Republican Party
noun
— a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
— a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
Also see: cult
Definition of the Day
Republicans vs. Democracy
GOP power brokers are making sure that our political institutions work at every turn against majority rule. Controlling many more state legislatures than Democrats, Republicans gerrymander Democrats into oblivion in congressional and state legislative elections.
They then block Democratic efforts at redistricting reform in the Senate with the use of the filibuster, another essential antidemocratic instrument. To further obstruct voting and thwart the will of popular majorities in the administrative machinery of government, their gerrymandered legislatures pass laws expressly designed to suppress voter participation, making it harder (or, in the case of baseless voter roll purges, impossible) for some groups to access the ballot.
And then they cement their hold on the whole system by packing the courts with right-wing judges to enforce all the exclusion.
They are fortified in all this self-entrenchment by Supreme Court decisions like Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), which have dismantled the Voting Rights Act and weakened the Constitution, which had both been for a brief shining moment effective guardians of the voting rights of the people.
In short, the leaders of the GOP — not just Trump, mind you — are using every trick in the book to stifle majority rule and to erase popular democracy in the same way they have been working to erase science and history.
The majority of Americans are caught in a vicious circle of anti-democracy.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), in “Unthinkable:Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American Democracy
Jackass Of the Week Nomination – May 5, 2022
Nominated for Jackass of The Week (JOTW) — in the first of what is likely to eventually become thousands of nominations — is Texas Senator Raphael “Ted” Cruz.
In response to the leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court revoking abortion rights, Cruz, in his role as Jr. Detective, pointed the finger of blame at a law clerk for Justice Sonia Sotomayor without any evidence, whatever.
I think it is very very likely a law clerk. And it is very likely a law clerk for one of the three liberal judges. If I were to guess the most likely justice for whom the law clerk is clerking, it’s Sonia Sotomayor, because she’s the most partisan of the justices.
Raphael Cruz, earning this nomination as Jackass of the Week
After the allegation against the clerks in Justice Sotomayor’s office, Cruz added, “I have no evidence of that. I’m just making an inference.”
I guess that was Trump’s position after suggesting Cruz’ father was somehow responsible for President Kennedy’s assassination, and clearly making the case that Mrs. Cruz was not an attractive woman.
From my viewpoint Cruz astonishingly accuses someone based solely on their likely political affiliation while citing partisanship as the reason for the accusation. A well-deserved nomination.
Give it a rest, Raphael. No matter how much of a jackass you truly are, the 2024 GOP nomination isn’t coming to you. Believe it!
Would A Republican Lie?
Do Yourself A Favor – Read Jill Lepore
Do yourself a favor and read the brilliant opinion piece by Jill Lepore in Wednesday’s “The New Yorker.” In the “Daily Comment” section, Lepore brilliantly counters arguments by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion revoking Roe vs. Wade.
Predictably, Alito argues that abortion rights are unconstitutional because they aren’t specifically mentioned in the constitution. Lepore points out that the women were of little or no concern to the men who drafted the document, and in fact, for all intents and purposes of the drafters, weren’t considered “persons.”
Women are indeed missing from the Constitution, as Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion suggests. That’s a problem to remedy, not a precedent to honor.
Lepore continues by pointing out:
- There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
- There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states.
- There were no women judges.
- There were no women legislators.
At the time of the Constitutional Convention, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote.
Legally, most women did not exist as persons.
Do yourself a favor, and read the entire article.
Jill Lepore, “Why There Are No Women in the Constitution, published in The New Yorker, May 4, 2022
Susan Collins — Wrong For Maine (Again!)
In light of the shocking release of a draft opinion by Supreme Court Justice Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Senator Susan Collins said yesterday that the draft opinion was completely inconsistent with what Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh “said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” Of course, since 2017 lying by high government officials is no longer considered improper.
Back in 2018, during consideration of the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, Collins spoke on several issues she confidently understood Kavanaugh’s position. On the issue of abortion and the importance of precedent, Collin’s speech included this:
There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown vs. The Board of Education overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong decision” to use the judge’s term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.
As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of times is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as established law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920’s, Meyer and Pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.
Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”
Senator Susan Collins speech on the Senate floor, October 5, 2018
Either Kavanaugh lied to Collins, or Collins lied to the American people. One thing becomes increasingly clear — the Supreme Court is a political entity, with the Republicans now firmly in control of America’s legal system. We are heading down a seriously dark, dangerous path.
Be vigilant!