Tag: Supreme Court

SCOTUS Will End Democracy

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”

Can SCOTUS Be Fixed?

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.

No more.

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”

It’s SCOTUS Time Again!

That’s right it is that magical time of year when SCOTUS listens to and then disregards everything to shove more crap down the throats of Americans.

It’s the first Monday in October, which means the Supreme Court gets back to work. This year, the overriding question is how much leeway the court will give President Trump as he flexes presidential authority. Justices are set to issue definitive rulings on major Trump policies—ranging from the legality of his tariffs to his push for greater control over independent federal agencies—that have so far been addressed mainly through temporary, emergency decisions, report the Washington Post and the AP. Details:

  • Among the headline issues is a case that could determine whether Trump can fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, a move with significant implications for the independence of the central bank. The case will be heard in January, per the New York Times.
  • Other pending matters include challenges to Trump’s sweeping tariffs, along with his efforts to end birthright citizenship, expedite deportations under a wartime law, and revoke protections for some 300,000 Venezuelan migrants.
  • “It’s hard to imagine bigger tests of presidential power than these potentially once-in-a-century separation-of-powers battles,” Deepak Gupta, a lawyer at the firm Gupta Wessler, tells the Times. “And we’re seeing more than one of them at once.”
  • Legal experts say the court, now dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority, will be forced to clarify its stance on presidential authority, either reinforcing Trump’s expansive view or pushing back. “It really is going to be a showdown,” Jennifer Nou, a law professor at the University of Chicago, tells the Post. “So many of the president’s big-ticket constitutional issues and policy initiatives are quickly coming up before the court. All of this is coming to a head.”
  • The first big case of the new term is Tuesday, when the court will hear arguments about a Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy,” aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, per Reuters.
  • The term also features major cases on voting rights, such as the legality of drawing majority-minority districts in Louisiana, and campaign finance rules.

Most of their cases will be to extend Donny’s executive powers….

Among the issues already on the court’s docket: a case that could end what’s left of the landmark Voting Rights Act; a case that could do away with one of the few remaining laws that limits campaign fundraising; a challenge to the Trump tariffs; a challenge to his firing of independent agency commissioners before their fixed terms are completed; and much, much more.

Indeed, coming soon is likely to be the unanswered question from last term: Did President Trump exceed his authority when he issued an executive order barring a constitutional provision that guarantees automatic citizenship for every child born in the United States?

Since Trump took office for a second term, the conservative court’s 6-to-3 majority has been rocking the boat big time. In just eight months, it has broken all records for granting a president’s wishes on the “emergency docket.”

By the end of last week, the court had granted 20 of Trump’s requests to block lower court orders opposed by the administration. In contrast, the court ruled against the administration in these emergency cases just three times.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/06/nx-s1-5558414/supreme-court-term-preview

My guess most cases will have a 6-3 majority….the political hacks pertending to be judges will side with the despot in the WH as it has done so many times in the past 8 months or so.

Wanna venture any guesses?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

You Be The ‘Judge’

I have not been a fan of SCOTUS for many years, since about 2000, to me they are nothing more than political hacks that use nothing for their decisions other than political dogma….the interpretation of the Constitution means nothing to them.

These people are longer pretending that they use the Constitution as a guideline and that deserves a closer look….

It is quite the bit, really, to spend decades insisting on your “originalist” and “textualist” bonafides, and then when dealt an essentially unbeatable hand simply decide over and over again that that “original” “text” actually means whatever the hell you want it to mean. Or, perhaps more accurately, that the text you supposedly revere simply does not matter, or simply does not exist. I imagine the six conservative Supreme Court Justices sleep as well as anyone in the country.

On Monday, SCOTUS issued a ruling that blocked a May order from a US District Judge that basically ruled Trump could not dismantle the Department of Education unilaterally. That original ruling was just obviously, on-its-face correct: the Department was created by an act of Congress. The president does not, constitutionally speaking, get to just undo that because he feels like it. And yet.

The new ruling was unsigned, and came with no decision explaining the conservatives’ reasoning, such as it may be. This isn’t necessarily unusual for rulings like this, but it does highlight the ruling party’s increasing disdain for the pretenses that generally have been upheld in centuries of Washington’s procedural wranglings — and one might think that literally undoing the Constitution might require some explanation, if the Justices maintained some tiny modicum of shame. Alas.

https://www.splinter.com/the-supreme-court-isnt-even-pretending-anymore

In recent years I believe these ‘hacks’ need to address the people of this nation and these ‘elitist’ dipsticks need to explain their abandonment of the Constitution….

The Supreme Court is allowing Donald Trump to dismantle the Department of Education. But it won’t say why.

Yesterday—almost exactly a week after the Court lifted a lower court’s block on Trump’s plans to fire thousands of federal employees—a majority of the justices decided to give the president the go-ahead for a different set of mass layoffs. Last week, the Court provided a handful of sentences that vaguely gestured at why it might have allowed the administration to move forward. This week, it offered nothing at all. There’s something taunting, almost bullying, about this lack of reasoning, as if the conservative supermajority is saying to the country: You don’t even deserve an explanation.

And this is not the only incident of these ‘hacks’ doing the bidding of a political party and it has only gotten worse in the past 20 years or so.

Time for these ‘people’ to step up and provide the leadership they are suppose to be….instead of the ones fueling the destruction of the Constitution of our great nation.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Rise Of The New Confederacy

“The South shall rise again”….has been the war cry of the racist and now it appears that it has happened and all with the help of the Supreme Court, especially John Roberts….

Back in 2011 there was a prediction, a look forward, if you will….

The tactics by the GOP are working the system to return to the 1950s and give racist their wish of a new confederacy…

This is an article from 2011….

The South’s alternative vision of the good society was defeated in the Civil War, and our 20th-century history can be told as a narrative of halting progress toward greater tolerance and equality. The major plot points include regulations on corporations in the early 1900s; women’s suffrage in 1920; a social safety net in the New Deal; the Supreme Court’s rejection of Jim Crow laws in 1954; the civil rights and feminist movements of the 1960s; the gay rights victories since the 1970s.

…

For the Confederacy that now dominates the GOP, truth is solid and fixed and divinely embedded in the structure of the universe. Humanity’s responsibility is to accept and believe the truth rather than test ideas against actual experience. The Confederacy’s obsession with ​“originalist” interpretations of the Constitution – a twin of biblical literalism – is the classic example: truth must be eternal, universal.

…

The new Confederacy rejects that process wholesale. Its leaders and authorities are the spiritual descendants of the conservative Christians and charismatic radio preachers who broke away from religious modernism in the 1920s and 1930s. For these leaders and their followers, faith justifies – and verifies – itself. You don’t believe an idea because it’s true. It’s true because you believe it.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/new-confederacy-rising

Now fast forward and to the court….

This mess we find our country in is all Chief Justice John Roberts’s fault. There are many other actors contributing to our current situation, but Roberts has been the most consequential of them. His actions lead to the conclusion that he wants to dismantle the “Second Founding” and return to a Confederate/Jim-Crow-style apartheid system.

Roberts has been working his entire career to undermine the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which were ratified after the Civil War. These amendments are also known as the Reconstruction Amendments. They are considered a “Second Founding” because they reoriented the Constitution from primarily promoting states’ rights to emphasizing individual rights and federal power in protecting those rights.

In 2013’s 5-4 Shelby County v. Holder decision, Roberts concluded that racism was a thing of the past. Racial discrimination in voting, according to Roberts, simply wasn’t a major problem anymore. This landmark case — by glibly pretending that racism is no longer a factor in elections, while allowing states-sponsored voter suppression and intimidation — reveals Roberts’s own latter-day racism.

When the history of the Trump era is written, John Roberts will be featured as the man who used Trumpism to finally win what southern racists call the “War of Northern Aggression.”

(whowhatwhy.org)

This ought to, if read, should offer up some interesting comments….we shall see.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

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”

An “Ethical Crisis”

For years now many of us here in the blogosphere have been telling the world that there was a moral and ethical crisis within our Supreme Court….now a report has been issued but it will be attacked as misinformation and just naysayers popping off.

Some of the judges have been taking favors from special interests and some have been openly partisan and others….well you get the jest….

The report of which I spoke….

A report released Saturday by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee after a 20-month investigation declares the Supreme Court “has mired itself in an ethical crisis of its own making.” The report lists a series of ethical lapses and failures and estimates the value of gifts accepted by Justice Clarence Thomas in the millions of dollars. “The number, value, and extravagance of the gifts accepted by Justice Thomas have no comparison in modern American history,” the report says, per the Washington Post. Those gifts sometimes came from people with issues before the court, it adds.

Congress needs to enact an enforceable ethics code that would provide for an independent panel to review complaints, the report says. The committee approved such a bill this year along party lines, per NBC News, but Republicans prevented a Senate vote. “It’s clear that the justices are losing the trust of the American people at the hands of a gaggle of fawning billionaires,” Chairman Dick Durbin said in a statement. Republicans on the committee did not take part in the investigation.

The report lists previously documented gifts as well as free travel by Thomas that hadn’t been disclosed, including a yacht trip to New York City sponsored by Harlan Crow, a Texas billionaire and Thomas benefactor. Thomas did not answer investigators’ inquiries but previously maintained he wasn’t obligated to report many gifts because they were covered by a “personal hospitality” exemption in force at the time. As polls have shown its public popularity falling, the court approved an ethics code a year ago, per the Post, that has no enforcement mechanism.

More than few people have been calling for some sort of true reform of SCOTUS….from term limits to retirement age to recusal mandatory when appropriate….things need to change the court is NO longer the ‘referee’ of our government but the spokesman for one party.

This is just a wish list as we head into yet another dismal 4 years and all I can do is just fight back as I see fit.

When I read the report I thought ‘seriously?  How long did it take to come up with this conclusion?  A conclusion that many already have.

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”