Confirm or Reject?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Legal Affairs is running an interesting debate between Mark Tushnet and Cass Sunstein on whether Senate Democrats should vote to confirm John Roberts. Both make good arguments, though Sunstein brings up the rather provocative point that if Democrats voted en masse against Roberts—who does not, from outward appearances, look overly radical—then it would just set a bad precedent that “contribute[d] to a political atmosphere in which justices identify with the ideological extremes of the country.” Perhaps, although all of these admonitions to preserve comity and bipartisanship in the Senate seem a bit quaint these days, don’t they?

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein offers the semi-optimistic view on Roberts: namely, he’s not offering up the code words many conservatives would presumably want, and a bunch of liberals (male liberals) seem to like him. Well, maybe. At any rate, the prediction that he’ll do a lot of very conservative things on the Court seems like a safe one, the question is whether he’ll do it in leaps and bounds or take his time. Either way, he’s a conservative. What matters from a Democratic point of view is not how they’ll stop him—they can’t and won’t, and killing his nomination wouldn’t lead to anyone “better” getting put up—but figuring out how they can start wining elections again in order to prevent more justices like Roberts from sitting on the courts.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend