The removed post said "that two conservative judges might retire before the election. Mitch McConnell said that, unlike the Obama situation, these will sail right through if it happens."
Removing an unvalidated statement is the only way I can help our site from becoming a rumor mill. So if your post is removed, please pay no mind and just repost with the link and we will be grateful to you for bringing news to us. :-)
@tgraf66 @allyn Yes, but there must be something that the federal government could do. Make gerrymandering illegal nationally. Withhold funding for elections in states that don't meet certain standards. Any thoughts? I'm definitely not a legal scholar, just an optimist.
I honestly don't know if or how much funding for elections is provided by the federal gov't. I would assume some amount, but I don't know. Still, any attempt by Congress to enforce that would likely never see the light of day outside of the House, and if it did, it would be challenged in the courts almost instantly as unconstitutional interference in the election. As I said above, election districting is absolutely outside the purview of the federal gov't, and absent an amendment to alter that, I can't see how Congress could legitimately make gerrymandering illegal.
@tgraf66 If Trump keeps Pence. Who knows? But I digress: I lived in Indiana when Pence was governor. He did plenty of damage, lied on occasion, and pitted people against one another. It was generally thought that he accepted the VP offer because his campaign to reelect him as governor was under water.
True enough. The Orange One has no loyalty to anyone, so dumping Pence would be right in line with his modus operandi. I'm originally from Indiana and keep up with some of the politics there, so I'm familiar with Pence's stupidity, and yes, I'm one of the people who thought that about him with regard to the VP appointment. He doesn't seem to have much luck choosing the wagons to which he hitches his star, does he? ;-)
Well, the Supreme Court has given some more cases today. And that means it is time for Allyn's analysis.
Speaking from a personal standpoint, it seems that both cases decided today were victories for Trump and his allies. However, there are some hidden points in both and some unresolved issues that I want to bring to your attention least you all despair.
One of the cases involved whether religious schools were shielded from discrimination lawsuits brought on by teachers they fired. Basically, religious schools can fire teachers and teachers have no recourse because the schools are claiming "ministerial exception." The two teachers who are the subject of this case brought lawsuits against the Catholic schools where they worked. One was allegedly fired due to age discrimination, and the other one was fired allegedly because she got breast cancer (American Disability Act).
I am not surprised by this decision. Disappointed, perhaps, but not surprised. No doubt private religious schools believe they can now hire and fire at will, and many will do so. But there are still many legal questions surrounding this that I foresee in years to come.
(1) It seems as though Catholic schools can discriminate based on age discrimination and disability. But these are standards that the party bringing the lawsuit (the teachers) are required to prove certain things before a lawsuit can even take place. But what about other areas? Can a teacher be fired for his or her race (in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act)? Or for their gender? Race and gender are considered higher tier standards. So a case could come from this where someone is fired for nothing more than how God made them. We know that businesses and government entities cannot discriminate based on a person's race or gender. But are religious schools exempt from this? The decision is not clear, so I imagine that we will see a similar issue again if a strong case comes up where a person is fired simply for being a certain race or gender. Basically, this decision leaves open many questions, and I anticipate that it is not over.
(2) Obviously, Catholic schools are exempt. But what about other religious schools? Jewish? Muslim? Protestant Christian schools? Are they exempt as well?
(3) Catholic schools may be exempt, but can states pass laws that ban a religious school from discriminating against an employee for age/race/gender/disability by refusing to fund them? I know, we already saw the Supreme Court decision last week where the Supreme Court ruled that Montana could not withhold tax payer money from private religious schools (which I agree with, because if they pay taxes, then they should be allowed funding as well). But notice that the Montana decision had to do with the contention that a state could not discriminate against a private religious school simply for being a private religious school. The court DID NOT say (because the question was never asked) whether a state could deny funding to a private religious school because the school engaged in practices that violated the state's laws against discrimination. For example, a state could potentially pass a law that says that all entities that engage in certain types of discrimination (race, gender, etc.) would be denied and/or limited in terms of the funds they receive. The state could then argue that the law does not discriminate against a religious school because it affects EVERYONE! (businesses, organizations, etc.)
This would be a separation of powers question that would be interesting to see.
Now, the second case today basically says that Trump is allowed to let employers not be made to pay for birth control medications for women if they have a moral and/or religious objection.
I am very, very angry about this case.
Thankfully, I am an attorney and I am my own boss, so I am (hopefully) not affected by this outcome. However, if my insurer suddenly decides to stop covering birth control due to a religious and/or moral objection, I am in trouble.
A little background information-I take birth control, and I have since I was fourteen years old. But I do not use it for reproductive purposes. I have endometriosis, which an estimated 1 in 5 women have. To those who don't know (and I apologize to my male readers if this makes you uncomfortable), endometriosis is a condition where the tissues responsible for a woman's monthly period (the time when we bleed and are in pain) grows in other parts of the woman's body. Instead of the uterus, the endometrium tissues grow elsewhere (ovaries, intestines, and even on a woman's lungs or heart). These tissues bleed at the time a woman is having her monthly period, but the blood cannot escape. This causes multiple health problems because it results in severe pain and/or possible infertility because the growths continue to scar and connect with other body parts. Some women have even been granted disability for it.
I myself have Stage III Endometriosis and have had four surgeries for it (note-Stage IV would require a hysterotomy). However, even if I chose to have a full hysterotomy, there is no guarantee that the endometriosis would go away, because there are numerous cases where women who had hysterotomies still had endometriosis afterwards. There is no cure, and the only treatment is the surgeries (to get the growths out before they can cause more damage) and birth control (which helps to slow the growth and help control the endometriosis tissues through the use of hormones that exist in the birth control pills and/or patches.
Now, my question is this: I understand that some people believe that birth control should not be used because they believe life begins at conception and anything that interfers with that (aka-birth control that keeps a woman from getting pregnant) is a sin. I don't agree with their point of view, but I respect it. However, why should women like me who use birth control to control an actual medical condition and not to keep from getting pregnant be punished? For goodness sakes, many women who have endometriosis are trying to keep their fertility! How much more pro-life can you be when you are trying to maintain your ability to have a child? But should women like me be punished simply because we use birth control? Do we have to go before a hearing and prove that it is for a legitimate medical condition and not for population control?
So I am sure you all can understand why I feel so strongly about this case, as it has the potential to affect people like me who are innocent casualties in the Right's constant Culture Wars against women having any freedoms whatsoever.
But there is still hope. Upon reading the opinion, I noticed that several of the justices said that the decision meant that a sitting President can change the rules to deny women birth control based on moral and/or religious beliefs.
But....what one person can change, another can change again.
Basically, nothing would prevent Biden from changing the rule back once he takes office. Or, with the help of a hopefully supermajority Democratic House and Senate, Biden can make changes to the existing Obamacare law that will make it stronger and thus less vunerable from the illogical attacks from the conservatives. So let's hope that Biden and the Democrats drown Trump and McConnell in a huge blue wave come November.
Further, if Biden wins, he can drop the government's stupid and cruel challenges to stop other pet projects from Trump, such as his desire to have Obamacare illegal and his ridiculous attempts to end DACA.
Now, tomorrow is the day when Trump's tax case will be released (I know this because the Supreme Court said that all remaining decisions left on their docket will all be released tomorrow, and that includes Trump's case).
I sincerely hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of Congress and New York by saying that they are entitled to Trump's tax information. Although today's decisions have shaken me, I still believe that the decision tomorrow will be against Trump in some way. While I believe that the conservatives will try to find some way to limit the case against Trump, I believe that Roberts and others will ultimately balance the fact that, if they chose to curtail the investigative abilities of the New York DA and Congress, then they run the risk that a Democratic (aka-liberal) President in the future will use Trump's case as a means to shield his or her own wrongdoing.
Why do I believe the case will go against Trump? Here are a few reasons:
(1) Past case law (the Nixon and Clinton cases) did not shield presidents from investigations. Indeed, one can argue that the argument in Clinton's case was stronger than the one in Trump's case, because Trump's case involves multiple criminal investigations where he doesn't really do anything because he is not the one asked to release the taxes (a third party is), whereas Clinton's case involved a civil lawsuit where he was being asked to take a deposition. Roberts has demonstrated in the recent abortion case from Louisiana case that he will follow prior case law even if he disagrees with it personally. Therefore, I have a reasonable belief that he will follow prior case law and side against Trump here.
(2) While several conservative justices voiced concern as to whether Congress should be limited in their abilities to investigate crimes (with several of them wondering aloud whether Congress can also get a President's health records, etc.), remember that in the matter before the Supreme Court, this case has to do with Trump's tax records (which is being held by a third party) and thus does not have the same level of privacy than, say, Trump's medical records do. Further, one cannot argue that this is a mere fishing expedition, because several people have already been charged and served time in the very matters that involve Trump's tax records. The Justices cannot make a ruling based on what they think may happen in the future (aka-Congress tries to subpoena a President's past medical records). They have to deal with the specific facts before them to determine whether or not this is government overreach. So unless they are willing to overturn the decisions in Nixon's and Clinton's case, they are going to have a difficult time justifying a pro-Trump decision.
(3) The cases that were released today are clear victories for Trump and his conservative base. However, I think this was deliberate.
Think about it-today, conservatives and Trump are surely praising the Supreme Court for their decisions today. If the Supreme Court does in fact rule against Trump tomorrow, Trump will do his usual Twitter meltdown and denounce the Supreme Court while calling on his voters to vote for Trump for another term so that he can put more Supreme Court justices on the bench.
Except...many conservative voters will wonder "is it that urgent that we get more justices? The Supreme Court did just rule for religious liberty and against birth control? Why should we get so worked up because Trump's taxes are eventually going to be released?" Basically, I think that today's decisions were deliberately released today so that, should Trump lose tomorrow, we won't see the same level of support for Trump's calls to stack the court than if Trump lost his tax case the day after the Supreme Court released their decisions on gay rights in the workplace and the Louisiana abortion law being struck down. I think the Supreme Court justices are smart and are deliberately releasing the decisions that please conservatives today to diminish any support the conservatives will give Trump if he loses tomorrow.
(4) As I said in an earlier post, the book on Trump from Trump's niece will be release July 14, 2020, several weeks before it was scheduled to be released anyway. I speculated in that post and here that I believe that the publishing company deliberately moved the publishing date up for the sole purpose of capitalizing on the maximum amount of publicity that the book's release will get. And what better time to release the book made by a woman who leaked tax information to the media a few years ago than when the Supreme Court rules that those same taxes that she has written about is soon to be released to investigators and, ultimately, the public at large?
Now, there is always, always a chance that Trump win tomorrow, and the Supreme Court becomes another institution that follows politics and not the law. But I feel strongly based on the following evidence that there will be a limited victory here against Trump.
If Trump loses, then the New York DA will get the taxes and, if he is smart, will issue indictments against some of Trump's team and even Trump's family members by October. This will ensure the maximum damage against Trump as he riles against the liberals in his usual way but gives him limited time to do anything about it. After all, if you were an independent voter, would you vote for someone knowing that their family were facing actual charges and that the next four years would be one legal quagmire while the country is suffering? It is better to go with the candidate that you know has no actual criminal charges against them.
If the Supreme Court goes rouge and Trump wins, then there are still ways around it. If someone leaks the tax documents to the media, then there is nothing that Trump can do about it. Consider, if you will, that if Trump's taxes were delivered to the New York DA and others, and then they were leaked to the media. Trump would whine about his privacy being violated by the evil liberals and his base will support him.
Now consider the same scenario, except that the Supreme Court does not allow Congress or the New York DA to get the tax records. If, in that case, someone leaks them to the media anyway, then Trump can't blame the evil liberals or Democrats, since they never received the taxes in the first place. The only way they could have been leaked is by someone who works for him.
In short-today is a big setback, but is not necessarily the final word on the law, and may even prelude the coming storm heading for Trump and might finally lead to his downfall.
And to all of you who wonder what would happen if Trump steps down (which I hope and pray for every day), this would be great news. Yes, that means Pence would be the President, and yes, he is more tolerable to Evangelical voters. But he is not the "fighter" that will "own the libs" like Trump is, so a large part of Trump's base will not be as enthusiastic with Pence as they would with Trump. Further, with it being so close to an election, Pence (unlike Trump) is less likely to try to pass controversial laws and do anything politically unpopular because he has a least some sense of decorum. Third, if Pence becomes VP, he will have to deal with Pelosi, who will keep the House in line to block Pence if he tries anything.
Further, the Democrats and Never Trumpers have waited for years for this time. If they are waiting for just the right moment to release damaging information on Trump, then it stands to reason that they will release any information they may have on Pence too. They know that if Trump is forced to step down and Pence stays, then they need to ensure that Pence will not rally the pro-Trump base in his corner (which I doubt he can even in the best of circumstances).
And if Pence and Trump both have to step down for whatever reason before the election, then the Constitution states that the Speaker of the House is next in line.
Yep, that means that it will be Pelosi, who would graciously step down as President once the election is held and decided. No chance of her tweeting her supporters and calling for a coup if the Republicans somehow won with a write-in candidate.
So I hope and pray with all my heart that Trump is made to step down before the election, even if it means that Pence would temporarily be in the position. I know that Pence has enough mental capacity to not stray too far beyond the normal levels of governing, as he knows he can't excite the base like Trump can and can't afford to lose any swing voters.
Further, I know that Pelosi will keep Pence in check and prevent him from taking any liberties with the law, seeing as how she can easily replace him (I foresee a scenario where Pelosi meets with Pence behind closed doors and tells him "Pence, we have only a few months to election. If you try to do what Trump did, we will release damaging information on you that may lead to your arrest and conviction. But if you play nice, then we will wait for the election to take place as it should and you may walk out of here with your dignity and reputation still intact. Your choice." Remember, while Trump may get away with anything as far as his base is concerned, we can't say the same about Pence, so any information on him will result in far more damage that it would for Trump.
As to the Supreme Court...I know Trump hopes and wishes that one of them will die and/or retire so he can claim one more justice spot. But despite rumors that Justices Thomas and Alito (two conservative justices) will retire, and that two of the liberal justices (Ginsberg (87) and Breyer (81)) will either retire or die in office, know that the last time a justice announced his or her retirement during an election year was in 1968 (Warren, a democratic judge), and he was replaced by a Nixon appointee. So Supreme Court Judges try not to announce their retirement on election years if they can help it.
But if Biden does win this year, it wouldn't surprise me if he could possibly be in a position to put possibly four justices, assuming that the ones I listed above ultimately retire during his term. So there is a distinct possibility that Biden may flip the court from 5 Republican and 4 Democratic justices to 3 Republican and 6 Democratic justices. And I know that Biden will be smart and chose moderate justices that are less likely to cause an uproar.
Would that not be the final irony? For the conservatives to put all their hopes and political standing with someone as morally offensive as Trump, and then lose all power after four years and watch Biden potentially "packing the court?"
For me, that would be the ultimate justice. For conservatives to sacrifice their so-called values and stand behind a known racist and sexist for four years on the hopes for a tax break, the destruction of Obamacare, a wall, and for conservatives to stack the Supreme Court, only for them to be thrown out after four years, bereft of any credibility and hated by the young generation who will basically control the direction of this nation as many older, more conservative voters die out with no one to replace them. To watch as Obamacare stands, no wall being built, the tax cut for the rich rescinded, and the Supreme Court suddenly switched to the liberals.
Was it worth it to push forward a morally bankrupt person like Trump as your leader? Especially when you lost everything?
If the Republicans experience this scenario as their new reality, then I can't think of any greater justice.
@allyn Thank you again for this analysis. I'm glad you brought up the contraceptive issue because I remember that this came up during Mitt Romney's campaign with people highlighting the issue you so well described.
In my non-legal opinion, I just cannot imagine that the Supreme Court would give a decision that essentially allowed a potential Oval Office criminal to thwart the law just because he sits in the Oval Office. ...yes, especially after the rulings on Nixon and Clinton. But, you wrote it much, much better.
I, too, think Pence would be a calmer individual, but my fear is that he might bring back some of the votes that are going to Biden from the right wing side. Don't know if it would be enough, or if too many would associate him with Trump, but I suspect that drop among White evangelical voters would come back. Of course, there is the possibility of a dark horse at the Convention if Trump did resign.
@jeanne-mayell sorry, here's the link - I panicked when I read the numerologist's opinions. Also if I recall the post, it didn't say they were retiring, just that it was a possibility.
https://www.wmur.com/article/supreme-court-cases-the-justices-have-yet-to-rule-on/33209421
@allyn wow, I always get such incite and pleasure reading your posts. You always give me such hope. Thank you for your clarity of thought and careful consideration. My sister has battled with Endometriosis all of her adult life. I have much empathy for your situation.
@Allyn and @jeanne-mayell
Thanks, Allyn for your very thorough and thoughtful insights!
You forgot one thing that does make endo better (former stage II/infertile victim here, laser lap x2, unable to tolerate BC pills) - Menopause. Had I known how much better I was going to feel in menopause, I would have seriously considered partial hysterectomy! I will remark that getting my tubes tied in my early 40s did help a bit. That being said, everyone is different of course.
The reason I am tagging Jeanne is this:
I love your posts, but they are very long and require multiple readings to absorb the info (especially for those of us who get brain fog). I wonder if there's a way to give Allyn their own thread? Or section? Something like "Allyn's Corner of Legal Wisdom"? That way those of us who would need to could take our time digesting the wonderful knowledge that Allyn so kindly shares with us.
I started to hear online that the GOP wants Tucker Carlson for 2024. What are we seeing here?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/02/tucker-carlson-2024-republicans-348334
@allyn wow another amazing one. I get so excited to read your post with so much knowledge and encouraging perspectives. Please don’t stop what you’re doing because I love every word of it. Going to meditate and pray the Supreme Court say Yes to releasing the orange lump’s tax returns.
share the love and light
@jeans3head. Funny you should mention the woman Randy Rainbow calls Cruella Devos.
Calling her "strange" is an understatement. She is a cold person with an elitist ideology who bought her way into the administration. Her brother, Erik Prince, is even stranger and more dangerous. Both fit well into Trump's heartless agenda.
It is unclear to me how much clout the federal government has in forcing schools to open. Schools are mainly funded by local property taxes, not federal income taxes. As far as I understand it, the decision will be in the hands of state governments. Does anyone know more about this?
@polarberry I just tried upon your request. Did a meditation before I picked a card.
while in meditation I saw a cross on fire (this could mean the KKK burning or the taxes could have implications of business affiliations with the KKK’s)
I also saw a Batman symbol (I take this to mean there will be justice, strength and protection)
then I saw this wobbly dark blob figure like that one character from spirited away that ate so much he became a big gigantic figure, this dark blob was very angry and writing frantically (perhaps this blob is Orange T and he’s angry twittering)
Then I asked what will the decision for T’s tax returns.
Queen of Disks from the Thoth deck:
the first thing that stood out to me was her horns and the shape of her body on this card (it’s shaped like a Curvy Y) perhaps it’s me reaching but I saw that as a Y for yes. The decision will be tough, undecided, some foolish reasoning but she’s going to do the right thing and justice will prevail.
Any thoughts?
share the love and light
@allyn As someone who had endometriosis as well as uterine anomalies who participated in drug trials of Depo-Provera and took birth control pills to help manage the condition I understand how upsetting that ruling is. My belly button has 3 scars from surgeries to remove the adhesions and "powder burn lesions. I too, found great relief in menopause. I was told ai would never be able to have children...my daughter and son and I.. "did not read the book" so here they are! LOL I think the ruling is the fear of the white supremacists about less white babies being born.. they are running scared because very very soon.. the white race will be a minority .. and they are frantic to keep the status quo... POC and older people are dying off in record numbers from Covid-19 and they see keeping women from getting abortions or taking birth control will help them regain their foothold.
Every day with each new low and depth of depravity and greed and destruction I keep expecting him to be removed... I pray the courts release his taxes, that Ghislaine sings like a bird and Mary's book is a best seller.
Soon soon soon I pray.. everyone sees the "emperor has no clothes" and he is removed from office..I don't know that we can wait until November. It feels very very urgent!!!
It is unclear to me how much clout the federal government has in forcing schools to open. Schools are mainly funded by local property taxes, not federal income taxes. As far as I understand it, the decision will be in the hands of state governments. Does anyone know more about this?
A lot of the clout the federal government has is in Title funds, which I know in my rural area, many schools rely heavily on. There's also a significant amount for special education in there. There's definitely some pressure that could be applied but I predict if they try it, it'll be one of the many "day one" things Biden reverses.
T wants to open the schools not because he cares about the children educations it’s because he can spread covid faster. Think about it. He is doing rallies with no social distancing and no mask. He wants to get as many of us sick and the pandemic to be out of control in all the states so he can try to cancel the upcoming elections. He is afraid to lose cause he hates losers and then he will become that loser. In order for him not to lose to Biden he has to creat an atmosphere were people will be too sick to vote and therefore the elections can’t be held.
Already in Tulsa has seen and uptick in positives.
The city of Tulsa is experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases, a little over 2 weeks after President Donald Trump held a campaign rally in an indoor arena there.
Dr. Bruce Dart, Executive Director of the Tulsa Health Department, said in a press conference on Wednesday there are high numbers being reported this week, with nearly 500 new cases in two days and trends are showing that those numbers will increase.
There had been a 20% decline in new Covid-19 cases the week of June 28 through July 4.
The Tulsa Health Department reported 266 new cases on Wednesday, bringing the total number in the county to 4,571. There are 17,894 cases in Oklahoma and 452 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University's tally of cases in the United States.
When asked if the cases in Tulsa are going up due to the rally on June 20, Dart said that there were several large events a little over two weeks ago.
"I guess we just connect the dots," Dart said.