Tag: Supreme Court

SCOTUS, The Corrupt

I recent months word has been leaking out about all the shady deals the SCOTUS judges have been making to their benefit…..like Clarence Thomas….

An in-depth New York Timesstory examining Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas‘ membership in an exclusive club of wealthy Americans—and the benefits he has reaped from the association—sparked fresh calls for his resignation on Sunday, with watchdogs and lawmakers decrying the new report as further evidence of deep-seated corruption at the nation’s most powerful judicial body.

Months after his confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1991, according to the Times, Thomas was accepted into the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, a group named after the Gilded Age American author Horatio Alger.

“At Horatio Alger, he moved into the inner circle, a cluster of extraordinarily wealthy, largely conservative members who lionized him and all that he had achieved,” the newspaper reported. “While he has never held an official leadership position, in some ways he has become the association’s leading light. He has granted it unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event: a ceremony in the courtroom at which he places Horatio Alger medals around the necks of new lifetime members.”

The new reporting comes on the heels of a series of revelations from the investigative outlet ProPublica, which uncovered decades of trips Thomas took on the dime of billionaire Harlan Crow, who is deeply enmeshed in right-wing politics.

ProPublica also found a previously undisclosed real estate deal between Crow and Thomas, who just recently joined his fellow conservative justices in ruling against affirmative action and student debt relief for more than 40 million Americans.

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

Thomas and his wife are not alone….Alito has been caught as well as others….

All this corruption leads one to ask….if this is the case do we really need the Supreme Court?

I mean these judges are proving that they do not think democracy is a good thing….why keep it around?

Vested interests create “checks and balances” primarily to make political systems non-responsive to demands for social reform. Historically, therefore, the checks are politically unbalanced in practice. Instead of producing a happy medium, their effect often has been to check the power of the people to assert their interests at the expense of the more powerful. Real reform requires a revolution – often repeated attempts. The Roman Republic suffered five centuries of fighting to redistribute land and cancel debts, all of which failed as the oligarchy’s “checks” imposed deepening economic dependency and imbalance.

The Supreme Court is America’s most distinctive check. Its deepening bias since its takeover by “conservatives” claiming to be “originalist” interpreters of the constitution, has led to the most widespread protests since Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the court in the 1930s by expanding its membership to create a more democratic majority. Although appointed by presidents and consented to by Congress, the judges’ lifetime tenure imposes the ideology of past elections on the present.

So why are they needed at all? Why not permit Congress to make laws that reflect the needs of the time? The Court’s judges themselves have pointed out that if Congress doesn’t like their rulings, it should pass its own laws, or even a constitutional amendment, to provide a new point of reference.

Should There be a Supreme Court? Its Role Has Always Been Anti-Democratic

Then I agree get rid of it….if greed and personal gain is all they are there for why do we need them…..let them go to Wall Street and steal America’s future .

What say you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Rot At SCOTUS

The recent events around the dealings of Justice Thomas and his closeness with some billionaire who seems to be paying the bills for Thomas.

I read a piece written by Bill Astore that sums up what is happening within our Supreme Court……a good piece and should be read…..

A big part of the American experiment is the idea we are a nation of laws as defined by the U.S. Constitution. The law is supposed to apply equally to all, and disinterested, impartial, justices are supposed to make rulings that are unaffected by money or race or religion or any other factor other than the law itself and what’s right and what isn’t.

That doesn’t describe today’s Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS).

Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted all kinds of undeclared gifts from a billionaire supporter, including tuition for his great-nephew at private boarding schools. Justice Neil Gorsuch profited from a real estate transaction with a rich law firm CEO with extensive business before the court. Apparently, SCOTUS polices itself here, and so far the SCOTUS cop on watch is asleep.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh gained his seat under a storm of controversy. I wrote in September 2018 that he should withdraw his name from consideration, based on the demeanor he showed at his Senate hearing, but of course he didn’t. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was specifically “saved” by President Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg; everyone knew she was a conservative Catholic opposed to abortion with a clear record of being pro-business to boot.

You’d think the #1 criterion for a SCOTUS justice would be unassailable integrity, but today it seems to be predictable partisan positions (both political parties are guilty here, though Republicans are more blatant). Allegiance to moneyed interests is a big plus. The latter point is why these justices see no problem with accepting “gifts,” otherwise known as bribes (for that is what they are, in plain speak).

https://bracingviews.substack.com/p/rot-at-the-supreme-court

Integrity in the court has left the building many years ago…..the rot within the court is all pervasive….the only for sure about the court is it is as corruptible as the rest of DC and our elected officials….the only difference is these political hacks have a lifetime to have their palms greased.

It is beyond time to make some much needed SCOTUS reforms…..like term limits, mandatory retirement and stop allowing political hacks on the highest court in the land.

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Thomas: Corroding Public Trust

For years I have been writing about Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, for years and the antics of his wife and her endorsements of far right ideas.

Just yesterday a more damning report of Thomas and his billionaire benefactor……

Clarence Thomas has a very, very rich friend. This friend, billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow, has for two decades let the Supreme Court justice and his wife travel around the world to exotic locales at his expense, reports ProPublica. The story by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski notes that Thomas has never reported these vacation flights on financial disclosures, which “appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress, and federal officials to disclose most gifts.” The ethics law experts they interview also say Thomas should have reported his multiple trips on Crow’s superyacht. However, the legalities are murky because the story also points out that the Supreme Court “is left almost entirely to police itself” on such matters. Regardless, “the extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history” of the court, per the story.

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” says Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who has served in the administrations of both parties. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.” Crow tells the outlet the two never discuss cases, and the story makes clear that Thomas has never ruled on a case in which Crow’s company was involved. However, the court does hear cases that affect the real estate industry in general, and Thomas meets other prominent conservatives and business executives on the trips. The vacations—including one to Indonesia in 2019 that would have cost Thomas about $500,000 had he paid himself— appear to stand in contrast to comments the justice once made in a documentary (financed by Crow) about how he likes to travel. “I prefer the RV parks,” he said. “I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that.”

Read the full story.

Let’s look at this situation a bit deeper….

either Clarence Thomas himself nor the Supreme Court has responded to ProPublica’s report detailing how the justice has received lavish vacations and gifts from a prominent GOP donor for 20 years without disclosing them. Democrats, on the other hand, have plenty to stay about Thomas’ relationship with real estate magnate Harlan Crow:

  • AOC: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Thomas to be impeached. “This is beyond party or partisanship. This degree of corruption is shocking—almost cartoonish,” she wrote. Attached to the tweet is an image from the story, a painting (based on a real-life photo) of Thomas at Crow’s Adirondack resort smoking a cigar while with Crow with three other prominent conservatives.
  • Durbin: Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin said his panel “will act” in the wake of the report, per the Hill. “The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards,” he said in a statement. “Today’s Pro Publica report reveals that Justice Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel on private yachts and jets and a litany of other gifts that he failed to disclose. This behavior is simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.”
  • Sen. Whitehouse: “This cries out for the kind of independent investigation that the Supreme Court—and only the Supreme Court, across the entire government—refuses to perform,” wrote Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.
  • Others: Semafor rounds up the reaction of other angry Democrats here.
  • The rules: Here is how the AP lays things out: Supreme Court justices must file an annual financial disclosure report listing gifts they have received, and it’s unclear why Thomas failed to do so. Under a judiciary policy guide seen by the AP, “food, lodging or entertainment received as ‘personal hospitality of any individual’ does not need to be reported if it is at the personal residence of that individual or their family. That said, the exception to reporting is not supposed to cover ‘transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation’ and properties owned by an entity.” Thomas traveled on Crow’s superyacht and on his private aircraft. As ProPublica notes, the Supreme Court largely polices itself on such matters, something critics say must change.
  • Crow’s statement: ProPublica has provided Crow’s full statement, in which he says nothing improper transpired. He said he has extended “hospitality” to the Thomases “over the years” but that the couple “never asked for any of this hospitality.” He said they did not discuss matters before the court. “We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue,” Crow said. “More generally, I am unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that. These are gatherings of friends.”

This is just another nail in the case for doing some reform…..these so-called ‘Associates” have had their hands out for decades which flies in the face of proper justice from the “referees” of our democracy.

Impeach and Reform Now!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Update

The Supreme Court will be putting together their agenda and a couple of the issues that could make the docket….

The Supreme Court could change the way the internet is governed next month. It will hear two cases that will challenge Section 230. Section 230 is a part of the Communications Decency Act. This act determines the rules for regulating online speech. This hearing is the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with a case fighting the 1996 act. But if the plaintiffs win, they could change how the internet is operated and used. 

Both cases being tried in front of the supreme court involve using various social media platforms by terrorists. The court will decide if the owners of these social media platforms did enough to block terrorists from using their services to spread their message and recruit new members. The social media site, Youtube, is the main focus of this trial to see if they are protected under Section 230 for the algorithmic recommendation of content. 

The first case was filed by the parents of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris on November 2015. Her family believes that Youtube’s algorithms push ISIS videos into people’s scope by recommending them in the suggested videos section of their platform. It is well known that many terrorist groups, including ISIS, use YouTube to recruit members to their organization from the western world. 

One Supreme Court Ruling Could Change The Internet Entirely

The next update is one that seems to be in every agenda….something religious….

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could give religious conservatives an unprecedented new ability to dictate how their workplaces operate, and which workplace rules they will refuse to follow.

Yet Groff is also likely to overrule a previous Supreme Court decision that treated the interests of religious employees far more dismissively than federal law suggests that these workers should be treated.

The case, in other words, presents genuinely tricky questions about the limits of accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs. But those questions will be resolved by a Supreme Court that has shown an extraordinary willingness to bend the law in ways that benefit Christian-identified conservatives.

That could lead to a scenario in which the Court announces a new legal rule that disrupts the workplace — and that potentially places far too many burdens on non-religious employees.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23559038/supreme-court-groff-dejoy-religion-twa-hardison-workplace

I have doubt that these paleo-conserv judges will do the wrong thing.

Finally remember that famous leak of a draft of the ruling on Rowe v Wade and the ensuing investigation into that leak?

Someone is likely breathing a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court said Thursday that it can’t figure out who leaked the bombshell draft opinion of the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “It is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico,” says the court’s unsigned report, per the Washington Post. “No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document.”

A separate report by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley notes that nearly 100 court staffers were interviewed and all presented the it-wasn’t-me defense, reports NBC News. The investigation into the unprecedented leak eight months ago is not over, but the tone of the two reports suggests little hope of a breakthrough. “Investigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending,” wrote Curley. “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them.” Curley added that it’s unlikely anyone hacked the court’s computer system.

The country owes this person a debt of gratitude for the leak….it help show just how corrupt and uncaring these judicial slugs are towards the rights of the American people.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Vs Labor

This post may not be interesting to anyone but those that believe unions are a vital part of our country for without them America would not be the strong economy that it enjoys today.

Workers could lose the right to strike if SCOTUS plays their role….

The Supreme Court hears a labor dispute on Tuesday involving striking truck drivers who walked off the job to try to secure a better contract from their employer, a company that provides premixed concrete for construction projects. Yet, while Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a fairly unremarkable case, the stakes for unionized workers could be enormous.

Glacier Northwest, the employer behind this case, seeks to upend a more than 60-year-old rule protecting unions from lawsuits when workers exercise their federally protected right to strike.

It’s an audacious ask, and the case could potentially be decided more narrowly. But the two-thirds of the Court that was appointed by Republicans has shown extraordinary hostility toward unions in the past. So we can’t dismiss the risk that the Court hands down a maximalist decision that upends the balance of power between employers and labor unions.

The case hinges on a rule protecting workers’ right to strike, and laying out how companies can claim that this rule does not apply to a particular strike.

The Teamsters, the union in this case, allegedly timed a 2017 strike so that it would begin after some of Glacier Northwest’s mixing trucks were already filled with concrete, forcing the company’s non-union employees to race to dispose of this material before it hardened in the trucks. But the company was able to remove this wet concrete from the trucks before they were damaged, and there are a wealth of cases establishing that workers may strike even if doing so will cause some of their employer’s product to spoil.

In one case, for example, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — a kind of quasi-court that hears disputes between unions and employers — sided with milk truck drivers who struck, even though their strike risked spoiling the milk before it was delivered to customers. Another case, handed down by a federal appeals court, reached a similar conclusion regarding striking cheese workers.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/1/9/23541349/supreme-court-glacier-northwest-teamsters-unions-strike-concrete-garmon

Just another attempt to prevent workers from earning the wages they deserve.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

More SCOTUS BS

The Supreme Court has become a harbor for right wing hacks…..and most of America agrees with me…..there have been many cases (recently) that points to lapse in esprit d’corps by some of the justices….like Thomas and his goose stepping wife……

Alito has written a letter…..

The Supreme Court on Monday issued an unusually forceful and detailed rebuttal to ethics concerns raised by two Democratic lawmakers about a drive by religious conservatives to wine and dine some justices.

The court’s counterpunch came in a letter to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), after the lawmakers threatened a congressional probe if the court did not launch its own inquiry into the claims.

The two-page letter from the Supreme Court’s legal counsel, Ethan Torrey, repeats and expands on earlier denials of impropriety issued by Justice Samuel Alito, following reports in POLITICO, The New York Times and Rolling Stone about a concerted campaign by religious-right activists to encourage more conservative decisions by the justices by building connections with them in social settings.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/28/supreme-court-alito-2014-ethics-00071024

Political hacks get mad when they are called out….so SCOTUS is nothing but political hacks that have no intention doing what they are task to do.

Then there is SCOTUS and the possibility of the elections being overturned….

To hear some tell it, a Supreme Court case set for argument on Dec. 7 could spell the end of democracy in the United States. If the Republicans who brought the case, Moore v. Harper, prevail, state legislatures will effectively be free to override the votes of their citizens in presidential elections, the doomsayers predict. That might allow a future presidential candidate to undo an election, much as Donald Trump attempted, but failed, to do in 2020.

The Atlantic warned that the “Court’s right-wing supermajority is poised to let state lawmakers overturn voters’ choice in presidential elections.” The Guardian opined that a ruling in favor of the GOP would mean that “whether Republicans win or lose elections via the popular vote will not matter because they will be able to maintain power regardless.” And Slate called Moore v. Harper “the Supreme Court case that could upend democracy.”

Those fears are overblown. They ignore other legal protections that would prevent the theft of a presidential election. A state legislature can in fact choose which electors to pick, legal scholars generally agree, as those bodies routinely did in the early days of the republic. But a legislature has the power to decide to handle a vote that way only before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election.

“No matter what the Court decides” in Moore v. Harper, as New York University law professor Richard Pildes has put it, “it would still not mean state legislatures could choose simply to ignore the popular vote in their state and appoint presidential electors themselves after the election.” Federal law, for example, requires states to choose their electors on Election Day. And several federal courts have held that after-the-fact changes raise questions of due process and equal protection. A state legislature can’t simply swoop in after the voting and rewrite the rules for a completed election because it didn’t like the outcome.

https://www.salon.com/2022/11/30/republicans-bid-to-let-lawmakers-overturn-could-badly-backfire-on_partner/

We mean nothing to those task at protecting our rights….still think they are not political hacks?

The best I can hope that it will backfire on the Right….this country needs a win and we need it badly.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Docket For The New Session

The docket is being set for the new session of the Supreme Court……is there any surprises?

The Supreme Court opens its new term Monday, hearing arguments for the first time after a summer break and with new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Already the court has said it will decide cases on a range of major issues including affirmative action, voting rights, and the rights of LGBTQ people. The justices will add more cases to their docket in the coming months, but here is a look at some of the cases the court has already agreed to hear, per the AP. The justices are expected to decide each of the cases before taking a summer break at the end of June:

  • Affirmative action: In cases from Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, the court could end any consideration of race in college admissions. If this seems familiar, it’s because the high court has been asked repeatedly over the past 20 years to end affirmative action in higher education. In previous cases from Michigan and Texas, the court reaffirmed the validity of considering college applicants’ race among many factors. But this court is more conservative than those were.
  • Voting rights: The court could further reduce protections for minority voters in its third major consideration in 10 years of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which was enacted to combat enduring racial discrimination in voting. The case the justices are hearing involves Alabama, where just one of the state’s seven congressional districts has a Black majority. That’s even though 27% of the state’s residents are Black. A ruling for the state could wipe away all but the most obvious cases of intentional discrimination on the basis of race.
  • Elections: Republicans are asking the justices to embrace a novel legal concept that would limit state courts’ oversight of elections for Congress. North Carolina’s top court threw out the state’s congressional map that gave Republicans a lopsided advantage in a closely divided state and eventually came up with a map that basically evenly divided the state’s 14 congressional districts between Democrats and Republicans. The state GOP argues that state courts have no role to play in congressional elections because the US Constitution gives that power to state legislatures alone. Four conservative justices have expressed varying levels of openness to the “independent state legislature” theory.
  • Clean water: This is yet another case in which the court is being asked to discard an earlier ruling and loosen the regulation of property under the nation’s chief law to combat water pollution. The case involves an Idaho couple who won an earlier high court round in their bid to build a house on property near a lake without getting a permit under the Clean Water Act. The outcome could change the rules for millions of acres of property that contain wetlands.
  • Immigration: The Biden administration is back at the Supreme Court to argue for a change in immigration policy from the Trump administration. It’s appealing a ruling against a Biden policy prioritizing deportation of people in the country illegally who pose the greatest public safety risk. Last term, the justices by a 5-4 vote paved the way for the administration to end the Trump policy that required asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for their court hearing. In July, also by a 5-4 vote, the high court refused to allow the administration to implement policy guidance for deportations. A Trump-era policy favored deporting people in the country illegally regardless of criminal history or community ties.
  • LGBTQ rights: A new clash involving religion, free speech, and the rights of LGBTQ people will also be before the justices. The case involves Colorado graphic and website designer Lorie Smith, who wants to expand her business and offer wedding website services. She says her Christian beliefs would lead her to decline any request from a same-sex couple to design a wedding website, however, and that puts her in conflict with a Colorado anti-discrimination law. The case is a new chance for the justices to confront issues the court skirted five years ago in a case about a baker objected to making cakes for same-sex weddings.
  • Art world: The court’s resolution of a dispute involving pieces by artist Andy Warhol could have big consequences in the art world and beyond. If the Warhol side loses a copyright dispute involving an image Warhol made of the musician Prince, other artworks could be in peril, lawyers say. But the other side says if Warhol wins, it would be a license for other artists to blatantly copy.

A full docket and the chance for SCOTUS to continue to chip away at our rights and privileges.

Anything new here?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–27Jul22

With the recent rulings by those political hacks on SCOTUS the public is started to see just how worthless and owned the Court has become…..it has lost all respect by the majority of the people.

Many of us have been calling for term limits on judges for a long time….a lifetime job gives them way too much power.

About 2 in 3 Americans say they favor term limits or a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices, according to a new poll that finds a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans saying they have “hardly any” confidence in the court, the AP reports. The poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 67% of Americans support a proposal to set a specific number of years that justices serve instead of life terms, including 82% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans. Views are similar about a requirement that justices retire by a specific age.

The poll was conducted just weeks after the high court issued high-profile rulings including stripping away women’s constitutional protections for abortion and expanding gun rights. The poll also shows more Americans disapprove than approve of the court’s abortion decision, with just over half saying the decision made them “angry” or “sad.” In the prior poll, conducted in April before a draft of the court’s Roe v. Wade decision was leaked, 18% said they had a great deal of confidence, 54% said they had only some and 27% said they had hardly any. Now, 17% say they have a great deal of confidence, 39% only some, and 43% hardly any.

Of course being an opinionated SOB I had stuff to say about SCOTUS…..

I Have Lots To Say About SCOTUS

I see the rest of society is started seeing (finally) that SCOTUS is a rigged game and that something needs to be done…..and soon.

Right on cue the Dems after the poll came out have introduced a new bill…..

A group of House Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the move will “restore legitimacy and independence to the nation’s highest court.”

The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election. The justices who have been on the court the longest will be moved to senior status first.

If confirmed by the Senate, those individuals would serve a maximum 18 years on the bench. After their tenures are complete, the Supreme Court justices would retire from active service and assume senior status.

Justices on the bench at the time of the bill’s enactment would switch to senior status one by one as justices are confirmed to the bench in the first and third years after a presidential election.

Under senior status, justices will still hold their office on the Supreme Court, which includes official duties and pay. If the number of justices dips below nine at some point — because of a vacancy, disability or disqualification — the justice who most recently attained senior status would serve as the ninth associate justice.

(thehill.com)

Were they paying attention to the people’s wants or is it electioneering?

I am suspicious of the timing of the bill….after all the Dems are not looking good for 2022….were they trying to find a leg up for the upcoming campaigns?

Please say what is on your mind.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Biden’s Answer To SCOTUS

By now we all are aware of the decision by those political hacks we call the Supreme Court on Roe v Wade…..

What to do?  What to do?  Well the president has an idea…..

President Joe Biden said Sunday he is considering declaring a public health emergency to free up federal resources to promote abortion access even though the White House has said it doesn’t seem like “a great option.” He also offered a message to people enraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that ended a constitutional right to abortion and who have been demonstrating across the country: “Keep protesting. Keep making your point. It’s critically important.” The president, in remarks to reporters during a stop on a bike ride near his family’s Delaware beach house, said he lacks the power to force the dozen-plus states with strict restrictions or outright bans on abortion to allow the procedure, the AP reports.

“I don’t have the authority to say that we’re going to reinstate Roe v. Wade as the law of the land,” he said. Biden said Congress would have to codify that right and for that to have a better chance in the future, voters would have to elect more lawmakers who support abortion access. Biden said his administration is trying to do a “lot of things to accommodate the rights of women” after the ruling, including considering declaring a public health emergency to free up federal resources. Such a move has been pushed by advocates, but White House officials have questioned both its legality and effectiveness, and noted it would almost certainly face legal challenges.

The president said he has asked officials “to look at whether I have the authority to do that and what impact that would have.” On Friday, Jen Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said it “didn’t seem like a great option.” “When we looked at the public health emergency, we learned a couple things: One is that it doesn’t free very many resources,” she told reporters. “It’s what’s in the public health emergency fund, and there’s very little money—tens of thousands of dollars in it. So that didn’t seem like a great option. And it also doesn’t release a significant amount of legal authority. And so that’s why we haven’t taken that action yet.”

Will this do any good?

NO it will not!

Sounds to me as if it is a PR ploy looking toward 2024….after all he is not all that popular right now with the American people.

Whatcha think?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Is SCOTUS The Final Word?

It is a common thought that all is lost when SCOTUS makes its decisions for they have the final word.

Is that necessarily true?

When the Supreme Court was holding oral arguments last December in the case that brought about the end of Roe v. Wade, Justice Sonia Sotomayor addressed the familiar argument that the Constitution doesn’t mention a right to privacy. That fact was a central argument in the court’s majority opinion issued last month, per NPR. But there’s a lot that’s not mentioned in the Constitution, the justice said. In fact, “there is not anything in the Constitution that says that the Court, the Supreme Court, is the last word on what the Constitution means,” Sotomayor pointed out. “And yet, she added, “what the Court did was reason from the structure of the Constitution that that’s what was intended.”

The justice might have been mostly intending to say that rights, including the one to privacy, can exist without being clearly stated in the Constitution, but Joshua Zeitz writes in an opinion piece in Politico that the power of judicial review is in the same boat. “Both exist by strong implication,” he says. Mostly, the court claimed that right for itself. Some framers did expect the Supreme Court, as well as lower federal courts, to exercise a veto on constitutional grounds over congressional and state acts, Zeitz writes. “But they did not intend this power to be unchecked or unlimited,” he says.

The Constitution is all about checks and balances, and the other branches could move to limit the judiciary just as the courts limit the activities of the others. The Constitution didn’t even design the court system, it left it to the other branches. So they can take steps to restrict the court on certain issues, Zeitz points out. Congress could pass a law denying the court authority over a new voting rights act, for example. “Ultimately, it is the responsibility and prerogative of the executive and legislative branches to encourage greater restraint and humility on the part of the judiciary,” Zeitz writes.

You can read the full piece here.

I have my doubts about this pronouncement…..why?

The US Congress is a toothless tiger.  It is so wrapped up in the mundane crap trying to find a consensus (at least one party is)….nothing will be done for SCOTUS is about political agenda and not what is best for this nation.

And of course there are opinions on how to ‘fix’ the Supreme Court….here are a few (my thoughts later)…..

The Supreme Court’s just-concluded term was a bacchanalia of reactionary indulgence. Roe v. Wade is dead. Gun laws throughout the nation are now in peril. The Court is pummeling the wall separating church and state — and it isn’t afraid to tell easily disprovable falsehoods to achieve this goal. The Court’s GOP-appointed majority curtailed the EPA’s power to fight climate change, and gave themselves an open-ended veto power over any federal regulation.

It’s likely that the worst is yet to come. Three “shadow docket” decisions this past term suggest that the Court is about to slash safeguards against racial gerrymandering. Another case looming in the next term, involving North Carolina’s gerrymandered congressional maps, is likely to give Republican state legislatures the power to defy their state constitution when writing election laws. And that’s after the Court has spent the last decade dismantling the Voting Rights Act and stripping the federal courts of any authority to fight partisan gerrymanders.

The Court’s Republican majority isn’t simply handing down bold conservative policy decrees, it is undermining democracy itself.

…

But just because court reform isn’t currently politically viable doesn’t mean it’s not worth considering, especially if Democrats somehow manage to pick up larger majorities in a future Congress. There are several options to deal with an increasingly partisan Supreme Court. Here are 10 of them.

https://www.vox.com/23186373/supreme-court-packing-roe-wade-voting-rights-jurisdiction-stripping

My thoughts on these ‘solutions’…..

Court packing is not viable….not in this political climate.

The Supreme Court lottery….now I can get behind this ‘solution’….

The most talked about ‘solution’ is term limits….another one that I agree with….as long as the Congress limits are included.

Omnibus legislation to overrule the court decisions…..again a good idea but the political climate these days will prevent anything like this idea to see the light of day.

SCOTUS needs reforming and some ideas are good……but as long as the court is run by political hacks all we can do is wish and hope and witness the death of the republic.

Any ideas you would like to share?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”