronies and allies, including Trump fixer Michael Cohen, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), far right domestic terrorist Cesar Sayoc, Putin assets Natalia Veselnitskaya, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, Halkbank, the largest state-owned bank in Turkey-- causing Trump difficulties with Turkish autocrat and Trump briber Recep Tayyip Erdoğan-- and Trump procurer Jeffrey Epstein, whose case resulted in the firing of Trumpist Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. And... Giuliani.

Trump wanted him gone and on Friday night he was preemptively fired by Trump hatchet man William Barr, who called it a "resignation." That sparked this popular meme to start trending on social media:

Barr indicated that Trump intends to nominate the lapdog SEC chairman Jay Clayton to replace Berman-- who has exactly ZERO prosecutorial experience, exactly the kind of prosecutor that would be ideal for Trump's purposes. Meanwhile, Berman at first publicly refused to vacate the office and said that until a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate, the office’s "investigations will move forward without delay or interruption." Presumably, one of those investigations is of great concern to Señor Trumpanzee. By late yesterday, Berman, no doubt under immense pressure, had folded and agreed to step down. Interestingly, Trump claimed he had nothing to do with the firing and Barr claimed that he was ordered to fir Berman by Trump.

Jim Himes is a senior member of the Intelligence Committee and chair of its Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research. Saturday morning he told me that "The AG’s foolish attempt to forcibly 'resign' the US Attorney must be investigated by the Congress. Neither Barr nor anyone in the White House gets the benefit of the doubt anymore. If Barr’s action was designed to protect the President from investigation he should resign."

I look forward to the day that Texas progressive congressional candidate and former Austin City Attorney Mike Siegel is serving on the House Judiciary Committee. I asked him how he reads this DOJ mess. He got right to the point-- and fast-- telling me that "Protecting our democracy can’t wait for the electoral cycle. AG Barr is undermining the rule of law, debasing the DOJ and turning federal prosecutors into Trump’s personal minions. The House should impeach Barr and until then, use every tool at their disposal to impede his corrupt abuses."

Ted Lieu is co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, which helps the House Democrats formulate messaging. I hope his tweets this weekend are indicative of how the whole caucus feels about Trump and Barr firing Berman. Lieu, a prominent member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent his first tweet on the scandal almost immediately after the attempt by Barr to deceive the American people and make it look like Berman had resigned: "Wow, not only is US Attorney for SDNY Geoffrey Berman not resigning, he went out of his way to say that SDNY’s investigations and important cases will continue unimpeded. Was Bill Barr of the Justice Department trying to obstruct an investigation or case by attempting to fire him?"

An hour later he addressed other Department of Justice employees directly, reminding them that "All of you took an oath. That oath was not to Donald Trump or Bill Barr. It was to the Constitution. If Trump or Barr gives you an order that conflicts with the Constitution or statutes, I urge you to follow the example of US Attorney Berman."

Then in the wee hours of the morning he tweeted directly at those same employees again: "There is a 16 alarm fire due to the perversion of DOJ by Bill Barr. I urge you to file motions with the courts ASAP; use whistleblower statutes; report to IG; or contact the House Judiciary Committee. Do everything you can to ensure the rule of law is followed."

After some sleep and, presumably further reflection, Lieu tweeted that "We are witnessing the most corrupt Administration in US history. Donald Trump and Bill Barr have repeatedly fired government officials to protect themselves or their friends. From the FBI Director to multiple Inspectors General to Jessie Liu to the attempted firing of Berman."

Late Saturday, following a day of chaotic Trumpian melodrama, Lieu tweeted "Bill Barr will not investigate himself. But we on the House Judiciary Committee can and will investigate him. The spectacle he created in firing US Attorney Berman is part of a broader pattern of apparently corrupt behavior where Barr has intervened to protect Donald Trump and his friends."

Let’s Vote For Fair Courts In 2020

-by Marge Baker,
Executive Vice President,
People for the American Way

Even after two months into a national health and economic crisis, Donald Trump and his Republican cronies in the Senate have continued their assault on our federal courts. And while Americans from every walk of life are dealing with the devastating health and economic impact of this pandemic, Senate Republicans are quietly processing more of Trump’s judicial nominees.

People For the American Way has led the charge against Trump’s dangerous judicial nominees since he took office. And in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election, PFAW’s Vote the Courts 2020 campaign has focused on two goals: encouraging presidential candidates to prioritize the importance of the courts in their campaigns and holding senators who vote for Trump’s dangerous troubling judicial nominees accountable for those votes.

Vote the Courts 2020 strives to educate the public about the role that federal judges play in their daily lives-- whether they have access to affordable health care; whether their rights as workers are protected; whether they have the ability to vote and have that vote counted; whether they can be free from discrimination; whether they will have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. The list is endless and not at all abstract.

During the primary season, we encouraged candidates to address the importance of the courts and share the kinds of judges and justices they would nominate to the bench as president.  Even amid the once-crowded field of contenders, more than a dozen Democratic candidates responded to our call.

Following the campaign launch, PFAW co-sponsored a presidential candidate forum in Iowa that focused on the importance of democracy reform and the courts, where five former candidates spoke in greater detail about their plans to restore balance to our courts.

This issue has become especially salient to progressives in the Trump era: Polling has shown that Democratic voters outrank Republican voters on whether the courts are a reason to support their party’s presidential candidate. In the coming months before Election Day, there is ample opportunity to continue to highlight the importance of fair-minded judges.

And this is relevant not just to the presidency, but also to the senators that vote on these nominees. That’s why another prominent facet of the Vote the Courts 2020 campaign is holding Senators Martha McSally, Cory Gardner, Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, Susan Collins and David Perdue accountable for their votes to confirm Trump’s dangerous nominees. Working with partners and allies in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina, we are highlighting senators’ votes to confirm extreme Trump judges who are hostile to health care, reproductive rights, a healthy environment, democracy and voting rights, and the social safety net through videos, op-eds, and activist toolkits.





In the coming months, we will continue to grow our accountability work, as the same poll cited above also indicates that Democratic voters care more about their senators’ judicial confirmation votes than do Republican voters when weighing their support for a candidate.

Our ability to create products that are integral to our Vote the Court 2020 campaign depends on the work of our stellar legal research team.  In particular, both our Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears blog series and web tool provide the information we are using to tie Trump judges’ rulings and dissents to the impact they have on issues critical to our daily lives.

After three and a half years, Trump and his Republican enablers have reshaped our federal judiciary by packing our courts with ultra-conservative judges who give them the green light to enact their extreme agenda. In fact, most Trump appointees are white men who are young enough to spend decades in their lifetime positions on the bench. Long after he vacates office, the damage he has done will endure.

Our rights and liberties-- our right to accessible, affordable health care; our right to make decisions about our bodies; our right to cast a ballot that counts; our right to clean air and water, and more-- are all on the line on Election Day. We need to fight for fair courts, and for judges who understand equality and justice for all of us.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Sunday Thoughts:

The question of the right to legally discriminate against LGBTQ citizens at the workplace (and, no doubt everywhere else in time) has been driven to the highest court in the land by the likes of the evangelical "Christian" right, self-haters such as Gay Conversion Therapy advocate Mike Pence, and, yes, legions of typical republican bigots. It boils down to republicans and the Neo-Nazi brethren they identify with wanting to be able to exert their hate and fear by firing LGBTQ employees simply because they are who they are. That is what the pertinent cases the "Supreme" Court are hearing center around. One of the cases even specifically deals with the questions of who is allowed to wear what attire in the workplace when it comes to self identity! You can read some of the gory details at the link I have provided and I urge you to do so. It really cuts to the chase. As you will see, even the "Supreme" Court's own dress code is bizarro world stuff.

The "Supreme" Court will decide whether or not an LGBTQ person is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Given that conservatives despise the very concept of civil rights for anyone other than straight white males, and the fact that House and Senate republicans of recent decades have incessantly expressed bitterness and hostility towards any notions of civil rights, the court's vote on this could be extremely ugly. Incredibly, we won't know the court's decision for many months. I guess questions of morality and decency are difficult for them to figure out. Whatever they decide will define the legacy of the 9 judges as a group and as individuals, plus the court itself.

Rhetorical question of the day: What kind of court system even considers the right to discriminate against our LGBTQ brothers and sisters to even be a legitimate question? The "Supreme" Court should be excoriated for even deliberating on the question, and, those hate-filled judges and lawyers that propelled this question as far as it's gotten deserve far worse.

We all know by now, or should know, that bigotry of all kinds is the central driving negative life force of all Republicans whether they admit it or not. At this point, judges appointed and approved by republicans, and, to be fair, conservative democrats like Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin, should ditch their black robes or suits and replace them with KKK sheets and hoods since that's the kind of thing they endorse regardless of their own gender, race, orientation, or preference.

Jimmy Carter Is Saying Out Loud What We All Know: Trump Is An Illegitimate President

Thursday former President Jimmy Carter and former Vice President Walter Mondale, were in Leesburg Virginia for an⁩ event hosted by presidential scholar Jon Meacham on human rights. Carter responded to a question by Meacham by pointing out what politicians are too scared to address, namely that a full investigation “would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016… He was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.”

Mondale didn’t go quite that far, simply noting that Trump’s “got something deep in him that is detestable, citing “his rhetoric, his harshness, his divisiveness… Doctors tell me they think they recognize symptoms of psychological problems.”

Carter also said that “every day we send a terrible signal” with border policy, “a disgrace to the United States, and I hope it will soon be ended. Maybe not until the 2020 election.”

Meanwhile Trump is at a G20 meeting in Japan, sniffing Putin’s asshole. They were seated next to each other at dinner when a reporter asked Trump if he would tell "the Russian president to not meddle in the election." Trump, without looking at Putin, responded, "Of course I will. Don't meddle in the election, president. Don't meddle in the election." Ha, ha… big funny! And… the illegitimate "president" lashed out from the summit. "He’s a nice man. He was a terrible president," said Trumpanzee at a press conference. "He’s been trashed within his own party. He’s been trashed… Everybody now understands that I won not because of Russia, not because of anyone but myself. I went out and campaigned better, smarter, harder than Hillary Clinton." The use of the word "everybody" is a typical example of Trumpian gas-lighting, a technique he uses to manipulate his base of 2-digit IQ supporters.

But what if it is indisputably proven that Trump is an illegitimate "president?" Does that mean Bernie gets to fire Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? They’re illegitimate Supreme Court justices if they were appointed by an illegitimate "president," no? And 41 judges to the U.S. Court of Appeals and 80 judges to U.S. District Courts. Let’s take the 9th District, which has jurisdiction over California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. How much better off would that Court of Appeals be without right-wing extremists Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, Eric Miller, Bridget Bade, Kenneth Lee, Daniel Collins and Daniel Bress (not confirmed yet)? Same goes for the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Trump packed it with far right whackadoodles: Amy Coney Barrett, Michael Brennan, Michael Scudder and Amy St. Eve. The other big Midwest Circuit— the 6th— is even worse off. The 6th has jurisdiction over Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan. And Trump put half a dozen judicial psychopaths on the bench there so far: Amul Thapar, John Bush, Joan Larsen, John Nalbandian, Chad Readler and Eric Murphy.

At the second Democratic debate, Bernie said he doesn’t support packing the Supreme Court but brought up the idea of rotating judges off the Supreme Court. I had never heard of that before and wasn’t sure what it meant but it doesn’t sound particularly constitutional to me. I like the idea of just saying, "look, Trump wasn’t elected; he was put in the White House by Russia. He was an illegitimate president so everything he did was illegitimate. Let’s start with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh  and work our way down."

Bettina Hubby

Supreme Court: A Little Bit Of Good— An Avalanche Of Bad

Lets get the bad part out of the way first. The Supreme Court— in a totally predictable partisan 5-4 decision— told the states to gerrymander all they like without worrying about the Supreme Court doing anything about it. That may be good news for corrupt Democratic legislatures in Maryland and Illinois but… Republicans fully control 23 states— legislatures and governors— and most of them have every intention off going all out to make sure Democrats win as few seats as possible. Democrats control 14 states and 13 states have split control. If the Republicans maintain their control in 2020, they are sure to redraw grotesque maps in 2021— especially in Florida (2 new seats) and Texas (3 new seats). Yesterday, the AP, reported that the Wisconsin case to get fair districts (scheduled to go to court for next month) is probably over.

Democratic voters filed a federal lawsuit in Madison in 2015 alleging boundaries Republicans drew in 2011 unfairly diluted Democrats' voting power. They argued Republicans spread Democrats across conservative districts and packed them into left-leaning districts.

…Democratic legislators introduced a bill last week that would create a commission within the Legislative Reference Bureau to draw the boundaries. Districts could not be drawn to favor a political party or incumbent and the commission couldn't use voters' political affiliations, previous election results or demographic information to make the maps.

"Because we can no longer trust either court to do what is best for the people with respect to ending political gerrymandering by either party, it is important now more than ever to continue the fight to pass non-partisan redistricting in Wisconsin," the bill's chief Senate sponsor, Dave Hansen, said in a statement Thursday.

The measure has almost no chance of passage since Republicans control both houses of the Legislature.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers included provisions in the state budget calling for creating a nonpartisan redistricting process but Republicans who control the Legislature's finance committee stripped the proposal out of the spending plan this spring.

Democrats could turn to state courts, but any challenges would almost certainly end up at the state Supreme Court, likely another dead end since conservatives control the court.

…Democrats' best option for changing the boundaries may be to somehow recapture the majority in both the Senate and Assembly in the 2020 elections, a herculean task given the GOP boundaries will still be in play then and Republicans will go into the elections with an overwhelming 27-member majority in the Assembly.

If Republicans maintain complete control of the Legislature Evers would be able to block any new boundaries the GOP draws in 2021. If the two sides don't agree on the new boundaries they could ask a judge to draw the maps for them. Republicans will try to get that fight before the state Supreme Court. Democrats will likely try to get the case heard in federal court.

Evers issued a statement Thursday calling the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling "devastating for our democracy" and promising to veto any gerrymandered maps that land on his desk.

"The people should get to choose their representatives, not the other way around," the governor said.

The minority dissent in the Supreme Court this week was powerful and convincing, but not powerful enough to convince John Roberts, who wrote the GOP opinion. Roberts seems to fancy himself the “swing vote” and he freaked out Trump and the conservative movement on the same day by siding with the 4 Democrats to create a 5-4 decision against the Republican census question shenanigans. “On two consecutive days this week,” wrote Josh Gerstein, “Roberts sided with the court’s liberal wing to deliver 5-4 rulings that deeply disappointed right-leaning lawyers and pundits who had been counting on near-certain victory from a court now stocked with a pair of Trump-appointed justices handpicked by conservative legal activists.”

On Thursday, Roberts stunned many court watchers by invalidating a Trump administration decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census.

Adding to the sting is the fact that the chief justice wasn’t just along for the ride on the closely watched ruling: He penned the majority opinion, which essentially accused Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross of lying about his reasons for seeking to add the question on citizenship.

“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” Roberts wrote, backed by the court’s four liberals. He goes on to rip the government’s claims in the case as apparently “contrived” and “a distraction.”

A day earlier, Roberts was the sole GOP appointee to side with the liberal wing in a case many legal conservatives were hoping would deal a major blow to the much-loathed administrative state by overturning decades of precedent allowing federal agencies wide leeway to interpret their own regulations.

Among some conservatives close to Trump, the sense of anger and betrayal was palpable, with some on the right suffering painful flashbacks to Roberts’ 2012 decision to join with the court’s Democratic appointees and uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate even as all of his Republican-appointed colleagues dissented. The anger seemed especially acute with possible abortion-related cases on the horizon for the next term.

“I’m for impeaching the Chief Justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution. He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough Deception from GOP judges on the Constitution,” American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp tweeted shortly after the Thursday ruling.

“I want to Impeach Roberts and Trump would get another pick. Sounds good to me,”’ Schlapp added. “Chief Justice John Roberts ‘fixed’ Obamacare and now he found an I significant [sic] excuse to allow those here illegally to help Dems keep the house majority. He lied to all of us and under oath in the Senate. It’s perfectly legal to ask citizenship ? on census.”

Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka also weighed in to express his disgust. “Chief Justice Roberts of the #SCOTUS betrays the US Constitution again,” Gorka said on Twitter.

Conservative pundit and former GOP Senate candidate Dan Bongino echoed recurring conservative complaints that Roberts is looking to curry favor on the Washington dinner party circuit.

“John Roberts is terrified of the liberal op-ed columnists. They know they hold him captive. They can easily sway his opinions by issuing their ‘warnings’ to him through their columns,” Bongino wrote. “He’s not a judge anymore, he’s a politician.”

…“I still haven’t fully psychologically accepted the truth about Roberts,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice in an interview.

“He may in his heart think he’s a conservative, but he’s not going to be what conservatives want and liberals fear... With each passing year— maybe this doesn’t happen every year, but we’ve seen enough of it, we kind of have to accept he’s roughly another Kennedy,” Levey said, referring to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Reagan appointee who dismayed conservatives by upholding abortion rights and leading the court to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Levey said the political polarization in the country may be prodding Roberts to go further than he otherwise would in trying to ensure that the court is viewed as moderate and not being buffeted by the political winds. Last November, when President Donald Trump made derisive comments about “Obama judges,” Roberts shot back with a statement declaring “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

“At the end of the day, Roberts wants the court to be well-respected,” Levey said, calling the chief justice “a compromiser and people pleaser.”

“I think the hysteria on the left about an ‘arch conservative’ court is having an effect,” the legal activist said. “At the end of the day, [Roberts] wants the court to be well respected and a highly divided nation is a threat to the legitimacy of the court because with every decision the half the public is convinced the court is acting for political reasons.”

Let me close with a plea for support for Democratic efforts to win control of the state legislature in Virginia. They are very close and not is definitely in reach. The thermometer above, on the right, is the 2020 Blue America state legislative candidates. There aren't a lot of candidates, but the carefully-vetted right candidates. Please do what you can.

Four Ways to Expand the U.S. Supreme Court

Will the U.S. Supreme Court expose itself to the public as a failed institution in this term or the next? (Iconic Portland Oregon poster showing future mayor Bud Clark and a downtown statue. Title: "Expose Yourself to Art." Story here.)

by Thomas Neuburger

The second point ... about the illusion of the Court's legitimacy, is just as important as the first. If the Court were ever widely seen as acting outside the bounds of its mandate, or worse, seen as a partisan, captured organ of a powerful and dangerous political minority (which it certainly is), all of its decisions would be rejected by the people at large, and more importantly, the nation would plunged into a constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. We are in that crisis now, but just at the start of it.

—Yours truly (from "Anthony Kennedy and Our Delayed Constitutional Crisis")

In the same way that countries like Libya are "failed states," the U.S. Supreme Court is a failed institution. Always partisan, either mainly or partly, its authority — meaning the people's acceptance of the validity of its rulings — rests on a kind of momentum, a belief that despite its long history of missteps (Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, to name just two) the Court can be trusted, in time, to self-correct.

That the Supreme Court was failing its constitutional role had been clear to close observers since the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which ruled that election spending was "speech." Yet despite the numerous bad decisions that followed, the momentum of belief — and the illusion that Anthony Kennedy represented a "swing vote" on an otherwise ideologically balanced bench — has kept most Americans, if not blind, then unnoticing of the modern Court's deadly defects.

The first real crack in the dam of faith occurred with the Bush v. Gore decision, in which a nakedly partisan majority installed a losing presidential candidate in the Oval Office simply because it could, using only its authority, and not the law, as justification. Later decisions like Citizens United put proof to many people's suspicions that the Court was an operative in a war for political control and no longer a place where law, even bad law, had a place.

The recent, manipulated addition of the clearly unfit Brett Kavanaugh, a partisan right-wing warrior, to the bench confirmed those suspicions in spades. He even appeared to threaten revenge when he reached the Court for the way he and his confirmation were treated.

What will happen when, not just some, but most Americans consider the Supreme Court illegitimate, when the Court reveals itself to be fully what it is — a captured body serving a powerful, very small political minority (the very rich, the pathologically "moral") to the exclusion of the whole of the rest of the country and its needs?

We're poised on the cusp of that revelation, of the Court's self-outing in full view of the public. With cases like Roe v. Wade, to name just one, coming before it and a bench with no supposed "swing vote," the country is about to witness from the John Roberts judiciary what it has already witnessed from the Mitch McConnell Senate — what it has the power to do, it will do, simply because it can, however destructive the results to norms, precedent or established behavior.

We're about to witness Bush v. Gore on steroids — not a semi-forgivable, if monumentally wrong one-off, but a series of decisions that define a willful judicial oppression that will last through the next generation.

What can be done to prevent this oppression and the revolt that will surely follow? Is there a solution?

Expanding the Court: Four Proposals

Expanding the Supreme Court has often been offered as an answer, but the last attempted expansion — FDR's so-called court-packing scheme — still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most Democratic politicians (even though it worked; see "The switch in time that saved nine").

Yet the composition of the Supreme Court has changed many times throughout our history, and the number of judges was deliberately and explicitly left to Congress, an obvious example of a constitutional check against the over-exercise of judicial power. Clearly, congressional action can address the problem.

But what should Congress do? Is "court packing" the only alternative?

In an excellent article published in the Harvard Law and Policy Review, Kurt Walters offers not just one, but four ways that Congress could restructure the Court. Each deserves attention and consideration:

The first and most straightforward approach to expanding the Court is adding two, four, or six new justices to the Court. This suggestion has been advanced by Professor Michael Klarman of Harvard Law School, among others. This expansion would serve to offset the tarnished confirmations of the most recent two Supreme Court nominees, although critics of this approach, including Senator Bernie Sanders, warn it could unleash a spiral of retaliatory moves by whichever party is in power.

The second option is to reconstitute the Supreme Court in the image of a federal court of appeals. This course of action would increase the number of justices to fifteen or a similar number. Panels of justices would be drawn from this larger group, with an option of en banc review. This plan would not only dislodge the Court’s current reactionary majority, but the panel format also would allow a greater number of cases to be heard.

Third is the Supreme Court Lottery, a more aggressive version of the panel strategy. Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman have outlined this proposal in a forthcoming Yale Law Journal piece. All federal appellate court judges, roughly 180 in total, would become associate justices on the Supreme Court. Panels of nine justices would be randomly selected from this pool. Importantly, decisions on whether to grant certiorari on a given case would be made by panel members who would not know the ideological makeup of the panel that would hear the case. Thus, this plan would frustrate partisan maneuvering.

Fourth and finally is Epps and Sitaraman’s idea for a “Balanced Bench.” This proposal aims to counteract the effects of partisanship on the Court by explicitly recognizing and institutionalizing partisanship presence. The Court would have ten justices, with five seats allocated to each of the two major parties. Those ten justices would select sets of five additional justices at a time to serve a future, non-renewable one-year term. That selection would operate on a requirement of near-unanimity to ensure that this final set of five justices would be relatively even-handed. However, it is not certain how a Democratic president would fill a vacancy in a Republican seat that arose during her tenure, or how a Republican president would fill an analogous Democratic vacancy.

I'm partial to the second and third alternatives myself, with the added benefit that under the third proposal,"decisions on whether to grant certiorari on a given case would be made by panel members who would not know the ideological makeup of the panel that would hear the case." Implementing a proposal like that would certainly tip the scales of justice toward justice and away from partisan manipulation.

Will a future Democratic Congress be bold enough to offer any of these proposals? If the timid behavior of the present Democratic House is any indication, likely not — unless Congress is led to it, perhaps, by a bold and aggressive future Democratic president, someone truly on the people's side, for a change. Yet another reason to support the boldest progressive in the race, whoever he or she might be.
 

What Does Republican Rule Look Like? For Women?

Yesterday, the Alabama House went for the big enchilada-- overturning Roe v Wade. The state House has 77 Republicans and just 28 Democrats. (The state Senate has 27 Republicans and 8 Democrats.) The executive branch is also controlled by the GOP. There are no checks; there are no balances. A state in which just a third of the people voted for Clinton and in which only 41% went along with the 2018 congressional correction-- has made the big move many red states want to make. AP reported that Alabama's House "voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to outlaw almost all abortions in the state as conservatives took aim at the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide." After the Democrats walked out of the chamber, there were just 3 votes against a bill that would make it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy, with no regard for rape or incest.

Anti-Choice fanatics inside and outside Alabama gladly admit the bill is intentionally designed to conflict with Roe v. Wade, hoping to spark court cases that will give a conservative Supreme Court the opportunity to relitigate and throw out Roe v Wade, the ultimate strategy of half the Republican Party. (The ultimate startegy of the other half of the Republican Party is to throw out the New Deal.)

“The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in a womb is not a person,” said Republican Rep. Terri Collins of Decatur.

Republicans in the chamber applauded after the bill was approved after more than two hours of sometimes emotional debate. Collins acknowledged that such a ban would likely be struck down by lower courts, but she said the aim is eventually to get to the Supreme Court.

Without the numbers to stop the bill, Democrats walked off the House floor ahead of the vote, calling the proposal both extreme and fiscally irresponsible. They said the ban would cost the state money for a potentially expensive legal fight that could be spent on other needs.

Rep. Louise Alexander, a Democrat, said the choice to give birth to a child should be left up to a woman, and the decision should not be made on the floor of the Alabama Legislature.

“You don’t know why I may want to have an abortion. It may be because of my health. It may be because of many reasons. Until all of you in this room walk in a woman’s shoes, y’all don’t know,” Alexander said.

Emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court, abortion opponents in several states are seeking to incite new legal fights in the hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade. The Alabama bill comes on the heels of several states considering or approving bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which occurs in about the sixth week of pregnancy.

The Alabama bill attempts to go farther by banning abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

House Republicans voted down Democrats’ attempt to amend the bill to add an exemption for rape and incest. Representatives voted 72-26 to table the proposed amendment.

“They would not even allow an exception for rape and incest... What does that say to the women in this state,” House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels.

Collins argued that adding exemptions would weaken the intent of the bill as a vehicle to challenge Roe. She said if states regain the ability to decide abortion access, Alabama lawmakers could come back and decide what exemptions to allow.

...Rep. Rolanda Hollis, a Birmingham Democrat, read a poem that criticized Republicans’ embrace of gun rights but not abortion rights, and later referred to the state as “Ala-Backwards.”

Once the Gov. Kay Ivey signs the bill, all abortions would be classified as Class A felonies in the state. A doctor caught performing an abortion in Alabama would face up to 99 years in prison. This might be a good time to remind you which members of the Supreme Court are eager to strike down Roe v Wade-- and which Democrats made their rise to the Court possible.

• Clarence Thomas
Joe Biden, as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rigged the hearings to guarantee Thomas would be confirmed. 11 Democrats voted to confirm: Dixon (IL), Exon (NE), Hollings (SC), Fowler (GA), Nunn (GA), Breaux (LA), Johnston (LA), Boren (OK), Shelby (AL; he's now a Republican), DeConcini (AZ), Robb (VA)

• John Roberts
22 Democrats voted to confirm him, including 4 still serving: Lincoln (AR), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Dodd (CT), Lieberman (CT), Carper (DE), Nelson (FL), Landrieu (LA), Levin (MI), Baucus (MT), Nelson (NE), Bingaman (NM), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Wyden (OR), Johnson (SD), Leahy (VT), Murray (WA), Bryrd (WV), Rockefeller (WV), Feingold (WI), Kohl (WI)

• Sammy Alito
25 Democrats voted to break the filibuster, allowing Alito to be confirmed: Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WV), Cantell (WA), Carper (DE), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO)

• Neil Gorsuch
3 Democrats voted to break the filibuster, allowing Gorsuch to be confirmed: Manchin (WV), Heitkamp (ND), Donnelly (IN)

• Brett Kavanaugh
The only Democrat voting with the GOP to break the filibuster that allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed was Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

You don't see progressive Democrats on those lists of who sold us out of the years. You see crooked conservative careerists backed by the party establishment. Most of them are gone from politics today, although one is trying to reinvent himself and is attempting to slip into the Oval Office. Be careful. The right-to-choice wouldn't be in danger if Joe Biden had done his job as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Eva Putzova is a Flagstaff progressive battling a faux Democratic incumbent for Arizona's largest congressional district. He's a former Republican legislator who switched to be an independent and then, when the opportunity to slither into Congress came up, he re-registered as a Democrat. That's virtually the only Democratic thing Tom O'Halleran has ever done. He has one of the most anti-progressive voting records in Congress and has earned a solid "F" for his two terms of bad votes. This afternoon, Eva told us that her "grandmother died from a botched abortion. It was 1946 in a post-war Europe. She took my two-year old mother, her daughter, and walked 15 miles to a nearby village to get the procedure done. She never came back and my mom grew up without ever knowing her mother. Is this really what we want for American women in the 21st century? And let's be clear-- this is way more than a women's issue. This is a matter of social, economic, and racial justice. I will fight in Congress for all women-- regardless of their ability to pay or travel-- to have access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare services." Who you want to trust to fight for all women's right to choice, Eva or the "ex"-Republican backed by a craven and incredibly corrupt DCCC? Please consider helping Eva by clicking on the Blue America primary a Blue Dog thermometer on the right.