Sunday, July 28, 2024

Elizabeth Warren: 'Supreme Court is on the ballot'

"We've got a Supreme Court that is actively undermining our democracy," Warren said.

More

Comments

"We have a Supreme Court that has basically jumped the guardrails and is out there giving power to the president saying that the president can commit any act that the president wants, saying that Congress cannot authorize agencies to act," Warren said.

"So we've got a Supreme Court that is actively undermining our democracy."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-07-28 12:06 PM

@#1 ... "So we've got a Supreme Court that is actively undermining our democracy."...

'I Believe That No One Is Above the Law Under Our System' (2005)
www.nytimes.com

... Following are excerpts from the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing yesterday for Judge John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to be the chief justice of the United States. He was questioned by, among others, Senators Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania; Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont; Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts; Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin; Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah; Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California; and Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona. The statements were recorded by CQ Transcriptions. A full transcript is online at nytimes.com/supremecourt.

Roe v. Wade

Senator Specter -- When you and I talked informally, I asked you if you had any thought as to how many opportunities there were in the intervening 32 years for Roe to be overruled, and you said you didn't really know. And you cited a number. I said, "Would it surprise you to know that there have been 38 occasions where Roe has been taken up, not with a specific issue raised, but all with an opportunity for Roe to be overruled?" ...

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a secret opinion in August 2002 which argued the president enjoys, quote, "complete authority over the conduct of war," close quote. And, quote, "The Congress lacks authority to set the terms and conditions under which the president may exercise his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during war," close quote. And then it took the argument to the extreme when it concluded the president, when acting as commander in chief was not bound -- was not bound -- by the federal law banning the use of torture.

In other words, the president would be above the law in that regard. You did not write that memo -- I hasten to add -- but you've seen it.

And I asked Attorney General Gonzales for his view of this memo, in particular this sweeping assertion of executive power, which puts the president above the law. He never gave an answer on that and that's one of the reasons why many had voted against his confirmation.

So, now let me ask you this: Do you believe that the president has a commander-in-chief override to authorize or excuse the use of torture in interrogation of enemy prisoners even though there may be domestic and international laws prohibiting the specific practice?

Judge Roberts -- Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes. Now, there often arise issues where there's a conflict between the legislature and the executive over an exercise of executive authority -- asserted executive authority. ...

[emphasis mine]

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-28 11:52 PM

I agree with her and unfortunately too many people think we need "less" government. I am not a fan of more government and more regulation, HOWEVER there is reason for it. There is virtually always GOOD reason for it. That reason is abuse. This Supreme Court is making a necessarily large government harder to control and protect the people. Yes WE THE PEOPLE need protections provided by government. In 1776, the US was about 2.5 million people and 13 colonies soon to be states. Today, we are nearly 342 million people with 50 states and several territories. So small government is not an option. Combine that with the environmental concerns of today vs in 1776, etc. We have corporations who employ 20% or more of the original entire population of the country today. Originalists and others covering for the anti-regulation side don't want folks to understand any of that. They use and prey on the "freedumb" crowd.

#3 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-07-29 11:25 AM

Isn't this always the case?

You never know, so wouldn't a justice selection always be part of someones political calculations?

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-29 01:33 PM

Originalists and others covering for the anti-regulation side don't want folks to understand any of that.

I am somewhat anti-regulation, I undertstand that.

My issue with the government is that its employees make substantially more than the regular people. The amount of Government regulations also create a situation where most people are in violation of some regulation. Eventually, and I think this is happening, people just say ---- it, and ignore regulations because
1. No one is enforcing them.
2.No one is endorsing them equally.

The middle class is getting hammered by regulations, enforced on them. The Rich and the Poor skip enforcement, because they are rich and poor.

Seems insane how this would continue, and why anyone would want it.


I agree with her and unfortunately too many people think we need "less" government. I am not a fan of more government and more regulation, HOWEVER

Makes no sense, you're arguing against yourself.

#5 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-07-29 01:38 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

This Is Post-Roe America (173 comments)

Central Park 5 Sue Trump for Defamation (73 comments)

U.S. Infant Deaths Rose After Fall of Roe v. Wade (59 comments)

Harris Leads Trump 2-1 Among the Earliest Voters (36 comments)

Trump Talking About Arnold Palmer's Private Parts is Just Weird (36 comments)

McDonald's Donald Trump Worked at Failed Last Health Inspection (30 comments)

Guardrails Will Avert Manipulation of Election Outcome (30 comments)

Trump Calls Judge 'evil' for Releasing Files Before Election (24 comments)