Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you have until you open the box Forrest Gump
If there’s one thing I learned a long time ago in covering politics, it’s that Forrest Gump was right, and the Supreme Court justices are that box of chocolates. Here’s why.
Just think of the almost insane premise of being a Supreme Court justice. Until Traitor Tot and Moscow Mitch turned the Supreme Court into a judicial whorehouse, it has historically been the pinnacle of legal accomplishment. Even being considered automatically burnished your legal street creds. But to be actually nominated for a Supreme Court seat? That’s the Hall of Fame.
And the process is rigged and bizarre by its nature. An appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Once you’re in, you’re in, you can only be impeached, and good luck with that.
Because Supreme Court nominations are almost exclusively mealy mouthed Ivy League Law School graduates, they’re incredibly well qualified for the nomination process. They all know exactly what to say, and exactly how to say it, to give themselves plausible deniability if anything blows back on them later. And they each have a political Sherpa from the administration to guide them through the process.
But here’s the McGuffin. Once you’re in, you’re in. And there’s nothing anybody can do about it if you turn out to have a different judicial thought process than the sitting President thought you had. Tough noogies. History is replete with Supreme Court Justices who turned out to rule far differently from the Supreme Court bench than their previous history would have suggested.
Former President George HW Bush is a perfect example. For all Bush accomplished, good and bad, he had to have regrets. And when asked by a reporter after he had left the White House what his biggest regret from his term was, he tersely replied, Nominating that son of a bitch David Souter to the Supreme Court. Bush thought he had a reliable, steady conservative vote, but instead Souter turned out to be that court’s version of Anthony Kennedy. His willingness to parse social issues evenhandedly left Bush feeling cheated and betrayed.
And I just get the feeling in my gut that Traitor Tot may be about to become a kindred spirit to Pappy Bush. As I watch what’s going on with the court, on a variety of issues, I’m starting to think that Justice Amy Coney Barrett may just be El Pendejo Presidente’s Justice David Souter.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Barrett is a closet liberal, or a Democratic Manchurian Candidate on the court. but on several issues she has chosen to spurn the far right agenda that Trump got from his first two howler monkey selections.
There could be a perfectly good reason for this. With Justice Gorsuch, the legislative whore Mitch McConnell left Scalia’s seat open for more than 300 days, allowing plenty of time for thorough vetting. And with the Kavanaugh seat, once again Justice Anthony Kennedy gave Trump sufficient advance notice for a thorough vetting process before retiring. And Traitor Tot still f*cked it up, nominating a credibly accused serial sexual assaulter as a last favor to Kennedy in return for his seat.
But Amy Coney Barrett is a different kettle of fish. Liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died less than 60 days before the 2020 election. And despite her stated last wish that the next President name her replacement, senate judicial slut Mitch McConnell rushed her appointment through in something like 36 days. Which meant that the normal, extended vetting process went to hell in a handbasket, the only criteria pretty much being that even Trump had to appoint a woman to Ginsberg’s seat.
Which brings us associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And by her nature, Barrett is a true judicial wild card. The normal vetting process for any federal judge, much less a Supreme Court justice takes weeks, if not months. Their records of judicial rulings and decisions are scoured for signs of authentic conservative purity. The candidate is personally vetted and personally interviewed. And even with all of that, Bush f*cked up with Souter. Barrett got little of that scrutiny.
So she’s a wild card. And as I pointed out in my last article, as the only GOP woman on the court, she has struck a fast and lasting with the liberal lion on the court, Justice Sonya Sotomayor. They even travel together and hold joint appearances, expressing their judicial views and taking questions.
This is nothing new on the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsberg’s closest friend on the court was conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia. They ate in each others homes, her husband being a chef with wicked skills, and even vacationed together. And while they may have seldom changed each others minds on judicial issues, their openness to each others views could help them to craft consensus decisions.
Here’s where this plays into current events. In the Trump immunity case. you have the two criminal dotards, joined by slavering slaves Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wanting nothing more than to tie this issue into the LaBrea tar pit of limited immunity, and run out the clock for decades.
My belief is that Chief Justice Roberts, his judicial legacy in mind, is reluctantly ready to side with the angels and declare that there is no presidential immunity for former Presidents. But he doesn’t want to go down with the ship on a minority decision. If Roberts can drag Barrett over the finish line with him, the Trump federal trial can commence ASAP.
But if Roberts is on the fence, then it’s all in Barrett’s hands. If Sotomayor can convince Barrett to follow judicial precedent, and deny post presidential immunity, then Barrett can go to work on Roberts, remind him of his judicial legacy, and drag him over the finish line.
Of course this is all speculation. But one thing is for sure. After Kavanaugh was confirmed to the court, the media immediately proclaimed that in reality it was now the Kavanaugh court, not the Roberts court, Kavanaugh was the sewing vote. But with the late death of Notorious RBG, and the appointment of Barrett, it’s starting to look more and more like it may be Barrett who has the critical swing vote, with Roberts looking towards his judicial legacy. Don’t touch that dial/
I thank you for the privilege of your time.
maybe, hopefully. remember that g Gordon liddy and Timothy leary used to do appearances together as well, and liddy, as a prosecutor, had once personally arrested leary (and he was quite impressed by leary at the time, you don’t want to know why). even al Franken seems to have a soft spot for liddy (instead of spilling and making a sweetheart deal he manned up, kept his mouth shut and did his time). it may be that barret is only hard core on abortion and otherwise limiting women’s rights and anything else is open to discussion. I think Roberts is on the verge of giving up on his legacy. he wants that but he also wants an ultraconcervative theocracy. he just wanted to go about it in a more incremental fashion. I think he’s almost at the point where he’s ready to get what he wants ideologically and accept that he’s going to lose his legacy. the key factor for all of them is as you said, once they’re in there’s pretty much nothing anyone can do about it. as always, hopefully you’re right and I’m wrong.
I have a hard time believing the vagina is going to side on any other side than that which equates with fed. soc. marching orders. Before you go all “oh she might be a Justice Souter” and all that please remember she signed on to the decision to impose what is a possible death sentence on women pregnant in red states. Her religion/ideology (and with the con xtians those two words are the same) dictates everything. She doesn’t belong on the court, just as thomas, gorsuch, and beer bong do not, because she A) doesn’t have the legal knowledge to fill the seat and B) she really doesn’t have a mind of her own–only the fed. soc’s/future theocracy’s.
And roberts? He is a sorry little man who is an even sorrier excuse for a judge.
When this immunity ruling finally comes out, President Biden needs to clean house and he might as well, after disposing of trump, clean up the fed. soc./s.c. Fill four of those seats, at least, with legal minds capable of independent thought. That isn’t going to give progressives everything they want-there have been decisions which one would have thought supposed liberal justices would have come down on the progressive side of things but didn’t.
Biden needs to run with whatever immunity line is let out and get our country off of the white’s only, misogynist, theocracy bull shit. While he’s at it he needs to make good and damned well sure EVERY CITIZEN in this country can vote-that’ll bury the fucking con xtians once and for all.
She’s right on women’s health because she’s a woman (and – as a consequence knows more about women’s bodies than the men do. Not that all women are all that knowledgeable aboutwomen’s bodies, but we at least know a lfew things.)
It’s not unheard of for a hard core right wing judge or justice to be good on one issue. Gorsuch, for instance, is good on Native American tribal rights. So good that if I had the power to replaces any and all justices I wanted to, I’d keep him. It’s not as hard to replace a justice who is good on women’s health. Being solid on tribal rights is rare on bothe sides of the aisle.
Barrett has surprised me with some of her comments during trump’s immunity hearing, but I don’t and won’t trust her. Like Speaker Mike Johnson, her rulings will be guided by her version of god.