Coming Distractions-- Who Gets To Name The Next Supreme Court Justice?

To say that Judge Anthony Kennedy's resignation is a blow to the future of progressivism in the US for the next 20 years is to put it mildly. Because of the amount of laws and policies that end up being ruled on and over-ruled by SCOTUS, the next choice is likely to bend the court much further right than the more moderate on social issues Kennedy has allowed.

   With less than three months to decide who will have a majority of or retain the majority vote in the Senate and the House for the remainder of Trump's first (and hopefully only) term is anybody's guess. Of course it is in the interest of conservatives to name Kennedy's successor sooner than later and you will not need to be Nostradamus to guess how Republicans will be playing this. However, given the rulings handed down just this month, it is not in the interest of progressives to let that happen easily. But, since a super-majority is not required to approve a nomination nor to knock down a filibuster, it would seem that Republicans have all they need to do their worst.

   Aha! That is until you consider the Republicans who are retiring in January (Shout out to Jeff Flake and Bob Corker) who could exact revenge on a President with whom they have parted ways or an ailing John McCain who may not be up for a vote on a nominee. This would mean that an embattled Democrat like  Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, or Heidi Heitkamp would have to be pulled into the fracas and arm-twisted to go along with the Republicans. So it will be a drama to the end to see how cards are played and who ultimately wins or gets a stay of execution.

   Then it all gets real when, at best, the Democrats win the Senate and still have to negotiate with Trump for the Kennedy replacement. Or the President lives without the nominee knowing he has a deadlocked SCOTUS for the next two years and runs for re-election on the theme that Democrats are obstructionists. Or, the Republicans use the obstructionist angle now to attempt to win Senate seats outright and then name anybody that Trump or they desire.

   All this points to a challenging scenario wherein the blue line has to hold and the Democrats would need to run the table in November and again in 2020. This also points to a lot of dollars being spent trying to win the electorate over to the narrative each side will be promoting. Let the wedge issue framing games begin.  Note to Liberal SCOTUS members, please stay healthy.

Addendum: Over the weekend Senator Susan Collins said that an opponent of Roe v. Wade would be a deal breaker for her. Sen. Lisa Murkowski may also be in that camp. So there are a number of ways this could go past November.
1) Democrats hold, Murkowski and Collins join to block a nomination.
2) McCain, Flake, Corker  abstain from voting and nomination fails. Even if an embattled Democrat crosses over, the nomination fails.
3) Some combination of 1 and 2, the nomination fails.
4) The Senate leaves the SCOTUS with 8 justices through the lame duck session and Trump has to negotiate a moderate choice come January--if the Senate numbers hold or go slightly bluer.

Free Speech Sponsored by...?

The US Supreme Court's ruling today to allow corporations and unions to spemd freely from their coffers to influence politics in the United States through advertising is nothing short of the worst decision ever perpetrated by that institution short of upholding segregation. The Supreme Court's 5-4 vote overturns a 20-year-old ban on businesses and unions using money from their own funds to pay for campaign ads.

The idea that corporations have the same rights as US citizens has been a bone of contention for many years (again due to the Supreme Court) and this ruling continues to erode personal freedom. The recognition by the court that these institutions are allowed to freely spend their capital to influence an election is chilling in states where corporations already have immense influence. The coup de gras is that The Supreme Court also said that any campaign ads that were not paid for by the candidate or their party must be clearly marked with the name of the sponsor.

I think that Justice Stevens in dissenting from the majority has it right when he said the court's decision "operates with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel" and warned that it may "undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

Check out this video from Free Speech for People.

Jobless and Workers Getting Mixed Messages From Senate

With the benefits for Iowa's unemployed expiring, the US Senate continues to quibble over who should qualify for an extension of benefits. Here's a suggestion: everyone who is unemployed and actively seeking work or retraining.

The conflict over whether "high unemployment states" should be the only one's receiving Washington's largess, will be lost on every worker who is left out. The House didn't seem to have any problem seeing this logic, perhaps Senators need to get out more often.

At least one Senator seems to get it, Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., is planning to introduce a measure that would extend jobless benefits in all 50 states by 17 weeks.
"Distinctions in state unemployment rates may make sense in Washington, ... and they don't make sense to the 15 million unemployed workers nationwide who are struggling to get by and get back to work," said Shaheen.

Meanwhile The U.. Supreme Court has made a ruling regarding older workers that is likely to make it easier for employers to discard or demote them. The court raised the burden of proof for demonstrating age discrimination, ruling last term that a "mixed motive" including age as a factor was not strong enough evidence. Senators Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy are working with Rep. George Miller to pass legislation that would require employees to only prove that age had been a "motivating factor" in their termination or demotion.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

the Senate also addressed the effects of the court's opinion in Circuit City v. Adams, a 2001 decision that enlarged the reach of employees who are required to address disputes through arbitration rather than through the courts. At the hearing, Jamie Leigh Jones, who had worked for a former subsidiary of Halliburton (HAL), argued that arbitration can prevent important information from entering the public record. Jones said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq in 2005 and has spent the past four years trying to get her case heard in court rather than in the arbitration she agreed to when she was hired.

"It's very apparent to me that corporations adopt arbitration as a way to wipe clean the record of disputes that arise," she said.

Sen. Al Franken offered an amendment to a defense bill that would restrict funding to contractors that require their employees to go through arbitration to settle sexual assault claims. In April, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a broader bill seeking to invalidate many binding arbitration clauses and return consumer, employment and civil rights disputes to the courts.

When Mark de Bernardo, executive director of the Council for Employment Law Equity, defended the use of arbitration as a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation, he faced sharp questioning from Franken.

"You said the net result of the use of arbitration is better workplaces," Franken said, cutting off de Bernardo's response. "She was drugged, she was raped, she had to have reconstructive surgery. If that's a better workplace, what was the workplace like before?"