Sioux Falls neighbors interested in justice should join NARAL-SD, the Sioux Falls AFL-CIO, SD Voices for Justice, and Establishing Sustainable Connections for Unite for Justice, a rally to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court:
Kavanaugh has exhibited a clear history of conservatism from the bench by undermining worker rights, threatens access to healthcare, blocked efforts to curb gun violence and believes the President has unfettered discretion leaving immigrants, refugees and people of color open to bigoted policies. We need a Supreme Court Justice who represents the will of the people rather than the narrow interest of conservative activism from the bench. Therefore Intersectional organizations in SD and across the country have come together today to protest this nomination because it undermines justice for all of our communities and threatens overturning decades long legal precedents.
We need to stand up before he gets the chance to do serious damage in his lifetime appointment to SCOTUS [Unite for Justice, FB event details, retrieved 2018.08.23].
The Unite for Justice rally starts Sunday, August 26, at 1 p.m. at Fawick Park in Sioux Falls. It is part of another nationwide demonstration against Republican hypocrisy.
Brilliant. So, when Kavanaugh is endorsed by the Senate due to the dems breaking the filibuster rule will it still be Trump’s fault?
Off Topic, Old Sh*tMonkey
PS … That rally sounds like a great place to meet like minded folks in SooFoo.
Don’t you think theat referring to any conservative opinion as Republican hypocrisy is part of the problem? Our issue in America is partisan politics, and being close-minded to other opinions is not helping to fix this issue. I am a very proud Democrat, but i understand the importance of bipartisanism. I challenge you to write one article that praises a Republican policy, and does not criticize anyone.
Portly, that is the topic and being it is such a drive for you tells me you have a ways to go to find “like minded” folk. . . or there aren’t many. . .
OldSarg beings up a good point – as the Senate has to confirm SC nominees, it should happen after mid-terms so that the newly elected Senate decides it. That’s the GOP rule, isn’t it?
I’m not so sure “conservative” has the negative connotation for most that Unite For Justice is going for here. The objection is that he will MAKE radical changes, regressive changes to the established rights of all who are not of the privileged class.
Just to clarify, the Dems eliminated the filibuster rule for lower court judges whose decisions are always subject to review by higher courts – for example, a district judge ruling may be reviewed and reversed by the court of appeals; a court of appeals’ three judge panel’s ruling may be reviewed and reversed by the en banc court of appeal judges or the SCOTUS; and an en banc decision by a court of appeals may be reviewed and reversed by the SCOTUS.
The Repubs, however, bear full responsibility for eliminating the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees who now, if confirmed by a mere majority, will make decisions that are neither reviewable nor reversible by any other court, nor, in the case of interpretations of our Constitution are not even reviewable by Congress itself. Thus, there is a significant difference between the ability of lower court judges and SCOTUS justices to adversely affect the path of our nation and the freedom of people living in our nation. The ending of the filibuster rule in the latter case is on the Trump administration Senate Repubs, not the Dems.
A card layed is card played.
Corey, I’m not referring to “any conservative opinion” as Republican hypocrisy. My link refers specifically to the willingness of Thune, Rounds, and their GOP leaders to block President Obama’s duly qualified nominee put forward in March 2016, well before the White House would change hands, but eagerness to rush confirmation of the current White House’s nominee just weeks before control of the Senate may change hands. Bipartisanship does not require ignoring clear examples of hypocrisy.
And you can bet the Republicans won’t keep quiet when we Dems screw up… nor would I ever expect them to.
I’m not close-minded to fixing problems with bipartisan solutions. I’ve already met your challenge multiple times. Reissuing that challenge only distracts from the immediate and very Republican partisan problem at hand.
But where does your position lead, Corey? Do you think the hosts of Sunday’s rally should all be quiet and stay home? Should they not say one word about the partisan Senators who are pushing this partisan nominee?
I don’t recall any rallies against Kagen who was clearly a liberal.
Would it have affected her being voted in?
BCB,
The judicial branch is not above the legislative branch.
You should go jason. It will be great! The streets filled with like minded folks wearing pink pussy hats, dressed as vaginas with antifa shorts on, all screaming how the supports of conservatism are stupid.
@Corey Klatt, to the people of South Dakota, the rest of the nation and the world. Here is what I believe to be the most important piece of legislation that has been done by a Republican. I think that it even surpasses many Democrats in the order of its significance. Clean air and the the work to clean water as well as establishing super fund sites for the damages that were already done by corporate America. I can only find Republicans like Mike Rounds criticizing it for his own pockets. It is short, please take a look and see if you agree.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2575&st=environmental+protection+agency&st1
Jason: your recall is less than total:
Comrade Jason and your handler, Comrade Old Soviet. I recall https://wach.com/news/local/tea-protesters-rally-against-kagan-nomination
That rally failed.
Was there one in SD?
Benedict Arnold costumes are available for you both
Wear you hat jerry
Jason, you are incorrect on Constitutional issues – the Supreme Court is the final word. Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution – See Marbury v. Madison. The entire opinion is worth reading. Here are some relevant comments:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137
So you are saying the Supreme Court can say they are above the other two branches?
Where does the Constitution give the Supreme Court that power?
Congress makes laws. The bogus potus is supposed to ensure the laws are followed-all laws. The Scotus is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of said laws.
Each branch of the gubmint has a specific duty, none of the branches is more powerful than any other which is why it was a good deal for America when former disgraced SOH Tom “Hot Tub” Delay’s ida was to make a law that allowed congress dictate which cases the Scotus could hear, failed.
And bcb is correct, as usual, on the differences between the levels of judges being filibustered. Wingnuts slow walked and filibustered the most nominees in history for Obama, which is why Drumpf has a chance to totally ruin the judiciary with activist, less than stellar young extremely partisan judges who might serve for 4 decades.
Look at the last eight or ten wingnuts appointed to the Scotus. They are nearly identical in being pro business, anti worker’s rights, anti unions, anti women’s rights, anti abortion in nearly all cases, willing to allow states to toss legal minorities of voter rolls, anti-immigration, pro big government and extending power for the potus.
What is conservatism, OldSockeye? I mean besides shovel all the treasure to the koch bros and run a full out assault on women’s rights.
Jason, perhaps you disagree with the decision in Marbury, or you may argue that there is no express language in the Constitution supporting that decision (which does have some support for a pure textualist).
But Marbury has been the law of our land since 1803, and has been cited and reaffirmed by the SCOTUS (of all political persuasions) countless times since then, and never challenged by Congress nor the Executive branch. Indeed, I am unaware of a single SCOTUS justice dissent arguing Marbury was incorrectly decided (although such dissent might exist).
Marbury will continue to be the law of the land until and unless the Supreme Court overrules it, or until and unless the States amend the US Constitution to overrule the rule from Marbury that gives the judiciary the ultimate power to decide what the Constitution means.
I think the problem Jason is having is that he never articulates what the hell “above the other branches” means in any meaningful sense.
OK, now Jason your trolling has become too obtuse even by your standards. Play along with these exercises: South Dakota (the state you post in) votes to ban all abortions – will that law stand? A state that previously was not right-to-work decides to allow its public employees to negotiate fair-share payments – will those laws stand? The answer to both is “no,” because once the Court rules an action unconstitutional, no legislature, executive, or referendum can go back.
Once the Supreemes declare something as unconstitutional – no legislature can pass laws under that umbrella anymore. To me, as others have posted, that makes the SC unchecked and unbalanced.
When the Scotus gets too big for its britches, impeach them all, like West Virginia just did.
Wow.
You mean Kavanaugh has actually read the Constitution, and believes it should be upheld by the judicial branch, and if it is to be altered, there is a process in place which does not involve the judiciary.
How about that?
A president who has been implicated in major crimes should not be allowed to appoint sonone to a lifelong job. Bottom line. For you hard core Pub’s look back at what McConnell and company have said about the requirements to appoint a justice in the past. Also, Elena Kagan had every aspect of her life and time as a judge scrutinized by people who can’t tie their own shoelaces. Kavanaugh’s record as a judge hasn’t been disclosed to the public for very obvious reasons. If any out of towners come on Sunday, please feel welcome.
Roberts and GoSuck assured Senators thy believe in upholding precedents, at least until they got confirmed. Then that went out the window. Kavanaugh is anti-immigration, anti worker, anti women’s rights, anti union, pro business/korporations. Wingnuts wet dream to mess up the constitution in a big, long term deal way.
It’s really disappointing that ABA recommendations are no longer wanted. I believe that was a Russpublican disaster too. They preferred a political test–was the potential nominee wingnutty enough?
The ABA based their recommendation on whether a jurist’s history showed knowledge, wisdom, writing skill, and a wide range of experience. (BCB, please add to that summary as necessary.) I’m aware that politics were never absent, but politics alone was not sufficient reason to nominate or oppose one.
I’d really like to see a 2/3s majority vote required and a 10 year term limit. I believe there would be fewer political games played if those changes were made.
Debbo, seeking expert advice is anathema to today’s GOP and this White House in particular. Seeking expert advice acknowledges that someone else might be smarter than the boss himself, and the cult of personality forbids any such admission, explicit or implicit.
Debbo, I’m curious: do we impose term limits on judges at any other level?
RJ, then surely you would agree President Clinton shouldn’t have appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer? Clinton was implicated as a potential beneficiary of illegal activity at a real estate subsidiary.
Cory,
I do not beleive that people should stay home and not fight for something they are passionate in. Yes the GOP would be doing the same thing if it was a Dem nominee, but that is the issue. The fact that congress wants to filibuster everything, and fight every little policy that comes through is ridiculous.
I just want to touch on the “partisan” judge nominee. First of all, look back at American History, The SCOTUS has always been a political partisan entity. As a student of history and political science i see this on a daily basis. Chief Justice Taney, was a southerner whou owned slaves, which played a major role in decision in the Dred Scott case. I could provide other examples if you wish.
The partisanism of the SCOTUS has never caused the country to collapse, we will let Trump do that himself, so i believe that opposing a justice simply based on their political affiliation is wrong. Congress should look at the overall record of a judge, as well as their interpretation of the consitution.
I think we can both agree that the issues in Washington run deep. The biggest though, may just be the lack of term limits on congress. The benefits that congressmen and women recieve are insane. Yet we let them decide what healthcare is best for us?
On the bright side, it looks as if the writing is on the wall for Trump
Wayne, Clinton was the victim of a right wing witch hunt. Both Clinton’s lost money on Whitewater due to illegal activities of partner Jim McCDougal, who was given immunity to lie about the Clinton’s in court. He was also senile.
Wingnuts in congress finally had to set a perjury trap so they could finally charge Clinton with a real criminal act. You hear people around Drumpf fearing a perjury trap for Drumpf because they know, no matter the subject, Drumpf will lie about it,
Kavanaugh is a clear and present danger to Democracy. He should never be put in a position to render law at its highest level.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/trumps-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-grows-increasingly-toxic/
Even before the news about Cohen and Manafort broke, Cavanaugh’s detractors increased greatly.
Corey K, let’s be careful not to grant the Republicans the false equivalency. Thune and fellow GOPers blocked Merrick Garland’s nominee for solely partisan and personal reasons: they were going to block anyone Barack Obama put forward in 2016, in hopes of winning the White House and getting a nominee from their party instead. Pure partisanship.
The protest hosts above don’t mention Kavanaugh’s political affiliation. They speak of specific issues on which Kavanaugh would do damage to the rights of all sorts of Americans.
The anti-Garland forces in 2016 were Republicans fighting for partisan advantage. The anti-Kavanaugh forces rallying Sunday are speaking primarily of civil rights and justice.
Don’t feed the narrative that makes it sound like Trump opponents are as partisan as Trump backers and allows “independents” to check out. There is more reason to rally against the Kavanaugh than there was against Garland.
No surprise here….. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/07/surprise-brett-kavanaugh-wasnt-actually-vetted-before-being-given-a-lifetime-scotus-appointment
FBI set up a tip line. Received 4500 tips, handed a few of them to drumpf’s lawyers who apparently ignored them and rushed Kavanaugh’s nomination through the Sinate.