Maddalena Savary’s Post

We're launching our 2024 election memo series, breaking down what we expect the impact of a second Trump or second Biden administration will be on civil rights and civil liberties, and how we're prepared to face them. No matter who is in the White House, we’re ready to use the full force of the ACLU to defend our most fundamental freedoms.

The Brookings Institute is one Democratic force that fights the Republican Fascist Heritage Foundation: “The Supreme court is losing the faith of the American people. Something must be done. Ours is an enterprise in which the rule of law, rather than the rule of the individual, plays a central part. Above all, the nation’s highest court is crucial for this. A variety of options to restore trust exist, and we review them now before turning to our preferred choice of term limits. The Supreme Court should be a body that is independent and insulated from partisanship. Instead, it has become a battleground for political infighting. There is strong appetite for change. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats, and 51 percent of Independents are in favor of setting a specific number of years that Supreme Court justices serve instead of life terms. we do not know what the situation will look like after November or in the years ahead. Given all the frustration and pressures that have built up in and around the Court, there may be a sufficient number of votes in Congress. It is important to start socializing the idea of reforms now—sometimes they are upon us quicker than we think.” Vote BLUE and change the Supreme Court.

To Save Conservatism From Itself, I Am Voting for Harris https://lnkd.in/gdGACxz7

The Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It has a lot of power and affects American politics in many ways. The Supreme Court is like a referee for the government. They make sure everyone follows the Constitution's rules, keep the different branches of government in check, and their big decisions can change the way things work in the US. Understanding the Supreme Court's role is paramount to comprehending the intricate web of American politics. The Supreme Court: Composition and Core Responsibilities The Supreme Court comprises nine justices: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. These esteemed jurists are nominated by the President and undergo a rigorous confirmation process by the Senate. Once appointed, they hold lifetime tenure, ensuring their independence from political pressures. The Supreme Court's core responsibilities can be distilled into three fundamental pillars: Constitutional Interpretation: The Court acts as the ultimate interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. It has the authority to determine whether laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the President align with the Constitution's principles. This power, known as judicial review, is a cornerstone of American government. Checks and Balances: The Supreme Court serves as a crucial check against the power of the other two branches of government. By reviewing the constitutionality of laws and actions, the Court prevents any one branch from accumulating excessive power and ensures a healthy balance within the system. Final Authority in Legal Disputes: The Supreme Court is the final boss of US courts. Their decisions are the law of the land for everyone else, setting the rules for how judges decide cases across the country. The Supreme Court's Impact on American Politics The Supreme Court's decisions have a profound and lasting impact on American politics and society. Here's a closer look at some key aspects of this influence: Landmark Rulings Throughout history, the Supreme Court has issued landmark rulings that have fundamentally reshaped American life. These cases have addressed critical issues such as: Civil Rights: The Court has played a pivotal role in dismantling racial segregation and expanding civil liberties for all Americans. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education \(1954\) ended segregation in public schools, while Loving v. Virginia \(1967\) legalized interracial marriage. Abortion: Roe v. Wade \(1973\) established a woman's constitutional right to abortion, sparking ongoing debates about reproductive rights. Campaign Finance: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission \(2010\) significantly impacted campaign finance regulations, influencing the flow of money in elections. The Powers of the Presidency: The Court has weighed in on the scope of presidential authority, with cases like United States v. Nixon \(1974\...

An Insttution In Decline And Disrepair by Ruth Marcus Was this the term that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. adopted an if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them posture with his fellow conservatives? It sure looks that way. Roberts began his tenure in 2005 with a vision of leading a court in which unanimous rulings, achieved through compromise and moderation, would supplant ideological division and undergird the stability of the law. The court would be understood as a body that transcended the partisan screeching endemic to other branches. Justices would suppress their inclinations to pen individual concurrences and dissents for the greater good of speaking for the court as an institution. This was made paradoxically more difficult by the amassing of a six-justice conservative supermajority. Roberts is willing to put ideology aside in the service of the greater good. The primary example of this was his 2012 vote, joining with the liberal justices, to save the Affordable Care Act. But with the arrival of three new conservatives, Roberts found himself in potential irrelevance. A chief justice's power lies mostly in the ability to assign opinion authorship when he is in the majority. Roberts, outflanked on the right, now has even less sway. The other conservatives could proceed without him. This possibility was made manifest in the 2022 abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, when Roberts could not secure any takers for his rather contrived compromise position, that the constitutional right to abortion would remain, but that the procedure could be prohibited after 15 weeks. As I wrote of Roberts in the aftermath of that decision: “He is a chief caught between conflicting imperatives. If he insists on hewing to the go-slow, decide-no-more-than-necessary approach that has been the hallmark of his tenure, he risks appearing weak — and losing what little ability he retains to influence and constrain the conservative majority. If he votes with that majority, as might be his underlying inclination in most cases, he risks contributing to what he has been laboring to prevent: the decline of the institution.” Nearly half of all cases, 46 percent, were decided unanimously this term, about the same as the previous year, and up dramatically from the 27 percent in the tumultuous 2021-2022 term that witnessed the abortion and gun-rights cases. In addition, even when the court split, the coalitions were often scrambled. As Adam Feldman of the website Empirical Scotus has reported, in situations where the court divided 6-3, only half (11 of 22) reflected a conservative-liberal split. By contrast, during the 2021 term, nearly three-fourths (14 of 19) of the 6-3 cases were along ideological lines. So, the court is polarized, to be sure, but not as badly this term as the year before. The question must be asked: What profits a chief to be in the majority if he presides over an institution in decline and disrepair? ©️Washington Post 2024

#StateCourtReport's best kept secret is our state case database - with hundreds of notable state constitutional decisions since 2021 (and often hard-to-access briefing). Check out this primer on how use it by @nwatzman @DouglasKeith_ https://lnkd.in/dcw9NXNf .

"Thanks to an historic filibuster, a convoluted and misleading bill that would make it more difficult for Missourians to pass an initiative petition that amends the state constitution failed to pass this year. Why should we care? For three major reasons. First, the motives for changing the current process to amend the state constitution. Second, the deceiving and misleading language that was included in the bill. Third, the long-term effects of what those proposed changes would mean to citizens of Missouri. So why include alarmist, false, fear-mongering rhetoric about things that are already illegal? To garner support for voters to pass an amendment to the constitution that is really not in their best interest. Passage of a bill that makes the petition initiative process more difficult for citizens would have long-term implications for a number of laws and policies that will dictate how we live and our quality of life in the future." --- https://lnkd.in/g8dGKJrg

Check out PRP's President, Jill Habig's and PRP's Chief Program Officer, Jon Miller's, latest op-ed in The Intercept discussing judicial gerrymandering. "If in the past legislative gerrymandering — or redrawing legislative districts in artificial ways — was used to entrench corporate and partisan power, we now see another branch of government being manipulated to rig the system toward the same aims: judicial gerrymandering." Read more on how the right is taking over state courts with judicial gerrymandering: https://lnkd.in/gDDfmHgS

💥 In less than five months, President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump will once again face off for the presidency – FREEDOM will be on the ballot this November. While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose candidates for elected office, we know that a potential second Trump administration and a potential second Biden administration will be drastically different when it comes to our civil rights and civil liberties. 👉 At the ACLU, we’re prepared for either scenario. Read our battle-ready playbook to defend our civil liberties and civil rights at https://lnkd.in/gQ5yNgH2