S11.E24: Federal Courts

[Lantern7]

In brief: John takes shots at Mayor Eric Adams, goes over how Republicans have wrecked federal courts and the role Trump played in reshaping them . . . and then we spend the last few minutes on a weird conversation between five anchors about feet. Something about how Gen Z doesn't want to show their feet, and then it devolves into stuff about friends having more than ten toes.

 

[marina to]

John's obvious glee during the Adams story was fun. That Turkish film was crazy! Ending it with that crazy foot discussion was a good way to transition out of the enraging story about the US judicial system. I knew all of this but happy that this show is passing that knowledge along. There's a lot at stake for your elections. Sending best wishes from Canada. (We'll need them back next year.)

[DoctorAtomic]

John missed his own fundamental point - Both regulations and the courts 'legislating' comes down to Congress not doing its job. Even the Chief Justice has noted this in several opinions over the last few years. 

Regulations 'stifle growth' until you need to send in a baby mattress so your infant doesn't die. I'm sure that if I read the entire code of federal regulations, I would find some duplicate regulations or ones that might be a bit much. But, what % is that? Also but, Congress has legal oversight over all the federal agencies; why not hold some hearings and order them to audit? You get to call your own experts if you don't believe the current 'experts', as Jordan was bloviating.

 

[Annber03]

23 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

.. and then we spend the last few minutes on a weird conversation between five anchors about feet. Something about how Gen Z doesn't want to show their feet, and then it devolves into stuff about friends having more than ten toes.

That was WEIRD. I just sat there speechless by the end of that segment thinking, "...that was an actual conversation...between actual news anchors...on an actual news program..."

Also weird? Eric Adams. That "9/11" line is just..."what the fuck" doesn't even begin to describe that. And the photos of Diddy getting a key to the city, and the bizarre nature of his scandal... 

That's the thing that continues to floor me about these political scandals. I'm not shocked that they're still a thing, of course, 'cause it's politics, there's ALWAYS going to be scandals. It comes with the territory. 

But in this day and age, with social media and the 24/7 news cycle and things of that sort being what they are, how do poeple still think they'll be able to slip under the radar with this stuff? Course, as we've seen, apparently these kinds of scandals aren't the career-endiers they used to be for a lot of people anymore, so maybe they genuinely just do not care if they get caught, cause whether they resign or not they can still parlay this into some sort of benefit for them. There's just not the disgrace and shame that there used to be with this stuff. 

(Also, hate to break it to the person who told Eric to delete his texts, but if my time watching true crime shows has taught me anything, it's that nothing is ever completely, truly deleted from the internet for good. Nothing. Even if you try to delete that stuff, some tech-savvy guru will find a way to retrieve it.) 

As for the main story, this is something I really hope people are considering when it comes to the upcoming election, and something I really wish people had thought about almost a decade ago as well. Depending on how things shake out in November, I'm hoping this will provide an opportunity for us to do some major cleaning up where the courts and appointing justices and so on is concerned. The alternative is just far too terrifying to think about. 

(I'd also love it if we got a proper majority in the Senate, because they can impeach SC justices, and I tend to think that any appointments by a president who was twice impeached, is a convicted felon, and was involved in an insurrection plot, should be rendered null and void. Their appointments have been tainted and that should be reflected. That's more of a pipe dream, I know, but it is something I would love to see happen.)

[aghst]

What is very apparent is that millions know nothing about civics, how our government works.

So progressives demand things like the Green New Deal or universal health care but you need Congress as well as the presidency and the courts, especially the Supreme Court, which Can cancel any laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President.

That was why those who sat out in 2016 or voted third party like Jill Stein screwed the pooch, because those justices whom Trump nominated will control the Supreme Court for decades.

The anti abortion extremists played this game for decades, to get their judges into all levels of the federal judiciary, including the TX judge John highlighted.

So when Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade, a lot of progressives blamed Biden.  No the fault lies with those who didn’t vote for Clinton in 2016.

Millenials and Gen Z should be prioritizing federal judges above everything else because they will have to live with court rulings for decades.

But I heard part of a focus group with black women around 30.  They want to know what Kamala Harris will do to shore up Roe v. Wade before they will decide whether to vote.  No they HAVE to turn out and vote, to make sure Trump doesn’t win and put in more Federalist Society judges, who will keep taking away their rights.  These same women complained that Biden didn’t cancel college loan debts.  No Biden did try to cancel debts for millions but the courts including the Supreme Court blocked Biden’s executive orders.  It’s clear these women were low information voters who didn’t follow the news, relying on social media and some podcasts for information.  Also showing lack of knowledge about how crucial roles the courts can play in preventing progress.

 

 

[DoctorAtomic]

Largely, the public is uninformed. Campaigns need to really shift their strategy into a new paradigm. I said this over on another thread, but elections aren't about policy choices, and anyone who says so either has an agenda or their fooling themselves. 

The Clinton campaign was just bad strategy. I don't think the constant alarmism is a good tactic, but just hammering home that there's a scotus seat up for grabs, and one of the nominees has pledged to appoint someone anti-choice just wasn't done effectively. 

I think the Harris campaign is doing better now, but they kind of lucked into it with Walz and his 'weird' comment. I don't know if it was by design or just a riff, but it's been killer. They still haven't been able to adjust since June with the only counter move being to prop up the dog story that literally every outlet has confirmed it's fake. I think that's died down now, but they haven't really gained on offense. I think they're hoping that's what's going to happen in the VP debate, but it's a huge risk it will blow up. Harris didn't take the bait, and I don't think Walz will either. 

However, you got Thomas and Alito who either or both could still resign given the results of this election, and you're telling me Trump could appoint a 4th and 5th justice? You've got to be saying that all the time. Now, we have actual evidence. Look who he appointed. Look that the results. You're cementing a 6-3 majority for the next 40 years maybe? Plus, you can run against Congress not doing their job and letting the judges legislate from the bench. 

[iMonrey]

I realize I'm guilty of my own bias but I thought John spent too much time on the Eric Adams thing. I get that he's in New York and like almost all New Yorkers thinks the world revolves around new York, but any of the other things he listed off happening this week including Hurricane Helene would have been more worthy of attention. JMHO, of course.

As for the federal judges, it's maddening and depressing all at once, and even if Harris manages to squeak out a win the Senate will almost certainly stonewall any of her appointments just as they did with Obama's. John covered this story well, but I fear he is preaching to the choir and nobody else.

The foot segment was just weird.

[heatherchandler]

On 10/1/2024 at 9:57 AM, aghst said:

But I heard part of a focus group with black women around 30.  They want to know what Kamala Harris will do to shore up Roe v. Wade before they will decide whether to vote.  No they HAVE to turn out

You’re assuming they will vote democrat, but you can’t assume that.  There are many black women who are conservative.

[DoctorAtomic]

It sounds like if the focus group is asking what Harris will do to shore up Roe, then I'd say they're left leaning. It seemed like they're going to vote for her or not vote at all. 

 

[aghst]

Yeah that's what I heard. It was a podcast, Pod Save America and they had on a host of a special in which they talked to groups of voters and they played that clip.

[andromeda331]

I laughed at the Eric Adams stuff. The stuff about the federal judges is depressing. One thing this show and politics since Trump is to vote in every election and research every candidate from President to judges, to school boards and taught me I should have always done that.