The Supreme Court this week continued to disappoint congressional Democrats and activists with a long line of embarrassingly unanimous, nonideological rulings. After all, the court is supposedly (to use President Biden’s words) “out of whack” due to its irreconcilable ideological divisions. Indeed, the court is allegedly so dysfunctionally divided that many, including Democratic leaders, have called for sweeping changes — from packing the court with new justices to changing its voting rules or even creating an alternative court.
That is why these weeks have so frustrated those who insist the court is a hopeless case of rigid ideologues. While next week could well bring some welcomed ideological divisions, the court is not making it easy on its critics.
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer recently chafed at the claim that the court is “conservative” and condemned the calls to pack it with a liberal majority. A liberal group, “Demand Justice,” responded with billboard ads calling for Breyer’s resignation and warned him that he was risking his legacy. However, Breyer appears undeterred in ruling with his conservative colleagues when he considers that to be appropriate.
In the latest decision, Borden v. United States, the lineup of justices was strikingly nonideological. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for Justices Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, with a concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas — three liberal justices and two conservatives agreeing to limit the meaning of a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Last week, the decision in Van Buren v. United States was a majority of three liberals and three conservatives. In that case, the most senior justice was Breyer; he assigned it to his conservative colleague Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote for Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh. Although he was on the other side in Van Buren, Justice Thomas joined his liberal colleagues in Borden.
These decisions follow a litany of unanimous decisions from the court, which seems to be sending a message in the timing of the release of its opinions: The justices do not rule on cases to send messages to Congress, but they do control what cases are accepted and when those decisions are released. It is hard not to view the last few weeks as a type of judicial “harrumph” to the continuing calls for court packing. While we expect more ideological splits in a few upcoming cases, these cases reaffirm that they are not so rigid or “hopelessly divided” as Democratic leaders and other critics have suggested.
I don't support court packing. Here's a video of Turley speaking about this topic.
I don't believe it's the "far left" that's pushing this. I think you could put me on the far left and I'm not pushing this nonsense. It's a group of antsy Democrats who are pushing it and they're not far left. They're really not even left. They are just partisan. Loud. Ugly. That's what they are.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Monday, June 14, 2021. The October Revolution accomplished what few ever have and yet the media continues to undercut it -- even when supposedly praising it.
In October, Iraq is expected to hold parliamentary elections. October is also the month that, in 2019, the October Revolution took off. It is still active. Neslines Institute's COUNTOURS podcast recently addressed The October Revolution.
Nick Heras: What is the greatest impact that the movement is having on decision makers in Baghdad.it has had?
Jane Arraf: Thanks, Nick. I think, you know, that we have to remember that the greatest impact is that it's changed some f the decision makers because this is a movement that actually toppled a government. It achieved one of the main things that it wanted to. Now we can and will talk about how it's probably been downhill from there but there's a prime minister who came to power simply because protesters demanded the toppling of the previous prime minister and Shia religious figures concurred, they said they had lost trust in him. So that's the main part of it.
We'll stop her there.
It bears reminding that Jane was completely wrong about The October Movement in real time. Jane's been covering Iraq forever. Her 'scoops' have been miniscule. She has broken no real news ever. She started covering Iraq for CNN and when Saddam Hussein was in power and, as the then-head of CNN infamously revealed in his infamous column for THE NEW YORK TIMES (Eason Jordan's "The News We Kept To Ourselves"), CNN deliberately censored and watered down its coverage in order to remain in Iraq. It's the lesson she's taken with her, don't rock the boat. Don't cover anything a sitting government in Iraq doesn't want covered. It's why she's worked for so many outlets lately: She doesn't deliver.
She fails to be covering what's necessary, she uses her coverage to minimize what's going on.
That was especially clear on October 25, 2019. From that day's snapshot:
In this report (different from above), Jane insisted that the government was not firing on people. Really?
In addition, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports, "Iraqi police fired live shots into the air as well as rubber bullets and dozens of tear gas canisters on Friday to disperse thousands of protesters on the streets of Baghdad, sending young demonstrators running for cover and enveloping a main bridge in the capital with thick white smoke. One protester was killed and dozens were injured in the first hours of the protest, security officials said."
The first one killed is said to have been hit with a tear canister. The video above is supposed to be of that protester after he was hit.
In fairness to Jane, the use of "live shots" and "rubber bullets" may have taken place as more protesters assembled. Her reports were both filed (the two for NPR above) as the protesters began assembling. The bullets may have taken place after the assembling was complete and the protests were in full swing. Yesterday, Jane Tweeted:
At least two people have died as protests intensified in Iraq, with security forces using tear gas to repel demonstrators from approaching government buildings Friday, a member of the Independent High Commission for Human Rights of Iraq has told CNN. The official added that at least 95 other people were suffering from the effects of exposure to tear gas."
The protests have been down hill since then, Jane?
The protests have been strong and it takes a real western ass to argue otherwise. They turn out, they show up. This is despite a wave of assassinations targeting them. This despite a world press that largely ignores them. This despite their peaceful camps being burned to the ground. This despite the pandemic that's effected Iraq the same it has the rest of the world.
But Jane grades on a curve -- a curve that's always in favor of the sitting govenrment.
But even Jane has to admit tha they toppled a government. They did that but you really wouldn't grasp that if you followed the world press. It got very little attention.
They overhtrew the government and did so without resorting to bullets or bombs.
And that's huge.
Unless you are a western journalist.
How many millions and millions of dollars did the US government spend -- not their dollars, it was the taxpayers' money -- to overthrow Saddam Hussein? How many Iraqis and Americans had to die in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein?
But The October Revolution overthrew the prime minister of Iraq and did so without resorting to bombs or bullets.
Let's move over to another topic that we've been covering for months -- one also largely ignored by the western media.
Thousands of internally displaced people (IDPs) in Iraq are worried they will be forced to leave their camp in the northern Nineveh province, which hosts nearly 2,400 families, rights groups and refugees have told Al Jazeera.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis took shelter in refugee camps in Nineveh province, forced from their homes by the war against the ISIL (ISIS) armed group. ISIL was defeated in 2017 nearly three years after it took over large swaths of Iraq and neighbouring Syria.Most of the camps in the province have since been shut down but Jedaa Camp, about 65 kilometres (40 miles) south of Mosul city, still hosts refugees who are afraid to go back to their homes because of the security situation.
“Authorities are telling each family in the camp to leave. They’re pressuring us to fill security clearance and compensation papers that we would need after we leave the camp,” Wedad Ahmed, 53, told Al Jazeera from the Jedaa Camp.
“I have four children and my mother-in-law with me in the tent. My husband died in a mortar attack three years ago,” she said, adding that she has nowhere to go.
Activists and aid groups on the ground, who wished to remain anonymous, said on Monday that the Ministry of Displacement and Migration had instructed the camp mukhtars – men who often serve as heads of their communities – to inform all families from Tal Abta, al-Mahalabiya and al-Jaban districts to depart immediately.
The above? Real issues. Sadly, we have to talk now about a distraction, someone who lies and lies and covers for imperialism.
"F**ck, Aaron Mate!" snarls Ana Kasparian.
Someone should have put that cur on a leash long ago. I'm going to repeat, JACOBIN needs to remove her from their podcast. Yes, f-Aaron Mate is from a TYT 'performance.' But she's too hateful, she's too abrasive and she shouldn't be pat of JACOBIN. We haven't noted them once since her attack on Katie Halper and, as we noted then, she crossed a line. She carried out that attack on a JACOBIN platform and it didn't belong there. She is a cur. SHe really should be pulled from all media. But at the very least, JACOBIN should pull her from their site.
Mad Maddie's best friend should stick to Mad Maddie and she and Albright can give one another clitoral orgasms until the end of time while laughing about the dead Iraqis. But she doesn't need to be on JACOBIN. She cheapens JACOBIN and they don't need a podcast host who prevents them from gaining new listeners. They don't need it. They never need it?
Her praise for Madeline Albright, her scraping and bowing to a War Criminal should have had her pulled from JACOBIN all by itself.
She's trash. She's a liar who attacks. TYT is a joke. But let's watch JACOBIN ride down the toilet with her because they don't have the brains to protect their own brand.
JACOBIN, the world is watching you. There may be a few idiotic Americans stupid enough to tolerate your association with Ana. But the global world will not. She's too cozy to too many War Criminals, she's an apoligist and a liar for empire. And the world won't forget it. More to the point, these people will spend their lives educating even the most unaware American on reality. And when that happens, JACOBIN's attachment to their own personal Judy Miller will not be forgotten or forgiven. She's tanked your brand.
I made very clear that she did not belong at JACOBIN after her attack on Katie Halper and that I was done with JACOBIN while they were associated with her. As a result, I've heard from various left outfits and they may not have the guts to say so publicly but they're as appalled by JACOBIN's association with Ana as I am.
JACOBIN's destroying themselves. It's past time for them to cut Ana loose. It's not like she'll be unemployed. She'll stil have her TYT job. ANd I'm sure she'll continue to be paid to make nice and play footsie with War Criminals like Mad Maddie Albright.
The following sites updated: