Another re-post of a piece I wrote for Daily Agitator….if you are a subscriber then you can forego this post.
I keep doing this if the hopes that it will help drive more people to my other blog….
This is about the Chief Justice, Roberts…..and his rise to power….
Thank you for the visit….
I hope everyone has a lovely weekend and enjoy your time.
I Read, I Write, You KNow
“lego ergo scribo”
One can hope….but do not hold your breath.
Most of us see that the Supreme Court has become just an extension of far Right politics…..they are political hacks….and now the Dems step up and want to do something to correct the deficiency in the Court.
Democrats aren’t just venting about the Supreme Court’s conservative majority—they’re putting a menu of structural changes on the table. As Julian Mark reports in the Washington Post, recent bills from congressional Democrats would expand the court from nine to 13 justices, cap terms at 18 years, impose a binding ethics code, and rein in the court’s fast-moving “shadow docket.” The push—the story describes it as being at a “fever pitch”—comes after a string of major conservative rulings on voting rights, campaign finance, abortion, and presidential power, and amid polling that shows historically low public approval of the court.
Republicans and conservative legal advocates say the campaign is really about punishing a court that’s handing down decisions the left dislikes, and they argue the proposals are aimed at pressuring justices, not fixing legal flaws. Even Democrats acknowledge that most of these bills are going nowhere unless their party secures firm control of Congress and then scraps the filibuster, a combo seen as highly unlikely. The Post also spotlights legal scholars who warn that some reforms could further politicize the court—and float alternative ideas like a “balanced bench,” with an equal number of justices chosen by Democrats and Republicans.
Read the full story.
Seriously?
What are the chances of any of this actually happening?
This is a typical move by the Dems….an election approaches and they hit on an issue they think will sway voters….I think they are farting in the wind.
There has been lots of ‘ideas’ on how the Court can be fixed all depending on the Dems gaining control of the Congress….and when and if they do what do you suppose will happen?
Being the opinionated SOB that I am I have written about reforms….
Yes the Court needs a major overhaul…..yes term limits are needed….age restrictions needed….more justices are needed….etc…..but will these ‘reforms’ actually make the Court a more ethical organization?
I think it is a wonderful idea…..but also think that it is a waste of time at this point in our history.
Why am I crapping on the Dems?
I posted this on my other blog, Daily Agitator, and it is very much right on point with what I think about the Dems and their ideas….
I do not see a future for this issue.
Anything you would like to add?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
We all have seen the reports about the underhanded money making of our Supreme Court judges and now a new one has come up….this one is about conserv judge Alito…..
The supreme court justice Samuel Alito gained up to $2.9m from his fossil fuel interests between 2005 and 2024, a new review of financial disclosures shows.
The analysis from the non-profit advocacy group and judicial watchdog Court Accountability, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found that even at the lowest range of estimates, Alito gained almost $400,000 from his oil and gas interests since being tapped for the high court by George W Bush in 2005.
The findings come as the supreme court prepares to take up a case in which the oil companies Suncor Energy and Exxon asked the justices to find that federal law prevents subnational governments from filing lawsuits against fossil fuel producers for the climate-warming effects of their products.
The supreme court said this month it will hear oral arguments in the case on 5 October, the opening day of its new term. The Trump administration, which is siding with the oil companies, has asked for 10 minutes of argument time. Court Accountability and other groups have called for a Senate committee to investigate Alito, the sole supreme court justice with holdings in energy companies, and said he should recuse himself.
He and the court rejected those calls.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/11/samuel-alito-oil-gas-assets-supreme-court-analysis
And he sits on the highest court in the nation and makes judgements on any legal actions brought against oil companies….this puts him up there with the corruption of Thomas.
SCOTUS is getting more corruptible by the session….and in doing so is destroying most modern laws….
When rationalizing its alarming injection of politics into legal decision, conservatives on the John Roberts Supreme Court are dumping years of legal analysis and precedent in favor of historical arguments. In essence, legal theory appears to be taking back seat to what law in America used to look like, says Florida International University philosophy Associate Professor Eric Scarffe.
They’re using history, said Scarffe, to do what judicial philosophy long has not: remove judgment from judging.
“Rather than promoting judicial restraint, … key cases reveal how the ‘history and tradition test’ has been weaponized to enable one of the most radical revisions to this nation’s constitutional order since the New Deal,” argued Scarffe. “It has been used not only to overturn previous decisions and precedent, but also to fundamentally shift the way the Court engages in judicial review.”
Courts traditionally weigh interests, assess evidence, and openly confront competing constitutional values. But cases like the Wolford v. Lopez, which the court used to strike down Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms on private property that is open to the public, the court made a decision based entirely upon whether a sufficiently similar restriction existed at some point during the nation’s founding.
https://www.alternet.org/roberts-court-reform-politicized/
The judges now are nothing more than political hacks and do not deserve the positions they have been given…
It is beyond time for some massive Supreme Court reforms and changes.
Or we continue to have these hacks destroy the Constitution one ruling at as time.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
I WOULD LIKE TO WISH MY CANADIAN FOLLOWERS A VERY HAPPY CANADA DAY.
SCOTUS seems to be the theme or the meme for today…..they will be ruling on the law against AR-15s….a good law in my opinion…..
The Supreme Court is stepping directly into the fight over bans on AR-15-style rifles. On Tuesday, the justices agreed to hear challenges to assault-style weapons restrictions in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, setting up a major Second Amendment clash in the term that begins in October, NBC News reports. Both laws bar certain semiautomatic rifles that gun-control advocates label “assault weapons,” including AR-15s, which have been used in mass shootings such as the 2012 attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the 2022 Uvalde school massacre. Connecticut expanded its ban after 20 children and six adults were killed in the Sandy Hook mass shooting.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has recently broadened gun rights, including a 2022 decision that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home. Last week, the court struck down a Hawaii gun law. When the justices declined to hear a similar case last year, four conservatives signaled they view AR-15 bans as unconstitutional; Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.”
Under longstanding precedent, bans of “dangerous” or “unusual” weapons are allowed, but gun rights advocates say that as “the most popular rifle in the country,” AR-15-style rifles shouldn’t be considered unusual, Politico reports. At least 10 states have banned “assault weapons,” arguing that they don’t qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, per the Hill. Challenges to the Connecticut and Cook County laws were brought by individual gun owners and gun-rights groups including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. Lower courts have so far upheld both bans.
I look for SCOTUS to strike down the law for they have not been a friend to the people but rather the gun industry….it has a lot more money to give than joe blow.
Do not get me wrong….I have no problem with gun ownership just that of assault weapons and such….no one needs that for hunting or personal protection….if they are that bad of a shot then get a shotgun the coverage is better.
Do you think SCOTUS will do the right thing?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
Donny has been trying really hard to see the babies born on US soil to non-citizens lose their right to be Americans for being born here….
The Supreme Court upheld the principle of birthright citizenship on Tuesday, handing President Trump a major defeat on one of his signature immigration initiatives. In the 6-3 ruling, the court backed the idea that nearly all children born on US soil are American citizens, no matter the status of their parents. Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in striking down an executive order issued by Trump, reports SCOTUSblog and the New York Times. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
The concept of birthright citizenship has been in place for more than a century under the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration disagrees with the interpretation of the sentence. But Roberts’ opinion declares:
- “Citizenship, then and now was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
- In a sign of how much the case mattered to the White House, Trump attended oral arguments in person earlier this year. The ruling could affect the legal status of about 250,000 babies a year, notes Reuters.
One of the few times that the judges did not side with Donny Do-Little….why?
You can bet that the little nazi fucker Miller will be working on the next way to try and take citizenship away from some Americans.
I do not think this issue is dead just yet…..
What do you think of this turn?
I Read, I* Write, You KNow
“lego ergo scribo”
We know the Chief Justice Roberts is a political hack ans now Justice Thomas has opened his mouth and once again proved that he is a hack as well.
I have known he was one for years and his wife is worse than him….there are so many times he should have recused himself but instead vote to assist the people in the suit.
His latest performance is around the abortion pill….
Justice Clarence Thomas sharply criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling preserving nationwide access to an abortion medication, arguing the drug manufacturers were operating a “criminal enterprise.”
On Thursday (May 14), the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold nationwide access to the abortion pill mifepristone, according to The Guardian.
In October 2025, the state of Louisiana sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for allowing mifepristone to be prescribed remotely and mailed to patients, arguing that mailing the medication violated the state’s abortion restrictions and federal law.
This ruling halted a May 1 order from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have significantly restricted nationwide access to mifepristone.
In Thomas’s dissent, he argued that the plaintiffs — Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, two mifepristone manufacturers — had not shown they would experience irreparable harm if access to the medication remained blocked.
“Applicants are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise,” Thomas wrote. “They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.”
He also pointed to the Comstock Act, passed in 1873, which broadly bans the mailing of anything considered “obscene, lewd or lascivious”, arguing mifepristone fits that description.
Thomas was joined by Justice Samuel Alito, who argued the ruling conflicted with the court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which gave each state the individual authority to regulate abortion.
In a similar case from 2024, the Supreme Court ruled against a lawsuit filed by The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), a coalition of conservative medical organizations and physicians.
The lawsuit challenged FDA rules allowing expanded access to mifepristone, including mail delivery and telehealth prescriptions.
(binnetweork.com)
Yo Thomas the only criminal enterprise here is the Supreme Court.
Then Thomas spoke at the Univ of Texas about ‘god given’ rights and how Progressives are destroying that….
…
Justice Thomas is perhaps one of the most revered living justices on the right. Conservative lauded his speech, calling it “extraordinary.” “In addition to its sweeping condemnation of progressivism, his speech is an immediate classic in civics formation,” wrote Andrew Walker, professor of Ethics and Public Theology at Southern Baptist Seminary. “But that the speech’s content is now so foreign, so unfamiliar, to so many, reveals how successful progressivism has been in memory-holing our national inheritance. Progressivism is a civic, moral, and theological cancer. It must be fought against and defeated if there is to be an American order (and moral decency).”
Sorry Bubba the only cancer on society is your Oreo ass and the ilk that you represent.
BTW….what are those ‘god given rights?’ Name them!
These people like Thomas and his ilk are pathetic and creepy and will lie just to keep their positions in life….time for this one and well all of them to step down and let more competent people take over the Court….these people are doing more harm to this country than anyone they point their fingers at in their BS….
Any thoughts that you would like to share?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
Since those political hacks we called the supreme court made it possible for corporations to have more clout than the people of this nation the money has been pouring into the super PACs making our elections more about who can draw the most donors than the policies that help the population.
Now the state of Hawai’i is trying to do something about this miscarruage of our system…..
The state of Hawaii has passed a law that poses a direct challenge to the infamous 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in US elections.
Democratic Hawaii Gov. Josh Green on Thursday signed into law a bill that takes aim at the court’s ruling that corporations are effectively people with full free speech rights who can face no limits on what they can contribute to political organizations.
As explained by More Perfect Union, the law, which is set to take effect next July, classifies corporations as “artificial persons” who do not have a constitutional right to make political donations.
“The bill could limit the influence of super PACs,” noted More Perfect Union, “and be a model to challenge the influence of money in politics.”
Democratic Hawaii state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole, a supporter of the law, said on Thursday he was proud that Hawaii has become “the first state in the nation” to take direct action challenging Citizens United.
“As elected leaders, we do not serve artificial entities,” Keohokalole said. “We serve the people.”
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, hailed the law as “big news” that should inspire opponents of limitless corporate political spending across the US.
“The far-right Supreme Court hijacked the Constitution to let corporations spend in our elections,” said Casar. “But we are not powerless. We can fight back.”
The new law passed despite opposition from Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, who argued that defending it in court could be difficult and expensive.
The law’s passage earned praise from campaign finance watchdogs who have long called for overturning Citizens United and reestablishing guardrails for corporate cash in US democracy.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/citizens-united-law-hawaii
I say bully for them!
This is worth the fight no matter the cost.
Should be a template for all states.
The problem is if it goes to the supreme court those twats will strike it down….
The fight must go on.
Thoughts?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
I make no bones about it that I think that SCOTUS is nothing more than a group of political hacks that are doing partisan work and in the process destroying what is left of this nation.
Then and when you need confirmation of their partisan crap Chief Justice had to go and whine about our perception of the court.
Chief Justice John Roberts wants Americans to know he doesn’t see the Supreme Court the way some critics might. Speaking Wednesday at a legal conference in Hershey, Pa., Roberts said many people wrongly believe the justices are “political actors” choosing outcomes based on policy preferences rather than legal analysis, NBC News reports. “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do,” he said. He was responding to a question about what the public most misunderstands regarding the high court, Politico reports.
Roberts, part of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority that has shifted federal law rightward on issues including abortion, guns, and voting rights, didn’t address any specific cases. But he stressed that the court is often obligated to hand down decisions that are disliked, saying rulings are “based on our best effort to figure out what the Constitution means and how it applies.” He acknowledged that the public is free to criticize the court’s work, while urging that critiques target decisions, not individual judges, warning personal attacks are “not appropriate” and can lead to “very serious problems,” especially amid heightened security concerns. He also did not mention President Trump, who himself has been among critics of the court at times, CNN reports.
Seriously?
This POS is saying this crap without laughing?
Our criticism can lead to ‘very serious problems’? Really thanx to the Roberts court we already ass deep in serious problems and they can thank themselves for all the problems…..Citizens United, abortion rulings, education rulings, allowing insider trading by politicians, gutted voting rights etc etc….
Roberts and his happy band of hacks have turned the court into a partisan political arm of government.
I have no sympathy for Roberts and his fragile feelings.
If he wants us to stop hating them then I propose he and his partisan dipsticks retire to Mar-A-Lago and let the country move forward for with them it will stand still and then start in reverse.
Any thoughts?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
If you have been paying attention you will see just how SCOTUS under the leadership of a political hack, Roberts, has been stripping away the powers of Congress and subverting the course of democracy.
Over the past several decades, the Supreme Court has slowly whittled down the power of Congress and, in large part thanks to President Donald Trump’s chaotic second term in office, has already managed to dethrone Congress’ role as the most powerful branch of government, argued legal scholar Duncan Hosie Tuesday.
“For now, the supernova of Donald Trump’s presidency has muted this systemic conflict in public view,” Hosie wrote in an analysis published Tuesday in The Atlantic.
“His second term – defined by galloping abuses of executive power buttressed by Trump v. United States – has played out against a Republican Congress and Republican Court aligned, if not enthralled, with him. But this alignment is likely temporary and contingent. Should a Democratic Congress return, the conflict will roar back into view.”
That conflict, Hosie argued, is the Supreme Court’s decades-long “power grab” to strip Congress of its ability to check the power of the executive branch, define rights for Americans, and even make laws — a “power grab” that has only accelerated during Trump’s second term. And, in large part to Trump’s unprecedented tenure in the White House, the “power grab” is going largely unnoticed, Hosie wrote.
“The short-term convergence of the branches should not obscure the larger transformation: Congress is no longer the first branch of government,” Hosie wrote. “The same gale-force winds of polarization that split Congress into warring camps has also produced a Republican-appointee-dominated Court systematically constraining congressional power while expanding its own.”
The threat of the Supreme Court’s ongoing “power grab” was so dire, Hosie warned, that it could very well bring about an end to the United States’ “constitutional democracy.”
https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2674879295/
This exactly the outcome that the outcome that I have been warning about over the past decade (probably longer)….this is just what will happen when political hacks are nominated then confirmed….they are destroying democracy and helping those that are doing the deeds in every way they can.
If these people cannot do their part at preserving this democracy then it is time to get rid of them and start over….when I say ‘get rid’ I mean remove them from office in any fashion that is necessary.
If they continue down the path they have chosen it will not be long to there is nothing left of the nation we built over the past 250 years.
Time for a change!
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
A new year and a new focus on the political hacks we call the Supreme Court.
It is actually functioning as an extension of MAGA these days and it is time for us peasants to realize that it must be changed or replaced.
The justices of the US supreme court – even its conservatives – have traditionally valued their institution’s own standing. John Roberts, the current US chief justice, has always been praised – even by liberals – as a staunch advocate of the court’s image as a neutral arbiter. For decades, Americans believed the court soared above the fray of partisan contestation.
In Donald Trump’s second term, the supreme court’s conservative supermajority has seized the opportunity to empower the nation’s chief executive. In response, public approval of the court has collapsed. The question is what it means for liberals to catch up to this new reality of a court that willingly tanks its own legitimacy. Eager to realize cherished goals of assigning power to the president and arrogating as much for itself, the conservative justices seemingly no longer care what the public or the legal community think of the court’s actions. Too often, though, liberals are responding with nostalgia for a court that cares about its high standing. There is a much better option: to grasp the opportunity to set right the supreme court’s role in US democracy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/19/us-supreme-court-legitimacy
If we agree that something needs to be done with SCOTUS and its drift from neutral arbitrator to MAGA enforcer then what can be done?
There are a few suggestions….
Should Democrats retake the White House in 2028 and have majorities in both chambers of Congress, one legal expert is arguing there are numerous ways the six-member conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could be brought to heel.
In a Monday essay for Slate, legal writer and attorney Mark Joseph Stern directly addressed a reader’s concern that no matter what laws Democrats may try to pass under a potential new Democratic majority government, the Supreme Court could simply strike those laws down. Stern countered that there are several ways to re-establish Congress’ powers and prevent SCOTUS from acting as an unelected super-legislature.
First, Stern argued that Congress should immediately grant statehood to both Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. as part of a “suite of structural reforms.” He argued this was a necessary step to take in order to make sure that sparsely populated conservative states like South Dakota and Wyoming aren’t over-represented in Congress (both territories have already passed statehood resolutions, meaning all Congress needs to do is pass a bill to admit them).
“Remember, the senators who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court represented fewer people than the senators who voted to oppose him,” Stern wrote. “That is a huge structural problem that Congress can fix.”
Second, Stern proposed that Congress pass a law that would require the Supreme Court to have a 7-2 supermajority to strike down any legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. He noted that the Nebraska and North Dakota state constitutions already have amendments requiring a supreme court supermajority in order to toss out any laws, and called on a potential future Democratic government to “put it in there that the law cannot be struck down unless seven justices agree that it’s unconstitutional.”
Stern also advocated for imposing a strict time limit on the judicial review process, calling the Supreme Court to no longer be able to evaluate the constitutionality of any new laws more than one calendar year after their passage. He observed that the Supreme Court’s 2012 review of the Affordable Care Act took place after Democrats had already lost their majority in the House of Representatives in 2010, and that a one-year limit would mean that Congress’ partisan makeup would still be the same if the Court threw out any laws passed by that Congress and lawmakers wanted to try passing the law again.
The Slate author described these proposed reforms as a “good-faith effort by Democrats to recalibrate the balance of power by reestablishing Congress’ primacy and diminishing the Supreme Court’s untouchable supremacy.” However, he allowed for the possibility that these reforms may fall short. In that event, he called on Democrats to “add four seats” and pack the Supreme Court with new Democratic appointees.
“The current Republican justices have already shredded adherence to precedent. A future liberal majority should say no to unilateral disarmament and apply the same rules,” Stern wrote. “That is how Democrats put the court back in its place: by undoing its attacks on democracy and restoring the constitutional settlement the Roberts court has spent years dismantling.”
(alternet.org)
I do not think much will change (for now) no matter what happens in November.
Personally I think it is beyond time to put these smug bastards in their place or rid ourselves of their stench completely.
But that is just me.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”