The federal judiciary is too small, and has been for decades. Likewise with the supreme court. Congress can expand both, if they have the guts to do it. Republicans have demonstrated that there's no value in adhering to norms, so the dems, if they achieve another blue wave, can reform the courts and bring them into the 21st century by expanding them considerably. This will dilute the trump appointments. Remember also that that state courts aren't controlled by trump or the fed gov't and have considerable power, albeit in their own states.
If a democrat wins the presidency in 2020, which I believe will happen, that person will replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer, but possibly Clarence Thomas too, and who knows who else. If the next president is a democrat and retains the presidency for 8 years, he or she will appoint A LOT of judges, including retiring judges appointed by Reagan and both Bushes.
I know some folks are feeling glum, and I don't want to minimize anyone's feelings, but my money is on an expansion of the judiciary in the coming 5-10 years, if not sooner.
Lynn - yes, there are provisions in the Constitution that allow for increasing the federal judiciary, including SCOTUS. Also to be considered is increasing the sheer number of Reps in the House - it's been nearly 100 years since a change, and it's long overdue (but that's the GOP's next pet project - jigger the censuses so that it doesn't change to favor progressive states).
I think both should and eventually will change/increase, but not for decades. As long as we have an electoral college, it won't.
Lynn, Laura, in the past read the future night in January, I saw that there will be a young centrist Democrat male president with a female VP. However, as with any election, there will be caveats of voter suppression and Russia meddling. It's likely that Mueller will have the report released later this year.
Should we be sending light to Michael Cohen? Does anyone have a sense whether his allegiance now lies w the truth v Donald trump? Or is he just trying to save himself? There seem to be plenty of people scorched by trump who might be able to help bring the truth to light.
Laura, I remember in 2008 when David Patterson became governor of NY State (where I live) many of us in the progressive community rejoiced because we believed he'd be able to get marriage equality passed into law. He couldn't, and I remember thinking at the time that I'd never see it in my lifetime, not in NY, and certainly not nationally. Yet just a few years later Andrew Cuomo (no big progressive) did push it through, and very shortly thereafter a pretty conservative sup ct decided the Windsor case. Suddenly the impossible became real. I guess my point is that things turn on a dime, for the good and bad. I mean, who would have thought we'd have a russian asset in the white house?!! But they could turn back around just as suddenly as they went sideways. What may seem impossible could be around the corner, but we just don't see it yet. I really do believe things will get better, and that they are in fact green shoots sprouting all around us.
Laura, I would urge you to reconsider your view that change for the better will only come incrementally. We've discussed on this forum multiple times how natural systems such as global climate tend to change in a nonlinear fashion, which explains why weather patterns are changing more rapidly every year. But, by the same token, human culture is also a system that shifts exponentially in volatile periods, and that makes Lynn's example of same-sex marriage in the United States so poignant; once a critical mass has been reached, ideas of what's possible can gain rapid acknowledgement and acceptance.
We really are living in a revolutionary turning of the ages. Yes, it's scary, but the very volatility of societal phase shifts make them ripe for transformative change. As Bayo Akomolafe wrote in his amazing post-election piece from 2016, "Trump strolled to the grand stage in the front and wrecked it, but in so doing he inadvertently 'gave' us permission to inhabit the aisles - to rearrange the entire room." So don't let Trump's judicial appointments get you down. It's possible that in 10 years time our values will have shifted so rapidly that state and municipal governments will no longer regard Trump-era judges as being legitimate, and instead will be conducting litigation through legal avenues that don't yet exist. Perhaps the federal courts will be dissolved in their current form and restructured to better address our dire economic and environmental crises.
Whatever happens, the courts are only one more human concept that is at the whim of the collective. The same can be said of banks, the military, universities, legislatures, religious organizations, corporations etc. Our institutions are manifestations of the collective, so none one of them can resist the collective's hunger for a global reordering. It helps to remember that the American Revolution and an independent United States were unthinkable up until the late-1760s. Ten years later, Americans had nullified the divine rule of monarchy. I figure that if they could do it, nothing says we as 21st-century citizens can't assert our positions "in the aisle" and bring about radical transformation.
Beautifully said, Coyote. I wholeheartedly agree with how you've so well described the emergence of transformative change. And thanks, too, for the cool and liberating Akomolafe quote, as well as the link to his "Open Letter to the Brokenhearted."
Coyote - I don't think our views are in contradiction. My point is more about not ignoring the power of evil, but to acknowledge it in order to move forward. In terms of linear vs. non-linear, my lifespan is, to date, lived in a linear fashion (I don't currently have a TARDIS). My concerns stem from how non-linear change often only occurs with great violence, and just because it's non-linear still doesn't mean it will occur within my [linear] lifetime.
Apologies that I led everyone on here off the Mueller discussion path...
And Clarence Thomas announced this week that he plans to resign before the 2020 election...
To shift us back on topic - let's all send our best visioning to Mueller - that his plans to protect his work are not thwarted, that the seeds he has planted take root and grow toward the sun. That it all comes to light, and that THAT is what drives the much needed change for our country.
?
This has been a fascinating discussion, uplifting and optimistic with a grim reminder of what a dangerous course our country is upon. For a while, I felt such aversion to Barr, the very sight of his face was disturbing to me. His letter to Trump criticizing the Mueller probe seems opportunistic at best and one must consider the possibility that he was campaigning for Sessions job. However, Barr is also known as an institutionalist. This article about Barr written by Benjamin Wittes, the editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, is the best commentary I've read on the man to date: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/ben-wittes-william-barr-attorney-general-better-alternatives/577699/
Another thing to keep in mind is that any day now, Barr will be able to see the breadth and depth of Mueller's investigation. He will know the extent of the crimes exposed. Will he protect our democracy from authoritarianism?