Actual reason, meet stated reason

[SimpleDon]

This is from the New York Times briefing letter for today June 30, 2020.

How to make sense of the Roberts court

View attachment 28405

Anti-abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court on Monday.Alex Wong/Getty Images​

For anyone trying to make sense of the Supreme Court run by Chief Justice John Roberts, yesterday’s two big decisions were helpful.

In the more prominent one, Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law. It was the third major decision this month in which Roberts sided with the liberals, having already done so on L.G.B.T.Q. rights and immigration.

The cases have been reminders that the Roberts court is not reliably conservative on every issue, even though Republican presidents appointed five of the nine justices, including Roberts. Over the years, the court has also established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (with Anthony Kennedy, now retired, as the swing vote); declined to outlaw affirmative action; upheld most parts of Obamacare; and more. These decisions have left many conservatives feeling betrayed.

Yet there is at least one big area in which the Roberts court has continued to lean strongly right: business regulation.

With rare exceptions, the justices have restricted the government’s ability to regulate corporate America. And there was another example yesterday, when the court gave Trump more authority to neutralize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an Obama administration creation. The decision was 5 to 4, with the five Republican-appointed justices all on one side and the Democratic appointees on the other.

Similar decisions in the past have overturned campaign-finance law, blocked action on climate change, restricted labor-union activities, reduced workers’ ability to sue their employers and more. As The Times’s Adam Liptak has written, the Roberts court’s rulings have been “far friendlier to business than those of any court since at least World War II.”

These decisions have been part of a larger trend, too. Government policy over the past half-century has generally given more power to corporate executives and less power to their workers. That’s one reason incomes for the affluent have risen so much faster than they have for any other income group.

Whatever you think of the Roberts court, I’d encourage you not to treat it with one broad brush. On some major social issues, it has been moderate or even liberal. On economic issues, the story is very different. Yesterday’s two decisions captured the contrast.

More on the history: “For the past half-century, the court has been drawing up plans for a more economically unequal nation, and that is the America that is now being built,” the journalist Adam Cohen writes in his recent book, “Supreme Inequality.”

More from The Times: Adam Liptak writes about Roberts: “15 years into his tenure, he now wields a level of influence that has caused experts to hunt for historical comparisons.” And Sabrina Tavernise and Elizabeth Dias explain that the abortion ruling doesn’t necessarily mean Roberts will ultimately uphold Roe v. Wade.

This is the "actual reason" for movement conservatism, to achieve income inequality.

We spend most of our efforts here on the "stated reason," social justice versus white male grievances for the most part, but for the architects and the financial supporters of movement conservatism, these are nothing but bright shiny objects thrown up to distract attention away from the prize, ever increasing levels of income inequality.

Thoughts?



The title of this post is a statement by one of our few remaining libertarians, Jason Harvestdancer, in the thread Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC, impugning the stated reason for statehood for DC, giving residents a full measure of representation in Congress, with the actual reason in his view, to increase the number of Democrats in the Senate.

Jason, meet the SOP of politics.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This is from the New York Times briefing letter for today June 30, 2020.

How to make sense of the Roberts court

View attachment 28405

Anti-abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court on Monday.Alex Wong/Getty Images​

For anyone trying to make sense of the Supreme Court run by Chief Justice John Roberts, yesterday’s two big decisions were helpful.

In the more prominent one, Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law. It was the third major decision this month in which Roberts sided with the liberals, having already done so on L.G.B.T.Q. rights and immigration.

The cases have been reminders that the Roberts court is not reliably conservative on every issue, even though Republican presidents appointed five of the nine justices, including Roberts. Over the years, the court has also established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (with Anthony Kennedy, now retired, as the swing vote); declined to outlaw affirmative action; upheld most parts of Obamacare; and more. These decisions have left many conservatives feeling betrayed.

Yet there is at least one big area in which the Roberts court has continued to lean strongly right: business regulation.

With rare exceptions, the justices have restricted the government’s ability to regulate corporate America. And there was another example yesterday, when the court gave Trump more authority to neutralize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an Obama administration creation. The decision was 5 to 4, with the five Republican-appointed justices all on one side and the Democratic appointees on the other.

Similar decisions in the past have overturned campaign-finance law, blocked action on climate change, restricted labor-union activities, reduced workers’ ability to sue their employers and more. As The Times’s Adam Liptak has written, the Roberts court’s rulings have been “far friendlier to business than those of any court since at least World War II.”

These decisions have been part of a larger trend, too. Government policy over the past half-century has generally given more power to corporate executives and less power to their workers. That’s one reason incomes for the affluent have risen so much faster than they have for any other income group.

Whatever you think of the Roberts court, I’d encourage you not to treat it with one broad brush. On some major social issues, it has been moderate or even liberal. On economic issues, the story is very different. Yesterday’s two decisions captured the contrast.

More on the history: “For the past half-century, the court has been drawing up plans for a more economically unequal nation, and that is the America that is now being built,” the journalist Adam Cohen writes in his recent book, “Supreme Inequality.”

More from The Times: Adam Liptak writes about Roberts: “15 years into his tenure, he now wields a level of influence that has caused experts to hunt for historical comparisons.” And Sabrina Tavernise and Elizabeth Dias explain that the abortion ruling doesn’t necessarily mean Roberts will ultimately uphold Roe v. Wade.

This is the "actual reason" for movement conservatism, to achieve income inequality.

We spend most of our efforts here on the "stated reason," social justice versus white male grievances for the most part, but for the architects and the financial supporters of movement conservatism, these are nothing but bright shiny objects thrown up to distract attention away from the prize, ever increasing levels of income inequality.

Thoughts?



The title of this post is a statement by one of our few remaining libertarians, Jason Harvestdancer, in the thread Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC, impugning the stated reason for statehood for DC, giving residents a full measure of representation in Congress, with the actual reason in his view, to increase the number of Democrats in the Senate.

Jason, meet the SOP of politics.

I don't think that the "prize" for most is increasing levels of income inequality"! It's your most important issue. So anyone who dosn't share your passion on this issue, you assume the worst. Roberts may be just be a typical moderate: pro business and economic development but socially liberal. Who knows.

Regardless: if the left wants more representation on the court, vote more. Pretty simple. The religious right desperately wants the SC on their side. And despite smaller numbers, they vote their asses off and have great power on the court. If the left stays home this November, and the right wins again, they'll get their next justice (maybe two), and it will be all over.

 

[Rhea]

I would point out that Roberts does not rule on abortion to END THE ATTACKS on women’s right to health care, instead he rules to say, “you have to ask differently, let’s keep this alive and avoid ruling a solution that becomes a precedent that future courts have to overcome.”

The abortion question is not supported by him, merely “left on the table,” for him to undermine another day

 

[SimpleDon]

This is from the New York Times briefing letter for today June 30, 2020.

How to make sense of the Roberts court

<<snip>​

This is the "actual reason" for movement conservatism, to achieve income inequality.

We spend most of our efforts here on the "stated reason," social justice versus white male grievances for the most part, but for the architects and the financial supporters of movement conservatism, these are nothing but bright shiny objects thrown up to distract attention away from the prize, ever increasing levels of income inequality.

Thoughts?



The title of this post is a statement by one of our few remaining libertarians, Jason Harvestdancer, in the thread Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC, impugning the stated reason for statehood for DC, giving residents a full measure of representation in Congress, with the actual reason in his view, to increase the number of Democrats in the Senate.

Jason, meet the SOP of politics.

I don't think that the "prize" for most is increasing levels of income inequality"! It's your most important issue. So anyone who dosn't share your passion on this issue, you assume the worst. Roberts may be just be a typical moderate: pro business and economic development but socially liberal. Who knows.

Regardless: if the left wants more representation on the court, vote more. Pretty simple. The religious right desperately wants the SC on their side. And despite smaller numbers, they vote their asses off and have great power on the court. If the left stays home this November, and the right wins again, they'll get their next justice (maybe two), and it will be all over.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am not saying that income inequality is the prize for most, that would be incredibly stupid. I would hope that I have not allowed myself to be thought of as stupid in any regard.

What I said was that for the architects and the financial supporters of movement conservative this is the prize for them. This is an incredibly small number of people, it is an incredibly small number of Republicans, it isn't even a majority of the 1% highest earners, a category that wife and I were in until my wife retired two years ago, and category that my grown children are in.

And yes, this is a frequently ridden hobby horse for me. But can you name any other issue but the economy and the drive for increased incomes for the wealthy that explains so much of the politics today, the partisan divide, the continued use of racism in politics to scare white males and suburban women, the drumbeats against immigration, gays, crime in the streets, even flag burning, the support for gun nuts, the hypocrisy of not increasing national debt being an excuse for lower social spending and reducing Social Security but not for tax cuts, wars of choice, and higher defense spending, etc.

I am not on the left. I don't want a liberal SCOTUS. I want a moderate court. Justices naturally tend to become more liberal when appointed to the court. And I don't mean in a political sense, the lower courts are by nature more conservative in their jurisprudence, they are bound to follow SCOTUS rulings and established precedent. In SCOTUS they set precedence. The one persistent and legitimate issue that the right has is abortion, a result of SCOTUS liberal overreach and the insistence of liberals to argue that it is an issue of women's rights and not one of what the court ruled on, an issue of public health.

 

[SimpleDon]

I would point out that Roberts does not rule on abortion to END THE ATTACKS on women’s right to health care, instead he rules to say, “you have to ask differently, let’s keep this alive and avoid ruling a solution that becomes a precedent that future courts have to overcome.”

The abortion question is not supported by him, merely “left on the table,” for him to undermine another day

There is another thread specifically on the Louisiana abortion case, about which you are correct.

I wrote this as a much broader discussion about the court's conservatives and movement conservatism focus on expanding the rights of the corporations and by extension, the incomes of the already rich. Judging by the responses so far I have failed in my intent.

The majority of conservatives and Republicans aren't racists, homophones, xenophobes, religious fundamentalists or gun nuts. There is no reason to believe that conservative and Republican judges would be any of these things.

There has to be some reason that SCOTUS conservatives make political rulings that support these interests. I have my idea which I think that advanced in the article I presented and in my discussion of it.

Do you have a different reason for why they make these rulings, to satisfy the outliers in the conservative coalition on one hand and the pro-corporate interests instead of the workers interests on the other hand?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't think that the "prize" for most is increasing levels of income inequality"! It's your most important issue. So anyone who dosn't share your passion on this issue, you assume the worst. Roberts may be just be a typical moderate: pro business and economic development but socially liberal. Who knows.

Regardless: if the left wants more representation on the court, vote more. Pretty simple. The religious right desperately wants the SC on their side. And despite smaller numbers, they vote their asses off and have great power on the court. If the left stays home this November, and the right wins again, they'll get their next justice (maybe two), and it will be all over.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am not saying that income inequality is the prize for most, that would be incredibly stupid. I would hope that I have not allowed myself to be thought of as stupid in any regard.

What I said was that for the architects and the financial supporters of movement conservative this is the prize for them. This is an incredibly small number of people, it is an incredibly small number of Republicans, it isn't even a majority of the 1% highest earners, a category that wife and I were in until my wife retired two years ago, and category that my grown children are in.

And yes, this is a frequently ridden hobby horse for me. But can you name any other issue but the economy and the drive for increased incomes for the wealthy that explains so much of the politics today, the partisan divide, the continued use of racism in politics to scare white males and suburban women, the drumbeats against immigration, gays, crime in the streets, even flag burning, the support for gun nuts, the hypocrisy of not increasing national debt being an excuse for lower social spending and reducing Social Security but not for tax cuts, wars of choice, and higher defense spending, etc.

I am not on the left. I don't want a liberal SCOTUS. I want a moderate court. Justices naturally tend to become more liberal when appointed to the court. And I don't mean in a political sense, the lower courts are by nature more conservative in their jurisprudence, they are bound to follow SCOTUS rulings and established precedent. In SCOTUS they set precedence. The one persistent and legitimate issue that the right has is abortion, a result of SCOTUS liberal overreach and the insistence of liberals to argue that it is an issue of women's rights and not one of what the court ruled on, an issue of public health.

No, I don't think that you're stupid. I value your opinion. I agree that income inequality is a problem. Where we disagree is how to address the inequality. I'd prefer to reduce inequality by rising people up by encouraging economic development, training skills, entrepreneurship, investing, personal finance, and etc. These items increase people's standard of living. knocking the wealth down dosn't help the poor buy better quality food or buy a nicer home. The top 1% doesn't bother me in the least. I don't believe that the economic pie if fixed. Jeff Bezo's wealth doesn't hurt me other other people in the least. In fact, 20% of my sales is through Amazon. Bezos is helping me distribute product to my customers.