Tag: SCOTUS

Another Win For Big Money?

SCOTUS years ago gave a big win to corporate bribery by ruling on Citizen United….(if cannot remember that far back then try Google)….

SCOTUS is hearing arguments on another challenge but I think the outcome, to be announced next year, is already a sure thing.

The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive, backed by President Trump’s administration, to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president. The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place, per the AP. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001. But since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, a conservative majority has upended a variety of congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.

Without the limits on party spending, large donors would be able to skirt caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate, supporters of the law say. The case will be argued in the fall. Richard Hasen. an election law expert at the UCLA’s law school, has predicted the court will strike down the limits. “That may even make sense now in light of the prevalence of super PAC spending that has undermined political parties and done nothing to limit (and in fact increased) corruption and inequality,” Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog.

The Justice Department almost always defends federal laws when they are challenged in court. But the Trump administration notified the court that “this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach” because it believes the law violates free-speech protections in the First Amendment. The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by two Ohio Republicans in Congress, then-Sen. JD Vance, who’s now vice president, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot. In 2025, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranges from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.

Are you confused yet?

Maybe this will help out if understanding is what you are looking for….

The Supreme Court is taking up another Republican legal case seeking to erode campaign finance law and give more power to the wealthy donors seeking to influence elections.

On Monday, the court agreed to hear a challenge to campaign finance restrictions w limit the ability of party committees to directly coordinate spending with individual candidates. The anti-corruption group Public Citizen argues that this provision was put in place to “guard against the corrupting effect of large campaign contributions.”  (I would say that it failed in that aspect)

The challenge was brought by the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees, as well as the 2022 campaigns of two Ohio Republican congressmen: former Sen. JD Vance, who has since become vice president, and former Rep. Steve Chabot, who lost his re-election bid in 2022.

The case seeks to overturn rules implemented in the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, which put strict limits on the ability of party committees to spend money in coordination with specific candidates. The Democratic National Committee will defend the rule before the court after filing a motion to intervene.

The rules were put in place, in part, to stop wealthy donors from using parties to get around rules about coordinating individual spending with candidates.

Read on….

https://www.commondreams.org/news/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-gop-effort-to-further-gut-campaign-finance-law

Next year will will know what the Robert’s Court has to say about this…..personally I think believe it is a done deal and the bribery will be complete.

This Court will go down in history as the worse court ever and has done more to crap on the rights of the citizens and allowed bribery at the highest level….

Any thoughts on this POS?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS: Political Hacks

This past session of the all powerful SCOTUS I believe that they have proved my point that they are nothing but political hacks.

But the one ruling that meant the most was their neutering the lower courts….

President Trump quickly celebrated Friday’s ruling by the Supreme Court that drastically limits the power of federal judges to impose national injunctions on his policies. The case in question involved his executive order to undo birthright citizenship—the idea that anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen—but Trump suggested at a news conference that he would press his advantage on a range of issues:

  • He mentioned funding for sanctuary cities, bans on the use of federal money for transgender surgeries, and the suspension of refugee settlement programs, reports the Washington Post. “We have so many of them,” Trump said. “I have a whole list.”
  • Trump said he would “promptly file” to advance other issues that have been blocked in similar fashion, per the AP.
  • To be clear, the court didn’t rule directly on Trump’s plan to undo birthright citizenship, but it found that federal judges who imposed nationwide bans on the policies in the interim went too far. Such bans should only apply to their jurisdictions, the court ruled. The upshot is that Trump “opponents will have to jump through additional hoops to try to shut down policies on a nationwide basis,” per CNN.
  • Trump called the ruling “giant,” adding, “Our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today,” per the New York Times. He lavished particular praise on Justice Amy Coney Barrett, author of the majority opinion. “I just have great respect for her,” he said when asked about criticism of her by some of his supporters. “I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today—from all accounts.”
  • Attorney General Pam Bondi also praised the court for ruling against what she called “lawless injunctions” imposed by federal judges: “They turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.” Bondi also expressed confidence the court would eventually rule in favor of ending birthright citizenship as well, probably in October.

The criminals on the Court are assisting in the destruction of the whole checks and balances thing that has proved needed for this country to progress.

The Roberts court has driven one of the last nails in the coffin that use to be a thriving republic…..to them it appears that the Constitution means nothing….only political ideology.

…

John Roberts has spent his fundamentally hypocritical career bleating to the press about how much he values the Court’s reputation and seeks to protect it, all while making shambolically corrupt rulings proving it to be a legally and morally illegitimate institution. He was advertised to us by the Very Serious people during the Bush Administration as a Very Serious man we should be excited about who won’t let the Court go off the rails, then Roberts let some of the most corrupt people to ever exist in Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas serve as his North Stars. Roberts’ entire legal doctrine is “whatever daddy Trump wants,” proving him to be more unserious than Trump in many ways, as there is at least a cynical honesty to Trump’s politics that Roberts is too much of a duplicitous coward to admit to.

But perhaps now he is admitting to his and the conservatives’ staggeringly cynical worldview that the Constitution enshrined Trump’s id above the Bill of Rights. From the moment Roberts gave Trump immunity, it has become clearer and clearer with each ruling that the Roberts Court does not seek to rein Trump in, but to torch the Constitution and replace it with Trump as King. The Roberts Court’s entire theory of jurisprudence is antithetical to the intellectual Constitutional framework that at least attempts to provide a legal foundation for its depraved views on the worth of Black people. The Roberts Court is just naked authoritarianism that even doesn’t pretend to be anything else. These six hacks are out here contradicting themselves from a year ago, plainly showing the entire world what kind of people they are and what they truly value and how little the law actually means to them.

Trump has completely usurped Congress’s power (which the Republicans were happy to abdicate, because the lone commonality among the GOP is abandoning all your principles and personal ambitions to get in line to lick dear leader’s boot), and the Roberts Court is now helping him do it to the judiciary. It’s clear as day that if Trump asks Roberts to start repealing Amendments, Roberts simply would ask how many his master would like.

https://www.splinter.com/republicans-have-turned-the-supreme-court-into-an-illegitimate-institution

The elimination of any opposition the court has given Donny the power to do as he wants and the country can go get screwed.

“I agree, Judge Sotomayor, no right is safe under the new regime, not even the ones clearly guaranteed under our Constitution.”

I am so proud what the voters have done to this country (sarcasm in case you missed it)

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Butt Licker To The Rescue

Just days ago the US Court of International Trade put a whammy on Donny’s dreams of harsh tariffs on the world…..and yesterday a Trumpite came to the rescue.

President Trump’s tariffs were reinstated by a federal appeals court ruling on Thursday. The court’s ruling came after a second federal court found that an emergency powers law does not give Trump authority to enact tariffs, and that most of the ones he’s already ordered after invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are unlawful.

  • US District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that the law does not permit the president to “unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy,” the Hill reports. The US Court of International Trade reached the same conclusion on Wednesday.
  • The appeals court didn’t rule on the merits of the tariffs or the trade court’s ruling, but granted an emergency request to hold up the ruling, allowing Trump to keep collecting the tariffs while the issue is being decided in the courts, per the AP.
  • The Justice Department asked two sets of judges to let the Trump administration proceed with its tariffs, per the New York Times. If need be, administration officials had said they’d ask the Supreme Court on Friday for emergency relief, per the Washington Post.
  • After the 33-page ruling by Contreras, who was appointed by Barack Obama, for the DC District Court, the government filed another appeal. His ruling gave the government 14 days to appeal before it took effect, meaning the tariffs are still in place for now.
  • White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that there are “other legal authorities” Trump could use to impose tariffs, per the Guardian, and that he “is willing to use those.” She criticized what she called “a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process.”
  • The Guardian notes that only three of the 11 judges who granted the stay were appointed by Republican presidents. After the ruling, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro blasted the 12 states that sued as elitist Democratic coastal states, though Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota aren’t on either coast and the first two voted for Trump last year.

A loyal visitor to IST asked if this could be settled by the Supreme Court…..and I answered that I did not know for sure….and now the answer is yes if could be settled by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has been in Trump’s corner for many of its rulings….so the pathetic tariff question will be answered by a pack of political hacks.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS, The New Term

It is that time again when the political hacks we call the Supreme Court get together and do whatever it is they do…..

The Supreme Court starts a new nine-month term on Monday, and the first major case will come Tuesday, when the court hears arguments in a case involving “ghost guns”—untraceable firearms assembled from kits, often with very little effort involved, Reuters reports. In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Biden administration is appealing a lower court’s decision to strike down a rule that defined certain gun parts as firearms, meaning serial numbers and background checks would be required. Other big cases:

  • A death row inmate in Oklahoma. On Wednesday next week, the court will hear arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, which “presents the odd question of whether the state of Oklahoma must execute a man that it very much does not want to kill,” Vox reports. The state’s attorney general believes Glossip was wrongly convicted of murder, but Oklahoma courts have refused to grant Glossip a new trial
  • Transgender rights. US v. Skrmetti will probably be the most closely watched case of the term, CBS News reports. The Justice Department and three transgender teens are challenging Tennessee’s strict ban on gender-affirming care, including hormones and puberty blockers, for people under 18 with gender dysphoria. They argue that the ban, one of dozens in GOP-led states, violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. Arguments in the case have not been scheduled yet.
  • Porn websites. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring people who visit porn websites to submit personal information for age verification, Time reports. Opponents of the law argue that it fails to account for privacy concerns and restricts adult access to constitutionally protected material. Seven states have similar laws.
  • Flavored vapes. FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments will look at the FDA’s policy of refusing to approve flavored vapes, on the grounds that they have a “serious, well-documented risk” of getting underage users hooked.
  • Nuclear waste. The court agreed to step into a fight over plans to store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico. The justices said they will review a ruling by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals that found that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exceeded its authority under federal law in granting a license to a private company to store spent nuclear fuel at a dump in West Texas for 40 years, the AP reports. The outcome of the case will affect plans for a similar facility in New Mexico. Political leaders in both states oppose the facilities.
  • Reverse discrimination. The court is also taking up the case of an Ohio woman who claims she suffered sex discrimination in her employment because she is straight. The justices agreed to review an appellate ruling that upheld the dismissal of the discrimination lawsuit filed by the woman, Marlean Ames, against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, the AP reports. Ames, who has worked for the department for 20 years, contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.

How will the Roberts court go?  Will it put politics aside for a change?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Impeach The Bastards!

There has been a lot of lip service to how bad our cracker jack Supreme Court is and now someone has stepped up to try and repair at least some of the damage it has done to our society.

That someone would be AOC….

As promised, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced articles of impeachment in the House against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The New York Democrat cited their failure to disclose gifts from people with matters before the court and their refusal to recuse themselves from cases “in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated,” CNN reports. Although impeachment has little chance of going anywhere in the House, given that it’s controlled by Republicans, Ocasio-Cortez called the justices’ behavior a constitutional crisis that requires action. “Congress has a legal, moral, and democratic obligation to impeach,” she said in a statement.

The accusations against Thomas include his lack of recusal from Jan. 6 cases despite the involvement of his wife, Ginni Thomas, in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Ginni Thomas has falsely claimed the election was stolen, per USA Today, including to the House committee that investigated the attack on the Capitol. The gifts that went unreported include luxury travel. “Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Several Democratic colleagues cosponsored the articles, which CBS News reports are a part of the party’s preelection moves against the court in light of its recent rulings on abortion access, guns, and presidential immunity. A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately comment on the filing.

Before you go off on some diatribe….I realize this has little chance of success but at least someone has the cajones to make a move….for that I salute her.

That was from the House and the Senate has acting on these two slugs as well….

After a slew of jarring stories tying Clarence Thomas to multiple undisclosed gifts, loans, and other perks from ultra-wealthy friends, two Democratic senators are now trying to get to the bottom of it. The Hill reports that Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Ron Wyden of Oregon have requested that Attorney General Merrick Garland appoint a special counsel to investigate the Thomas allegations, specifically on ethics and tax law fronts. “The breadth of the omissions uncovered to date, and the serious possibility of additional tax fraud and false statement violations by Justice Thomas and his associates, warrant the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate this misconduct,” the two senators note in their letter to Garland dated July 3.

Whitehouse and Wyden add that “the scale of the potential ethics violations by Justice Thomas, and the willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws, exceeds the conduct of other government officials investigated by the Department of Justice for similar violations.” The senators note that Thomas has been given the opportunity to answer questions about what happened, and that he maintained a “suspicious silence” or provided otherwise “uninformative” answers. Whitehouse and Wyden add that although Thomas “has claimed that some omissions were ‘inadvertent,’ and he has amended some past reports accordingly … [he] has not disclosed all of the gifts that have been uncovered, and there may well be more.”

“No government official should be above the law,” the senators conclude. “Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code.” The New York Times notes that their request comes as Senate Democrats “are trying to force Supreme Court justices to comply with stricter ethics and financial disclosure rules.” Last year, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said changes that would boost public confidence in the high court were on the way, though Chief Justice John Roberts hasn’t exactly seemed to want to discuss that.

Again these efforts will go unfulfilled for we know what cowards there are in our do-nothing Congress.

I salute anyone who has the gravitas to seek justice for the crimes committed by political hacks……where it will it go from here?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Out Of Control

In the last days of June SCOTUS has made several rulings along with other for the past few years that point to it being out of contro0l and partisan when it should be the neutral referee….

Bernie has called for it to be stopped before it does even more harm to our nation…that is if it is not already too late…..

In the aftermath of the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court’s potentially deadly rampage against federal regulators, its ruling in support of the criminalization of homelessness, and its decision to grant former President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, Sen. Bernie Sanders said late Monday that nation’s highest judicial body is “out of control” and must be reined in before it can inflict even more damage.

“Over the years, among other disastrous rulings, this right-wing court has given us Citizens United, which created a corrupt, billionaire-dominated political system,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. “It overturned Roe v. Wade, removing women’s constitutional right to control their own bodies. Last week, the court chose to criminalize poverty by banning homeless encampments in public spaces—forcing more poor people into the cycle of debt and poverty.”

“With the Chevron case,” the senator continued, “they have made it far more difficult for the government to address the enormous crises we face in terms of climate change, public health, workers’ rights, and many other areas. And, today, the court ruled in favor of broad presidential immunity, making it easier for Trump and other politicians to break the law without accountability.”

Such far-reaching and devastating decisions, Sanders argued, highlight the extent to which unelected Supreme Court justices—with the backing of right-wing billionaires and corporations bent on sweeping away all regulatory constraints—have arrogated policymaking authority to themselves with disastrous consequences for U.S. society and the world.

“If these conservative justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office,” said Sanders. “At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform. A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We’ll need much more than that.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/bernie-sanders-supreme-court

SCOTUS has given corporations personhood, taken away the freedom of choice, tied regulators hands in holding corporations accountable for shoddy practices, and went on to making a king for this country….

While I agree that it, SCOTUS, must be stopped from destroying the very fabric of our nation I also recognize that an impartial referee is desperately needed….party politics should have NO bearing on who serves on the court.

So I agree with Bernie these d/bags need to be stopped in whatever way possible.

I cannot think of much more to say about SCOTUS….I have said it all.

Since tomorrow is a holiday there will not be many visitors to IST so let me wish all those people to have a safe and fun day/weekend.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Couple Of Takes On Immunity Thing

Now that it is official on the Trump immunity thing there are a couple of takes (not mine but others….given as a info service)….

The Supreme Court’s blockbuster ruling that presidents have immunity for “official” actions continues to resonate, with all kinds of analysis on what it does and doesn’t mean.

  • Carte blanche: In the view of Elie Mystal at the Nation, the ruling means that a sitting president can go on a crime spree that includes everything from rape to murder without being held accountable. Court defenders will say that’s not the case, because presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial” acts, he predicts. “But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says ‘unofficial’ acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting ‘unofficially.'” Read his full essay, headlined “The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially.”
  • In defense: Fox legal analyst Jonathan Turley defends the decision in the New York Post and accuses liberals and Democrats of “hyperventilation” in their reaction. “The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct,” he writes. And that’s what happened here: Scholars “have long disagreed where to draw the line on presidential immunity. The court adopted a middle approach that rejected extreme arguments on both sides.” Read his full column.
  • ‘Whims of a king’: The court’s ruling essentially says that Trump is “entitled to immunity from prosecution for crimes he has already committed, and for the ones he intends to commit in the future,” writes Adam Serwer at the Atlantic. “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to create a government that was not bound to the whims of a king,” he adds. But the court’s “self-styled ‘originalists’ … have chosen to put a crown within Trump’s reach, in the hopes that he will grasp it in November.” Read the full piece.
  • The trend: Whatever one’s view of the decision, it illustrates a clear trend in America, writes Charlie Savage in the New York Times: It”adds to the nearly relentless rise of presidential power since the mid-20th century.” His piece explores this, including the differing views on whether the ruling risks putting the president above the law as expressed by Chief Justice John Roberts (it “does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives”) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (“in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law”). Read the full analysis.

Assassination?  Now there is one I have not heard of and believe me I have heard all the dire predictions and conspiracies that awaits us if/when Trump wins the election.

This political charged ruling is a bad idea….period!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

SCOTUS Does It Again!

It is not bad enough that these political hacks are swimming in special interest money they also crap on the Constitution whenever GOP policies are involved.

The nightmare from K Street has happened….Trump gets immunity….

The Supreme Court delivered its historic ruling on presidential immunity Monday—and it was welcomed by Donald Trump, who is now immune from prosecution for “official acts” during his presidency. “Big win for our constitution and democracy,” he wrote in an all-caps post on Truth Social. “Proud to be an American!” Other Republicans also praised the 6-3 ruling, while leading Democrats shared the dismay of the dissenting liberal justices.

  • Dissents: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. She said the ruling sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends,” NBC News reports. “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” she wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground,” creating immunity “applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government.”
  • House leaders: House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the ruling as a “victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith,” the Guardian reports. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic minority leader, released what he called a statement “in connection with the Supreme Court decision to bend the knee to the Insurrectionist-in-Chief.” He warned that the ruling “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation.”
  • A ‘dramatic expansion of presidential power’: “As Justice Sotomayor’s appalled dissent makes clear, this ruling is a dramatic expansion of presidential power—not just for Trump but for all presidents,” Charlie Savage writes at the New York Times. “She cites the notorious World War II ruling that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast.”
  • A ‘license for authoritarianism’: Sen. Richard Blumenthal was among many Democratic lawmakers to condemn the decision—and members of the court—in strong terms. In posts on X, he called the ruling a “license for authoritarianism.” Members of the court’s conservative majority, he wrote, “will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks—politicians in robes,” he wrote.
  • Ruling rebukes ‘attempts to weaponize our legal system’ against Trump: Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee praised the ruling, Politico reports. Its chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, said the committee will “continue to oversee dangerous lawfare tactics in our judicial system.” Another member, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, said the ruling “rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump.”
  • ‘Absurd and dangerous’: Eric Holder, the attorney general in Barack Obama’s administration, slammed the “absurd and dangerous” ruling in a post on X. He wrote: “The Trump immunity decision says: a president CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW if he acts within his broadly defined “constitutional authority.”
  • Decision will be seen in context of Trump’s connections: “No case to date has put Trump’s personal interests so directly in the hands of the justices he appointed—and from whom he has expected a sympathetic hearing,” Jess Bravin writes at the Wall Street Journal, noting that two other members of the court, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, “have familial ties to Trump’s cause.” “However ironclad the legal rationales behind their votes, the justices’ actions cannot avoid being viewed in the context of such connections,” Bravin writes.

Weaponized DoJ?

If Trump wins the election then you have not seen anything yet.

This whole fiasco proves just how corrupt the political hacks are , those people we trust to stand by the Constitution….they not only do not stand by the Constitution they crap on it yearly.

I am behind AOC 100%…..

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday said she will file unspecified articles of impeachment U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to “absolute immunity” for “official acts” performed while he was in office, a decision that prompted dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to declare her “fear for our democracy.”

Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on social media that “the Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.”

“Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture,” she added. “I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/supreme-court-justice-impeachment

This may go nowhere in a GOP controlled House but at least someone is standing up to the fat cat slugs on the Court.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Resign Now!

This is for that political hack that hides behind legal garments….Clarence Thomas.

We know of this past gifts and bribes but apparently that was only the tip of the iceberg….

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took three trips on private jets bankrolled by Harlan Crow that were not disclosed, according to information released Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The information was contained in documents the billionaire Republican donor had turned over to the committee under subpoena over seven years, the Hill reports. Chairman Dick Durbin, a Democrat, said the committee is still investigating. The latest finding, he said, “makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment.”

Elliot Berke, an attorney for Thomas, said the three trips came under the “hospitality exemption,” meaning disclosure wasn’t required. The exemption applies as long as the hospitality is extended by “friends who did not have business before the court,” Berke told CNN. The free travel, all on private jets, per the Washington Post:

  • St. Louis to Kalispell, Montana, and a return flight to Dallas in May 2017.
  • Washington, DC, to Savannah, Georgia, and back in March 2019.
  • Washington, DC, to San Jose and back in June 2021.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill to require Supreme Court justices to adopt a binding code of conduct, per NBC News

Oh there is so much more to this crook……and the gifts that pay…..

New details of Thomas’ luxury travel emerged from negotiations between the Senate committee—which authorized a subpoena for Crow last year—and the billionaire’s attorneys.

Documents the committee obtained from Crow “revealed travel and gifts that Justice Thomas has failed to disclose to date,” including a May 2017 private jet trip from St. Louis to Kalispell, Montana and a return flight to Dallas; a March 2019 private jet trip from Washington, D.C. to Savannah, Georgia and back; and a June 2021 private jet trip from Washington, D.C. to San Jose, California and back.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that “nearly $4.2 million in gifts and even that wasn’t enough for Justice Thomas, with at least three additional trips the committee found that he has failed to disclose to date.”

“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information—like what we’ve revealed today—and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” said Durbin. “As a result of our investigation and subpoena authorization, we are providing the American public greater clarity on the extent of ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices and the need for ethics reform.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/clarence-thomas-resignation

There so many rotten apples in the SCOTUS basket that it will take a major effort to clean the garbage out.

It is time for Thomas and Alito to resign and make way for some fresh blood….no telling what we would get but anything is better than these two corrupt d/bags.

Alito?

In case you were jerking off and missed the story…..

The fallout continues for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over the flying of a symbolic upside-down flag outside his house, a debate possibly complicated by a report of another flag carried by Jan. 6 rioters having been displayed at Alito’s beach house. More:

  • Censure: House Democrat Steve Cohen of Tennessee introduced a motion on Tuesday to censure Alito “for knowingly violating the federal recusal statute and binding ethics standards and calling the impartiality of the Supreme Court of the United States into question,” per the Hill.
  • The symbol: The upside-down flag is widely associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement asserting election fraud on behalf of Donald Trump. Alito says it was his wife, not him, who put the flag up in January 2021, as part of a dispute with a neighbor over political yard signs.
  • From GOP: CNN collects quotes from key Republican senators critical of Alito over the controversy. “Bad decision,” said John Thune. “I don’t know how you explain that.” Lindsey Graham told the outlet “it creates a bad image” and “was a mistake.” However, neither called for Alito to recuse himself from Trump- or election-related cases. Mitt Romey said the flag was “unfortunate and we ought to take a look at it,” but another GOP senator, John Cornyn, said “there are more important things to worry about.” Cornyn is in the mix to be the new GOP Senate leader.
  • Democrats: About 50 House Democrats, meanwhile, called on Alito to recuse himself from two upcoming rulings, one on Trump’s immunity from prosecution and the other on Capitol rioters. “Reasonable people will doubt that you can be impartial in deciding whether Mr. Trump should face criminal prosecution for his actions arising from the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter, per the Washington Post. “This indisputable appearance of a conflict of interest requires that you recuse yourself.”
  • Symbol No. 2: Another flag carried to the Capitol by rioters was spotted at Alito’s vacation house in New Jersey last summer, reports the New York Times, which has photos. The “Appeal to Heaven” flag is a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement as well as a plea to make the nation more Christian. It’s also called the Pine Tree flag. Ethics experts again were troubled by a justice taking a public political stance, with one calling it deeply disturbing “when a judge celebrates his predispositions by hoisting them on a flag.” The flag at Alito’s beach house shows up on Google street view.

In case you are not sure4 the judges are suppose to be impartial and these asses fly in the face of justice.

Time for both Alito and Thomas to pack their bags and get the f*ck out of DC…..could we bring back tar and feather as a punishment?

The atmosphere in DC will prevent any change or reform from making the cut….does that not say something about the GOP that fights to keep these slugs on the court

Enough is enough!

Resign Now!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Takes On Trumpism

Does the president have absolute immunity?

That is the question before the US Supreme Court.

The day had many twists and turns….

The “case is submitted.” With those words, Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped up Thursday’s historic testimony about absolute presidential immunity—and whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for actions taken while he was in office, reports CNN. The gist of early coverage is that Trump will be pleased with the eventual outcome, even though he may lose the main thrust of the case. Details:

  • A Trump loss: At least five of the justices seemed likely to reject Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, reports the AP. (Especially given extreme hypotheticals such as having a rival assassinated.)
  • But a Trump win: Both the New York Times and the Washington Post agree the court is on track to reject absolute immunity, but both say the court also seems poised to send the matter back to a lower court for clarification between public and private actions. That would likely delay Trump’s federal trial on charges he tried to subvert the 2020 election for months, perhaps until after this year’s vote—an outcome that would “amount to a victory for Trump,” per Politico. For one thing, he could effectively torpedo the case should he win reelection.
  • Key exchange: “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution there can be no presidency as we know it,” Trump attorney D. John Sauer told the court, per the Wall Street Journal. To which Samuel Alito responded, “My question is whether the very robust form of immunity that you’re advocating is really necessary.”
  • Roberts’ concern: Roberts “clearly believes that the lower courts did not do enough to suss out exactly what is an official act versus a private act,” says CNN legal analyst Paula Reid. “So what they’re setting up here is likely the justices are going to come up with some sort of test, and then send it back down to the lower courts for more litigation.”
  • Decision: Typically, the court would issue its decision in late June or early July, notes the Times, but the justices may speed things up given the circumstances.
  • Irrelevant? Trump’s lawyers have long expected to lose the main argument, according to Rolling Stone. But merely getting the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place—and thus delay special prosecutor Jack Smith’s case against the former president—was reason enough for celebration, per the story. They were “literally popping champagne” when the court agreed to take the case, the story says.

The Justices asked some key questions….

  • Justice Elena Kagan: Kagan said the framers of the Constitution clearly didn’t want a “monarch” to run the country, CNN reports. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch, and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she asked.
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked Trump lawyer D. John Sauer. The Washington Post reports that Sauer said immunity was possible. “It would depend on the hypothetical that we can see,” he said. “That could well be an official act. It could.” He gave a similar answer when Kagan presented the hypothetical case of a president who’d ordered a military coup.
  • Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Barrett took issue with the Trump team’s argument that a former president needs to be impeached and convicted by the Senate before a court can convict them, the AP reports. “There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench, and I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment,” she said. “So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn’t say so?”
  • Justice Neil Gorsuch: Gorsuch asked whether presidents can pardon themselves, noting that the court has “happily” never had to deal with such questions. The New York Times reports that Sauer deflected the question, saying the main concern is that a president should be able to make bold decisions without fearing prosecution.
  • Chief Justice John Roberts: During discussion of what constitutes an official act, Roberts gave the example of a president appointing an ambassador in return for a bribe, asking, “How do you analyze that?” Sauer said it would be up to “the court’s discretion,” per the Post.

If my meager breakdown is not enough then maybe this will help you along….

https://www.vox.com/scotus/24140309/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity-jack-smith

This is proving interesting but I think I already know what will come out of this session….how about you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”