An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism
Mark Tushnet

Aaron Belkin and I have written the following open letter to the Biden administration urging that it endorse and take steps to implement popular constitutionalism as a response to what the President has described as "not a normal" Supreme Court. We urge readers to let the administration know in their own ways that reinvigorating the long and honored tradition of popular constitutionalism is both viable and urgently needed in today's circumstances.


We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations.

We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.

The central tenet of the solution that we recommend—Popular Constitutionalism—is that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. In practice, a President who disagrees with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative interpretation. If voters disagree with the President’s interpretation, they can express their views at the ballot box. Popular Constitutionalism has a proud history in the United States, including Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to treat the Dred Scott decision as a political rule that would guide him as he exercised presidential powers.

We do not believe that President Biden should simply ignore every MAGA ruling. The President should act when MAGA justices issue high-stakes rulings that are based on gravely mistaken constitutional interpretations, and when presidential action predicated on his administration’s constitutional interpretations would substantially mitigate the damage posed by the ruling in question.

Such actions could help contain the grave threat posed by MAGA justices. For example, President Biden could declare that the Court's recent decision in the affirmative action cases applies only to selective institutions of higher education and that the Administration will continue to pursue affirmative action in every other context vigorously because it believes that the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong.

Each time the President takes such a step, he should explain how and why the MAGA ruling poses serious threats to our fundamental commitments, should identify the mistaken constitutional interpretations that sustain the ruling, and should underscore that Popular Constitutionalism has a proud history in the United States.

As Nikolas Bowie has demonstrated, treating the Supreme Court as the sole source of constitutional interpretations is antithetical to American democracy, as the Supreme Court has spent most of its history wielding “an antidemocratic influence on American law, one that has undermined federal attempts to eliminate hierarchies of race, wealth, and status.” In this particular historical moment, MAGA justices pose a grave threat to our most fundamental commitments because they rule consistently to undermine democracy and to curtail fundamental rights, and because many of their rulings are based on misleading and untrue claims. Notably, other healthy and robust democracies do not allow courts to play an exclusive role in constitutional interpretation but promote dialogues among the branches in which legislatures or chief executives respond to judicial interpretations by offering their own competing interpretations.

Popular Constitutionalism is not a silver bullet against MAGA justices. Its success requires support from members of Congress and the public generally. Nor is Popular Constitutionalism in the form of presidential action risk-free, as future GOP administrations would cite it as precedent for ignoring federal courts. Notably, though, Republican presidents might well ignore federal courts regardless of what President Biden does. The GOP’s failure to hold President Trump accountable for inciting a violent coup is perhaps the clearest of many indications that party leaders and followers are no longer committed to democracy or the rule of law. It is not hard to imagine that a President Trump or DeSantis would circumvent or ignore rulings issued by a liberal Supreme Court.

In light of Dobbs as well as ongoing revelations of judicial corruption, a solid majority of the public understands the danger posed by unchecked MAGA justices. Americans are more open than ever to the argument that MAGA justices serve plutocrats and corporations, that what they pretend to pass off as law is often just partisan and ideological nonsense, and that our system of checks and balances depends on other branches to rein them in.

The President has the power to clip MAGA justices’ wings now. To protect democracy and the rule of law, President Biden must prevent them from exercising exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. We urge the President to exercise leadership in this regard before it is too late.
 
 
The hubris is astounding...
Nah, it's just Leftists doing what Leftists do and how they think. These two Lefty clowns are simply documenting it. The American Lefty's have never been big fans of that whole constitution thing, that has allowed this country to create the highest standard of living in the history of mankind. Some Numbnut Ivy Leaguer coined the phrase Popular Constitutionalism years ago, which essentially means "If we don't get what we want we are gonna' whine and cry til we get it". Rule of Law and Constitution be Damned.
 
Nah, it's just Leftists doing what Leftists do and how they think. These two Lefty clowns are simply documenting it. The American Lefty's have never been big fans of that whole constitution thing, that has allowed this country to create the highest standard of living in the history of mankind. Some Numbnut Ivy Leaguer coined the phrase Popular Constitutionalism years ago, which essentially means "If we don't get what we want we are gonna' whine and cry til we get it". Rule of Law and Constitution be Damned.
So not allowing the appointment of Merrick Garland to the SC by Barrack Obama was an example of the GOP strictly following the Constitution? Lol. Refused to hold a hearing for nine months?! But, the Constitution does allow for the expansion of the SC. How about one additional judge for each judge who has been bought by a wealthy Republican donor? That seems fair. Maybe instead we just impeach Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes. Let Biden appoint replacements.
 
So not allowing the appointment of Merrick Garland to the SC by Barrack Obama was an example of the GOP strictly following the Constitution? Lol. Refused to hold a hearing for nine months?! But, the Constitution does allow for the expansion of the SC. How about one additional judge for each judge who has been bought by a wealthy Republican donor? That seems fair. Maybe instead we just impeach Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes. Let Biden appoint replacements.
Nah, we ain't gone full blown Banana Republic yet.....You Leftists sure love to impeach and indict. Any Politico with an opposing viewpoint must be impeached and or indicted.
 
Nah, it's just Leftists doing what Leftists do and how they think. These two Lefty clowns are simply documenting it. The American Lefty's have never been big fans of that whole constitution thing, that has allowed this country to create the highest standard of living in the history of mankind. Some Numbnut Ivy Leaguer coined the phrase Popular Constitutionalism years ago, which essentially means "If we don't get what we want we are gonna' whine and cry til we get it". Rule of Law and Constitution be Damned.
We are at war with academics.

Self-hamstrung barbarians mastered in battle by the twerps because we battle on their terms.
Ridiculous
 
So not allowing the appointment of Merrick Garland to the SC by Barrack Obama was an example of the GOP strictly following the Constitution? Lol. Refused to hold a hearing for nine months?! But, the Constitution does allow for the expansion of the SC. How about one additional judge for each judge who has been bought by a wealthy Republican donor? That seems fair. Maybe instead we just impeach Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes. Let Biden appoint replacements.
Merrick Garland has proven himself to be an extremist. That was the best non-appointment in history. The guy is a clown and should’ve been impeached months ago.
 
An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism
Mark Tushnet

Aaron Belkin and I have written the following open letter to the Biden administration urging that it endorse and take steps to implement popular constitutionalism as a response to what the President has described as "not a normal" Supreme Court. We urge readers to let the administration know in their own ways that reinvigorating the long and honored tradition of popular constitutionalism is both viable and urgently needed in today's circumstances.


We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations.

We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.

The central tenet of the solution that we recommend—Popular Constitutionalism—is that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. In practice, a President who disagrees with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative interpretation. If voters disagree with the President’s interpretation, they can express their views at the ballot box. Popular Constitutionalism has a proud history in the United States, including Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to treat the Dred Scott decision as a political rule that would guide him as he exercised presidential powers.

We do not believe that President Biden should simply ignore every MAGA ruling. The President should act when MAGA justices issue high-stakes rulings that are based on gravely mistaken constitutional interpretations, and when presidential action predicated on his administration’s constitutional interpretations would substantially mitigate the damage posed by the ruling in question.

Such actions could help contain the grave threat posed by MAGA justices. For example, President Biden could declare that the Court's recent decision in the affirmative action cases applies only to selective institutions of higher education and that the Administration will continue to pursue affirmative action in every other context vigorously because it believes that the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong.

Each time the President takes such a step, he should explain how and why the MAGA ruling poses serious threats to our fundamental commitments, should identify the mistaken constitutional interpretations that sustain the ruling, and should underscore that Popular Constitutionalism has a proud history in the United States.

As Nikolas Bowie has demonstrated, treating the Supreme Court as the sole source of constitutional interpretations is antithetical to American democracy, as the Supreme Court has spent most of its history wielding “an antidemocratic influence on American law, one that has undermined federal attempts to eliminate hierarchies of race, wealth, and status.” In this particular historical moment, MAGA justices pose a grave threat to our most fundamental commitments because they rule consistently to undermine democracy and to curtail fundamental rights, and because many of their rulings are based on misleading and untrue claims. Notably, other healthy and robust democracies do not allow courts to play an exclusive role in constitutional interpretation but promote dialogues among the branches in which legislatures or chief executives respond to judicial interpretations by offering their own competing interpretations.

Popular Constitutionalism is not a silver bullet against MAGA justices. Its success requires support from members of Congress and the public generally. Nor is Popular Constitutionalism in the form of presidential action risk-free, as future GOP administrations would cite it as precedent for ignoring federal courts. Notably, though, Republican presidents might well ignore federal courts regardless of what President Biden does. The GOP’s failure to hold President Trump accountable for inciting a violent coup is perhaps the clearest of many indications that party leaders and followers are no longer committed to democracy or the rule of law. It is not hard to imagine that a President Trump or DeSantis would circumvent or ignore rulings issued by a liberal Supreme Court.

In light of Dobbs as well as ongoing revelations of judicial corruption, a solid majority of the public understands the danger posed by unchecked MAGA justices. Americans are more open than ever to the argument that MAGA justices serve plutocrats and corporations, that what they pretend to pass off as law is often just partisan and ideological nonsense, and that our system of checks and balances depends on other branches to rein them in.

The President has the power to clip MAGA justices’ wings now. To protect democracy and the rule of law, President Biden must prevent them from exercising exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. We urge the President to exercise leadership in this regard before it is too late.
1st) cult.
2nd) to protect democracy and the rule of law we must ignore the court and become a dictatorship.
3rd) Trump is a dictator
 
We can't get what we want legislatively and can no longer back door policy through the court so we should just ignore it and do whatever the hell we want anyway.

They talk of expanding the court, heck just do away with it if you are going to ignore it anyway. Imagine how much we'd save if we eliminated the federal court system.

I think I'm going to write an open letter about it.
 
They mention Dobbs as a decision that's a threat to democracy. The Dobbs decision was rooted in democracy. Allow the voters and their duly elected state legislators to decide the question of abortion rather than legislated from the bench as Roe v Wade was originally.
 
TDS takes down another moonbat.

 
1st) cult.
2nd) to protect democracy and the rule of law we must ignore the court and become a dictatorship.
3rd) Trump is a dictator
Them Leftists in academia with their big ole brains and their pretzel logic are a bigger pain in the arse than their Leftist foot soldiers. Unfortunately for them their bizarre views of pretty much everything can not stand up to debate, which is why absolutely no opposing opinions are allowed to be voiced on any college campus. Original thought, and diverse opinions within the academic community has been replaced by Orwellian group think and an echo chamber......They are of little consequence.
 
They mention Dobbs as a decision that's a threat to democracy. The Dobbs decision was rooted in democracy. Allow the voters and their duly elected state legislators to decide the question of abortion rather than legislated from the bench as Roe v Wade was originally.
It was a States Rights issue in 1972, it's a States Rights issue today. Even Ruth Bader Numbnuts said " I don't know how they found Roe v. Wade constitutional". The Leftists understood that they could never get their anti-American agenda implemented legislatively, so they focused their efforts on legislating from the bench. They focused on getting Leftists installed throughout the federal courts. Obama used the same game plan when he packed the DOJ and FBI with an army of like minded Leftist bureaucrats to do his bidding long after he was gone.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2h
It’s no surprise that a guy who thinks a man is a woman when he slices it off also has a twisted view of the Constitution.
 
Merrick Garland has proven himself to be an extremist. That was the best non-appointment in history. The guy is a clown and should’ve been impeached months ago.
This just show the hypocrisy … this not about who or who was not appointed … it is about the process … you guys couldn’t care less about how things are done if it benefits your side … but you whine and complain about the process when the other side doesn’t follow procedure … but not word when your side does the same … there should be a set way to do things … which is the same no matter who is in charge at the time IMO
 
This just show the hypocrisy … this not about who or who was not appointed … it is about the process … you guys couldn’t care less about how things are done if it benefits your side … but you whine and complain about the process when the other side doesn’t follow procedure … but not word when your side does the same … there should be a set way to do things … which is the same no matter who is in charge at the time IMO
BS

Garland was marketed as a reasonable moderate to be elevated to SCOTUS by a lying, lame duck POTUS lacking the Senatorial capital, and in this job he's obviously willing to wipe his butt with the Constitution in petty partisanship.

He lifts up the blind-fold and looks at the man before he sifts though law in a BS interpretation for one "reverse-engineering" lawfare adventure after another. You are completely full of crap with this reach, joe, and you have no logical, legitimate basis for your comments.
 
Everyone is good with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh straight up lying in their confirmation hearings? That's acceptable for the Supreme Court of the United States?

Gotta go with Joesports and really call out the process. For Conservatives the ends justify the means.
 
So not allowing the appointment of Merrick Garland to the SC by Barrack Obama was an example of the GOP strictly following the Constitution? Lol. Refused to hold a hearing for nine months?! But, the Constitution does allow for the expansion of the SC. How about one additional judge for each judge who has been bought by a wealthy Republican donor? That seems fair. Maybe instead we just impeach Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes. Let Biden appoint replacements.
No one of consequence cares what you think.
 
So not allowing the appointment of Merrick Garland to the SC by Barrack Obama was an example of the GOP strictly following the Constitution? Lol. Refused to hold a hearing for nine months?! But, the Constitution does allow for the expansion of the SC. How about one additional judge for each judge who has been bought by a wealthy Republican donor? That seems fair. Maybe instead we just impeach Alito and Thomas for accepting bribes. Let Biden appoint replacements.
Thank God he wasn't approved. What an abortion that would have become. I was under the impression that a supreme court judge had to know something about the law.
 
Is “Popular Constitutionalism” the same as a “Popular Bible”?
You know, the people who can’t live by the Good Book change its meanings to fit their lifestyle.
 
Everyone is good with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh straight up lying in their confirmation hearings? That's acceptable for the Supreme Court of the United States?

Gotta go with Joesports and really call out the process. For Conservatives the ends justify the means.
I am not a biologist, but I would enjoy reading actual evidence of these lies you cite, because I say that the only liar is you.
 
Merrick Garland has proven himself to be an extremist. That was the best non-appointment in history. The guy is a clown and should’ve been impeached months ago.
You couldn’t have chosen a more compromising, non conflict leader for the DOJ. Hell, he didn’t even investigate Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government until he was forced to. About as non confrontational as you could have.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: y2h
You couldn’t have chosen a more compromising, non conflict leader for the DOJ. Hell, he didn’t even investigate Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government until he was forced to. About as non confrontational as you old have.
If you honestly don’t see that this is timed for the’24 election, Garland’s character assassination of Trump, you are even more stupid than I imagined. You’re trolling, right ? You really aren’t that stupid, are you ?
 
I am not a biologist, but I would enjoy reading actual evidence of these lies you cite, because I say that the only liar is you.
Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Gorsuch: Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and the book explains that.

Durbin: Do you accept that?

Gorsuch: That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.

Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case.

Kavanaugh: Well, as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade. So Roe v. Wade held, of course, and it reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability, subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

And one of the reasons for that holding, as explained by the court in Roe, and also in Planned Parenthood v. Casey more fully, is along the lines of what you said, Sen. Feinstein, about the quote from Justice O’Connor. So that is one of the rationales that undergirds Roe v. Wade. It is one of the rationales that undergirds Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
 
Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg
 
Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Gorsuch: Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and the book explains that.

Durbin: Do you accept that?

Gorsuch: That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.

Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case.

Kavanaugh: Well, as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade. So Roe v. Wade held, of course, and it reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability, subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

And one of the reasons for that holding, as explained by the court in Roe, and also in Planned Parenthood v. Casey more fully, is along the lines of what you said, Sen. Feinstein, about the quote from Justice O’Connor. So that is one of the rationales that undergirds Roe v. Wade. It is one of the rationales that undergirds Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
During the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define what a “woman” is, deferring instead to scientific experts.

When asked to define “woman” by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, she replied, “I can’t…I’m not a biologist.” Blackburn shot back, “The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?”

“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide,” Jackson added, reiterating the methodical judicial approach she has historically applied.
 
Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Gorsuch: Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and the book explains that.

Durbin: Do you accept that?

Gorsuch: That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.

Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case.

Kavanaugh: Well, as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade. So Roe v. Wade held, of course, and it reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability, subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

And one of the reasons for that holding, as explained by the court in Roe, and also in Planned Parenthood v. Casey more fully, is along the lines of what you said, Sen. Feinstein, about the quote from Justice O’Connor. So that is one of the rationales that undergirds Roe v. Wade. It is one of the rationales that undergirds Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Those are nice conversations.

You seem disappointed.
 
Top